all individuals who arrived at the southern border and ports of entry. that includes at least. the children are separated from their parents and the children are treated as unaccompanied child migrants, the other population of talked about earlier. they are put into the system in which they are transferred into the custody of a government agency called the office of refugee resettlement. lastately, that office, winter -- before the zero tolerance policy was limited, they did follow up calls with unaccompanied child migrants who previously been in the custody but released the sponsors throughout united states. they do a follow-up call at about 30 days of releasing them. last winter they called 7600 sponsors to follow up on these children. there were about 1500, a little lesson which they were not able to locate the children.

maybe the families did not answer the call -- >> good afternoon. i'm sitting down. good afternoon. lost our ambassador in the building but he has been retreat. we salute all of you managed to get through security and find this place. this is a standing room only crowd and reflects the quality of our guest. i hope the quality of the wilson center. i am jane harman, president and ceo of the wilson center. i'm often calling myself an escapee from united states congress, and what who was thrilled to be moderating this debate. earlier this month, i testified before the house foreign affairs before president trump announced hours draw from the joint comprehensive plan of action, or jcpoa. brief were one,

keep the deal. it ain't broke. two -- i appreciate that. makingere are merits the a side agreement with our european allies, sitting to my right, to improve video. three, transformation is failed but iran's behavior will not get easier to manage without a deal. four, there is language between his jcpoa and issues like north korea. in announcing the deal, president obama said the deal is not built on trust, it is built on verification. in my view, should the so-called summit between north korea and kim jong-unback on, will have learned our government does not always respect the deals to which we agree, and we

will have to fashion a deal which experts view as tougher that will bea and very hard to do given north korea's far more advanced nuclear program and its 70 years of obvious station -- off his withdrawing from the jcpoa is isolating the u.s. and making it harder for us to work with our allies on other challenges. stay tuned for a few questions over here. our allies are disappointed by the u.s. decision on the paris climate records and the abandonment of multilateral trade agreements. our allies, especially those in europe helped construct the world order after world war ii and we will pay a huge price if they moved to align elsewhere. the discussion begins.

we are blessed at the center to have lord baroness cathy ashton to chair our global europe plove program. she is the perfect person for the job. she is former director for the business and community. -- joining herom today, and we got him in the building, is ambassador david o'sullivan, to the served in a number of senior official post and the european public service for five decades. is that true? amb. o'sullivan: mo. -- no. three decades. jane: i was wondering what happened to my eyesight. including the head of the president'smission cabinet from 1999 to 2000,

secretary general of the european commission, 2000 to 2005. he has extensive trade experience as director general of trade, and chief negotiator for the dohan development around. he oversaw the launch of a number of free trade agreements, including the eu's agreement with south korea. before joining the commission he started his career three decades ago, not five, with the irish development -- department of foreign affairs and trade. 17977-1979. i get to moderate this discussion about the jcpoa and other issues affecting the alliance, and to learn from it. many of you know i call this place and intellectual candy store. well, welcome inside. for cathyt question ashton on iran. havshat the united states

withdrawn from the jcpoa, what is its future? can't survive without u.s. participation? as the eu received an indicator of iran's intention to remain in the agreement? ,aroness ashton: first of all sitting next to david o'sullivan i feel quite honored. he is somebody a great eminence. i can say that. me, dare iwork with say for me, although it never felt like that. jane: i work for you. baroness ashton: that will be the day. we all work for you, jane. with a question really is for the other nations involved in any jcpoa. u.s., russia, china, the france, germany and the u.k. who were the six countries.

my role in the whole of the negotiations was coordination and moving the negotiations forward. this was an international agreement and supported by the un security council. the uniqueness was in part that it brought russia and china, the u.s. and europe together to find a solution to a problem. i don't think there has ever been a discussion of that kind or negotiation of that kind. it has something inherently fascinating, interesting and really important about it. the question for those who remain, and david will have a greater in light into this discussion on the european union about this, is whether they feel able to continue with an agreement which loses an incredibly important partner, united states of america. and whether in fact the message

that it sends about international agreements to continue with it. there in mind the elements of the agreement -- bare in mind the elements of the agreement in iran are the economic ones, and economic agreements require business to engage in business will make business decisions based on what it believes is in its own best interest. all the challenges that come with the return of sanctions are very obvious and clear. so, not only will it be a question of whether nations decide to go, but of course whether it is practical to see it continue. jane: let me just add a question on that and then let see what ambassador o'sullivan would like to add to your question. is it not true the imposition of secondary sanctions, so-called secondary sanctions

