Contradictory reactions. It is not easy to keep one's balance in the face of ongoing developments in the Mediterranean countries of the Arab spring. Reactions within the EU are in a state of flux. Some have expressed concern and disillusionment with regard to a number of unacceptable deviations that have occurred in Egypt, and uncertainties surrounding the final outcome of the conflict in Libya and the election results in Tunisia. Others have pointed out that there has never been a revolution without a number of debatable developments and a certain level of violence (Europe has had the same experience). At the same time, at the other end of the spectrum, there is the impression that the EU tends to sermonise, which can be rather annoying.

Their freedom is theirs alone. Expectations in some instances have undoubtedly been excessive, as if dictatorial regimes can be transformed into western-style democracies overnight, respecting western criteria and principles. The EU as it is, however, cannot object if certain choices in these countries do not correspond to the convictions of one or other of the political parties in our countries or to the wishes expressed by European observers. Obviously, it is indispensable that there should be a reaction to events such as the killing of the Copts in Egypt. It is also normal that there should be concerns about how the elections are carried out in a country that has barely re-conquered its freedom, all the more when it is that country that makes the request. Nonetheless, the warnings and criticism about the different movements outlining their current or future intentions is, in my opinion, already going too far for the EU as a whole. It is obvious that any European political movement, body or pressure group should be allowed to express its opinion on its own behalf. It is also quite normal that there are concerns about the situation regarding women. It is true that the main Tunisian political force that has emerged from the elections intends to reintroduce polygamy and it is normal that this intention is condemned. I would even say that it is essential for all political or European pressure groups to express their condemnation - but the freedom conquered by these countries must be used as those countries see fit.

Mutual commitments and justifiable satisfaction. It is obvious that the EU is also entirely free to behave as it sees fit. The agreements that it will conclude with these countries must be based upon reciprocity and mutual commitments for political aspects and principles. It is clear that, at a domestic level, Europe will continue to advocate freedom for women and religion but through its determination and not by contractual commitments, which would not be reciprocal. Mediterranean third countries have the right to decide on the regimes they want themselves, their mode of life and their constitutions - but so does the EU. These comments obviously do not concern other aspects, such as those in the economic field or agreements to be concluded and cooperation to be defined, where the “mutual” factor is posed in a completely different way and the EU's commitments will logically be those that prevail.

Community institutions have expressed on numerous occasions their congratulations and enthusiasm for democratic developments in non-EU southern Mediterranean countries. This is understandable and justified because what has happened represents a turning point and Europe can but be delighted with any progress in freedom and democracy, even more so given that this progress has been made in countries very close to us from a geographical and historical point of view. It should not be forgotten that the EU was partly responsible for what went on in the previous regimes.

Taking account of the real situation. As a simple observer, it would be easy for me to join in the choir of congratulations and consider that positive developments, particularly freedom and democracy are now firmly established everywhere. The real situation, however, does not always correspond to what one would like or what one imagines within a large part of the European Parliament and among human rights activists. The latter denounce any infringement of their principles and they are quite right and even have the duty to do so. Nonetheless, it should also be understood why Muslim organisations, which were for so long banned and persecuted in their countries, are currently receiving such broad support from those who share the same faith. We also need to admit that the way in which one responds on the ground is sometimes quite different to behaviour based on the criteria advocated by Brussels and Strasbourg. It is much easier to preach from afar than when you are in the middle of events as they unfold. How many sermons and impeccable reasoning have been given on the way in which Colonel Gaddafi was eliminated? It is, however, more difficult to reflect upon things when one is in the thick of it, aged 20 and armed, and when many of your friends have been killed (we still don't even know on which side a number of those killed were on).

Conclusions for the future. These considerations are perhaps slightly confused but should, however, help towards developing a number of suggestions and rules for behaviour. To be discussed on Thursday. (FR/trans/fl)