I'll have to answer that question in English.
I place tremendous importance on that. I think it's absolutely critical that we have as much understanding as we can about what's happening on the ground.
For the United Nations, that's always a handicap. It's always responding in an ad hoc, reactive way. The United Nations for a lot of reasons doesn't have a strong in-house intelligence-gathering organization. The idea of the UN gathering intelligence is abhorrent to a lot of people, which means it's always reacting in an ad hoc way, and reliant for information from a variety of sources. I think we see the result of that as a handicap.
For states like Canada, I agree entirely, and for me it's an argument for focusing--on Haiti, for instance. Pick cases for which we can know as much as we possibly can about the actors, about the background, about what's happening at any given moment on the ground, about what the warning signs are, and where we can have an ongoing relationship with both the actors and the process.
So it's not just about the fact that these things--democracy, justice, human rights, development, and so on--are linked. When we choose to react, we should react in places where we also have a strong understanding of what's going on.