 Before we introduce our keynote speaker, please allow us to recognize and to thank our colleagues and friends from the embassies of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and also to welcome guests from Vietnam and around the U.S. who have traveled long distances to be with us in person. It is an honor to be able to host you in this building. When the shades are up, we overlook the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall, and we are very near many landmark U.S. memorials, which I hope if you are a guest here that you are able to visit. We're also very pleased to welcome congressional colleagues who are here today and who continue to sustain America's commitment to peace, prosperity, and security in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Now, my distinct privilege to introduce our distinguished keynote speaker, Secretary Chuck Hagel. Secretary Hagel was the 24th U.S. Secretary of Defense, serving from February 2013 to February 2015. He is the only Vietnam veteran and the first enlisted combat veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense. Secretary Hagel's service to his country is exemplary. He has served two terms in the United States Senate representing Nebraska and was the Co-Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board and the Chairman of the Atlantic Council. Secretary Hagel currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the United States Military Academy, the Board of Trustees of the RAND Corporation, the Advisory Board of Corsair Capital, as a Centennial Scholar at Georgetown University, as a Distinguished Scholar at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, as a Distinguished Statesman at the Atlantic Council, on the Board of Directors of the Public Broadcasting Service, and on the Board of Trustees of the United States Capitol Historical Society. Secretary Hagel is the author of the book, America, our next chapter. At the end of Secretary Hagel's comments, he will be taking questions from the floor. We have microphones here and we encourage colleagues to please take advantage. Mr. Secretary, we are honored to have you with us at USIP today for this important discussion. Thank you, Madame President. It's truly a privilege to be here to share some thoughts with so many people whose lives and professions, applications, vocations have been about making a better world, a better world for all people, not just the United States or Vietnam or any other country. I think if there was ever a time for an emphasis on that and a reality to that, it's today's world. As we all know, we are living in a world of nearly 8 billion global citizens, yes, American citizens, Vietnamese citizens, Laosian citizens, Thai citizens, but we're all global citizens. And a clear understanding of that I don't think has been yet accepted by a lot of countries. And if there is to be a world that's not just prosperous for all people, but a world that's fair, that's honest, that's hopeful, we're going to have to change how we do business. And one of the reasons the US Institute of Peace has been so important since its founding, and I recall when we got the funding, it was Ted Stevens, as Jim Reeser knows, who was the guiding focus light and roadplow that got it done. But it has been symbolic for many reasons, yes, peace, but more than that, because it brings people together in a very important way, like today and tomorrow. So thank you all for what you're doing, and we all appreciate it very much. Ambassador, nice to see you again, Tim Reeser, Ann Mills Griffith, who is, I won't say old, but a good friend, but Ann and I have been around together a long time and fought in the trenches for veterans, Vietnam veterans, and I admire her very much. And what Tim Reeser has done with Pat Leahy has been remarkable over the years. So thank you all. I'm going to keep my remarks fairly brief, so I don't want to throw off your schedules, because then we'll have more time for questions and talk about whatever you want. But as I was thinking about today, over the last week, what I might contribute to this gathering, and I know it's about lessons learned. It's about all those dynamics of the relationship with Vietnam in the United States. I'd like to just give you a brief, very brief background on my knowledge of Vietnam, and then give you four basic lessons learned that I have thought about over the years when I was in the Senate. Before that, I've always been involved in veterans organizations helping veterans. But I served in Vietnam in 1968, and I think most of you recall that year. It was a bad year. We sent 16,000 dead Americans home in one year. Today America wouldn't stand for that. My brother Tom served with me, I mean physically with me for a year. We were both wounded twice together. That was the year of Tet. Here in this country, what was going on was almost as bad as what was going on in Vietnam. We had two assassinations of King and Kennedy. Cities were burning. This country was about as at a lower point as it had been, I think, in modern times. And it was reflected in Vietnam how we conducted the war, kind of a mindless approach to it all. In 1999, our new ambassador, appointed by President Clinton, who put the two countries back together, and engineered the diplomatic relationship between the United States and Vietnam, selected Congressman Pete Peterson from Florida to be his first ambassador. Peterson was one of the longest held POWs, a tremendous person. But he had an unfair advantage in life. He