Actually, I can't really give you a good answer. I found it didn't work, that sovereignty as a basis for getting new capabilities, new hardware, put as simply as that, did not seem to me to work after a period of time, and so I started to think, is this a good way to proceed, and how far can you rely on it when it seems so cyclical? That is, there would be peaks of great interest, usually provoked by the U.S., in Arctic sovereignty in this country, and then it would dissipate and you couldn't get far with it.
Now, that's not to say we don't pay attention to what is ours—and I agree we should—but it is to say that a policy built on fear rather than confidence is going to lack energy, lack drive, and in the case of Arctic sovereignty will lack consistency. Somewhere in there I learned this, or I decided this was it as far as I was concerned, that we should find a new way.
The alternative way to me is stewardship. Stewardship, I came to see, is a way of ensuring the quality of sovereignty. That is, if you have a lot of good stewardship cooperation with other countries, they are not going to be polluting our waters, because there will be rules and arrangements in place. They will not be sending ships through in reckless fashion, because there will be rules and arrangements. They will not come fishing in our waters, because there will be rules and arrangements that we all agree to. Being a steward, it seems to me, is the way to see to it that others respect what is ours. So we, as it were, snag them in cooperative stewardship agreements that see to it finally that they respect us.