 Good afternoon and welcome. I'm Lisa Grande. I'm the head of the United States Institute of Peace which was established by the U.S. Congress in 1984 as a public nonpartisan Institute dedicated to helping prevent, mitigate and resolve violent conflict abroad. It's a great honor to welcome Senator Peter Welch to USIP for a discussion on conflict in the world and the role that the United States plays in an era of growing strategic rivalry. There are a lot of dark clouds on the global horizon. Democratic stagnation and authoritarianism is spreading, impacting areas as diverse as the Western Balkans and Central America. Conflict has erupted in the Middle East. There have been a rash of coups in coastal West Africa and tensions in the South China Sea, a rising, risking possible confrontation between the world's superpowers. The death and destruction of the wars in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, Sudan, to name only the ones that are most often in our headlines, are a terrible and terrifying indictment of our collective global failure to promote justice, address our shared priorities, build prosperity and resolve our grievances. USIP's Newsmaker Series is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to hear the views of our country's elected leaders and representatives who established this institute 40 years ago on the issues that matter the most for US national security. It's a privilege to have Senator Welch with us for this Newsmaker Series. Before being elected Senator from Vermont in 2022, Senator Welch served 16 years of service in the US House of Representatives, including multiple terms on the House Intelligence Committee and as a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. The Senator who took the revered seat of Patrick Leahy serves as a member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on the Committees of Commerce, Agricultural, Rules and the Joint Economic Committee. In these roles, Senator, you have been a strong advocate for diplomacy, international human rights, and the need for clear-eyed American leadership abroad. Senator, may we offer the floor to you for opening comments? Thank you so much. Yes, I'm really, really good to be here. I think you're a master of understatement that things are tense now, right? Ukraine, I mean Gaza, Israel, which we'll be talking about, America's role in the world, the real threat to democracy that we're seeing around the world and here as well. But I just want to say a couple of personal things. First of all, it's really a thrill for me to be here. Our family has a tradition in the State Department. My father-in-law, who died, was a full-time career Foreign Service person. He died in service when he was in the Philippines as a young man at 49. His name is over in the building on the wall. My niece is here, Lucy Syferthes, career Foreign Service, and Lucy, it's wonderful to see you. And I was saying when I came in, I was thrilled to see folks waiting for me, including some people we were girling on the House Intelligence Committee during the Russian investigation. Ambassador, it's so good to see you. And what I was saying, and I just mean this from the bottom of my heart, because I think it's important for you to understand it, those of you who've committed yourself to this diplomatic effort to make the world a better place. It was so wonderful for me to have people like Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Hill, who came in and testified and conveyed a sense of confidence about the commitment good people had to serving an institution and the institutional values that we each have an obligation to carry on if we're part of, say, the State Department. What are the long-term interests that we have as a country to stand up for democracy, to create opportunity, to resist depression, but to do it in ways through diplomacy that can actually make a difference? So it was a real thrill for me because that's very much a conflict now in our own country. And now that I'm in the Senate and I'm filling the seat of really a giant in the Senate, Patrick Leahy, who did so much for human rights over the years. And by the way, just a little story. When I first went to Vermont, the first year I was there, there was a young man named Patrick Leahy who was running for the U.S. Senate. And I was a volunteer in his campaign in Windsor County and delivered White River Junction on Vermont for Patrick Leahy. This is a true story. And 48 years later, when I got sworn in, it was Patrick Leahy walking me down the aisle. So a nice little Vermont story. But my hope is to be able to carry on his commitment to human rights in somebody who is over 30 years working with him. Tim Reiser is working with Amanda and me on foreign policy right now. You know, we're going to talk about things with questions, so I won't go into that. But I really do just want to renew the importance of the work that you do and the commitment you have because it's not just that you're doing the work. You're acknowledging that we have to have institutions that can actually be resourced. They can be staffed by people who have deep knowledge as a result of their commitment and their hard work. And even in times when it becomes a political football and you become a political punching bag, because that does happen, as we've seen, the professionalism that I saw of people who've committed their lives to this work has been really inspiring for me and for many of my colleagues. So I just want to start out by acknowledging the appreciation I have. And by the way, you have an amazing career too. Running around Yemen, the empty quarter, all these places that she's been. Thank you so much. Senator, thank you for your kind of very gracious words to us. And with your permission, we would like to start exploring some of the themes and issues that