was from Nebraska. And I readily admit that he had some advantages. He was from Omaha, Nebraska, graduated Benson High School and went to the Naval Academy and spent more than six years as a POW. He asked my brother Tom and me in 1999, and I was in the Senate at the time, to come back to Vietnam and cut the ribbon for the new American consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. All of you know that our consulate in Ho Chi Minh City is on the very spot of where our embassy was during the Vietnam War. Tom and I did that. That's the first time we had been back since we left. I left in December of 1968, and he left in January of 1969. But they also took us, because we spent about five days there. I went to Hanoi first, met the prime minister and a number of the minister, foreign minister, defense minister. And then on end of Ho Chi Minh City, we spent about five days there. And we were struck with the tremendous progress. And that progress wasn't just Vietnamese progress, but it was the product of Vietnam's developing relationships with the United States and with other countries, not just in Asia, but with other countries in the world, and how the Vietnamese had done that. And the cooperation, and we had differences with Vietnam, and still do. But what was unique about this relationship? We concentrated on where we agreed. Yes, we had just fought a brutal war, a 10-year war. That was very unfair in many ways. It cost us 56,000 lives, what the Vietnam Veteran Memorial across the street is all about. But the concentration and the focus on where we agreed, how we could help each other and Asia, Southeast Asia, trade, commerce, education, especially education, and all the facets of a diplomatic relationship that went into it. But this relationship that got renewed in the early 90s, and it was done, as Tim Reeser knows, especially by the Vietnam Veterans in the Senate at the time. I was not there at the time. I came in 96. But John Kerry, Bob Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Robb really guided that. And they had a very receptive president, Bill Clinton. And the rest of the Senate, Pat Leahy, was a huge part of that and made it work. And because they built that relationship back Vietnam, the United States, the way they did over the next years, including today, it's developed into a very important relationship. And I would say mutually important relationship. So that leads me to, as you all know, and much has been written about this relationship. What lessons did we learn? Did we learn enough? History informs. And when we don't pay attention to history, when nations are ignorant of history, individual leaders are ignorant of history, unfortunately, they are doomed to make similar miscalculations, misjudgments, and mistakes. And we in the United States have done that because we didn't adhere to, listen to, and absorb lessons learned from Vietnam. The four lessons that I think, at least in my opinion, that we must always learn. And it's a direct result of the Vietnam experience. And a lot is connected into each of these. But the first is, military force should never get ahead of diplomatic strategy. Diplomatic strategy must always lead the use of military, and a nation will always run into trouble when that does not happen, and it certainly happened in our 20 year involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had no diplomatic strategy. And some of you know that very well because you were at the table. That's the first lesson. The second lesson is understand the culture, the country, the people, the religion of the other country as best you can. You've got to reverse the optics. The optics can't always be American. We are a small part of the world, 5% of the world's population, 25% of the economy, and we are the dominant nation of the world, and have been since World War II. But even with all that power and prestige, we have failed over the years because we didn't learn some lessons of history. And I think an important part of that is we venture into areas where we don't understand where we're going and why, and as Colin Powell used to say, what's your exit strategy? We didn't learn that in Vietnam. Certainly we didn't learn that in Iraq and with Afghanistan with our disastrous exits. The first lesson learned is when you employ troops in the military, make sure they're for a short time. The longer you keep troops in a country, the more you will defeat yourself. You've got to engage the people. The people are the most important part of any relationship, any foreign relationship. That's got to be number one, not the government, but the people. You work with the government, and if that's not understood, you will be seen as occupiers. As an example, in 2008, it wasn't Barack Obama who was elected president in 2008 who campaigned against the Iraq War. It wasn't Barack Obama who pulled the troops out of Iraq. It was George Bush who signed the deal. And George Bush had to do that because the prime minister of Iraq at the time, Mr. Maliki said, I will not take a status of forces agreement to the parliament to protect your troops because you are seeing as occupiers in our country. I think that shocked the Bush administration. President Bush had to sign an agreement for all of our troops to be out by 2011. That's a very clear example of violating that lesson that should be learned, but it always happens. It happened in Afghanistan. And as I took through these lessons learned, there are a lot of components to each that we could spend