against european countries that trade with iran in violation of the agreement or violation of the way the u.s. interpret the agreement has not happened yet? there is still a time period to run before that happens. is there any chance that what happened? baroness ashton: i can't predict what the discussions within the administration will be, and david, that might be something you're more familiar with and i am. amb. o'sullivan: thank you. thank you jane, and thank you for this opportunity. it is great to be besides cathy ashton, for whom i did work. it was a great privilege. i think the european position is very clear. it was decided and confirmed by the heads of state and government when they met on the weern balkan summit. as long as iran rescts inside the deal, the europeans will do everything in their power to keep this deal alive. as kathy says, the real question will be whether from an iranian

perspective, get the deal is completely emptied of any economic benefit they will be forced to say why are we doing this? i think the critical question as to what extent is it possible to maintain some continuing economic and commercial an event for iran from the deal, which is something the europeans are working on, and also the chinese and the russians and other countries. we need to see how that will be maintained. we have agreed to do a number of things at the european level. we brought back the blocking statute to provide legal protection for companies face with threats of penalties for sanctions. we are looking at investment bank investing. small and medium-sized companies trade. these of a kind of things people do in order to ensure some continuing economic return for iran as long as they remain compliant with the deal and their respect their commitment definitively and unequivocably

to cease the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons, which we believe is a very important security issue for the region, europe, and even more generally. jane: one of the unusual things i thought was the statement like our president before he backed out of the deal, that they were complying with the letter but not the spirit of the deal. the letter of the deal is the deal. the deal is only focused on nuclear weapons and looking at our senior vice president here thesaid repeatedly that deal was a transaction, nana transformation. we still have the option consistent with the deal with you of imposing sanctions, economic sanctions against iran for its maligned behavior outside the contours of the deal. right? baroness ashton: correct -- amb. o'sullivan: correct. following the president's

january announcement were intense discussions between the u.s. and the british, french and germans to see how we could sketch out a common understanding and address the other issues. i think those discussions went very far and you they were successful. where i think it ran at the difficulty was in the element of what is called the sunset clauses. i don't think that ithe right term. there are constraints on iran whic are time-limited and basically the u.s. was looking almost to change the terms of the deal through a supplementary agreement and that was an accessible to the europeans because we said clearly when president macri mishear the jcpoa is in itself -- president macron was her was something jcpoa that would not relent. -- including what happens when the constraints expire in the future, probably will not amend or try to renegotiate with the terms of the jcpoa, which has

cathy knows, it took a long time. jane: but progress was substantial on a side agreement for the president -- before the president decided to cancel our involvement. let's turn to trade, which i know is your strong suit, and maybe i will pose this question to you first. the u.s. trade relation with the eu have already been under stress with the trump administration's imposition, which is still delayed, of tariffs on steel and aluminum. now there is -- i do want to call it a threat, but i guess it is a threat, of secondary sanctions which we were just discussing. what the chances of a trade war between europe and the u.s.? amb. o'sullivan: i hope we will not see that. i don't think it is necessary or would be very productive. we are not happy with the prospect of tariffs on steel and

aluminum because we feel we have faced a common problem, overinvestment in china. we are more than willing to work with the administration. paris, aretoday, in trade negotiator has met with secretary ross to discuss this issue, but it's a meeting with ambassador rice hauser -- light hauser in the japanese counterpart on a trilateral approach. there is a little bit of schiphrea in this. we feel it is not justified to those additional tariffs or restrictions on legitimate european exports of steel and aluminum. most of the time i get confirmation these actually are high-quality, high-value tsteel which are important to american production facilities

and cannot be obtained in america. the are not produced here in many cases. we don't understand the logic of this and i hope, ovary wished for a permanent exemption. we will see with the president decides in the next 24 hours. i terrorists are imposed, fear we will exercise our right under the wto to have rebalancing tariffs on equivalent u.s. exports. this is not where we want to be. olstrum was clear after the ofting when i made an offer a positive agenda to this administration to look at how we can cooperate in the energy field, norms and standards, the wto to make it more effective and the possibility of a limited free trade deal which could involve taking tariffs on industrial products, particularly the 10% auto tariff, a particular concern to this administration. we could work on eliminating those if both sides are willing

