Transcripts For CSPAN2 Catherine 20240704

Unions first high representative for, Foreign Affairs and Security Policy from. 2009 to 2014, she earned praise as a negotiator leading the p5 plus one talks on Irans Nuclear program and galvanizing agreement on between serbia and kosovo. Before she served as the first woman commissioner for trade at the european commission, cathy is Wilson Centers Slater Family distinguish fellow. We are delighted to talk to her today about her new book titled and then what inside stories of 21st century diplomacy . Also joining us to talk with kathy is ambassador phil reeker, who is partner and lead of the europe and eurasia practice at Albright Group here at wilson. He is the chair of our global europe, now retired from state department. Ambassador reeker was charge daffaires at the u. S. Embassy in the United Kingdom and was acting assistant secretary of state for europe eurasia. Before that, before he retired from the foreign service, he was secretary blinkens Senior Advisor for caucasus negotiations. And before that, of course, many other postings, ambassador to macedon and civilian deputy and policy advisor to the commander of the u. S. , european command based in germany. So i think we have all the europe knowledge here on the. So welcome to this conversation were going to talk about some of the issues that highlights in her book and. Have a have a fun discussion today. Thank you for joining us. So cathy im going to open it up with talking about all those firsts that i was i was mentioning you were the first eu high representative foreign and Security Policy. And when i think about that at time, you had to actually define the role in your self and you also had to build your staff essentially a Diplomatic Service for the European Union, which strikes me as much harder actually building a building. Could you tell us a little bit about how you got the job and what your vision was going in, how you shaped that Going Forward . Its lovely to be back at wilson, as always, and particularly with the two of my dear friends here, robin and phil. So the job came out something called the lisbon treaty, which the next stage in the development of the European Union and it was to bring together three different roles that had been in operation for a number of years. One was the council that some Member States had someone who Foreign Policy on their behalf. The second was the commission which had a commissioner responsible for external relations. And third, the presidency. The eu rotates every six months between Different Countries of the eu and the person the foreign minister of the country that had the presidency would be the person, the Foreign Affairs council. So all those jobs came together and i of got the job to my as many of you will remember because combination of factors that they wanted including having a woman in at least one of the key roles in brussels meant that it felt to me. But as i say, it was not expected. And then Building Service was about two things, really bringing people working in different areas. Ive described based in different buildings based across the world, in commission into something new. And the question i used to ask was if you go into an embassy anywhere in the world that is german or american or french or italian, you know, which countries youre in, how will you know in europe . And it was sort amalgam of thought and ideas that led us to try and develop a service that could do Something Different to that which every individual service could do. But certainly building it at the same time as actually dealing with the issues i think i described as rather like flying a plane and trying to screw the wings on the same time you stayed aloft and had a three important thing, just about one of the things that struck me about this was how many crises you had to deal with during the time you that you were high up. And phil, i know you were dealing with some of these crises. Talk to us a little bit about how you interact now. Thanks, robin. And its true delight for me to be back at the Wilson Center, in fact, and delighted to be affiliated with chairing the Global Program and to kick off this with cathy is there could be no more start i think if you go to the Wilson Center website. In fact and you me last i think. November 29th 2011 when i came for a panel described as the working group on the western balkans. At that time i was the Deputy Assistant secretary for balkans central europe, and we were focusing on setting an agenda for transit atlantic cooperation. And that was when i first began working with cathy ashton. As i always say, my favorite baroness. The only one i know in a in a quieter role as the eu took the lead on what was known as, the Serbia Kosovo dialog process. But with the very much involved less forward leaning, less publicly. And cathy writes about that in her absolutely terrific book. So was one of the major crises that you highlight in the book that was the real threat of renewed violence of war in the heart of europe, at serbia, kosovo border. You marvelously about what was accomplished and what you did very much utilizing the concept that i believe strongly in as diplomacy as a contact sport. We lost a bit of that during covid. So great to be back. Whether its in person in events like but also having the personal diplomacy that you employed. So marvelously with the to protagonists the leaders serbia and kosovo. And i was wondering if you could talk just a little bit about that that diplomacy as a contact sport and how much the personal and developing a rapport in is important crucial to success in diplomacy very happily. Its interesting because you know, from what i was saying about how well, you know, youre in europe, one of the reasons that the serbia, kosovo dialog was so important was that it was an opportunity for europe to take the lead and not rely on the us to lead, but rather have the u. S. As our partner. But in a in a particular set of circumstances, the pull