almost an afternoon on each of them. The next lesson learned for us, I think, and I was there, involved in all three of those wars in one way or another, is the Congress has to be more involved. The Congress has to be more active. When you think about our Constitution, in Article I of the Constitution, the executive, I mean the legislative, the Congress, not the executive, there are Article II of the President. And only the Congress has the power to declare war. Well, we've been very dishonest over the years where we don't declare war. We get around it by a Gulf Tonkin resolution, which was dishonest and a lie. The lies as to what led us into Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction. And the Congress has been, in my opinion, and again I've been on both sides of this issue, way too docile. And when the Congress, the representatives of the people, House members, Senators, do not stay close to war and foreign policy, no good will come of that. Too much power in the executive, and I think that's a clear lesson learned from Vietnam. It certainly was the result we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. I recall the special investigator for Afghanistan, and Tim Reager, remember this, who was put in place years ago in Afghanistan to go in and investigate where the U.S. funds, money appropriated for Afghanistan, where did that go? And that special investigator, who reported to the President of the United States, not the Congress, would come give his report and would testify before committees in the Congress. I was on the Foreign Relations Committee as to what was going on in Afghanistan, $30, billion of money that he couldn't find where it went. Well, we know where it went. It was corruption, corruption in the government, it was corruption of different American country, companies, but we didn't pay attention to it. We didn't pay attention to it. And that led to corrupt governments in Afghanistan losing the people, losing the confidence of the people, and then ultimately the United States had to pull out and the people didn't support the government. I would add one additional thing. When you're making peace, and the United States has been in three long wars, 10 years for Vietnam, 20 years for Afghanistan and Iraq, when you're making peace with the other side, you must include the current government of the country that you have been helping. In 1972, we made a peace arrangement with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, what we left out the government of South Vietnam. Same thing in Afghanistan, early 2019, actually, in Qatar, the Trump administration makes a deal with the Taliban, leaves the Ghani government out. Then we go back in and we tell the Ghani government, this is the deal, this is what you're going to live with. Anyway, you're going to release 5,000 prisoners, 5,000 the most dangerous, but Ghani government has no say in any of it, just like the two government had no say in Vietnam in 1972 with that peace agreement. You can take each of those and dissect them in small parts and say, yeah, but, but, and I recognize that, there's no perfect analogies or analysis of anything, differences always. But I'm talking about just general theory, general analysis, general lessons learned. So, I'll end where I started, history informs. And when countries and governments don't adhere to that and don't learn that, they're headed for trouble. And in the kind of world that we're in today, a world that's so interconnected, Putin's war on Ukraine, there's not a country in the world that's not affected by that war, not a country in the world that's not affected by it, whether it's supply chain problems, fuel problems, hunger, politics, diplomacy, we're all affected by it. So, we've got to understand all of this now is like handling nitroglycerin. It's that dangerous. And we've got to come at it that way. And again, I go back to where I started, it's personal relationships. Where can we agree? Don't start with where you disagree. You'll never get to where you can agree if that's where you start. You've got to start the other way. Invert the process so you start where can we agree? If we don't do that, this world is going to be very dangerous, more dangerous than it is now. And this is in addition to what's going on with climate change, COVID. And there'll be more COVIDs. This isn't the end of pandemics. Again, lessons of history. I don't care how sophisticated our medicine is and what's happened just naturally. You've got to factor all of that in. And I will end with this. Listen. People have to listen to each other. They've got to listen with open minds. That's difficult to do. I understand that with past hatreds, with past problems, past issues, injustices. I get all that. I get all that. But today is gone. Tomorrow is gone. It's all about the future. It's all about tomorrow. What can we do to influence tomorrow? And if we don't take that approach in our personal lives, our official lives, then we're doomed. It's all about tomorrow. And how do we make a better world? Okay. What do you want to talk about? