How successful has European Union (EU) support to the Macedonian Police been? This chapter analyses experiences between 2003 and 2006 of the EU Police Mission to Macedonia (Proxima) and its successor, the EU Police Advisory Team (EUPAT). The programmes were undertaken in the context of a fragile peace, but with police being gradually redeployed to former crisis areas.
Proxima was a one-year programme that was extended to two-years. Its priorities were to fight organised crime, improve relations with ethnic minorities, and to ensure that institutional and procedural police reforms were sustainable. EUPAT continued these activities in the context of bridging the gap before a European Commission stabilisation and reconstruction programme. Successful monitoring systems were developed, initially an activity ‘benchmarking’ system in Proxima followed by an improved consultation mechanism in EUPAT. These helped to create openness and transparency between Macedonian authorities and the EU, and leverage for reform.
However, both programmes faced internal and external coordination challenges.
- Proxima’s short planning phase, cumbersome EU procurement regulations and inflexible recruitment procedures resulted in capacity constraints, high staff turnover, and loss of precious relations with local police.
- Infighting between different EU institutions hampered coordination and reduced morale. Coordination improved in November 2005 when the Head of the EC Delegation and the EU Special Representative positions were combined, but ‘turf wars’ continued in Brussels.
- Donors supporting justice and penal reform were included in the formal coordination mechanism for police reform. However, programmes focusing on regional policing were not.
- The slow pace with which Macedonian authorities adopted necessary legal reforms hindered work.
The EU police missions in Macedonia point to important lessons. For example, prior to the deployment of Proxima, the EC and Council General Secretariat carried out a joint fact-finding mission to assess the state of the Macedonian police and understand the country’s needs. This included extensive formal and informal consultations with European, bilateral and international actors. It enabled Proxima to incorporate experiences from past missions, and has become usual practice for civilian operations. Other key lessons learned are:
- Equipment and resources must be sent to the field in good time during the planning phase. For future ESDP missions Title V of the Lisbon Treaty can be exercised to do this.
- There is a need to link justice, prison, and police reform. This should include clearly defined roles for Law Enforcement Monitors, including specific aspects of transitional justice and monitoring related to ethnic minorities.
- Having EU police advisors in the field alongside national counterparts gives the advisors a real sense of the local situation, and gives a ‘human face’ to the programme.
- The obstacles that Proxima and EUPAT faced with inter-institutional coordination indicate that crisis management, institution building, and the transition between them should be part of a single overarching strategic vision on EU peacebuilding.
- Combining the roles of the EU Special Representative and the Head of the EC Delegation increase EU coherence, coordination, and visibility. However it does not solve the problem of ‘turf war’ in Brussels.
- The mechanisms developed by Proxima and EUPAT have paved the way for better operating procedures and information exchange in future EU crisis management operations.