of getting into the eu, getting closer, the eu, the possibility for trade, the possibility that being part of the European Union would enable these countries to put the past behind them to be able to feel that they could live in peace and security, the future. This was the the on remains the pull of the European Union. We see it now, of course, with ukraine so important not to be underestimated. And i say that as a brit conscious of my own countrys. And that was an important element of why that such a conversation is, why that dialog was so important. Phil was my partner hidden partner in doing this. But it was a crucial test for europe. And your point about the contact sport is really crucial because one of the problems, as you rightly say, about covid has been that weve not the opportunity to meet in person. And when are talking particularly in negotiations, you are by definition not talking to people that you might want to go and have a coffee with or people that you may necessarily not even to sit in the same rooms, but youre trying to find a way through problem, whatever that problem is and bringing people together, as we did with serbia and kosovo, these prime ministers who have never met and who came with a that was extraordinarily challenging. Neither of them got many plaudits for actually meeting together. It was incredibly and difficult for and some people will never forgive for even walking into the same. This is bravery and leadership, but it is about that ability in diplomacy. Allow that to happen and to sit with people and to gradually be more at ease and be able talk and talk in an atmosphere of trust and for me, the most important part of diplomacy is that ability to sit with people who you fundamentally disagree with and listen, understand what theyre saying understand what you to do to try and make the situation better. Because as it was in serbia and kosovo, this about improving peoples lives who were caught up in violence and disorder and chaos, not of their making, but because of circumstances that existed, because of history, because of politics, because of the horrors of war and everything that we do in diplomatic life should be about making peoples lives better. You talk about in the book and you just mentioned now the lure of the European Union as a as a motivating factor for countries like those in the western balkans to make the necessary reforms, to undertake the diplomacy, to bring peace, a level of engagement with their neighbors. Thats very much part of that that process. One of the things we developed as a transatlantic agenda in dealing with the western balkans was the idea that these countries should be Democratic Free market economies integrated fully into euro atlantic institutions and structures that the the recipe for stability in an area that some decades after the Second World War had erupted in some the worst violence and atrocities that had been seen since the 1940s. Some would say that weve come through on natos enlargement with u. S. Leadership countries making the necessary reforms, undertaking the changes necessary to have a membership plan and become part of natos and yet the eu process has stalled. So those countries we worked with so closely, serbia and kosovo along with others, north macedonia, albania, montenegro you see their futures, the eu pathway stalled. How do you feel now some years out of the eu about the eu prospects for these countries where there is about ukraine, moldova and other countries following that eu path . What kind of model and . What should we take away from from that . What should the people of the region take away from that . Its very complicated, isnt it . Because, one, as i say, i, i speak as somebody who was very much part of the eu, but from a country that no is. I think there are a couple of things. The first is that the commitment and promise that the European Union makes to countries is really matters. So the countries of the western balkans believe that their future lies in the eu and if you helicopter over europe, its very obvious that, they should be part of the economics and political life of the region and the obvious way to do that is through the eu. So its a its a logical conclusion. But in order to get there, which is the second point. There are two things that have to happen. One is you have to fulfill the obligations of membership, the cqi, as its called, the legal requirements, the changes you need to make in your economy the way that you have to out your judicial system. What have to do in terms of the values that are at heart of the eu. And that takes time. Countries that have recently come into the eu. Recently in the last ten or 15 years will talk about how long it took them and length of that journey and the importance getting every step on that journey right. So it is not a simple process. It is a process of being a member because anyone traveling in your country must feel that theyre also traveling in europe and the same things apply. And then the other side of that, of course, in order to get in, everybody whos currently has to vote for you to join, and thats about domestic as much as anything i used to say to people when there were 28 countries round the table, the Foreign Affairs council, there was always an election somewhere because by definition so many countries either we just had election revote to have an election. Governments, coalitions changed domestic issues at the forefront of the minds of politicians who are sitting around the table or were not left at the door when they came in, they didnt suddenly become and not the nationality that they belong to. They were domestic and sometimes domestic plays into european politics, too. So the combination of things has to be got right in order for countries join. But the aspirations of countries to join is just as important because fulfilling the occasion means that you are moving to a society that has a free, has Better Police forces, is more able to have a free and judiciary is