we've touched on. Starting first with the Western Balkans, which I understand you recently visited, we know that it's a region which the United States has been heavily engaged in a quarter of a century ago. What we're interested in is what motivated you now, where the U.S. has been less engaged, to go back to that region and why do you think it matters for the U.S. in this context today? Well, you know, there's two things. The Western Balkans is a vivid example of where diplomacy saved lives, right? There was the siege of Sarajevo. There was a horror in Sherbinica. And it was insoluble. There was enormous ethnic conflict. And there was not just violence as a tool of war. There was violence really as a political means to wipe out anyone who was dissenting or was other than who you were. And there's been a long history of involvement of the U.S., of course, with the Dayton Accords where it was a triumph of democracy as a result in diplomacy that did save lives. And there's been a history in the Senate of exceptional members of the Senate, like Bob Dole, like George Wojniewicz, and now recently Gene Shaheen, who want to make certain that we don't squander or let slip away the achievements of the Dayton Accords. And what you know in your work as diplomats is that the work's never done, okay? You have the Dayton Accords, it's signed, but then that next stage of hard work begins, the implementation. And even as the implementation goes on, there are stresses in pulling and tugging here and there. And what is now resurrecting itself is some of the ethnic tensions that you're seeing with the Republic of Srpska, with the pressure in Kosovo, with whether there's enough of the UFO, the European force to be engaged to make certain the attempt down on the potential escalation of ethnic tensions. So Senator Shaheen is all in on maintaining that tradition of her predecessors. And I'm smart enough as a new senator to know that when I find a good woman, I'm going to tag a law, right? So I want to be involved with her because I think that that focus of making certain that we don't let slip away the achievements of the Dayton Accords doesn't slip away. And while we have these incredible challenges with Ukraine and incredible challenges with Israel and Gaza in the Middle East, we can't forget to pay attention to other parts of the world where with the Russian influence there, there's a potential for escalation that would be really catastrophic for the lives of the people who live there, but also for our place in the world. So that was the point of our going there. We went to North Macedonia, we went to Kosovo, we went to Bosnia, Herzegovina, and it was really quite moving for me to be in Sarajevo and to be in Serbanica where we met with some of the mothers, whose sons and husbands were killed. And you see this because you get around the world and you see where horror has happened and you commit yourself to trying to end it and make durable peace and that is really something that as I mentioned, the work's never done. So I hope to continue to work with Senator Sheehan and other colleagues to do all we can to make certain that the achievements of Dayton are durable and that we resist this Russian influence as trying to play on those ethnic tensions that are still there. Mr. Senator, you've touched on something about the prioritization that the U.S. finds itself having to bank. When we were the world's superpower, there was scope for us to be involved in many different aspects of diplomacy and conflict resolution around the world. But as other powers are growing in strength and the demands on our attention, the demands on our resources are growing, maybe we can't still play that same role. How do you suggest that the U.S. prioritizes the areas that we must continue to be involved in and those that our allies should take the lead in? Well, first of all, there's a threshold question here about whether the U.S. continues to accept its role as a leader in international affairs. That's the debated proposition right now. We're very much involved in Ukraine. I'm very supportive of what we're doing in Ukraine and there is now a political pushback on whether we should continue to support Ukraine aid. So the threshold question for us is, does the United States have a role to play and should it continue because of its own place with its unique ability to project power? With the American story that we still believe in about democracy, about human rights, obviously laden with contradictions, laden with coming up short at various times, a history of our own where we don't always stand up and meet the goals that we have. Those of us in this room, I think, are all committed to the worthwhile importance of trying to maintain that. Second, spheres of influence, you know, that's really, there's a couple of things happening. Obviously, Russia is a very vivid example of where there's an emergence of literally denying the sovereignty of a country and using force to achieve a pretty revanchious goal. And do you give a pass to that or not? And that, again, I think is an example of good American leadership because we did not act alone. We used our capacity as the central and western country to work with allies to create a collective response to what that Russian invasion was. In my view, we've got to maintain that. The other thing is that, how do we be involved? Is it hopefully not militarily everywhere? I mean, you're asking that question about where we're involved, where we take the lead. Hopefully we can be involved in many places as we can where we can effectively help promote democracy and economic improvement. Mr. Senator, you've mentioned now several times the terrible crisis in Israel and Gaza. Very difficult issue. Israelis have been subjected to murderous violence. Many leaders have singled out the Hamas