I think we need to ask ourselves where we have a comparative advantage. My argument would be, on cyber, for instance, we don't have a comparative advantage relative to what some of our allies can contribute. On lethal weapons, I'm not sure we have a comparative advantage. I think both of those would also be publicly controversial. I think where we do have a comparative advantage is that by not being a traditional quasi sort of superpower with ulterior motives, what we've done well is the stuff that's less visible—the training and transformation of the officer corps of the civil service. This is something that, for instance, we've been doing in francophone Africa, something we've been doing in Central America and South America. We have lots of years of experience with this and I think it's going to require some more aggressive intervention as the Europeans are also proposing, in terms of, we actually need to put some of our bureaucrats in the actual ministries in order to disincent some of the behaviour.
I think that's going to generate much more positive change than loading up the country with more weapons. There's perhaps a discussion to be had about strategic intelligence, because there is a lack of some strategic intelligence.