going to move in terms of the economy in much better ways. So those are important elements to as well as, of course, the promise making all these changes means that in the future there will be the moment when they become members of the eu. I want to link to that going back to sort of the idea, of course, as robin pointed out, you were the first high rep and Vice President to bring cohesion to European External Action Service to represent as high representative for a common European Security and foreign and Security Policy. Security and defense policy. Henry, of course, famously said, know what is the number for . Europe. How do i call them up . And you finally were there to to present that that number. And certainly your number on speed dial. I know personally to two of my former bosses, that is secretary of state clinton and secretary of state kerry, you worked with them both very closely. Diplomacy is about personalities. Its relationships you build. Could you give us some thoughts, perhaps working with secretary clinton and the difference between that and, working with secretary kerry . How did you find them both . This is Washington People want to know who inside knowledge. Okay. The first thing id say, and this is regardless of anyones politics, the United States was very well served by both the energy and drive that they both brought to representing this country to espousing its values and ideals was extraordinary. And i say that having traveled with both of them and having seen them both close up and in action countless times. So thats a similarity. But of course, its different. First of all, my with was another woman and because was the first high representative i was the first woman in that role. And for many people they werent expecting to be a woman. They certainly werent expecting it to be. And so i have give full credit to secretary clinton for the incredible that she gave to me, but also the support she gave to women all over the world. I was with her in countries like afghanistan, where we met with women, countries where women was really struggling to try find a new future in libya and elsewhere and watching the way that they looked to her as a woman leader. But also the admiration and, respect she showed to them. And it was extraordinary. So i felt, if you like, the Long Distance arms around me of another woman who understood how difficult it was to be a woman public life, and how everything you do everything you were, everything say is under the spotlight and under the microscope. So i give full credit to, of course, the time secretary kerry arrived, i was more experienced in my role. And hes a different. Blimey, what and drive. He has. I mean, anyone whos worked up close with him and certainly the staff who worked to him looked pretty exhausted some of the time. But he was, my closest ally and colleague on the Iran Nuclear Negotiations and i cannot tell you how brilliant he was at the detail, the knowledge, the determination to get it done. Just never gave up. And i mean by that, that he never gave up. On pushing and being clear about what he needed from the deal. At no point did he ever compromise or give in. Not a bit of it. He just kept going until he got what he needed and that was his way of doing the contact sport was to be very strong. So two Extraordinary People that i had the privilege to to know and to work with who did you all proud. Be great to talk a little more about the iran talks and maybe well come back to that. You point out the iran discussions as included, of course the p5 plus germany with the eu convening that process. And that meant russia was very much a part of that and engaged that. Now we focus on what is the greatest challenge to peace and security, not in the european region, but really globally, some would say now, and that is russias war against ukraine. That comes down to a single personality. Weve already said diplomacy is so driven by personalities. I think thered be great interest in hearing your on dealing with someone you you worked with that you met many times and that is vladimir putin. What you tell us. So im very conscious. You know, here we are year since the war began. And like many people, i was not expecting what, a year ago . Having said that, what i am very clear about is, having spent time with president putin, that there was absolutely in my mind no. That he saw as impossible to imagine that ukraine would look away. Russia and look to the west. He in pretend that as being somehow it had been taken over. And that i think remains position today hes driven in my view by a combination of history of to see russia as a strong country and interpreted i strength as in part being about its relationships its closest neighbors and especially with ukraine, with some in feel its the same country as russia and by legacy that his legacy is not going to be in his mind that ukraine has moved away from russia and is now somehow the orbit of what he would loosely call the west or europe or whatever you wish to describe it, has. And i was, of course, was. In 2013 14 when the maidan demonstrations began, when yanukovych refused to sign the agreement because it was an agreement with the eu that sparked this whole conflagration. And i was there just before went into lockdown as a as a planet back kiev talking to ukrainians about how they felt things had all got very stuck that there was violence still the donbass how there wasnt really a sense that anyone had a plan for how to get situation to move forward. It turned out of course after we came out of the covid time. Vladimir putin did have a plan which was to in some way or another to take ukraine back into the russian sphere influence. So he he had that determination. But what i would also say is that in all of the summits had with russia was every six months for six years, because of my time as trade commissioner, this was not a huge issue that was raised by russia that we ignored, far from it. It was well known that the seven year negotiation