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hagel. I'm John McAuliffe from the Fund for Reconciliation and Development. We worked for many years for normalization with Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. But I want to take you to another part of the world as you have given us a global scope. It was 20 years to end the embargo and to get normal relations with Vietnam. It's been 60 years with Cuba and we still don't have it. And I'm curious what you think might finally dislodge that and get us to the period of mutual respect and reconciliation with Cuba, and whether USIP can play a role in that happening. Thank you. Well, interestingly enough, I've been thinking about that. And the world and reality and the uncertainty of life in our personal lives and the world relationships always somehow affect things. Uncertain, unknown, unpredictable. And in the case of Cuba, we have this terrible hurricane, Mr. Ian, a nasty fellow, decimated much of Cuba, like it did the west coast of Florida, and the Cuban government reaching out to the United States government for assistance. Well, your question about what could be done to start influencing maybe reconciliation in some way, that's an opening right there. Now, I'm not saying that we should send a check at the Cuba, but I think we should explore that opening, that possibility. Again, it's the people. Yes, Cubans have a corrupt government. The people in Cuba have had very little freedom. But this could be an opening. And I actually think climate and weather patterns are going to affect foreign policy of nations and diplomacy far more than anybody has any ideas. Because it's about survival. We do know that as the oceans rise, there will not be a nation that is in any way close to oceans. That's not going to be significantly affected. Well, you think through that, well, could this be an area where we could maybe reach out to countries and work together? Now, I recognize it's not that easy. I recognize all the downsides to that. I recognize corruption. I recognize the people who don't want any reconciliation. But so it has been throughout history. Throughout history, it's not been easy to bring countries together. So I think that we need to find some way, to find some way to open that door to reconciliation in Cuba, for a lot of reasons. It's just in the best interest of everybody. And maybe that request coming from the Cuban government for us, and I've noticed, and I'm Tim Reiser would be far more connected into what's going on with this than me. But I've noticed and I've heard that the Biden administration is considering this, looking at it. I don't know where the Congress is on this. But I do know through all my years in the Senate, that no money deals happen unless Tim Reiser is involved. So talk to Reiser about this. But thank you. Thank you for being here, Secretary Hagel. My name is Zia Nguyen Van Hoot, originally from Vietnam. And now I lead infrastructure investment and development at the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group. My question for you is given the current tensions and concerns for U.S. policy concerning Chinese supply chain issues, including labor issues related to Xinjiang, and very much affecting solar panel supply chains and other supplies of chips, while other components that are very essential for infrastructure development around the world, given that China produces over 95 percent of the solar panels and chips that we need around the world, what is your view of how Vietnam can play a role, a more prominent role given Vietnam's, I'm very proud to say, emerging role or actually very solidified role in manufacturing around the world? What is your view about how Vietnam can play a role in the emerging manufacturing scene going forward? Well, I think Vietnam can play a very critical role. And I say that not just because we have a number of friends from Vietnam here, because, first of all, Vietnam, represented by its people, is as industrious a country as there is in the world. And that's, in my opinion, that's a big compliment. The Vietnamese people know how to get things done. Their pros at manufacturing, agriculture, trade, they get it. They understand, you all understand how it works. And because where you're located, where Vietnam is located, it is a critical geopolitical, strategic, trade, economic, diplomatic, security part of the world, bordering China. And as you all know, the numbers that are reflected, not this workforce, but markets represented in Asia and the kind of progress that's been made over the years in Asia, all of that together, positions, and for all the reasons I mentioned and more, positions Vietnam in a very critical place for manufacturing in particular chips or anything else. Now, I mean, we understand Taiwan's dominance in those areas, but we also understand that that's going to have to change in some ways, that the world cannot just rely on one nation for so much, especially of an important product that relates to so many other important products. I mean, microchips are critical. So there will be other countries that will flourish in the manufacturing of these particularly strategic products. And the U.S. has already started to move in that direction, other countries. And again, where Vietnam is, where it's how it's positioned, where it's positioned, it's people, really give it, I think, a huge leg up in order to do that and to take on these new possibilities, opportunities. And I suspect that that will happen because the Vietnamese, you all take advantage very wisely of these opportunities. Hi. I'm a little vertically challenged. Thank you for being here with us, Secretary Hago. So my name is Sarah Gulabdara. I'm with Legacies of War. We're a nonprofit located right here in Washington, D.C. We advocate for bomb clearance and victim assistance in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. So since I'm a former cornhusker, I'm going to ask you