Brčko, BiH: Početak, napredak i povlačenje
Brčko, BiH: Početak, napredak i povlačenje
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans
Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans
Report 144 / Europe & Central Asia

Brčko, BiH: Početak, napredak i povlačenje

Vrijeme je da se razmisli o budućnosti Distrikta Brčko.A prije svega Vvrijeme je, prije svega, da se izradi strategija povlačenja režima supervizije koja će sačuvati i osnažiti na način da se sačuvaju i dalje ojačaju dostignuća i tog režima i građana Brčkog.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

KRATAK PREGLED

Vrijeme je da se razmisli o budućnosti Distrikta Brčko.A prije svega Vvrijeme je, prije svega, da se izradi strategija povlačenja režima supervizije koja će sačuvati i osnažiti na način da se sačuvaju i dalje ojačaju dostignuća i tog režima i građana Brčkog.

Upravni odbor Vijeća za implementaciju mira (Peace Implementation Council – PIC) u januaru 2003. godine odobrio je Plan implementacije misije OHR-a, kojeg je prezentirao Visoki predstavnik Paddy Ashdown. Jedan od konkretnih ciljeva tog plana je pravna, politička i finansijska integracija Distrikta Brčko u državu Bosnu i Hercegovinu (BiH). Nakon toga, i Supervizor Brčkog Henry L. Clarke i vlada Sjedinjenih Američkih Država tražili su od PIC-a da na svom junskom sastanku razmotri status Distrikta. Očekuje se da će tom prilikom Supervizor prezentirati sopstveni Plan implementacije misije.

Nadležnost nad podijeljenom i strateški ključnom opštinom Brčko na sjeveroistoku BiH pokazaloa se kao isuviše sporno pitanje da bi se odluka o njemu donijela u Daytonu 1995. godine. To pitanje je ostavljeno za obavezujuću poslijeratnu arbitražu. Kao rezultattoga, serijom od tri arbitražne odluke donesene u periodu od 1997. do 1999. godine, uspostavljena je kompletna međunarodna uprava, odvojena i sveobuhvatnija od Visokog predstavnika u Sarajevu. Konačna odluka iz marta 1999. godine naložila je da tri ratne opštine treba da se ujedine u neutralnu i demilitarizovanu oblast pod nadležnošću države. Ali, ovlasti Distrikta kao autonomne uprave izvedene su od entiteta, za koje se smatra da se u Brčkom preklapaju.

Prvi Supervizor, Robert W. Farrand, započeo je uspostavljanje višenacionalnih institucija, usklađivanje i reformu zakona naslijeđenih od entiteta, te izradu statuta Distrikta. On je Dana 8. marta 2000. godine on je proglasio osnivanje Distrikta, i donio njegov statut. Nakon toga imenovao je prelaznu Vladu i Skupštinu sa 29 članova. Ovi prelazni organi vlasti još uvijek su na snazi.

Brčko, koje je nekada smatrano najvjerovatnijim žarištem za ponovno rasplamsavanje rata u BiH, od tada je do te mjere prosperiralo da ga se često i s pravom pominje kao svijetli primjer međunarodnog vođstva u BiH, te kao model na koji treba da se ugleda ostatak zemlje. Reforme građanskopravnog i krivičnog sistema, obrazovnog sistema i opštinske uprave koje su provedene u Brčkom poslužile su kao primjer za ostali dio BiH. Uvođenje fiskalne discipline, razumnog i efikasnog poreskog režima te okruženja koje pogoduje biznisu donijeli su značajna strana ulaganja, obećavajući program privatizacije i najviše prosječne plate u zemlji. Uspjeh u jednoj oblasti rađao je uspjeh u drugoj.  Uspjeh je urodio uspjehom. Žrtve etničkog čišćenja iz ratnog perioda vratile su se u velikom broju. Oni koji su u toku rata bili predmet etničkog čišćenja vratili su se u velikom broju. Raseljena lica koja su došla u Brčko odlučila su se da tu ostanu.za ostanak. Režim supervizije pod američkim vođstvom uspio je privući nesrazmjerno velikodušnu pomoć donatora, koja je pomogla da se sve ovo i provede u djelo.

