Perhaps I can put out a think piece.
It goes like this. Development policy and foreign policy in general, depending on what sort of focus you have, is a political decision. The number of countries that need assistance, broadly speaking, is humongous. Just look at the failed states research index. It lists all of those countries. It measures those countries that experience state fragility, and I have the list here in front of me. There are at least 32 or so that you can get involved in various kinds of aspects, whether it's human rights violations, experience in certain types of fragility. At the end of the day, which countries you pick is a political decision. It's a question of where you want to put your focus as a country, or perhaps as a government.
I'd suggest to you that the countries that come to mind that perhaps are—I don't want to say more important than other countries, which is an awkward way to put it—experiencing higher fragility and a lot of problems right now are the obvious countries: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, and Darfur. We used to have a strong record in Darfur. Now South Sudan seems to have fallen off the map.
The question of how much you want to be involved in those countries is a question of how much you have in your envelope. The answer is that there is never ever going to be enough in a national envelope, so you're going to have to think about strategically whether you do this country by country, or region. Whatever framework you pick, at the end of the day, it's a political decision.