Perhaps I could answer that first.
I think that we in the west need to be very cautious about measuring moral and ethical interventions purely by the measuring stick of military intervention. Professor Welsh stated quite clearly that responsibility to protect is not simply about military intervention. I would go further and say that the prime movement of responsibility to protect is not about military intervention. That's just the icing on the cake, the top of the iceberg. We need to be more consistent over a longer period with respect to countries like Libya and indeed across the Middle East.
In my observation, ethical and moral issues actually drive people's opinions in the Middle East more strongly than they do even here in Britain or over there in Canada. I perceive there to be a stronger attachment here to strategic calculations, to real political calculations, while in the Middle East it's quite common for people both in government and on the street to be perceiving inequality, unfairness, and immoral behaviour in virtually everything we do in the west. If we are to engage for ethical reasons—and I would very strongly support engagement for ethical reasons, using both military and other means—then we need to do so much more consistently and coherently than we have done up to now.
Libya is a prime example of that. Certainly in this country, recent governments had been cooperating very closely with Colonel Gadhafi for many years, ever since he started to cooperate with our governments on such issues as weapons of mass destruction and the like, despite the human rights abuses. There are documented cases of cooperation between our intelligence services here and his forces in handing over suspects who were opposition activists within Libya.
Therefore, if we're serious about the ethical engagement across the world—and I think we do need to be—we need to be much more serious across the piece than we have been up to now.