WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: American administration of the European town of Brcko and how that town might be reintegrated into its administrative environment

1. Does the Commission recall that the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords laid down the borders between two federal states in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with 49 % of the territory being awarded to the Republika Serpska and 51 % to the Muslim-Croat Federation?

2. Can the Commission confirm that Brcko, a town which stands at the northern border with Croatia and serves as a link between the north-western and the south-eastern parts of the Republika Serpska constitutes part of the 49 % of territory referred to in Question 1? Are the inhabitants of Brcko still entitled to vote in parliamentary and presidential elections held in that Republic? What administrative powers does that Republic still hold over that town?

3. Can the Commission confirm the comments made in the issue dated 8 September 2001 of Rotterdams Dagblad, a Dutch newspaper, which refers to Brcko as a city-state administered by a sheriff and forming an American enclave in the heart of Europe. Those comments are underpinned by the existence of a huge US military base, the presence of a large number of military vehicles in the town and a budget of EUR 47 million relatively enormous for that country and an American supervisor (Mr Henry Lee Clark) who may substitute his own decisions for those taken by the elected Municipal Council.

4. Does the heavy American involvement in and influence on this town of 83 000 inhabitants result from its strategic location between the major US military bases in Pecs, Hungary, and Tuzla, Bosnia?

5. How has the Republika Serpska been compensated for the division of its territory into two unconnected areas, with other parties being able to interrupt traffic between them, and for the fact that it no longer has control over the 49 % of the territory expressly allocated to it?

6. If no compensation has been made in accordance with Question 5, what steps have been taken to prevent this situation from becoming a source of ethnic conflict for the party which deems itself to have been treated unequally or unjustly?

7. Given the unfortunate experiences with cities temporarily constituting a territorial enclave, such as Trieste after the Second World War and Danzig after the First World War, does not the Commission deem it conceivable that Brcko will be permanently separated from its administrative environment and remain under non-European control?

8. Is the Commission seeking the (re-)integration of Brcko into a possible future Member State of the European Union? If so, how and within what timescale does it intend to implement the radical changes required to bring to an end Brcko's current status as a city-state under American administration?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2001)

The Commission wishes to point out that the constitutional status of the Brcko District was settled by the Final Award of 5 March 1999 and Annex of 18 August 1999. The Final Award was the work of an International Arbitration Tribunal whose results have been accepted by both Entities. The Commission was not party to the final award.

1. Annex 2 of the General Framework Agreement on Peace (GFAP Dayton/Paris Agreement of 1995) identified an Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH and the Republika Srpska (RS). The IEBL was delineated in a map annexed to the Agreement. The principle behind the delineation was that 49 % of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) territory would be attributed to RS and 51 % to FBiH.

2. At Dayton the parties were unable to reach agreement as to who would control the Brcko area. Failing agreement the GFAP placed the area in temporary RS custody, but the parties did agree to binding arbitration of the disputed portion in the Brcko area (GFAP Annex 2, Article V, paragraph 1). Thus, although Brcko was awarded temporarily to RS, it was clear that this arrangement would be revisited under final arbitration.

Residents of the Brcko District who are BiH citizens are entitled to vote in elections for the BiH Presidency and BiH House of Representatives and in elections of the Entity of their choice.

Neither RS nor FBiH now exercise any legal authority or administrative power within the boundaries of Brcko District (see below).

3. and 4. The Commission cannot confirm the comments cited. The Brcko District consists of the town of Brcko and a surrounding area. The District (Opstina) is thus not just a city. It is also not a state. The Final Award put the District under direct BiH sovereignty, making it subject to the powers of the common BIH institutions (in supervised co-ordination with the two Entity governments). The Award permanently suspended all legal authority of both Entities and established a new unitary, multi-ethnic and democratic District government. The District was to be held by both Entities on a condominium basis: the territory of RS thus encompasses the entire District, as does the territory of FBiH. The territories of the two Entities overlap throughout the district.

Initial and final awards established international supervision in the Brcko District and a Supervisor who also serves as a Deputy High Representative, overseeing GFAP implementation. The Supervisor, currently Ambassador Clarke, has authority to promulgate binding regulations and orders. The final Award decided that this supervision shall continue until terminated by the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council. No such decision has yet been taken. The impartiality of the international supervision is underwritten by the Office of the High Representative (OHR) which is itself subject to international control through the Peace Implementation Council and its Steering Board.

The Final Award specifies that the district shall be demilitarised. However, SFOR continues to implement the military aspects of GFAP as mandated under the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. The multi-national SFOR presence in the Brcko District is not stronger than elsewhere.

5. RS has not been divided into two unconnected areas. The entire Brcko District is part of RS territory though, because self-governing, RS has no formal powers there. Nothing in the final Award diminishes RS's territorial share. (Indeed, since the amount of territory added to RS under the condominium arrangement is greater than that added to FBiH, the RS's percentage share has increased.) Moreover, the BiH constitution establishes freedom of movement throughout the state. RS citizens have the right to move freely through the district.

6. Initially the Award gave rise to some complaints from RS. However, the Award, which is final and binding, is now accepted and respected by both entities.

7. The Commission shares the assessment of the Final Arbitration that all aspects of the Award are consistent with and not disruptive of the constitution of BiH as adopted at Dayton. The Brcko District has therefore not been separated from its administrative environment nor is it under non-European control.

8. The Commission does not believe that radical changes are required to bring an end to Brcko's current status. To make progress within the Stabilisation and Association Process and eventual possible Union membership, BiH must build patiently, ensuring that it is able to function as a coherent state and that it has adopted the acquis communautaire in a way which will enable it to sustain a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Union. This is a medium to long-term challenge confronting both the Entities and, as part of them, the Brcko District.