attack. The Hamas attack has the most lethal of its kind in modern Israeli history. In Gaza, experts affirm the Palestinian death toll at well over 10,000, well over. The destruction is horrendous. And both continue after the expiration of the humanitarian ceasefire. The death, the casualties and the destruction. Let's move forward, and is it even possible? What Hamas did was so horrendous and unspeakable. You know, that killing and slaughter of kids, civilians in the south of Israel. And by the way, a lot of the Israelis who were killed were many of the Israelis who had very close relationships with a lot of the Palestinians. They had an exclusive cruelty to what Hamas did. And I've been to Storot a couple of times and met with a lot of Israelis there who were very much part of the peace movement there. So it's just horrendous what Hamas did. And totally understandable that you have a view in Israel that you can't have Hamas, obviously, as a partner. So the response with military force was totally understandable. By the way, one of the things I felt it was an obligation was to watch that horrible video that the IDF put together and it was from some Hamas body cams. Can you imagine that? Well, you're doing this violence. You actually want to record it. It's really terrible. And then some videos in homes, in your heartbreaks. So there's a right of self-defense. And Israel is right to be able to use that. There's another principle and that is civilians can't be part of the military. You've got to spare civilian lives as much as humanly possible. The bombing campaign does not do that. When you have bombing and it's in one of the most densely populated parts of the world, there's no way you're not going to have thousands of civilian casualties. And that's happened. And that's the humanitarian catastrophe. So how do you resolve this? And I don't see how you resolve it with the current plan. The bombing occurred. There's been over 15,000 people who've been killed. There's a million, 0.7 or more people who've been displaced. There's rubble in Gaza City. The bombing continues. You're going to see more of that. And then there's a real worry that in addition to the casualties directly associated with the bombing, this obviously interferes with humanitarian relief, but you're going to have the potential for more people to start to die from disease. So I think there's got to be a question about the efficacy of this as a strategy. My view, the bombing should stop, okay? Because it's not going to result in any good coming out of it. I mean, eventually what's going to happen is at some point I think Israel will decide that they've degraded Hamas sufficiently to assure the safety of their citizens. And that is Israel's obligation and put a perimeter around Gaza and have their troops back in the area of Gaza to make certain that it's not possible for there to be another attack on their people. But the long run, what we know is what we've always known. There has to be a commitment to a two-state solution. And what's happening now in Gaza is there's bad things happening in the West Bank as well, where there continues to be IDF. A lot of West Bank Palestinians are getting killed. So we know we have to get to the serious negotiations on a two-state solution. The frustration for I think a lot of us is that on October 6th, Israel was in a pretty strong position with its neighbors. When you think back to 1973 and all these countries that wanted to annihilate Israel are now having normalized relationships with Israel, Israel was in a pretty solid position with its neighbors. And that's a really good thing. But its problems were on the West Bank and its problems obviously were in Gaza. And of course you had a government in Israel that was having incredible protest among its own people about what was perceived as an overreach on the part of the Netanyahu government with respect to the Supreme Court. And now of course there's unity in Israel because they're united in their grief and their determination to make sure that they protect their fellow citizens. But we've got to get back to that two-state solution. It's going to require an Israeli government that is genuinely committed to it. It's also going to require active engagement by some of the Arab states. This can be a huge role for the United States of America to be the convener, but there's going to have to be Arab states that have been in the process of normalizing their relationships with Israel to play a constructive role. And obviously any outcome long-term can include a Hamas philosophy that's committed to the destruction of Israel and killing Jews. So not easy, but what I see is not at all long-run effective is abounding our way to some kind of durable long-term outcome. Mr. Senator, one of the truly remarkable achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War and very much the period of Pax Americana from the end of the Cold War was the re-establishment of the distinction, you mentioned this, between a combatant and a non-combatant during warfare. Much of the leadership in establishing the laws of warfare and the norms that militaries, including ours and our allies, but many others, adhere to, it was a singular American achievement. We led that process. We helped to define it. We created many of the institutions that have made that a reality. When you look at the wars you see now, the context in Israel and then Gaza, other wars, do you still feel that America takes pride in that achievement and responsibility for encouraging our allies and all others to adhere to those? Well, you know, I hadn't thought a lot about that, but here's what we know. It's the importance of institutions, but there's another reality here. If a country gets attacked like we did in 9-11, as Israel did on October 7th, norms, self-protection is first, protecting