I was double-hatted in many ways as well. You rather get used to it. I think the challenge is to watch what's going on and see whether someone is sneaking national objectives or interests into the middle of what should be an international body based on the NATO mission. I understood that. It was clear. We just discussed it.
The point, to me, is that communication part. It's to talk to one another and understand what the national agendas are, to recommend what I can and cannot meet from an international perspective, and make it clear what is within the realm of my capabilities and what is within the realm of those national objectives or those double-hatted...whether it's the European Union or other points. It was clear to me, but it was clear because we worked hard to make it clear and to understand. My fear was that if we did not satisfy all of the objectives that were set...I didn't want a nation or two or three or five—it didn't matter—to go on national lines. It would have put the alliance itself in danger, through some members saying, if you want to do this, we're not members of this anymore. This was my centre of gravity, that in fact the most important point was the alliance itself.
Your point is very valid, Madam, in terms of understanding the other side and what the agendas are, making it clear what's within my realm and what isn't, and then working through it. I hope I have answered your question.