That sounds really good in Ottawa or New York. It doesn't sound so good in Camp Gao, where we're going to reduce our presence and leave that gap on the ground. I totally understand your concept of smart pledges and the UN reform, but a one-year term when you leave a gap—when you reduce the capacities of the UN mission—is not actually supporting peacekeeping. It doesn't sound so good in the field. There's going to be a big gap there. I think our national reputation is at stake. If there's a severe security incident during that period, when we have “left early”—that is what people are going to say, no matter what we pledged in New York, that we left before our replacements were in the field.... It's going to damage our reputation, and our support for peacekeeping, if we're not there and there's a major incident.
We're already there. The main costs have already been expended. It wouldn't cost that much more to make sure the transition is smooth. It's not indefinitely extending the mission that I'm asking you for. Can we match up with the Romanians and not have that gap?