I'll start, and I think Doug could answer on the doctrinal aspect and perhaps on the rules of engagement. I'm not military, and I think he has a better understanding of that than I have.
So I will make my comments in French.
First, I would like to remind all MPs that, during a peacekeeping operation, most of the time—95%, I believe—a civilian is the one heading the overall peacekeeping operation. That person is called the secretary general's special representative for the Western Sahara, Congo, or Ivory Coast. In short, that individual who heads the overall operation and who is responsible for the various civilian, civilian and military police components is traditionally a diplomat.
Then, you have the second in command, the force commander. This individual will direct all of the peacekeepers or European Union military or other international organizations staff. For over 10 years, that is how the United Nations has operated, to the satisfaction of member states, who have a very clear chain of command.
I want to come back to the Security Council reform. I believe that your question implied that the Security Council takes too long to make a decision regarding a peacekeeping operation and, as a result, it needs to be reformed. The question does not concern the reform; it concerns the political will of members of the Security Council. Be they 15, 20 or 25 members, if they lack the political will to do something, nothing will happen. It is not just the UN, it is not the UN secretary general who makes the call to deploy armed forces.
This has an impact on another of your questions which was the following: If the UN can do nothing, can Canada do anything? Can Canada, on its own, deploy forces? I would note that, in 1996, Canada launched an operation in Zaire to try to save millions of individuals. This operation was a failure for all kinds of reasons that would take too long to explain. Canada does not have the means to do this.
Thank you.