132 SEM 14 E
ROSE-ROTH
132 SEM 14 E
Original: English
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
85TH ROSE-ROTH SEMINAR
SEMINAR REPORT
Security and Democratisation in the Western Balkans: Consolidating Stability, Pushing Reforms
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
18-20 March 2014
www.nato-pa.int May 2014
This Seminar Report is presented for information only and does not necessarily represent the official view of the Assembly. This report was prepared by Ethan Corbin, Director of the Defence and Security Committee.
I. Introduction
1. NATO parliamentarians, leading officials from throughout the Western Balkans, and key members of the international community gathered in Sarajevo from 18-20 March 2014 for the 85thRoseRoth Seminar. The conference focused on continued efforts to consolidate stability and encourage reforms to establish durable security and democratization in South-Eastern Europe. As Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) prepares for general elections in the autumn, many experts in the international community denounced a damaging stalemate and sounded the alarm bell for renewed attention and momentum towards essential political and security reforms.
2. The conference was well attended by the principal political figures in BosniaandHerzegovina, all of whom recognised that there was clearly still significant progress to be made. While there was a clear diversity of opinions on how to move the country forward and whether the international community needed a more robust or, on the contrary, a lighter approach, Vjekoslav Bevanda, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of BiH, echoed many by stating that, “constitutional reform is the utmost condition to meet the necessary EU criteria and create equality for all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Others proposed a review of the original Dayton framework, from which many felt BiH had strayed in the past decade.
3. All participants, from NATO representatives to Bosnian politicians to invited academics agreed that revitalising the reform agenda in Bosnia and Herzegovina with an eye toward EuroAtlantic integration was the right way forward for the country. Improving state political, economic, and security institutions along EU and NATO norms and standards would help the country as a whole move forward. As Milorad Zivkovic, the Speaker of the HouseofRepresentatives of BiH, stated quite clearly: “Process is more important than membership. Those in Bosnia and Herzegovina who are sceptical about membership in NATO can share in the objective of reaching NATO standards and activating MAP”, the MembershipActionPlan which NATO granted Sarajevo in 2010 on the condition that it resolves the issue of defence property ownership. The prevailing sentiment throughout the seminar was that such a process would be an absolute benefit for all of the Western Balkans.
4. The situation in Kosovo was also discussed. Seminar participants noted that the impressive progress achieved in EU-mediated talks between Pristina and Belgrade in just a year since the signing of an historic agreement on normalization was cause for optimism and a transformative development in the region. While serious challenges remained, particularly concerning the rights and inclusion of the Kosovo Serb population, all speakers and participants saluted the political courage demonstrated by leaders in Pristina and Belgrade, as well as the European Union’s leadership. The seminar ended with all sides encouraging continued efforts to bring about significant security sector, political, and economic reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
II. Opening Session
5. The 85th Rose-Roth Seminar was heralded by all attending as taking place during a critical crossroads for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The short welcome by Bozo Ljubic, the Head of the Delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATOPA), set the foreboding tone of the seminar. The political crisis that had erupted into civilunrest in the months just prior to the seminar, Ljubic noted, was very serious, but, “crises are a permanent state of affairs in BiH since Dayton.” Ljubic surmised that BiH had still not become a functioning state as multiple political, economic, and security problems persist. Noting that integration into the EU and an activation of NATO MAP were the only way forward, he warned all present that radical domestic reforms were needed to restore the population of BiH’s confidence in state institutions. The degradation of the structures and principles in place in BiH from the DaytonAccords was a recurring theme.
6. Former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Lord Ashdown laid bare his pessimism by exclaiming that Bosnia is: “sinking deeper and deeper into a black hole of dysfunctionality, division and corruption, while its neighbours move forward to a European future which is increasingly beyond Bosnia’s reach.” He noted that BiH had lamentable statistics in all sectors: growth rates, industrial production, an foreign direct investment are plummeting; high unemployment affects all age and gender brackets; and the business and political sectors tout the highest corruption rates in Europe. To push Bosnia and Herzegovina back on the path to reform and prosperity, Ashdown urged the country’s leaders to put the “politics of jobs, health, education and rule of law before the politics of ethnicity and division” and the international community to return to a more active form of engagement.
