I. ISSUE

Unreformed security sector for many years has been a major obstacle to the security and political development of South East European countries of Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro. Military, police, intelligence services, frontier guards, and other militarized formations authorized by the state to utilize force to protect the state itself and its citizens, possess very weak governance structures. They are ineffective and inefficient in providing the public good - security - for which they are authorized for. The weak governance and ineffectiveness and inefficiency lead them to be under the influence of corruption and thus, under the influence of the organized crime. This in turn, causes instability and insecurity. Thus, the reform of the security sector is an urgent issue that needs further attention by the governments of the region as well as by international security organizations, such as NATO, EU, OSCE and the Stability Pact for South East Europe.
 

II. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

It is a prerequisite of a democratic system to have democratic control of armed forces and de-politicized, transparent and accountable security sector. The reform of the security sector can ease the obstacles that lay ahead of the countries of South East Europe to further their aims of the development of their democracies and market economies and intensification of their integration into Euro-Atlantic structures such as NATO and European Union. Security sector reform is an important factor and accession criterion for membership in NATO and EU.

Security sector reform does make particular demands in post-authoritarian and post-conflict societies, such as the transitional democracies of South East Europe. In these environments, there are obstacles that prevent solid democratic control of security sector actors. Security structures themselves as well as civilian structures entitled with the oversight over the security sector, have authoritarian patterns and they are often deeply politicized. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia-Montenegro, have just emerged from an armed conflict, with their security sectors undergoing transformation from ones structured around the demands of conflict to ones more suited to a peacetime environment.

These countries in the 1990s, undertook tremendous efforts in reforming their security and defense structures. The reforms included, both hard and soft reforms. By hard reforms we mean the reforms that has to deal with the professionalization of the army, establishment of new institutions, and the change of the command, control and communication structure.

The soft reforms refers to the efforts for strengthening the civilian and democratic control of armed forces, their de-politicization, transparency and accountability of the military and police, providing the legal ground for the functioning of the security sector actors, enhancing the way structures and institutions implement policy, improvements in effectiveness and efficiency in the work of the security sector, wider engagement of civil-society in national security planning and budgeting and creation of a strong community of civilian defense and security intellectuals, improving civil-military relations, development of the community policing processes, enhancing the ability for effective border protection, and reforming the intelligence services.

The countries of the region have been able to establish a solid foundation for afore-mentioned soft and hard reforms. They have created a legal basis and they have expressed willingness for the reform in this area. However, two factors: the conflicts and the challenges of the transition process have prevented further success of the efforts for the reform of security sector. The countries of the region have not been able to institute and realize all the afore-mentioned hard and soft security sector reforms.

The issue of transparency and accountability in the region is being confined to relations between the ministry of defense and the parliament. Accountability is being delayed and put off for the sake of the 'protection' of the national interests. The state is not able to provide safety and security to all its citizens and is missing the legitimacy of the minority groups who are not satisfactorily represented at the security sector structures. Government agencies lack cooperation and coordination among themselves and they are unable and unwilling to implement security policies. There is a lack of expertise amongst civil servants in security sector bureaucracies and lack of civilian understanding of, expertise in and interest for defense and security issues. The community policing is in its early years in the region. And border control is considered as a matter of national defense, rather than as law enforcement.

The reforms undertaken so far in the region, has not been more than a reflection of the requirements of the international organizations, such as NATO, European Union, the Stability Pact for South East Europe, and OSCE. These organizations have played significant role to push the countries of the region for more reforms. However, the lack of coordination among the work of these organization and lack of expertise, effectiveness and competence of some of these organizations in the area of security sector reform, the efforts of the international community has not provided the expected solutions to the problems that the countries of South East Europe face in the field.
 

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The countries from the region should not wait better conditions to start security sectors reforms. The regional environment could not become friendlier without internal efforts to be taken.

2. Security sector reforms that have taken and take place in the region of South East Europe are heavily influenced by international structures. For the viability and sustainability, security sector reforms shall not be imposed from above. While models of security sector organization from other countries may be useful as reference points for particular security sector reform programs, it is unlikely they will be successful if they are used as rigid blueprints for reform in the countries of South East Europe. Different historical, political, structural and social legacies create environments, which require local, context-specific strategies for reform. Therefore, the governments of the region have to make efforts to establish the dialogue among different factors in their respective countries that will give way to further the reforms in the security sector.

3. Special efforts should be made to prevent any possible gap between civilians and soldiers with regard to the treatment of the strategic goals of a country, the civilian perception of the military and vice versa, the voting attitudes of the military versus civilians. In the democracies of South East Europe, existence of gap between the military and civilian society should be a cause for concern. It should not be forgotten that the possible implication of a gap between civilians and the military are rather different from gaps with other segments of a society.  In their history since 1989, the countries of South East Europe has not experienced military coup d’etats, however a possible gap can seed the basis for such an outcome if necessary measures are not taken to overcome the gap.

4. The countries of South East Europe have to establish and strengthen the concept of the community policing. In practical terms this means emphasizing both police accountability and transparency on the one hand, and on the other hand, improving police effectiveness in controlling crime. The police powers should be used in accordance with the law, and be subject to it through the courts. There should be structural mechanisms for the police that will include clear institutional architecture separating the police from military and state security institutions. There should also be decentralization in the police services by giving more powers to the locally elected authorities on the policing issues.

5. The countries of South East Europe should move beyond the understanding that the army should control the borders. Instead it should transfer it to a specialized police and professional force. This authority should consist of one national non-military and specialized organization that is responsible for border security. This organization should operate under the auspices of either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Justice. This is crucial as border control is a sign of the ability of a country to control its borders and protect its territorial integrity.

6. It is important for the countries of the region to undertake the reforms in the intelligence services as well. However, the reform efforts shall include the society as a whole. The reform of the intelligence services can help to come to terms with the burden of the past.
 
 
 
 
 
 

© 2002-present -  Islam Yusufi yusufi@policy.hu