with ukraine was going on. It was well known that we had reached the point of signature being. It had been initialed by the technical people to say its done. It was well understood. And only once do i recall that when the foreign minister Sergei Lavrov came to the Foreign Affairs council, because in those days, of course, we had many contacts with russia that he raised. The question of whether this was an appropriate way forward, suggesting instead that there should be trilateral talks. Russia. That was my serious moment of memory of when this was raised as. A potential problem. So it wasnt that people didnt see it coming. It was that as things moved along, there was no reason to expect that yanukovich would not sign. That there was no reason to expect what follow. One of the things that i think has become very clear that putin, when he launched this illegal and horrific war against, ukraine, against the principles which russia itself had signed up, whether its the United Nations or the helsinki final act, founding principles of the osce osce. He did not anticipate, or perhaps i should say he expected that the Alliance Europe and the United States lets not forget canada and so much of the world would remain cohesive and, come together. Weve seen a lot of headlines in the past five or six years, looking back over decades of splits and shifts, the United States and europe. Splits within europe. The natos alliance. What was its future. And yet weve this incredible coming together. Could you comment, kathy, on on what you experienced as high representative and then perhaps how you reflect on it now of that relationship between the United States, the eu, which, as youve already said, is critical to so much we do globally, but certainly within the broader transatlantic space and then also perhaps comment on on how found working between the eu and natos. So the importance the transatlantic relationship the European Union Member States you you cannot overestimate it is incredibly important its vital because it is that link that holds us all together and. There is still a real sense of reliance upon the United States, something that is extremely to understand. That does not mean, in my view, that europe should not take greater opportunity to, develop its own thinking, its own strategy, its own approach to its neighborhood, and to the problems that it faces. But its going to do that in lockstep one way or the other with the United States. So, as i said, with the soviet kosovo, we came up with the ideas we developed what. It should be, but we were doing it absolutely. Partnership with the us. And that i think is is the way that we should continue to see this develop and i think what weve seen with the war in ukraine is that that in a sense has cemented those relations. I think even closer together in terms of the eu itself. Those well, that what you start to see is the cohesion when you have 27 countries now 28. Of course, in my time went from 27 to 28 and by 27 then you saw that the very public arguments because its a very public process in the European Union, everybody if they read the european press, if theyre interested, you can tell which position which countries are taking. And so and whos being difficult and whos not being difficult but it is the only place in the brussels where ambassador powers are seen to fail. If they dont find agreement in most places when an represents their country, it is in order to stick to their countries line to make sure that your countrys position is always first and foremost up there. But in brussels, if youre the one that holds out, youre in trouble and youre often in trouble not just with your colleagues. Youre often in trouble back home. So we would often repatriate issues away from other places to because these were ambassadors trained in the art finding agreement. Even now we have some challenging issues would have seen over probably in the last 24 hours with sanctions with hungary taking a different position. But they have found agreement and its just lowest common denominator its highest common factor a lot of the time but its agreement. And thats very special and to be in my view protected because its the only place that happens and nito operates in very much a similar yes you asked me an extremely alliance no one can argue we celebrated its anniversary when some people were predicting it would collapse. Some people see as in competition with, the eu. Ive always felt that a synergy there. Theyre both located in brussels for. A reason, frankly. What are your on that as you saw them then as high representative and perhaps now on how that is evolved in the past decade i spent a lot of time with the secretary of nato on regular meetings. I attended as high representative all the Foreign Ministers meetings and all the defense ministers meeting as of natos. So we very closely linked together there were obviously differences of membership and of issues that got in the way. Our collaboration at times but it was incredibly important that we saw the defense of europe and the connect between us and the support for defense issues being part and parcel of the same footprint. Partly done through the European Defense agency which i was also head of which did a of work on research and development that was relevant and appropriate for natos as well. What we learned we shared. We also did a of training Helicopter Training was useful in afghanistan, but also midair refueling, which became a big issue in the libya campaigns because a lot of countries of the European Union did have midair refueling capabilities or certainly between countries. The classic government problem of square holes and round nozzles that we could actually deal with by making sure that you could transfer that properly. Lots of different ways that made a difference to the approach that we take together and the collaboration between the two. So for me, it was very important. My successes have improved and strengthened that i think a great deal as