Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here.
I'd like to focus my questions on the presentation made by Mr. Baines. Thank you for the very provocative and stimulating framework you gave us.
We need to not take the conversation away from foreign policy elites; that's wrong. We need to broaden the conversation significantly beyond the ambit of foreign policy elites, and by foreign policy and international relations elites, I mean no disrespect. It's not entitlement. It's simply the choice of working in that field. It's a very esoteric and specialized field. If we want to get Canadians engaged, the Canadians you described in your survey as walking on the streets of Toronto, as part of a broader university community, we need to come at it differently.
I'd like to suggest to you that NATO, in part, has a branding problem. Would you have any information on what would have happened, or maybe it did happen, had you asked folks the same questions about the UN?
The United Nations owns the diversity and inclusion agenda. It owns the economic development agenda, the peacekeeping agenda, and also the human rights agenda. People are familiar with the UN, because it's in the household increasingly. It's dealing with refugees, economic displacement, and climate-induced displacement. We need to look at NATO in terms of relevance and brand.
The other worrying phenomenon now, in the decline of U.S. moral and value leadership inside the United Nations, and the ascent of Russia and China, we're really moving into very different turf, even in UN circles. You started your presentation, if I heard you right, in terms of looking at the shared values that NATO allies represent.
Could you speak a bit more about that? How do we drill down? How do we engage millennials on the value of democracy, democratization, good governance, and representative, transparent, and inclusive government? Is that something that NATO should do more of, and if so, how do we coordinate our work with what's already being done in UN circles?