At the Lisbon Summit, the EU carried out a sort of "examination of conscience", though it is still insufficient and preliminary, on its behaviour in the Western Balkans and the results obtained. We are still far from true clarity on the real situation in the tormented region, as the truth is hard to admit. We see it here and there between the lines, and the heads of government - cornered between the brutal and approximate reprimands of the Americans and hesitation over being totally frank - still use a cautious and allusive vocabulary. They nonetheless acknowledged in Lisbon, for the first time at their level, that something must change, and fast, not only in the behaviour of the international community and the EU itself but also in the behaviour of the populations concerned and above all their representatives.

The unnecessary multiplication of different bodies, the confusion of responsibility, the absence of coordination and the lack of coherence had already been denounced by the Santer Committee as it came to its end, in a frank and harsh language to which this Commission had not accustomed us. At present, the "plethora of actors" has been denounced by the heads of government and Javier Solana has been invited to put some order in all this. It is a shame that some direct responsibilities of the EU have been passed over in silence, for example, the delay in implementing the Agency for rebuilding, caused first of all by the quarrel over the location of its head office (and by the half-way solution chosen, with the Salonica/Pristina pair) and now by the inappropriate linguistic sensitivity of Spain (the EU languages system is a very serious affair and demands the greatest respect, but in this case efficiency must take primacy over pride). This said, the American reproaches and their tone appear arrogant. The United States should not forget that the ecological disaster and the economic difficulties of the area as a whole have their main origin in the destruction of navigation in the Danube and in the laying waste of chemicals and pharmaceuticals factories and oil refineries. Ms Albright takes a pride in the "military victory". The effects of this "victory" could perhaps encourage her to be less triumphant at a time when Milosevic is still in power and the EU is endeavouring to rekindle links with the "civil society" of Serbia.

But there is a remedy to these failings and shortcomings, and the West could quite rapidly address the situation. The real obstacle, on which the veil is only just being timidly lifted, lies in the behaviour of the populations or at least in a large part of their leaders. Economic recovery and the creation of administrative and civil structures appear to be their last concern. Most only seem concerned about two things: maintaining hatred against one's neighbour and resuming the fighting; obtaining the largest amount possible in financial aid. The determination to re-establish the bases of civil life is not very obvious. The main task of the international forces in Kosovo consists in protecting some against the hostile intentions of the others, and trying to set up something that resembles a justice administration to put an end to the reign of impunity.

Javier Solana, we believe, too easily justifies this situation when he sees it is impossible to claim that those who have done nothing but hate each other for centuries will be able to love each other. Such declarations are an insult to the very basis of European construction, whose reason for being and priority goal was to reconcile countries that had just been torn apart in the bloodiest and most painful war that the world had ever known. It is true, we cannot expect there to be love immediately, but one can hope en end will be put to the spirit of vengeance and crime, mainly for those who hope to come closer to the EU. The most generous financing will be to no avail if mentalities do not change. To the contrary, it can even turn out counter-productive.

On this point also, one official personality dared cast doubt on the effectiveness of some funding schemes in this part of the world. Carl Bildt, special representative for the Balkans of the United Nations Secretary General, declared: "As I see it, we have failed in Bosnia, at the economic level, no doubt because we have paid too much money out. The Bosnian officials concluded that we would do everything for them. They did not even have to concern themselves with rebuilding the economy". Be careful not to make the same mistake elsewhere. The heads of government called for an "immediate" plan for decontaminating the Danube. This is fully justified and the EU should pay what it ought to pay. But there is nothing to justify the EU continuing to pay in Bosnia for spending that should naturally be up to the inhabitants to pay. And nothing warrants indefinite payments being continued in Kosovo if, on the other side, no determination is shown to lay the foundations of a civilisation that complies with the principles and aims for which Europe intervened in the first place. Ferdinando Riccardi