to go to zero for industrial tariffs. jane: a threat was made last week but nothing seems to have come from it yet. amb. o'sullivan: if the opening of an investigation. u.s. -- many cities in the u.s. are manufacturing hubs for european cars. creators ande job opposing auto tariffs could risk a lot more u.s. jobs than it would say. amb. o'sullivan: i think they would be a lively debate on this issue. are not auto industry in favor of this measure. i think the investigation, the hearings, the submissions, i suspect without even foreign are telling you -- foreigners telling you it's a bad idea, many feel it would be counterproductive. jane: right. there are lots of cross-border manufacturing between the u.s. and canada and the u.s. and mexico, which is the primary

reason steel and aluminum tariffs on those countries were not put in place. there is a realization trade helps american jobs and others in the world, which is why most colleagues deal free and open trade is the better way to go. with some adjustments and certainly with the condemnation of the chinese theft of intellectual property, which the president has properly focused on. turning to some other topic, italy and brexit. let me ask you again, david o'sullivan, a question posed by robin wright, a prolific writer, another great womean. a part-time scholar at the wilson center and always brags about that, which makes us proud. "given events over the past year, brexit, angela merkel's weakening, the dangers to the

euro, spain's impending problems with populism, just how strong is europe today? how cohesive, durable, effective?" the flipside, how weak? amb. o'sullivan: that is not a question easily answer in 30 seconds. frankly, here in america -- i don't disagree with the issues you mentioned. brexit, italy. you have to step back and look at the durability of the european project and how it has consistently survived many crises in which it has been predicted it will fall apart. don't underestimate the extent of the commitment of our member states to this project. i will come back to brexit because it is a slight outlier on that for obvious reasons. if you look at the standing of the european union in opinion

polls across the 27 member states, it has never been higher. there is a lot of support for benefits of european immigration -- integration. there are problems. there seemed to be 27erhaps ultimately sovereign countries with electoral systems, economic system we have achieved a huge amount of integration, but the idea there are still huge differences between our countries. there are different electoral cycles, different economic cycles. this not quiteng for five decades, and even asked me in 1979 when i joined the european commission, we were nine countries. did not really even have a market. what i seear career as gifted 28 countries? what i see a euro for 19 countries? you can drive from helsinki to lisbon without having to show a

passport, change currency unless he stopped in denmark to get gas? this was the live and doctor, or an architect, all the same. the fact that students routinely spend one year of their undergraduate studies in another country. these are all fantastic achievements. people are not going to give this up very quickly. brexit is the outlier because i think in the case of the u.k., but i believe that to kathy, but there is always the hesitation about the -- what was the nature of the european project. that, i think, set the u.k. apart. we have the unfortunate decision to leave her which we regret. it is a loss for us. brexit has issue of turned into a problem for the u.k. itself them for the 27 who i think have taken a sank would

view that this will happen, but i think the u.k. hasn't quite figured out how it will work. question ofst eu this kind. italy has been in the news. what are the chances that italy abandons the eu -- of euro, or abandons the eu? amb. o'sullivan: zero. jane: why is the stock market falling? the presidentn: of the commission told me once that in the middle of the euro crisis, he had a breakfast with 16 of the chief economist of the banks in europe. breakfast, i the think you told me this was in 2011, and he said to them, how many of you think the euro will be there in a years time? one person put up their hand. that was in 2011. the euro is still there now. believe me, italy, it would not make any economic sense for italy to leave the euro. less to leave the eu.

this is not what the people are voting for in these elections. youed, there is no plan to -- to leave the euro as part of the platform of the movement. they realize it would not be elected really popular. -- electoral he popular. electorally popular. we are witnessing. if you look at the -- they're interesting numbers in the financial times on supporting italy for the eu and the euro, ad it is still fairly solidly majority. of course, there is somewhat dissolution by the refugee crisis and the fact that they feel the rest of europe did not offer the degree of solidarity that we should have. i think there is a certain disillusionment. there's no smugness or complacency on my part on what is happening in italy. the chances that they will leave the euro or the eu, in my view,

