The straightforward answer is no. It was very nice, and I think part of the issues that have emerged over the past 30-odd years, or I would say 25 years, took place and evolved in a different world from today. They gave countries like Canada, and Canada in particular, the luxury to push forward a universalist, if you will, humanitarian agenda with little real opposition because of the nature of the international system at the time. That world has now changed, and we continue the luxury of talking about these international obligations, but at the end of the day.... Here I would refer you to a recent report that came out of Global Affairs that looked at all of the various elements of Canada's international agreements, a checklist, if you will, and related them to whether or not Canada's exports to Turkey really had significantly violated any of them. When I read them, I was a bit surprised, given our prohibitions. The answer was no, they didn't; they had no significant impact.
Interpretations of issues of humanitarian human rights relative to recognition of diversity—and by “diversity”, I mean differences in national cultures in the global international system—are always open to political interpretation and political manipulation. For some reason, it's easy in some cases; in other cases—and Turkey I think falls into this—it is much more difficult and problematic, but at the end of the day, it's relatively easy. I don't think outside the legal issues involved with end-user agreements with Turkey, and if you put it in the context of the Turkish environment—I like to say they live in a bad neighbourhood—and Turkish interests relative to our strategic interests, I don't necessarily see that the international obligations are being violated, because many of them are simply open to sovereign state interpretation. As long as we as sovereign states, Canada included, are free to interpret these as we will, then the political realities will continue to be at play.