That's going to be an interesting dilemma.
Certainly one of the driving factors in this was to ensure that weapons are not going to fuel the types of conflicts we see in Africa, for example. Clearly this has a devastating effect, which we don't want to see encouraged.
We say clearly that we want to be sure that weapons are not going into the hands of terrorists. The reality is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How do we make that distinction? Do we make that distinction? Should we make that distinction? All excellent questions. I don't have an answer.