our next to zero. jane: you just modified it. it was zero. amb. o'sullivan: zero. jane: ok. we will hold you to it. you will be back. talking about populism and democracy under challenge, cathy ashton, let's talk about hungary and poland of changes of government that most people would think move away from democracy. what comments do you have? baroness ashton: i think, as david said, there is a difference we have to think about between this content -- discontent. it is caught up in a wave of what we call populism to it i would define it as people looking for quick or simple answers to often deep and complex problems. especially when they feel that those solutions have been taken away from them and are in the hands of a group of people who

are not even in their own country, but somewhere else. the classic problem. itself withtes political movements who then offer solutions and make people feel that perhaps there is a way they could be a strong nation and tackle the underlying issues in a populist way. if you talk to anyone looking seriously and deeply at the exactlyat you find is as david said. people may rail against it and be cross and angry and fed up and want to blame, but they are not much in the mood to actually leave. britain was the exception to that, for a whole set of circumstances. but in the rest of the european union, you will find that people are still very wedded to the project. in hungary and poland, i think the issues for all of us are to make sure that democracy works,

to make sure that the values of dearuropean union holds and believes in are solidly understood and are recognized to be the requirement of being part of the union. though that is difficult to toice in any real sense, make it clear, make it known, and be able to collaboratively work together to try and persuade nations or persuade governments, or persuade individuals to move away from it. when you meet with the year p.m. union it is 28 liters who come into a room alone. they sit together -- i was there, because i represented an element of what they are doing. at there no substitutes table. they try to work through and fresh out problems. when they arrive in the room, they are still domestic politicians with all of the

challenges and worries of being that. some in coalitions that are difficult to manage, some with rather huge problems and crises within their own domestic circumstances. they don't just drop that at the door. they bring that with them. great things is to watch how they work through the problems. they don't find solutions always quickly, but they work towards finding those solutions that can help europe deal with the problems it faces. jane: see why i said she is wise? she can integrate information like that in a way that gives us hope. are you hopeful that poland and a hungary led by populist leaders who are moving their countries away from served -- certain candidates of democracy with a small d can learn through this eu process and modify their behavior? baroness ashton: i am not

unrealistic about the challenges of that. i am not blind to the issues that will be necessarily faced as a consequence of thinking about all that. but if you believe in the idea that collaboration on our continent is about also being prepared to accept the rules that go with it, then ultimately nudging along, doing things gently, or simply the democratic process itself, which i am a huge believer in, i know it gets knocked, but democracy where people make informed choices is the best thing we have got. in the end, that will be what will be sufficient, i believe, to make sure europe goes forward. jane: i sure hope that exact statement and that exact process could be helpful in the united states. we need more collaboration and bipartisanship. something the wilson center prizes are my final question is on russia.

small little question. and the threat to the eu posed by russia. let me put three issues on the table. one, ukraine. where yesterday, there was a murder of a russian journalist and allegations that russia did this, plus all the issues around theher russia is observing men's accord agreement. that is one. second, the nerve gas attack in the nerve agent attack in it -- butere again, attack clearly has penetrated to russia. handled brilliantly by the british law enforcement authorities. election meddling. obviously and our country, but clearly in the elections in france. very adroit in forwarding the threat. how seriously does the eu take this threat?

what is or can the eu do about the threat? baroness ashton: i will start. i'm sure david will have comments about how europe is currently looking at that within the context of the foreign affairs. europe shares landmass with russia. one of the big challenges for europe as -- in the future is what is the relationship with russia going to look like? not just today but in 20 years time, 25 years time. those who are serious about aboutng strategically europe must also be serious about thinking strategically about what does that mean for the relationship with russia, both politically and economically? bearing in mind that some countries are wholly dependent on russia for its energy supply. others are nearly wholly dependent on energy. place butation takes nonetheless, it will continue to be a major player.

there are economic links that exist with many nations with russia. onethat we have had experience, which was the jcpoa, of a political relationship with russia that despite the fact that the ukraine crisis is going on, at the same time, we were continuing to be able to work with them. leads to going to a massive nation in 20 years time, what will be the relationship we would wish to have with russia? not in any way to discount the challenges we currently face. i don't know about the journalist emma because there is a story that he is still alive. we will leave that out. certainly what happened in salisbury, and i said this already over the last few days, we were deeply concerned about what happened in this beautiful cathedral town of salisbury, and to this community.

