Thank you. That was very interesting.
Based on the testimony we've heard, it sounds as if there's a trade-off. You can have health care, education, and reduced poverty or you can have the rule of law, judicial independence, democracy, integrity in government and the police, human rights, a competent government, or a stable economy.
I don't think there has to be that trade-off. I think it's reasonable to expect that you could have everything that's on the table on both sides of those columns. On one side, we're certainly getting a picture that it is lacking in large quantities.
You've both made the case that...and you've used certain phrases: keep your powder dry; we don't have a lot of influence; we have limited leverage. You're not giving us a lot of angles in terms of what we can do.
You did make the comment that we should shine the spotlight on abuses without burning bridges. And maybe that's what we're trying to do here.
Can you elaborate on that? How do we encourage change and dialogue without burning bridges?