Well, Mr. Cannan, it's a mess. That's the problem with Colombia. One can say a lot about bilateralism versus multilateralism, about the value of trade agreements, about the enhancement of commercial connections. And all of those things are worth paying attention to, but Colombia is a long, long way from perfect. Colombia shows all sorts of signals, and recent ones--fresh signals, if I can put it that way--of systemic challenges on the human rights side. This system of paramilitaries is grievous and embedded. It has been there for a long time and looks likely to be there for a long time yet.
So one can say, certainly, as you have done, that there are some improvements in the ambient background of Colombia's circumstances. That may well be the case, and I wouldn't argue it. But what is there that makes a free trade deal with Colombia, uniquely, important now? As Joyce Murray was saying, this is a deal that inherently takes on trade, because it's a trade agreement, but it is not about trade; it's about buttressing a particular government in Latin America.
The question, I think, that has to be asked is why is it valuable to choose this government--for buttressing and support and as a partner for accompaniment now--as opposed to others in the region? That is the question we bring in light of the very challenging, conflictive environment we're faced with. Why do we get alongside this government in these circumstances, famously challenged and with a great deal of reputational burden associated with that relationship?