I would say both. I wouldn't say that Canada should be considering peacemakers in that sense. I would say more that the context—and it starts from the top, with the government—helps define the security humanitarian challenges, for example, in the Congo.
We know that, often, generals who are sent in to quell rebellions are then found to have turned that into a money-making business by selling weapons to the rebels who are killing the generals' own troops, in order to make some money. They get a little slap on the wrist when they head back to the capital, and then they're released and end up doing the same thing.
The point I'm trying to make is that local humanitarian actors often understand things better than international organizations. Oxfam has been in the Congo for over 50 years, since the 1960s. We've had quite a bit of experience in understanding the different ebbs and flows of different needs before the conflict, which started in the 1990s.
You made a point about the different types of aid. That nuance is very important. At Oxfam, we don't just provide material aid. We combine that with developing skills, and sometimes distributing cash directly, because we know that cash can provide more opportunities for people, who know their needs a little bit better. It can have an economic impact locally, so long as it doesn't lead to inflation, so long as markets are functioning and the goods are there.
Usually we do a combination, a multipronged approach, to humanitarian systems. For instance, if we are defining the needs as being food insecurity—and there are all sorts of technical ways of doing that—we can provide.... I've done this. I've managed these projects before. We provide cash. We provide food, which is often locally procured. We contract local farmers or farmers associations to provide some of their harvests for distribution. We provide seeds, tools and technical know-how in order to help stimulate the economy and provide some sort of recovery.