Thank you for your question. Our position is that the dialogue should be suspended until very fundamental changes have been made to it.
I specifically want to emphasize one point that I mentioned earlier, concerning the participation of the NGOs and civil society. For years, the dialogue hasn't had a lot of effect, because it's a dialogue of the deaf. Authorities often don't have the necessary information. Their information on the situation in the field isn't very recent or adequate. Furthermore, authorities in China may not have a lot of interest in defending human rights.
So it's really civil society that will have to give a very big boost to the process. If it is part of the process, it will have a greater chance of having an effect on protection for human rights.
We think that CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, should also support efforts to defend human rights in China, particularly as regards its strategy on HIV/AIDS.
I mentioned the Aizhixing Health Education Institute in Beijing, with which we've worked, but there are other NGOs working on human rights. If we want the NGOs to be a meaningful part of the process, they have to have resources to do their job, to document human rights violations and to take part in the dialogue.
So that's why we suggested that CIDA support human rights efforts related to HIV/AIDS in China. I think that could be an example for other countries that provide funding to China for its development. That would make them understand that the emphasis has to be put on human rights.