Catherine to join us today. She served as the European 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 CentersSlater 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