Let me take a shot at that in maybe a bit of an indirect way. There's a school of thought out there, like my colleague is talking about, on the idea of sequencing and prioritization, putting the cart before the horse, what comes first sort of thing.
There's potentially a school of thought that says there is one way of looking at human rights in terms of violations of those rights and the very narrow perspective of looking at certain groups and what's happening in certain targeted areas within these contexts. Then there is a broader sense of the general trend of where these countries and societies and populations are going. Is the impeding of various rights that we are seeing something that is systemic and systematic, or is it more targeted?
I would say that in terms of the sequencing and prioritization, focusing on general approaches, that is, broad-based economic development, broad-based growth, broad-based inclusive development, in a country like Burma/Myanmar, will take it on a path where there's very little that we can do without getting into very contentious waters very quickly. If you take my premise of whether we really have the partners to be able to engage with that problem and that situation in a way that we can do something about it in a targeted and isolated manner, you're better off investing. If I were controlling the portfolio, it would be at a more aggregate level, in looking at ensuring that the country generally is moving in a direction that is in tune with where we want to see it go and to have reasonable expectations.
The other option would be to set conditionality—and that's a slippery slope. On the one hand, from a government-to-government relationship perspective, you want to be able to support the capacity of this government to get to that stage. I would tread very cautiously in taking a rights-based approach, in that narrow sense.