7. Broadening the discussion to set the problems facing BiH in a European context, Milorad Zivkovic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of BiH, added that: “A permanently stable Europe is impossible without a permanently stable Western Balkans; and a permanently stable Western Balkans is impossible without a stable Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The assistance and frameworks set by NATO and EUFOR would help shape institutions for future stability. As such, a critical defence review is needed in BiH to understand the best way forward for effective security sector reform.
8. Referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, General Rapporteur for the Defence and Security Committee at the NATO PA, Julio Miranda Calha (Portugal), said that: “Integration into NATO and the EU can help bring about better economic opportunities, societies free from corruption and organized crime, and an efficient political system […] But, in the end, the prime responsibility for reaching these goals lies not with NATO or the EU, but with local decisionmakers.” The importance of local political responsibility was echoed by Lord Ashdown, as he noted that local politicians must serve the broader population at the expense of their own personal ambitions and furthering policies that foster ethnic and confessional divisions. This was the only way to stop the country from the dangerous backsliding that it has been experiencing over the past decade.
9. The divisions between the Bosnian political elite and the international community tasked with helping bring about the reforms necessary for peace, stability, and prosperity in BiH was evident in all of the presentations of the opening session: the large, expensive bureaucracies in place since Dayton were not only hard to prop-up and maintain, but bringing about the substantive change to them needed for genuine reform was presented as a daunting task. Further, as RankoKrivokapic, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE and Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro noted, corruption and organized crime plague all of the countries, BiH in particular, “this adds yet another hurdle to the task” of bringing stability and prosperity to the region. Strategic reengagement by the international community to find new avenues to partner with local politicians in the country was seen by all as the only way forward for BiH.
10. A lively discussion followed the opening session panelists’ presentations. A Croatian representative noted that, after the Ukraine, BiH was the least stable country in Europe at the moment and that “BiH must take its own path forward and be responsible for its own future.” This, he noted, was the only real way out of the current crisis. A Serbian representative then noted that the region still needs a considerable amount of assistance from the international community, particularly the EU, to fight persistent corruption and organized crime. Other delegates noted that the younger generation in BiH needed to be better incorporated into the vision for the future of the country, as they currently felt marginalized by lack of opportunity and crushing unemployment. A representative from the BiH noted that, while it was difficult to be listening to such criticism, there was encouragement to be found in the idea that the international community was willing to continue to assist BiH.
III. Session I – prospects for eu and nato enlargement in the western balkans
A. Panel 1: A Political View
11. The first panel of the first session assembled international experts to give a political view of the prospects for EU and NATO enlargement in the Western Balkans. The panel consisted of: Renzo Daviddi, the Deputy Head of Delegation of the European Union to Bosnia and Herzegovina; James H. Mackey, Head of Euro-Atlantic Integration and Partnership, Political Affairs and SecurityPolicy Division at NATO; and, Corina Stratulat, a Policy Analyst at European Policy Centre (EPC). Beatriz Rodriguez-Salmones (Spain), Vice-Chairperson of the Political Committee at the NATO PA, moderated the panel.
12. Renzo Daviddi began the panel and reinforced the EU’s commitment to consolidating and reinforcing BiH’s state structure and making it a partner to meet its goal of future accession. He underscored the very large EU presence in the country to assist with the transition and its parallel efforts to make the EUFOR’s mission successful in its efforts at security sector reform (SSR). Daviddi noted that the international community had a renewed focus on BiH concerns recently, but that, ultimately, the necessary drive for reform and development in BiH will have to come from the Bosnians themselves. He warned that BiH was falling dangerously behind with its policies and plans for integration into the EU. “Failure to introduce EU standards equals a direct loss of state revenues, which is a direct hit to the budget,” he warned. He concluded by noting “the status quo only serves the vested interests of cronies, not those of the Bosnian public.”
