Thank you.
Mr. Burton actually came close to the subject I wanted to raise and pose a question on. In western countries, the discussion of human rights often operates on a kind of myth that you can export human rights into another country like you would a franchise transaction. You just export it and it will work, but it actually doesn't work that way. It's a lot like exporting democracy from London, Paris, or Washington. It's actually very difficult to do, and societies have to generate their own workbook on this.
Two underpinning components of human rights accordance would be economic development—which Mr. Burton has spoken of, and China is doing reasonably well there—and the rule of law, the legal infrastructure, as has been adverted to here. Just to draw on the example mentioned by Mr. Neve, there's the shooting of the young woman on the border. What is the legal infrastructure in China? Is it sufficiently developed to sustain human rights accordance? Was that shooting a homicide? Was it a murder? Was it manslaughter? In Chinese law, what was that killing? That addresses the issue of the substantive law that applies to the human transaction.
Then, what other legal infrastructure or procedural infrastructure is there to allow the enforcement of the law in that human transaction? It sounds like a killing to me, but there are 1.3 billion or so people, so there are 1.3 billion human transactions going on in that country, exponentially multiplied.
So what infrastructure is there? Does our current relationship, in addition to this dialogue procedure, invest in assisting China to develop the legal infrastructure and substantive law procedures that would sustain human rights accordance more in keeping with world standards?
I suppose I should ask Mr. Burton that.