They're not strong enough. I'll just go right to the point.
NATO has a liaison office in New York, for instance. It's staffed at a very junior level. It's very modest. Certainly Afghanistan demonstrated that although NATO and the UN can work together effectively, those relationships are difficult.
There is, in UN headquarters—and I know because I've been there and I heard it when I was in office—a great suspicion of NATO in many of the corridors in the UN, and when the Security Council has turned to NATO to implement some of the UN Security Council mandates, there's been a degree of unhappiness about that at UN headquarters. So the UN is not instinctively turning to NATO, I would say, and therefore, although NATO has offered partnership with the UN in the past, it's not been taken up by the UN.
If I might just add one thing on training, NATO could do more in terms of setting up some kind of a subcommand on training. We've reinvented the wheel with every operation to do training in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Why not institutionalize this, have institutional memory, and commit to training on a regular basis? That applies to Iraq. There's no reason that there could not be a special partnership arrangement between NATO and Iraq that would include security sector reform on the civilian side and training on the military side. This is within the realm of the doable if countries like Canada promote this around the table.