an easy question. You're never a former. I mean, I left, I left. Well, but in your heart, you know, the cornhuskers are mighty. I cheer for them, except one day play my buck, guys. Do they have a team? Hey, now, hey, be nice. I'm going to increase the level of difficulty in my question to you now. And you get this because President Biden won't answer me. So perhaps I get a really good answer from you. Well, you got what you needed, if Biden's answer. So Legacies of War is a proud steering committee member of the U.S. campaign to ban landmine cluster munition coalition. So, you know, the campaign has been in existence since the early 90s, and we've been pushing for our country to exceed to the Mind-Band Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munition, banning these indiscriminate weapons that we as Americans use in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. You talked a lot about lessons learned. And I'm wondering, you know, from your perspective, why is it taking so long for our country to stand on the side of humanity and exceed to these two treaties, along with other members of NATO allies? It just seems to me that our policy on this is more aligned with Vladimir Putin instead of our NATO allies. Thank you. Well, not because only because you're so intimidating, but I agree with you. Tim Reiser knows a lot about this because Pat Leahy has been a champion on all this for many, many years. And no, I think you're right. I know there are variations of, and Pat Leahy and I had had some long conversations about this when I was in the Senate. I know there are variations of all this as to, well, does it help American military or where's our military and so on and so on. But as I've watched it over the years, I don't think we have any interest in this other than to support it. And I recognize that there are nations of the world, and you mentioned one of them, Mr. Putin's Russia, that will never comply with international standards and international law. I mean, he's already, for the last eight months, broken so many of those global, essentially laws, but broken the whole basis of how the world has operated for the last 75 years. A world order that we built with our allies after World War II, a world order of laws and regulations. And the Russians have rarely acknowledged those laws and regulations, and many times, like they are now, flagrantly, mindlessly violated him. So you're always going to find nations that will not exceed what you're talking about. But I think it's time for the United States to take a leadership role in this. And I'm saying that mindful of, you know, for a couple of years I had the responsibility of being the chief person in charge of our national security and listening very closely to our military. And so I say this and give you my position, not just as a former senator, but someone who's had responsibility for the security of this country and working with our military and understanding their concerns and their needs on this issue, as all issues. But I can't look at it any other way than we need to get behind this. Yes? Hello, Senator. Thank you so much for your service in Vietnam. I'm a Philippine Vietnamese-American from Michigan, Granada, Michigan. It is my honor to meet you finally. Thank you so much for your service. And I believe my dad probably served with you in Vietnam in 1968. He didn't make it, but welcome home. Thank you so much. Your father was in Vietnam in 68? Yes, yes. And he was killed there? Yes, in Hue. Yeah. In Hue? Yeah. Oh, well, I'm sorry. Thank you. I know you're proud of your service. Thank you for your service. Thank you. As I started responding in the auditorium that I heard, the U.S. is finally going to help Vietnam to look for the remains of the North Vietnam. I call them Vietnamese, but I don't call them North Vietnam or South Vietnam. I call them Vietnamese because North Vietnam, South Vietnam are Vietnamese. Now, I'm so happy that we have programmed to finally help find those business remains after so many years, right? As you know, Vietnamese-American, I ask myself, what about thousands and thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers that one thought we use side by side, like my father, and including thousands of prisoners who have died in re-education camps. Will we have anything to help them? As Vietnamese-American, we ask that question because we are now not Vietnamese, but American with Vietnamese heritage. Thank you, sir. Well, there are some individuals here at this table that might be able to give you some answers to that. As we have expanded, as you know, our POW, MIA efforts, and Ann Mills Griffith had a lot to do with that when she came to see me one day and raised hell with me in my office as Secretary of Defense. And others here, too, Ambassador Moose knows a lot about this because I think one of the jobs he had as a young early diplomat was in Vietnam. Your question is a relevant question, and I'm not as up to date on things today as I once was, but I would just say that where we can help the Vietnamese, and I get your point, there's no longer a North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, it's Vietnamese. What's past is past, it's over. It's over. And so we have to go forward on that basis. And so we do need to make some adjustments, I think, in that program, and I get your point. Is your mother, is she okay? Wherever you are. I'm sorry. Well, you've done pretty well. You're pretty smart. Again, thank you. It's been a privilege to be with you.