Mr. Chair, I agree in part with my colleague Doug's definition, but I do not want any generalizations to be made regarding peace operations. There are dangerous peace operations, and we know which ones they are. When the United Nations Security Council or other organizations adopt a military posture on the ground, they go to great lengths of course to provide soldiers and servicemen and women with as much protection as is possible in a peace operation.
Now, I would like to stress the fact that not all peace operations are characterized by the violence we have seen in Rwanda, Bosnia, and other theatres of operations. As I said earlier, there have been studies of 120 peace operations over a 20-year period. And based on our calculations, roughly 10% to 20% of these operations were somewhat violent in nature. The overwhelming majority of these operations therefore were conducted with the consent of the parties involved and with lightly-armed military forces akin to those we have been used to seeing for many years.
Now, of course, the UN, having learned that things can change rather quickly, such as in Cyprus in 1974 or in Bosnia in the 1990s, endowed its soldiers with a certain robustness—if you'll pardon the expression—not only in their conduct, but also by providing them with certain military materiel and equipment.
I do believe that as the committee considers the notion of peace operations, it must keep in mind the full spectrum of peace operations.