Centre for Security Studies Bi H EDUCTION PROGRAMME

Centre for Security Studies Bi. H EDUCTION PROGRAMME FOR PARLIAMENTARY PERSONNEL Sarajevo, 14. 06. 2002.

Political Responsibility

In theory Is it clear on the basis of the Constitution, laws and regulations, in which merit the government, and especially the state administration, has to disclose, explain and justify policy and plans in the field of security?

Do there exist clear obligations that the executive organs of authority, concerning the decisions that they adopt, inform or consult the elected representatives concerning issues of adopted political decisions and process of planning, or are the organs of the state administration merely obliged to inform about already adopted decisions?

Does the Commission “summon responsible people and request to see documentation” in order to engage in oversight or does there exist the possibility to “conduct investigations” in cases that individuals refuse to give an explanation of their behaviour?

In practice Do the Government and Ministers, generally, execute the constitutional, legal and other mandatory obligations vis -à-vis defence and security issues? Do they execute their obligations to inform the elected representatives in cases when they are obliged to by the constitution and law?

When the Executive does not fulfil its functions in the manner that is required, how is this type of behaviour explained and justified? Does the legislative authority actively use its authority in order to justify its role or do the majority of parliamentarians only have the role as verifiers of the biddings of the Executive, especially individuals representing the governing parties?

Financial Responsibility

The Executive, especially the Government, must respond to elected representatives (and through them to globally inform) concerning the manner of the spending of tax payers money and what happens in practice.

In theory Does there exist an identifiable responsible service on which the basis of the constitution, laws or regulations require from the government to inform, explain and justify the expenses for defence purposes (the current and planned expenditure)? What precisely, towards these regulations, must the Executive do?

Are there any provisions for elected representatives to be informed or consulted in the course of official planning and budgeting or does the government simply have to present the results of these activities (budget for the coming year and perhaps of projection of the budget for coming years)?

Can the Committee(s) request in their work the delivery of documentation or summon persons to facilitate their control, and do ministers, officially authorised persons and officials appear to these invitations and present evidence or explain to their financial controllers? Do the senior officials called to official hearings attend by official duty or can they be legally summoned?

Does this body confine itself to the traditional audit function (the legality and propriety of spending) or does it also consider inquiries into value for money (looking at the economic justification, capability, efficiency and effectiveness with which the taxpayers’ money is used)?

In practice Do they really observe all legal obligations concerning defence planning and budgeting? Does the legislative actively use its power to scrutinise expenditure and planned expenditure or does it merely give a ‘rubber stamp’ to the governments proposals?

How much time does the Committee for Oversight spend on the examination of suggested expenditure? Does the legislative body have the power to add or remove specific points in the budget or must it simply accept or reject what the Executive requests?

Transparency in the Creation of Plans and Policy

What information in this area is constitutionally or legally available to the legislature? Does the government conduct that which it is supposed to within these issues (and if not, why)? Do representatives of the authorities seek ‘outside’ advice in the process of the formulation of plans (from academics, analysts, and influential groups – including minority representatives)?

How much detailed material concerning the structure and size of military forces, as well as the equipment and deployment of forces, is made publicly available and is that sufficient to enable adequate debate generally and concerning the wider national security of the ‘community’?

Transparency in Planning and Budgeting

In 2001, when the Ministry of Defence was engaged in preparation of its budget request for the coming year (2002), was there parliamentary, media, or public debate concerning alternative and possible ‘adjustments’ to the allocation of existing resources based on the actual figures under consideration?

When presented to elected representatives for approval, was the budget forwarded in abbreviated form – permitting only superficial scrutiny – or did corresponding information exist that would show fully what money would be spent and for what purpose? Do there exist areas of activity for which are foreseen secret funding?

The Acquisition or Abstraction of Equipment

What information is the government obliged to provide to the legislature: - When the acquisition or ‘abstraction’ of equipment is in question, - Selection criteria, - Reasons for choice, - Basic principles connected to negotiation in the case o change in circumstances.

Does the government safe-guard information (and if not, why)? Does the legislature carefully investigate the entire process of new arms acquisitions and other investment activities and does the committee publish critical findings connected to the choice of acquisitions and leading projects?

Does part of the audit body specifically investigate decisions concerning investments and follow the realisation of projects, and does that agency lead accounts concerning the entire work of the Ministry of Defence or concerning a specific project (or both)? Do the elected or audit body receive information or can they request facts and points relating to extra-budgetary acquisitions?

Transparency: Regular Publications

Transparency is a guarantee of accountability; and publications are its main originator. What material does the government disclose and how frequently are these disclosures made?

Does Bi. H publish material on: · medium or long-term defence plans · documents that lead the revision of policy, programmes, current military operations and peacetime arrangements, organisational issues, personnel and military financing (including the budget and expenditure plans) · a statement and explanation of the defence budget

· an annual Ministerial statement concerning the policy of the Ministry and / or programme of management objectives (issued by the Ministry of Defence) · an annual or biennial statement concerning the realised plans of the Ministry of Defence, and does this incorporate ‘performance indicators’?

· a regular overview of defence statistics, which includes personnel data (recruitment, retention, retirement), material and equipment data (acquisitions, inventories, instructions), plus information concerning other issues (from aircraft accident rates to welfare provision) · public statements for issues of special interest – for example advancement towards NATO

International Transparency

Has Bi. H fully complied with OSCE’s requirements in connection with defence expenditure in recent years - and if not, why? Does the state report its expenditure and budget, for inclusion in the annual report of ‘The Defence Expenses of Southeast Europe’ – whose first edition was recently produced for the Stability Pact for South East Europe (by a small team from Sofia)?

Can or must Bi. H safe-guard more information concerning expenses than it does now, keeping in mind regional confidence and security building measures?