Well, I have no trouble with.... I mean that our second motion that we would be presenting is about Taiwan. The first one is about a kickoff with officials to give us the lay of the land. We would bring in the acting ambassador, the chargé d’affaires and the China desk. We would bring in the key officials to give us an in camera briefing on what we need to know about everything to get us going.
That would be our first idea of what we'd do. Second, we believe our first substantial study should probably be on Taiwan, with the caveat that if the Indo-Pacific strategy wants to take precedence over that because it emerges, then I'll be interested, just as you will be. That would be good.
We have no trouble with the concept of this. We're just trying to find a way to do it that is fair to the analysts, to make sure they have time to prepare and to scope out a study. What are we talking about on Taiwan? Are we talking about multilateral engagement, such as at the WHO and other places? Are we talking about peace and security issues, and the buzzing around? Are we talking about threats to their security? Are we talking about American engagement?
There's a lot we could talk about concerning Taiwan. I'd just like it scoped out, because studying Taiwan is big. Are we talking about trade and investment? It's our biggest trading partner in that part of the world. There's a lot we could do about Taiwan. I just think we need to scope out a study.
I would agree tonight, if we could say it by consensus, to our first significant study being Taiwan and to asking the analysts to help us come up with a study on Taiwan. I would do that. That would be no dilemma whatsoever, and it would be using previous resources. I think we are agreed to do Taiwan. I just want to make sure we have flexibility.