That's an outstanding question because this is the very foundation of the NATO treaty.
I'm not sure if you've all had a chance to actually read it. It's two pages, double-sided.
The preamble and the first article are all about establishing NATO under the aegis of the United Nations. It's supposed to be working hand in glove. It's supposed to be making sure that whenever hostilities are started and NATO is able to end those hostilities, NATO hands the situation back to the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the situation is resolved peacefully.
I think that mentioning that coupling, that theoretical framework for NATO, is something that has been missed. They've always, or almost always, been seen in opposition—certainly in the situation in Yugoslavia in the nineties when NATO went in without UN agreement, without a resolution. It was a huge problem, a crisis of legitimacy. NATO has learned since then. Certainly in Libya it bent over backwards to make sure it had legitimacy from those people on the ground. Despite the fact that the outcome wasn't very good in the end, it still made sure that it had legitimacy and that it was working within the UN framework. That, I think, is something that can be used as an advantage.