Thank you, because I do have a couple more questions. I appreciate your answer and some of the challenges that I think lie ahead of us.
To Mr. Richani, I listened closely to your testimony, and I really can't quite figure out if the glass is half full or half empty. You stated at the beginning that about 70,000 farmers could be displaced because of agricultural imports. Then you stated it could be hundreds of thousands, and finally you just stated it could be in excess of 400,000 farmers who could be displaced. I'm not questioning numbers here—I really don't know—but again I want to go back to the whole idea of food stability.
Food stability—and I think Mr. Brison started to pick up on this—is based not just on subsistence farming, but on people having jobs and having opportunity, first of all having supplies of food they can purchase and second of all having the money to purchase it. So there are a number of things when we talk about food stability.
You also talked about the increase in the budget in military spending, but quite frankly in the last ten years human rights has improved remarkably in Colombia, and I mean by every conceivable measure. I'll repeat myself: no one is saying that human rights in Colombia is perfect. Government officials themselves don't pretend to say that, and never have. So my question to you is, if an increase in the military gives you increased stability in the country, more ability to travel, and more ability to pursue your livelihood, isn't that a good thing for Colombians? How can that be seen as a negative thing?