well. I think those are really important and something we need to keep in mind very much in looking not just at the transatlantic relationship but as how europe works together itself. You the eu going from 7 to 28 and of course later back to 27 something nobody expected. And was a shock to so many of us and 16 when the uk voted for brexit and to leave the European Union and the reverberations of that are still being felt. Maybe you could give us some impressions on your thoughts as that happened, having been the first high representative of from the United Kingdom, of course and then seeing just a couple of years after you stepped down from that role, the uk leave the eu with brexit and how difficult thats been. We spoke often when i was in london about, how i often felt as as heading the us mission there a bit of a counselor working between european contacts, the european in london with at that time her majestys government to help overcome some of the the bitterness frankly that was seen about that. I know some of your personal thoughts, maybe youll share some of them with a broader audience. But what are your thoughts on on brexit . And perhaps that can segway us into some comments about the idea of Global Britain . Yeah. Mean its always fascinating to see any country do something unexpected. Its especially fascinating when its your own and the expectation everyone and i think actually from the people who were promoting brexit was that the end result would have been the opposite that they that they chose remain would have just won and didnt get lost and reflections that i think a lot of other countries have taken that is that if you dont promote what it you do when you dont make people understand the benefits of something, that it is not surprising, when it gets lost and. For a lot of people in my country this idea of taking back control from brussels was over there somewhere and regarded as this bureaucracy that things to you was very potent along with a feeling that they had not understood the benefits of being part of it. And those messages were turned into very clever slogans that undermined a sense the realities of what was the truth about being part of the single market, the capacity to be projecting British Values and ideas into a much bigger landscape called. The European Union. Being able to win policy terms on the table and have your ideas and your priorities captured and taken up by a whole continent. Those things were really, really important and got lost in that. I think it affected actually how other countries then viewed the idea of doing a referendum on the subject. So perhaps that was the positive that came out of it. In terms of global europe, now im a Global Britain man. You know, we have here a global europe, which includes britain because actually its about what britains relationship is to the continent in which it sits as much as in the global context that those who are trying to work out where britains lies still have to reckon with the relationship between britain and europe. You cant ignore it its there just off the coast and its big and its very important and its full of countries that share same values and ideals as the british do. So its its kind of, i think in the future to be about how far whichever government we get next time is able to manage relationship such that two things happen. One is that economically we recover as far as we can. The hit of brexit and we try and find ways to develop easier trade relations with europe because that would make whether or not there was an eu and i think secondly to develop in the counter sort of Foreign Policy and Security Defense how far links with europe and that sort of takes you into the Natural World are going to make a difference for britain in the future its not ever going be as easy as being part of the eu and i dont know if britain will ever be on the journey back into the eu. But time sure of its we need to be on the journey to stronger and deeper and better relationships with the eu and that will require the divorce to become now a benign relationship and for some of the bits sadness and anger that was felt to dissipate, i it in the context of the surprise for many european nations that the brits would do this. And in some contexts some of the things that were said at the time which were not helpful to building a new relationship, but times change. People move on, contact sports, carry on, diplomacy at its best will sit and work this out like the best of divorced parents who have to remember that were still part of a broader family together and nothing is reinforced that i think more than a. By the way, the us again has a role as a divorce counselor, but also because from the us perspective, having a coherent european in the broadest sense of attitude and behavior and collaboration really important for the future. I think thats so much the theme of our global europe. And as you rightly point and as i said repeatedly when i was in london for a year, the uk is part of europe. Geography does does matter, but yet we look together so far beyond our european or even eurasian borders to some of the other crises. Robert and i were talking a bit about some of the things you highlighted in your book. Thats right. It was it seemed to me that you had almost constant Crisis Management in addition to it, to else. And id like to go to to a couple of those because. I dont want them to to get downplayed at all. Because you were working on them so intensively as you were with these other issues, as you were dealing with ukraine. You were also in the last phases of negotiating the iran and i if you could talk to us a little bit about that and that and the difficulty of doing those negotiations. I was here at wilson on a state Department Fellowship in 2017 when i heard you talk about this and say, yeah, the agreement did what it said on the tin. In other words, it it was fulfilling the goals you set for it when negotiated. Tell us a little bit about those negotiations. Were