and the two individuals concerned. and very proud of the support we got from my european colleagues and from this country as well. very, very important to be clear that we stand together in these times that are ver critical when you consider what actually happened, and what might have happened. jane: there was a collective response by many countries. baroness ashton: absolutely. a very big response from this country. that is important because there are no issues we face that we can all face alone. i can't think of an issue that anyone nation can tackle alone. by definition, required to collaborate as much as we can. if we are to find solutions to any of the problems that we are confronted with of any kind. broader question about how russia operates and behaves with nations who are not allowed to exercise their sovereignty in the way they

wish. ukraine is an example. of ensuring that we stand together in saying that is unacceptable. countries should make choices. we want countries who are bordering russia to have a good relationship with russia. it is important to them. economic plays, politically. there are minority groups within their countries, many have family and friend connections. these are all positive. it is about people to people. that does not mean that any country can come in and interfere in the way that russia has done. that is incredibly significant and important. its strategy,lops which i hope will be in collaboration with the united states, it will be about both the immediate and trying to that exist problems in the east of ukraine. and the longer term which is how does this relationship that has all of these different challenges, gets replaced by a

relationship that actually we can see is going to be a great benefit to them and us? jane: ambassador o'sullivan? i think kathyn: summed it up masterfully. we have this slightly schizophrenic attitude, which i think you have any united states as well. which is we need to beat half on the things that russia does that we disagree with, whether that is the annexation of the crime area or interfering in eastern ukraine. or the chemical attack in the u.k. about thein ukraine journalist seems to be more bizarre than we thought it was. was a ukrainian secret service operation. i don't know the details. jane: i haven't read the tweets. on thosellivan: issues, we need to beat half. that is why we have kept transatlantic unity on the sanctions. we keep a very strong transatlantic common position about ukraine and the process.

on the other hand, there are times when we need to cooperate. find some common ground. we need russia to be a permanent member of the security council. there is always going to be the slightly ambivalent approach. you can't -- you can't see it as black and white. excellent friends with russia or permanent confrontation with no possibility everything out and trying to find common ground on issues where this can still be useful. this the furniture approach which is perhaps not intellectually satisfying, but it is the only way we will go forward. jane: as everyone in this audience knows, we talk to russia all during the cold war. or i guess, the soviet union during the cold water we have an active project here at the wilson center on the arctic and russia in the united states have aligned is -- aligned interests atlanticespects in the

which is now a huge ocean because of the melting of the polarized caps. it might become the transportation channel between asia and europe. we have 15 minutes. there is a hard stop at 3:00. the smart people in this audience need to show off. name and yourour affiliation and ask a question. don't make a speech or we will get to as many of you as possible. the man in the middle in the plaid shirt. thank you for a much. my name is david. i represent georgian television station. i would like to follow up a question on russia. -- thestion is about european union and the united states support this nonrecognition policy. of russian occupied territories we saw yesterday that the syrian regime is under pressure. i wonder if you could give me

your reaction? my next question is about nato enlargement for countries who tried to get to anlliance. this is very important that they speak in one voice. however, up to this disagreement, and some disagreements between washington and brussels, do you think there will be some factors? jane: thank you. you got away with two questions. for those who follow, one question please. baroness ashton: i will start. russia has sought recognition, as you know, before. and has been spectacularly unsuccessful in recognition for the territories in georgia. it is very simple, the policies of the u.s. and europe aligned, which is georgia is a nation with its own territorial integrity.

of nato, i am not familiar as to how the debates are taking place, but one of the big questions has always been, how far does nato and large and what are the issues when you do have countries where there is thea question mark over integrity of the quick dash of the country, but a reality on the ground? which makes it more complicated. that is why it is done in that way. concerned,eorgia is i think georgia needs to keep pressing and trying to move forward and being clear about its off as a nation. we have to support them. jane: other questions? second row right here. one question, please. >> good afternoon. my question is on iran.