your own citizens is first and whatever the rules are are second. So as much as it is really important for us to be promoting the norms and protecting civilians and having rules of engagement, let's not be under any illusion that a country that suffers in 9-11 or in October 7th is going to be spending a lot of time other than on how do we protect our citizens? And oftentimes, as we did, in my view, in 9-11, overreacted. I mean, we invaded Iraq. I mean, it's hard to even imagine that that's what we did after 9-11 since Iraq had nothing to do with what happened in 9-11. But there was an enormous internal pressure from citizens to take a definitive action that often gets associated with military work. But this is why the work that you do here, USIP, and the work we do as diplomats, is about preventing things like this from happening. You know, it's looking over the horizon and realizing that you don't know when or how, but you know that if you let grievances fester, you don't make progress on acknowledging the legitimate aspirations of people in a society that ultimately that can lead to conflict, it can lead to widespread loss of life. So for me, yes, let's have these rules of engagement. There are standards and norms. The UN, the US, the EU, we do our best to adhere to them in their guidelines. But also let's not forget that the really important work is looking over the horizon and taking steps today to, I'll give just an example, maintain the progress we made in the Daytona courts. And it's, you know, we have to do that kind of work quietly, but that's going to be true in the Middle East with Gaza and Israel. Somehow, this is going to end at some point, the bombing and the violence, but it won't end and be durable unless we actually do the hard diplomatic work of getting to that two-state solution. Mr. Senator, Americans seem split on whether and to what extent the United States should continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression. You've come down very strongly and clearly in favor of continuing American assistance to Ukraine. In your view, what is at stake in this war? The post-World War II order, where you don't use force to take territory from a sovereign country. And the rules of diplomatic engagement as opposed to the rules of military engagement, that's really what's at stake. And, you know, I have confidence that we're going to get there. There's a battle brewing now, obviously, in the House and in the Senate about this, but there continues to be very strong bipartisan support. I mean, Senator McConnell is very, very strong and eloquent in his defense of U.S. continued engagement with Ukraine. What's going to be happening this week and the next week is the question of the border, which is always a very, very tough political issue, getting conjoined with Israeli aid and getting conjoined with Ukraine aid. So it's not a pretty situation to watch over in Capitol Hill most of the time, even when things are going well. But I think somehow, someway, we'll get to where we need to be on this. Mr. Senator, you've mentioned Republican colleagues that you share a common sense of purpose with and a common commitment to solve problems. When you watch the news in America, you might come to the impression that examples of that are few and far between. Do you still see bipartisanship as one of the bedrock pillars of our foreign policy and national security, or do you wish it to be a pillar? You know, I've never seen a problem that gets resolved without working with people you disagree with. So, you know, bipartisanship is essential to have durable resolutions, and that requires give and take, obviously. You know, I was the Senate President in Vermont, and we had a majority. And I appointed three Republicans to chair committees. And when I've told people down here, my colleagues, when I was in the House that I did that, they literally thought I needed a mental status exam, all right? And then they accused me of being a good guy. And that's why I did it. And I denied that accusation. I said, this had nothing to do with being a good guy. We had some good Republicans that wanted to make progress. They were, on these committees, we were the majority, but they felt they had a real input. They did have real input, and it actually helped pull us back from overexuberance, I'll say. So that when we passed like a health care bill, then the next question was, what did we get wrong, and how do we make it right, or how can we make it better? It wasn't like, let's repeal it. And that's what happened down here with Obamacare. Remember that we passed it, but then we went through a repeal effort with 60, I think, eight votes. So we share problems, the challenges, when we don't share norms. And what has been so much of a challenge, I think, for all of us, and certainly is the heartbreak I had on January 6th, was that really sacred and absolutely essential democratic norm of respecting the outcome of an election, the voters at the side, that was challenged. And it was so shocking to me that I was in the building, I was in the gallery, it was actually the worst place to be, and as I heard the shot fired, as the folks outside were battering the door down, and I was scared, along with my colleagues, but I didn't believe it was happening. I was saying, Peter, this can't be happening. It's the United States of America, we just had an election. So that's what's been so destabilizing, I think, for so many of us, that these norms that we accepted that would be a restraining influence on us and on others with whom we disagreed, those have been challenged. And that's, you know, my view is that for a society to be successful, you need norms, even more than, as much as or more than a constitution, because one of the norms that got shattered was the constitution didn't matter, and you need