Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to General Bouchard, it's wonderful to have you with us today. It's been a very interesting conversation so far.
One of the pleasures of having you with us today is the fact that you are probably uniquely situated to comment on the doctrine of the right to protect. I don't imagine that there are too many other people who have had to take that doctrine and apply it in the context of military intervention.
I understand that the doctrine is largely one that talks about the prevention of genocide and governments failing to meet their commitment to protect their citizens.
My question to you is maybe more of a philosophical question, but it is one that, with you, would be informed by practical experiences. Is there value to the doctrine in the context of military intervention? Is it a sensible doctrine to hold on to?
There's a quote I found kind of amusing but very much to the point. I quote Simon Adams. He's the executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. His point is that although it's largely a preventive doctrine, “R2P is not regime change with mood lighting”. He's saying there is kind of a difference here.
There seems to be a kind of internal contradiction, or sort of a logical slipperiness, that takes you from R2P to regime change. I'm wondering whether you could comment for us today on how sensible this is in the context of military intervention.