I think the real question is, what are both the standards and the dispute mechanisms that are available in such circumstances? I think the reason why there was such an outcry on the labour provisions of the NAFTA was that you had a very obviously substandard set of dispute resolution processes under the side agreements, whereas I think if you move the text within the agreement but still have a tie to a different or lesser set of dispute settlement mechanisms, you're not really accomplishing much.
For example, in the case of CAFTA, in the United States, you had the labour provisions moving from the outside to the inside, but it also had a kind of second-tier dispute settlement mechanism. You actually weren't gaining much by the fact that it was in the agreement because you had a lesser dispute settlement mechanism.
I think what is important is that you have high standards, that those standards are fully enforceable, and that sanctions are available in a case where one of the parties is not living up to its commitment under the agreement.
I think the U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement is an example. Both parties entered into that agreement. At the time, it had probably the strongest labour provisions available, yet the labour laws were not compliant from day one. Still, many years later, there remain issues, fewer than before but there are issues, and we still have many problems with implementation—