institutions, and both are under assault. So all of us who believe that those are essential components of our well-being have to exercise our responsibility to do all we can for the preservation of norms and for the vitality of our institutions. Mr. Senator, we see a trend toward a authoritarianism in many parts of the world, including in our own year abroad in Central and South America. You've spoken in the past about the importance of protecting democracy around the world. Can you share your thoughts on how support for democracy advances global stability and peace? Well, my biggest advocacy for democracy is that it is a means of resolving conflicts that invites all who are affected by the outcome to have a seat at the table. And if everybody has a seat at the table, there's a profound respect for the aspirations of everybody in a complicated society. And it requires a certain amount of humility and a certain amount of acceptance of limitations. And in my view, when you have a society where there's a bedrock of respect, that people you disagree with but who have legitimate aspirations as you do, and that through engagement you can come to resolutions that allow for common progress and shared progress, that that's a better way to live. It's a better way ultimately to have peace because there's some confidence that this process allows you to be heard and ultimately to be successful. And it includes in a democratic process that if you lose an election, you fight another day. Now, in an authoritarian approach, obviously, it's about suppressing aspirations. It's about being in charge. It's my way. And that's even before it gets into the ego-driven, you know, self-enrichment and total disregard and definition of people you disagree with, it's other, less worthy and ultimately dispensable. So that's what we aspire to in this country. And, you know, we have such a – and the challenge for us is to live up to that ideal from one generation to another. And as I was saying about something else, that work is never done. But it's as stressful for us now as it's ever been. I do believe that. Mr. Senator, before your final wrap-up comments, may we ask you one last question about climate? Because many would argue that if you look at all of the threats to global stability, perhaps the single greatest threat in the longer term is climate change. How do you view this challenge and what do you think America's role should be in addressing it? Well, two things. Number one, I actually think maintaining our democratic form of government is the most important in having democracy, because that is going to be the tool that we need in order to address the incredibly demanding challenges of moving from a carbon-based energy system to a clean energy system. Alright, so democracy is a key here as the tool. But secondly, climate change is – there's no more debate about it, right, about whether it's real or not. We were having that debate for a long time about whether the science was real or it wasn't. And I actually think that was just a cover for apprehension that people had about what the impact was of having to move from a carbon-based economy to a clean energy-based economy. The challenges are real and we can acknowledge that, but if we're engaged and we're starting to, then there's opportunity in a confident society where you acknowledge what the challenges are. A confident society doesn't deny them. It takes on the challenges, right? It starts using its technology to create clean energy. It starts using its technology for battery storage. It starts setting up systems to make the transition for folks in coal country who are impacted. And by the way, we've got to acknowledge that, right? That's tough. If you've been a three or four generation coal mining family and you've kept the lights on in Vermont, you've done – you've done God's work for folks in Vermont. So part of our move towards dealing with what is catastrophic, if we don't stop it, has to be an acknowledgement that their transition is disruptive. And we've got to do it. That's our work. And what I see that is exciting for me as young people have that confidence that we can take it on. We can do it and we have to. Senator, we're at the end of our 30 minutes. May we invite you for closing reflections, comments, guidance to the institute? What would you like to see us do? You know, I'm going to go back to where I began. The day-to-day work that one does as a diplomat, one does as a senator or politician, a lot of mundane stuff. Phone calls, papers, reading, calling that person back, looking the other way when somebody, you know, slights you. It's the day-to-day chores of getting anything done. But when you occasionally take that half-step back and you have the opportunity to see how important it is, because I'll go to the Dayton Accords, let's save lives. And it's been saving lives for years. And even as the ink is being dried on the signatures, the work is never done. But when you step back at that moment and you see that all that effort that went into trying to get those Dayton Accords signed, get people who were absolutely intractable when it came to working together. In fact, they were killing one another. You get to see why it is you do those tedious things day in and day out, why you suffer the insult, why you look the other way, or why you push harder. So it's important. And that's what we share. I mean, one of the things that I do really enjoy about working in a legislative body is you find like-minded people, you share a goal, and it's a team sport. And it's more fun in life to try to solve problems than just complain about them. That's sort of the existential part of it for me. Let's have a little fun. You know, getting this done. Senator, thank you. Thank you for joining me and expressing our appreciation to Senator Welshman. Thank you.