ae jcpoa was endorsed by resolution. yet, we do not see any discussions in new york. why do you think it is happening? can you comment also on pompeo's speech and his requirements for iran? thank you so much. i'm sure there: are discussions and debates going on in new york. whether they are being done in a they --ormat or not, there will be discussions because as you rightly identified, the security council was the place from which the agreement came. the security council since gave the remit. ofwas that particular group countries and it was plus germany because the original negotiation that had started have been european ones. many years ago. that is where that comes from. i don't think the security

council consider discussing it in the same way because it was decided not to carry on. there is much point in having that discussion. --tainly, with secretary cap secretary pompeo's remarks, he has come up with a long and detailed list that is very much about dramatically trying to add to the issues that were begun by the jcpoa. which as i have always indicated, was specifically to do one thing. in thecall the boulder doorway. we couldn't do anything else until we had done that. we were very worried about that. once that was done, it was at the end of what might be discussions or agreements or all of the other issues which are incredibly important, especially in the region. rather, i hoped it would be the beginning of more work that could be done to try and tackle

some of the questions of the u.s. has raised. his list ofced where it goes, i am not sure. at least he has been clear about what the expectations might be. it will be interesting in the context of what happens because are different, but they carry elements of similarity and the expectations i think on how tough an agreement could we have with north korea is in a sense given by how tough an agreement might be expected of iran. korea, as irth said, has a fully developed nuclear program. of a history of 70 years office kitchen. which is a longer record of malign behavior then iran had. anybody in the back? way in the back on the aisle. yes. >> west of america.

the relationship between turkey and the european union is not good. what can you say about the relation -- the future relationship? will turkey be a member of the union or not? [laughter] we have nevern: had an enlargement negotiation that failed other than the choice of the country. norway is the case in point where twice they negotiated potential membership and then decided they would not go through with it. the history of negotiations would lead you to conclude that we should succeed. having said that, to be very frank, the direction of travel makes it more complicated. it has become more complicated in recent years. beenegotiations have not particularly successful because

of the cup location of the separate issue that continues to bedevil the relationship. i think it is true to say that while previous negotiations have almost inevitably ended in success, i think this one is much more problematic. we are -- the negotiations are still formally speaking. the option is still there. the hurdles which we face in the relationship means this is not something that will happen very quickly, in my view. jane: front row. hi, doug palmer with politico. i wanted to ask about secretary sanctions on european countries. -- companies. if european companies are hit with secretary sanctions, how would the eu respond to that? would there be a potential case of the wto that could be brought or are there other tools that you would use to respond? amb. o'sullivan: we are not

there yet. i don't want to speculate now publicly in too much detail. we made the announcement, which we made in sofia and the run-up to it. we can avoid that situation. going to be, as we said earlier, a critical issue. for how to maintain some economic and commercial benefit from iran to this deal, since i was the trade offered. they have accepted, for other critics there are of this deal, it is the most rigorous the -- rigorous, the most invasive, intrusive, monetary and expect -- inspection system that has been ever agree to. that was hard for the iranians to accept. obviously, the quid pro quo was that they would see improvement in the economic relationship with europe and the rest of the world. we will do all we can to ensure, as long as they comply with the

very tough conditions of the jcpoa with regard to the nuclear matter. we will do all we can to make sure that the rest of us continue to deliver the other part. jane: thank you. the founder of our middle east many of us were involved in 2007, and springing -- from prison where she was she was in total isolated confinement after being arrested while visiting her mother. talking about the prison, the u.s. sanctions among a number of people -- if someone could tell prison?ne sanctions a ambassador -- mr.

ambassador, you mentioned iran should comply with its part of the jcpoa. the supreme leader made conditions two days ago for the european. among it, he said the european , in doing business with us. of course, he immediately added, i don't trust them. to be part ofant the jcpoa, they have to do that. and he also made it clear that iran is not going to negotiate over other issues. it is the presence in the middle east, and so on. we know that the europeans and the iranians have en incussing yen and the role yemen.

the iranians have come out with it and the europeans have accepted that these negotiations have been going on. today, there was an interesting story out of syria. thee was a pressure that iranians should plant in syria. the syrian government is giving 2000 of itsto over foreign -- of the foreigners. who are the foreigners? them as citizens, how can you -- jane: the question is to comment on his current developments. amb. o'sullivan: i think the europeans will live up to their commitment in the agreement. of course, the key point, there will be business choices that are made. since we are market economies, we are not in a position to command businesses to do business or to make certain business choices. that will be -- it is what the

market decides in the next few months. which will ultimately determine whether iran feels it is still getting the economic value out of this arrangement or do believe there are ways in which we can facilitate that. note are other companies, necessarily european command who don't trade heavily with the u.s. who will not be faced with the choice of trading with iran or having dealings in the united states. on the other issues, i think one of the great regrets on the european side is that we fear that the u.s. decision may make it more difficult to move forward on the other issues. speech saidcron that very quickly to congress where he had this four pillar approach. the first was the jcpoa, to preserve it. to put it to one side. thenet's try to work on the other issues. perhaps the immediate consequence of the united states decision is to make it more difficult it -- difficult to

