This leads us to the issue of defence and a common foreign and security policy. It was wrong of the Union to be in a position where it more or less had to stand back in the face of genocide. It was not able to intervene on its own doorstep and had to rely on a NATO-led force to come in and do the business for it. When that was done, the Union tried to claim some credit. That is how it appeared to me. Important issues have to be decided which may not be within the confines of the Convention and what it has to say on defence. There are some ambiguities that I find difficult to understand. On one hand, it seems to be saying that we are heading towards a common defence while, on the other, it appears to be saying that we are not. We have to confront this issue. Is the Union prepared to stand back in the face of genocide and despotism and not have something to say? More particularly, will it stand back when one member state is subject to attack? It is incorporated that there should be solidarity in regard to terrorism within member states. The other states will come to the aid of the one that is threatened, which is as it should be.