13. James Mackey presented next and gave a broad-based understanding of NATO’s view of the near-term political future of the Western Balkans. He started by noting confidently that, “NATOenlargement will take place.” How to do so, he continued, lies with the aspirant countries themselves. His presentation focused on three aspirant countries in particular- Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[1], and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mackey noted very good political progress in Montenegro, but that a “track record” of such performance was still needed. Mackey suggested four areas in particular: continued fight against organised crime; increased public support for NATO accession; SSR and intelligence sector reform; and, sustainable defence spending. Concerning Skopje, Mackey noted that there was no real political will for either joining NATO or addressing the issue of the name of the country. In addition, he noted that Skopje seemed to be trending away from constructive democratic dialogue between opposing parties in the country. In the BiH, Mackey highlighted lagging democratic and economic development. Further, he noted that the country must register all immovable military property as state-owned property to be used by BiH. Doing so would show that the country was on the path to taking larger military and SSR decisions. Finally, he noted that much could be done to build a working relationship with Serbia. He stressed that, while Serbia does not want to join NATO, much could be done with Serbia as a security partner, noting that: “Serbia’s road to the EU will be easier if it’s closer to NATO.” Mackey concluded by stressing that NATO remains deeply involved and concerned with security developments in the Western Balkans.
14. Corina Stratulat opened by noting that there was a prevailing sentiment that EU enlargement in the Balkans was stymied by a reciprocal inertia. While accession rhetoric remains, she continued, implementation is often derailed by local hurdles and challenges from existing member states. Such interference, she maintained, constrains technocratic progress. She continued to note that member states’ use of domestic political considerations to intervene and stall the process seems to have created a ‘two-tier’ integration policy. Such a reality does not promote the productive competition between aspirant states that will ultimately help them achieve the necessary standards for accession. Dr Stratulat concluded that the current EU approach to the Balkans was, therefore, not working up to its potential. A principal reason, she noted, was the strategy and narrative coming out of Brussels. All countries, she stated, need to be engaged simultaneously and given clear, achievable benchmarks.
15. The assembled delegation engaged in a discussion with the panel participants for the remainder of the allotted time. A representative from Croatia sounded an encouraging note for all of the Bosnians present by noting that Croatia understood the difficulties associates with the reforms necessary for EU accession. He continued to note that, in Croatia’s case, “it was a long and difficult process, but it resulted in answering the desires of the Croatian people to become a part of the EU. As such, he concluded, Croatia remains willing to do what it can to assist BiH along the path to accession. A Turkish delegated seconded this remarks, and emphasized just how important EU integration is for development and stability in the Balkans.
B. Panel 2: Views from Civil society
16. The second panel of the first session provided ‘views from civil society’ on the session’s overall goal of discussing EU and NATO enlargement. Panelists included: Andreja Bogdanovski, Research Fellow in Foreign and Security Policy at Analytica; Nenad Koprivica, ExecutiveDirector at the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM); and Nenad Sebek, Executive Director at the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe (CDRSEE). Denis Hadzovic, acting Director at the Centre for Security Studies in Sarajevo, introduced and moderated the panel.
17. Andreja Bogdanovski began his presentation by noting that there were overwhelming numbers of people in the entire Balkan region that supported EU and NATO enlargement. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s accession process, he continued, was ‘frozen’, but the idea of Macedonian accession into the EU still maintains an 80% approval rating at the domestic level. The issue of the country’s name, he continued, remained the principal issue. He noted that the ethnic cohesion of the country would be called into question if there were a name change in the country, principally due to the attachment that ethnic Macedonians have to it, ethnic Albanians, he noted, are far less attached to the name. He noted that Greece has a significant amount of leverage in the issue. Bogdanovski also noted an increasing amount of pessimism and negative media coverage domestically toward NATO and the EU. This is having a direct effect on the popular support and trust of EUinstitutions, which is only making the prospect of future accession more of a challenge.