you ever that you would not get that deal . And were you ever so fed up with countries that you thought you would walk away and that includes maybe the u. S. Every day. We felt we would never get the deal ten read can. If youre american ten is british. I always told students or young diplomat so i do a lot of talking to them if theyll have me, as it were, about things that, you know, ive learned and the first one about negotiations this decide what it is youre to do and stick to it dont add because the problem any negotiation is its rarely the end of the conversation or the discussions with any country, any organization, any person. Its the beginning. But if you cant get to agreement, one, you cant move on to agreement to. And there will always be people there will always be pressure who say to you, you should do more. You should take these issues as well. So decide what it is youre trying to do and this negotiation and stick to it is my lesson number. The biggest challenge that i had because i not for a second underestimate the role of the United States in actually getting this agreement. They were incredibly and the role ive already mentioned of secretary kerry. But Wendy Sherman and Jake Sullivan and bill burns and a whole range of your amazing diplomat aides were there to the deal was done but the role that i played perhaps more than anything as convener and chair of the negotiation was with the six countries the p5 plus one because the biggest before we even got to iranians was to develop a common policy and set of ideas between the six that they would stick to bearing in mind that with six countries russia china, the us france, germany, britain, there were different ideas of what was most important in a deal and what they needed for the deal to feel complete the us needed the most and. You could probably guess who needed the least. The point was we had to within that spectrum choose a position that everybody stuck to and it was the toughest position it was a position that the us was confident and comfortable with that remained the position and even during the beginnings of the crisis. Ukraine when i was flying from iran talks where russia was our partner turkey to stand in maidan and talk about what russia doing in ukraine . We never wavered from the countries agreeing and sticking to the same position. In the book i describe how we got to the interim agreement because its quite and its a bit dramatic and quite interesting. But also i felt that enough time had gone by that i could describe it in a bit more detail than i would. Moving on to the final agreements at point. But i was trying within that to show the importance of having a common position and that includes everything a just a tiny example every word has to work in six languages as well. It had to work in farsi and chinese and russian and french and and english and american english. Just occasionally was an issue too, because phrases are different. I mean, slightly different things. So lots and lots of work done in coordinating that. And yes, there were times when it was deeply you are locked away for sometimes days, occasionally weeks with people just trying to work through word by word, line by line with of technical experts in the context the Iran Nuclear Negotiations, because everything was technical centrifuges, what they did how you were going to deal with the heavy water reactor versus a light water reactor the changes that needed to be made had to be absolute clear and we had to be verifiable. The International Atomic Energy Authority had to be able to say, yes, iran is complying. And that meant the detail had to be worked out. So this was incredibly complicated, extremely difficult and very and there were plenty of times im sure when everybody in the room would rather have been anywhere else than where we were. But my goodness, i did four and a half years of negotiations both with the ahmadinejad and then the rouhani regime to try and get this done. And i dont regret a single day of it, but i regret with what came afterwards. I want to ask you a little bit about the arab spring, because occurred a couple of years, your watch and involved you in a way that some might not have anticipated as representative from the eu. Can you talk about that one of the things youre in you highlight in your book is the importance of building deep democracies and. Tell us a little bit about how you went about the negotiate the discussions that you had as the arab spring evolved. Well the first signs of the what we call the arab spring, they dont call it the arab spring because spring in that part of the world is not the spring we think of. Its actually dusty and difficult and hot winds blow across that are and so on but for us it meant something very particular. I had just finished building the service so it was five days old when the first demonstrations began. I had a budget for the first time and i could employ. Properly for the first time. Wed already done a year of work in doing that, as well as dealing with all the different issues and suddenly are confronted with something truly dramatic. And the first thing to say about it is that you dont ever know where these things are going to end, you might kind of roughly where theyre going, where they started, which was with the young vendor in tunisia called mohamed bouazizi, who set fire to himself. He couldnt get a permit because of the corruption that was taking place in his country and who died tragically a few weeks later of his injuries. And that that somehow set off this wind that blew across a number of not least egypt and libya when dramatic change happens anywhere, you hear the calls for life to be different have democracy and freedom to have a sense of as a young man in libya put it to me we want what you have which is democracy as a way of life. You think about it, you just do it. It is what it is. But that very quickly gets understandably into the call for elections and somehow the sense that democracy equals elections. When