I can take the first one on the obligation to see through the different stages.
From my perspective, we're talking about a relationship that has great breadth and depth. For me, if you're talking about a long-term relationship and this is also part of your premise, then it does make sense for a conversation with a country that's done quite well and is moving through the aid stage, if you will, into the transitional stage. There's a lot of logic behind following that path, keeping in mind that the end path is one in which aid isn't the main modality of co-operation at all, if there at all. Then you would just have a relationship with more investment and trade in the way we would think of having one with other high-income countries. That's the point, to a certain extent, that we're trying to work with countries to get to.
For me, I don't know if I would use the word “obligation” to follow through the stages, but there's a certain logic to doing that. It doesn't mean there aren't going to be other considerations that come up in the five to ten-year time period that we are working in with these partner countries, but I think there is a lot of logic to seeing that partnership through, especially recognizing that you are increasingly becoming more integrated or more engaged with one another by using different policy levers.