Iako je većina drugih ključnih elemenata Konačne odluke ostvarena ili će uskoro biti ostvarena, te iako su prošle tri godine od njegovog osnivanja, na nivou Distrikta još uvijek nije bilo izbora koji bi pokazali da li je u Brčkom utemeljeno nešto održivo i provodivo. Posljednji opštinski izbori održani su prije šest godina, a novi izbori još uvijek nisu zakazani.u planu. Bez obzira na to koliko je bilo mudrobio mudar potez od Arbitražnog tribunala da Supervizoru prepusti odluku o tome kada raspisati izbore, Konačna odluka ipak predviđa da se oni održe prije no što Supervizor da konačna uvjeravanja PIC-u ili Tribunalu da je implementacija dovršena i osigurana. potpuna i sigurna.

Plan implementacije misije Ureda visokog predstavnika je dokaz da se ad hoc aranžmani u BiH, koji su utvrđeni Daytonskim sporazumom, bliže svome kraju. Iako je vjerovatno da će rok koji je postavilo Vijeće za implementaciju mira, 2005. godina, biti prekoračen, on se i dalje uzima u obzir pri pravljenju planova za Brčko. Režim supervizije u Brčkom ne mora biti okončan prije samog OHR-a, no on ne može nadživjeti OHR. IpakNo, bilo bi korisno ukoliko bi Supervizor otišao prvi. Bio bi to koristan To bi bio dragocjen primjer koji bi pokazao kako u stvarnosti izgleda povlačenje međunarodne zajednice, a istovremeno bi ostavilo vremena Visokom predstavniku da osigura da država uistinu ostvaruje vrši svoje ovlasti nadležnosti prema autonomnom Distriktu Brčko.

Izbore u Distriktu treba raspisati najkasnije do oktobra 2004. godine, za kada je planiran sljedeći krug opštinskih izbora u entitetima. Strah da bi mogle pobjediti pogrešne stranke sve je slabiji izgovor za odlaganje izbora, osobito ukoliko se želi da brčanski model čiste i efikasne višenacionalne vlasti ima ikakvog značaja za ostatak BiH. U svakom slučaju, do 2004. godine stranke na vlasti će imati dovoljno vremena da pridobiju stanovništvo. Bilo da se to desi li ne, još uvijek će biti moguće – a i preporučljivo – da Supervizor ostane u Brčkom do godinu dana nakon toga, kako bi posredovao u tranziciji.

Arbitražni tribunal za sebe je zadržao pravo da promijeni Konačnu odluku ukoliko okolnosti to budu zahtijevale. Može se smatrati da je cilj OHR-a da Distrikt Brčko integrira u državu saglasan sa Konačnom odlukom, ali samo ukoliko Supervizor i Tribunal budu smatrali da će ta integracija očuvati i zaštititi ovlasti Brčkog kao autonomne samouprave. Stoga integracija ne smije biti definirana kao apsorbiranje ili subordinacija, nego kao garancija ustavnog statusa Distrikta, uz održanje entiteta. To će biti najbolji način da se osigura da ono što je postignuto u Brčkom u što manjoj mjeri ostane tek izolovani fenomen liberalnog kolonijalizma, nego da se zaista ‘ugradi’ u BiH. No, da bi tako i bilo, i PIC i OHR i bosanskohercegovački organi vlasti moraće se angažovati u tome. Cilj ovog izvještaja je da objasni zašto.

Sarajevo / Brisel, 2. jun 2003.

Executive Summary

It is time to consider the future of Brcko District. In particular, it is time to chart an exit strategy for the supervisory regime that will serve both to preserve and extend its and the people of Brcko’s accomplishments.

The Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), approved in January 2003 a Mission Implementation Plan (MIP) submitted by High Representative Paddy Ashdown. Among its specific goals is the legal, political and financial integration of Brcko District in the state of Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH). Both Brcko Supervisor Henry L. Clarke and the United States government have since asked the PIC Steering Board to discuss the status of the district at its meeting in June. The Supervisor is expected to present his own MIP on that occasion.

Ownership of the divided and strategically vital Brcko municipality in north-east BiH proved too contentious to settle at Dayton in 1995. The question was left for binding, post-war arbitration. The result, in a series of three arbitral awards between 1997 and 1999, was to establish a fully-fledged international administration separate from and more all-embracing than that of the High Representative in Sarajevo. The Final Award of March 1999 decreed that the three wartime municipalities should be unified as a neutral and de-militarised district under the sovereignty of the state. But the district’s powers of autonomous government derived from the entities, which were deemed to overlap in Brcko.