i think elections are the cherry on the icing on the cake, you have to bake the cake first or you have to pick the cake at the same time to create the underpinning elements of a democratic, which means whatever happens, it may shudder, but it stays. Democracy will carry on. And its things like civil, a free press, an independent judiciary, Police Service that works for you. The ability to have Political Parties who can trade their wares, who can talk about what they want to do and have a program and a platform and have Television Time and get known in the in the public arena to learn about the of opposition as well as the role of government and so on and so forth. Things that we understand, but we have taken years and years to grow. And i would say in those countries i come from a place where over 700 years ago we had magna carta, but until 16 years past, people like me couldnt vote. So democracy, the building of deep democracy takes time. Hopefully not 600 years, but takes and has to be developed, has to be underpinned by all of the things that make it work and trying to promote that is part of one thing that i feel very passionately about, which is that we have got to be prepared to stay places for the long term and actually that when crises erupt, they rarely come out of nowhere. They may feel like they come out of nowhere. To us, but theyre often born of decades of problems and issues and need time and energy to actually help and support them, develop and grow and change and thats really a significant part of the things that i learned in process. So for me, deep democracy is what were all trying to in order that as things develop elections become more and more able to be to be done in a way that we understand and we appreciate and which will give people real choices to rather than feeling they dont even know who it is they should be voting for. As i would often say, its not a straight line. It goes like a democracy. You just got to try and straighten it out as far as you can, but were all still on the journey and thats journey as i see it. So much of our focus, western diplomats as the European Union is, as the United States, what weve tried to do working with, lets say, the western balkans and integrating them into euroatlantic structures is focused on democracy. And yet some would say and weve experienced that our own democracies need, some work too, and have shown. Challenges, the challenges of democracy. Have we focused so much externally on democracy that weve missed at home in what are assumed to be stable and secure democracies threats to those democracies it is something you have to watch over whoever. You are however long and determined your democracy has been. You have to keep watch over it. You know, one of the debates in my country is about the role of referendums to make huge decisions that are arguably constitutional change and im with mrs. Thatcher on that she did not believe referendums should be used in that way. Neither do i. Equally when you think about how elections are conducted and how change takes place in any country, you have to watch over it. But when its been nurtured over decades, if not centuries, and its deep, as i said, it might shudder. But you kind of know you can get there. You may have to do a bit work on it, but its still there. The problem in countries where, its suddenly coming in to a new phase is that theres nothing underpinning. So its very easy for it to be kind of shift it in a direction thats not actually where a democratic process would take it. And what you also see in some parts of the world is that people like to get elected, they dont like to want to be elected again. They quite like to stay there. And so you see those kind of things happening. And so its really important that the process does exist. I would often say again, particularly young people all over the world, the point about democracy is that you can throw a government out having been in governments, been thrown out, you know, its important that people say, well, thank you very much, but weve done with you now were moving on and that that can happen. And thats a much a part of it as anything else. And requires opposition parties and parliamentary system for example, like my own to be really building up and ready to be a government in waiting and to be as it said in the british pound a loyal opposition to the parliamentary system to accept the results and so on and so forth. Its incredibly important that you look at it in the round and its not just about can i get elected . And once elected im saying, or can this group of people who maybe have the right, of course, to stand in elections, but if theyre all if theyre the only group, you know, then you miss out on the possibilities of what could have an educated populations to know. The Political Parties are to understand what they stand for. Thats all part of it. Its a good reminder of the title of your book. And then what i think it says, you know, i love this title because i think its the question that people ask themselves, but also that we maybe dont always ask soon enough in our Crisis Management, theres that initial response and reaction. And so you i have seen a lot of that, but we dont always, as we take those actions, think, where is this going to go and and then what will we need do . And is that has that been something that you have seen within your own service and with and within maybe our diplomat services . Were not asking that question at the right time. When something happens dramatically. And as i say, sometimes a feeling that it comes out of nowhere. You dont know where its going of. Course, you have to respond quickly to immediate. But the reason called on them. What is this is what i used to say a lot in the office was when you bring an idea of you know please the question and then what you know if we do this well and then what because the things never go the way you expect them to you know times of revolution and i try and talk about this in the