hold that a run other issues. time will tell. theness ashton: while europeans are busy using this energy to work out how to do this, they are not using that energy to try and look at the other issues of genuine and reasonable concern to the united states. i would argue even more to the countries of the region. girl., i am a simple i don't see what you rip up something that works. and event everyone scrambles to deal with that. rather than leaving that, assessing it for what it is, it does what it says on the can, i dold say 10, but it doesn't anything. but it works. then you move on and try to tackle all the other questions as opposed to where we are now. as a simple woman, i don't understand the logic. was the feeling

behind my comment. if it ain't broke. we will take one more question from the audience, the final question will be our senior vice president on the side of her there. >> thank you. i have a question for mrs. ashton. the european countries are concerned about the steps that the trump administration takes in international politics. how should the european union --ct to what what the steps the transatlantic relations are not threatened very much? suchhould the eu react as to what steps the trump administration is taking on international politics or what is happening with the withdrawals in iran? theness ashton: transatlantic relationship is incredibly deep, incredibly

important to the united states and to europe. and i think we should cherish it, and we should look after it. and that doesn't mean there will be times and it, when things go in directions that we think are not necessarily what we would like to see, and it doesn't mean we won't get challenged and it doesn't mean we won't wobble. but it is fundamental and important to all of us. all of us here have a responsibility to cherish it and make it work. and to continue to have the sort of dialogue where we may not agree, where we may have deep and difficult issues, but where we continue to try to resolve them. jane: we are pressed for time. rob?

union is aropean manifestation of the jeffersonian vision that democratic societies with free markets make conflict between states much less likely. and with russia, the defining issue for european security pursuing are not containment poly cotton -- policy, essentially. my question is, does that containment policy need to be wedded with a vision of what are the possibilities for russia, if over time russia would mellow and become a different kind of society. we have not seen much of a positive vision, given that there is some kind of civil society in russia, what is the compliance of russia to these norms? >> i think that is a topic for another meeting. president putin would often talk about his vision for an be amic deal, which would

way of russia and europe collaborating economically. and that is interesting, to begin to think about what this all might look like. what the president has said in russia, in his may declarations he has talked a lot about the economy, about health, education, all the things that we all talk about all the time in the context of what we want for our people and our nation, and he is investing hugely in that. thethat may be, and effect, opportunity to try and find ways in which we begin to think about the future relationship with russia, which is about the collaboration of people and is about working on issues that benefit europe, in terms of the economy. away in't mean moving the slightest from issues of concern, especially on security.

we don't think there is an opportunity to try and think -- we do think there is an opportunity to try and think more effectively about that relationship moving forward. question, and we were working on that prior to the annexation of crimea. i was the chief negotiator on what was meant to be a new trade deal between the european union and russia. we were investing. we even had a program of modernization to help russia diversify their industry. and we were very optimistic at thatoint in the mid--2000s we could have a great relationship with russia, that would make it a more prosperous and more successful country in terms of what he generally delivers to its people, but also a very important partner in the region. and that was all very much on track until mr. putin decided to go differently. russia was a strategic partner for europe. it no longer is, by virtue of the choices of mr. putin,

notably the annexation of crimea. we would love to think we could get took place to get back to that, for all the reasons we indicated read and economic development, one of the tragedies for the russian people is that the economy is actually going down. well president putin said this is a big priority for him, but what he is actually doing in terms of his foreign policy is to make his economy less successful than it could be if we had a normal relationship with putin. a that last question was perfect wilson center question, and it was in the will sony and tradition.n woodrow wilson wanted to think of the league of nation, -- league of nations, to include people not to exclude people. there was hope in the 1990's the russia would join the alliance in some form, and we want to

keep the dialogue going. cannon, was physically here for a time and part of his library is here. i'm sure you agree with me, or i doubt you disagree with my notion that we have an intellectual candy store here. we are graced by people who know everything, and by audiences who are extremely bright and interested in foreign and world policy. to our speakers. kathy is coming back in two weeks. she is off to britain right now, to fix brexit. [laughter] weeks, is fixed in two she will be back. i made that up. that's fake news. and to ambassador o'sullivan, you are welcome here at anytime. thank you all. [applause]