My view of it is that the bill already responds to the issue you've raised.
Number two is with respect to your issue, “human rights obligations”. I actually agree that we should change it to “international human rights standards”.
So there are two points. The third point has to do with, if you will, the mix and the match of what is ODA-able and what is not ODA-able. I think points three and four of your presentation are actually the same point.
It is true, the core of the bill will require the relevant competent minister to draw a line between this aid and how it connects to poverty alleviation. If he or she is unable to make that connection, it doesn't necessarily terminate the aid; it just means it doesn't fall within the ODA definition.
Of the programs you list here, none is actually in jeopardy. What the issue would be is whether they fall within ODA, and if the relevant minister can't connect the line between the money and the ODA, then there's a choice to be made. They can either not pursue the program, or they can pursue the program but not out of ODA funds.
Is that a fair comment? Do you agree with that analysis?