book is this the headiness is a an atmosphere people think everything is possible and you can stand in a square in tahrir square, on down and feel that possibility. But, you know, its going to change and shift and be different. So you need to be ready to be able to at least anticipate the question. And then what to think about what could happen next and where this might go and are we going to do about it when it doesnt necessarily end up the way you expected or the way youd hoped . Because different forces are at work. And it does go back to this point about you have to go with it, you have to be prepared to stick with it and try and see through to at least point when things might change. The example i would give and i give in the book is somalia. When i first started out in 2009, the biggest facing us was piracy off the coast of somalia, 30,000 ships a year going through that particular huge of of water, many of them delivering food to poorest people on earth were being attacked by pirates. Young being offered 10,000 to capture a ship. And it was a massive issue, but it encompassed within it a whole range of different things. Young men were enticed to do because there was nothing in somalia had been a civil war for 22 years. In every one of those years, the eu had there trying to help and the is still there trying to help along with others but its a particular example of how you have to stick at it to begin to see the possible. When i went to mogadishu, which was an unusual thing to do because, people didnt go to mogadishu. The government controlled two square miles around the airport. That was it. So i flew into the airport on a un cargo plane, i think, or something and sat with the government while they were talking about elections the country and thinking well, you know after all these years, maybe this the beginning but everything to be thought about deterring the pirates capturing the pirates and then thinking about where do we imprison them, what facilities do we need for them . We want to rehabilitate these young men, we need training programs. We need what programs . If were going to push back alshabab, the terrorists in community, what are the communities going to need . And they needed fresh water. They needed health services. They needed everything. So you have to have a really fully comprehensive approach to it all and think about how were going to do this. And then what question, what are they going to need . So when the government of somalia, the president who has been reelected, was the president , i knew when mohammed says i need support and, help in my judicial system because we to build a department of justice. How are you going to help to do that and think across the spectrum as well as the long term we are lucky to have with us today catherine ashton, who just epitomizes global europe. What did as the first high representative Vice President of the european commission, leading europe in a new chapter of its engagement with the world, is written about this marvelous book. And i just want to thank you, cathy, because you also give to diplomacy and often misunderstood profession a set of skills you give it a real context through these insights, stories of what you did with partners, with allies, with great gumption, blazing a new trail for European Union and for diplomacy in the 21st century. So we thank you and the Wilson Center, we are so lucky to have you as part of our broad global europe team and i also want to thank you for that. Im going to put one last question and yall i know we didnt have have time for questions from the audience, but thats why afterwards theres a coffee. Im going to put one last question, because you were the first at so many things. Now and in your book you actually give little a little shout out to who are going to be the second at something. So what advice, would you like to give . So ive been i was the first woman to go to university in my family the first year i represent, the first woman britain ever sent to brussels and lots of firsts. It really matters to me that part of the job of being first is to make sure youre not the only. You have to have a second and it is responsibility of the first to make sure there is one. And thats about how you do the job and how you make it normal for there to be someone like you and how much you support and support that particular. The people who are coming through. For me it was about supporting women and diplomacy and it was doing very things. Ive always been involved in issues to make sure that women opportunity but very simple things make a difference because womens lives are very particular. Theyre to mens and they to think in different terms. So making small changes one of which, for example, was the time of appointing ambassadors so that they could get kids into school. Before the new semester began for some small. But if you if you are the chief carer of children which women still tend be its on your mind and you cant just abandon them lots and lots of small things that made a difference. But the biggest difference was people saw me i interviewed an appointed every single head of delegation for the eu. And when i took over the commission delegations there were, i think four or five women heads of delegation. When i left, there were 49. And the reason for that in part was they saw somebody who looked like them. So it really matters that we promote and support the second because then it is much easier for it to become just part and parcel that men and women bring different gifts and talents and skills as individuals and its the combination of men and women working together that is the best hope for democracy and diplomacy in the future. Cathy, thank you very much for joining us. Spontaneous round of applause. Well have wrap it up there. But as i said, for audience, if you have questions, theres an opportunity. Thank you so v so matt its wonderful to be with you and its a delight to be able to get to do this with you. And weve known each other for