The first Supervisor, Robert W. Farrand, initiated the establishment of multinational institutions, the harmonisation and reform of entity laws, and the drafting of a district statute. On 8 March 2000 he proclaimed the creation of the district and promulgated its statute. He proceeded to appoint an interim government and a 29-member assembly. These interim authorities are still in place.

Once seen as the most likely flashpoint for any renewed warfare in BiH, Brcko has since prospered to such an extent that it is regularly and rightly invoked both as the shining example of international stewardship in BiH and as a model for emulation by the rest of the country. Brcko’s reforms of the civil and criminal justice systems, of education and of municipal government have led the way in BiH. The establishment of fiscal discipline, a sensible and effective tax regime, and a business-friendly environment have resulted in significant foreign investment, a promising privatisation program, and the highest average wages in the country. Success has bred success. Those ‘cleansed’ during the war have returned in large numbers. Displaced persons who came to Brcko have opted to stay. The American-led supervisory regime has served to attract the disproportionately generous donor assistance that has helped make all this possible.

Even though most other essential requirements of the Final Award have been or can soon be fulfilled and it has been three years after the formation of the district, there have been no district elections to test whether something viable and transferable has taken root in Brcko. The last municipal poll was six years ago, and no new vote is yet scheduled. However wise it was of the Arbitral Tribunal to leave it to the Supervisor to decide when to call elections, the Final Award does nonetheless require that they be held before the Supervisor can assure either the PIC or the Tribunal that implementation is complete and secure.

The High Representative’s MIP is testimony to the fact that the ad hoc arrangements mandated by Dayton for BiH are nearing their end. Although the PIC’s target date of 2005 is likely to slip, it still provides a basis for planning in Brcko. The supervisory regime in Brcko need not wind up before OHR, but it cannot linger on thereafter. It would be useful, however, if the Supervisor were to go first. That could provide a salutary example of the reality of international disengagement while still leaving time for the High Representative to ensure that the state is in fact exercising its responsibilities towards an autonomous Brcko District.

District elections should be called no later than October 2004, when the next round of entity municipal elections is due to take place. Fear that the wrong parties might win is an increasingly lame excuse for their deferral, especially if the Brcko model of clean and effective multinational government is to have any salience for the rest of BiH. In any case, by 2004 the parties in government will have had plenty of time to win over the populace. Whether they do so or not, it will still be possible – and advisable – for the Supervisor to stay on for up to a year to mediate the transition.

The Arbitral Tribunal reserved for itself the right to vary the Final Award should circumstances so require. OHR’s aim to integrate Brcko District in the state can be regarded as consonant with the Final Award, but only if the Supervisor and the Tribunal are satisfied that such integration preserves and protects Brcko’s powers of autonomous self-government. Integration must thus be defined not as absorption or subordination, but as a guarantee of the district’s constitutional status while the entities endure. This will be the best means of ensuring that as much as possible of what has been achieved in Brcko does not remain an isolated phenomenon of liberal colonialism, but is, instead, ‘mainstreamed’ into BiH. For this to happen, however, the PIC and OHR and the BiH authorities will have to buy in. This report aims to show why they should.

Sarajevo / Brussels, 2 June 2003

Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker talks to Crisis Group expert Marko Prelec about the precarious situation in the Western Balkans, as Serb separatism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the frozen Kosovo-Serbia dispute continue to stoke regional instability.

The Western Balkans, a region defined in part by not being in the European Union, also contains several countries that were devastated by war in the 1990s. Now it faces new troubles, driven in part by the legacies of the old. Bosnia and Herzegovina is confronted with calls for secession in the autonomous Serb-dominated region, Republika Srpska, as well as the ongoing electoral grievances of its Croat minority. Meanwhile, efforts to resolve Kosovo’s dispute with Serbia over its independence have come to a standstill, leaving minority communities on both sides of the border vulnerable.

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker talks to Marko Prelec, Crisis Group’s Consulting Senior Analyst for the Balkans, about why ethnic tensions persist in the region and whether there is any risk of a return to conflict. They discuss the prospects for European integration, asking whether the promise of EU membership remains an effective incentive for resolving these longstanding disputes. They also consider what impact Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had for stability in the Western Balkans, a region where painful memories of war are still very salient today.



Click here to listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

For more of Crisis Group’s analysis, make sure to check out our Balkans regional page and keep an eye out for our upcoming report on the risk of instability in the Western Balkans.

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.