Kosovo
Florian Qehaja
Strengthening Intelligence Governance in the
Western Balkans
Intelligence Governance in Kosovo
Florian Qehaja
2
Introduction 1
The development of a domestic intelligence agency in Kosovo has been controversial for
reasons that relate not only to the robust role of the secret police in the former Yugoslavia but
also to the unique conditions that have obtained in Kosovo since the breakup of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). In addition to that, no current assessment of the Kosovar
security sector can be offered outside the context of the recent past, especially without
mentioning the non-statutory intelligence services that operated for more than nine years in
lieu of the state intelligence agency and serving the interest of political parties. The
apprehensive public perception of the former intelligence structures and the fear of political
affiliation of state intelligence agency is an additional issue of concern.
The current domestic intelligence service, established following Kosovo’s declaration of
independence in February 2008, is thus only a few years old and not yet fully operational. To
date, one can applaud the moves made in the Kosovo Intelligence Agency (KIA) to embed
aspects of good governance in its control mechanisms and the proactive approach exhibited
thus far by the main parliamentary oversight committee, but the goal of cohesive and sustained
democratic oversight has hardly been reached. Moreover, the roles played by civil society
organisations, the media, independent state institutions, and the judiciary have been very
limited.
This paper aims to evaluate critically the progress being made toward democratic intelligence
oversight in Kosovo. It includes an analysis of the applicable legal framework and makes
reference as necessary to the historical background and political context. The methodology used
is predominantly qualitative, relying on interviews with stakeholders and independent experts
as well as on the analysis of open sources.
This study is expected to serve as a resource for stakeholders in Kosovo as well as on the
international level—especially members of the Kosovo Assembly, civil society organisations, the
media, and academia. This paper may also serve as a relevant tool for intelligence service
personnel, bearing in mind that that to date hardly any studies have evaluated the role of the
KIA from a non-governmental perspective.
The first section of this paper presents a brief overview of the recent history of intelligence
activity in Kosovo. The second section recounts the key developments that led to the creation of
1
This study was drafted as part of a DCAF project on Strengthening Intelligence Oversight in the Western
Balkans, which was made possible by the generous support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands. The text will be published as a chapter in the forthcoming edited volume: Intelligence Governance
in the Western Balkans. The opinions expressed in this study are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views or institutional positions of either DCAF or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
3
the current domestic intelligence service. The third section describes the various mechanisms
established for the control and oversight of the service—including assessments of their
effectiveness. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for strengthening intelligence
oversight.
Background
The perception of the intelligence community in Kosovo may be compared with the other
countries in the former Socialist bloc. The territory of Kosovo was part of the former SFRY
which had a state-centric security system with a secret service known widely as the department
of state security (UDBA2). This institution had a robust role within that system and served as the
corner stone of the concept of Yugoslavia itself. However, its activities against the potential
‘enemies’ of the system especially after the demonstration of 1981 in Kosovo led to it being
perceived as a violent institution, and the cause of insecurity and repression, especially among
the Albanian population in Kosovo.
In 1989, after consolidating its power in Serbia, the nationalist regime of Slobodan Milosevic
moved to abrogate Kosovo’s autonomy. At the same time, the Milosevic regime took control of
the Yugoslav state security system and reorganised it to meet the demands of the new security
situation—principally, the conflicts resulting from the breakup of the SFRY and the new political
environment in Kosovo. Beginning in 1989 and continuing until 1999, the Milosevic regime in
the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) used its secret service to repress Kosovo’s
majority Albanian population.
Initially, Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority responded with a nonviolent movement. Hopes for
an independent Kosovo were particularly high following the 1995 signing of the Dayton Peace
Agreement ending the Bosnian War. But as the repressive policies of the Milosevic regime
continued, the armed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began to supplant the nonviolent
resistance movement. One of the first specialised units created by the KLA was the Kosovo
Information Service (SHIK 3), which seems to have been established initially as a military
intelligence service. 4
In 1999, following the Milosevic regime’s rejection of the Rambouillet Agreement, elements of
the KLA established the Provisional Government of Kosovo. Although this government, which
operated during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air campaign and for several
Uprava državne bezbednosti
Shërbimi Informativ i Kosovës
4 Some sources suggest that SHIK was actually preceded by the KLA Intelligence and Counterintelligence Unit (Zbulim
Kundër Zbulim)
2
3
4
months thereafter, never received international recognition, it did serve to legalise (in a way)
the mandate and activities of SHIK. 5 The service’s existence and the identities of its chief officers
were publicly acknowledged, but details of its structure and financing were never revealed.
SHIK’s purpose, according to former director Kadri Veseli, was to serve the “national and public
good,” 6 yet SHIK was never given a legislative framework—nor was it ever clear how the service
performed this function given the circumstances of its founding and existence. In fact, the
presence of SHIK mirrored the overall inherited perception among the population that there is a
secret type of organisation operating in a non-statutory manner in Kosovo.
On 15 June 2008, in a media broadcast, Veseli declared the “accomplishment” of SHIK’s
“mandate” and announced, unexpectedly, the disbanding of the agency. 7 Veseli’s broadcast took
place within the context of public discussions, begun three years earlier, concerning activities
beyond intelligence collection in which SHIK may have been involved. These discussions
focused on SHIK’s close political affiliation with the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK 8), whose
leadership included many former KLA principals. Paradoxically, the debate over SHIK’s
activities only increased after the service’s 2008 dissolution, at which point several opposition
parties and civil society organisations accused the PDK of populating the government with
former SHIK operatives. The debate became even more intense in late 2009, when Nazim Bllaca,
identifying himself as a former SHIK agent, revealed his involvement in a campaign of political
assassinations allegedly carried out by SHIK between 1999 and 2003 on the orders of PDK
leaders. 9
In the meantime, it was revealed that the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK 10), the second
largest political party in Kosovo after the PDK, had its own illegal intelligence service, the
Institute for Strategic Research of Public Opinion (IHSOP). 11 Like SHIK, IHSOP drew most of its
agents from the ranks of former Kosovo War combatants; but some analysts have made an
important distinction, observing that IHSOP probably chose its staff from older generations of
Kosovars who may have served in the former security services of Yugoslavia. 12
Because the political intelligence services operating in Kosovo prior to 2009 had no statutory
basis, the government had no legal authority to institute oversight of their activities. As a result,
Kosovo Institute for Policy Research and Development (KIPRED), Shërbimet në hije të inteligjencës në Kosovë:
Shpërbërje, Shkrirje apo Integrim? (Prishtina: KIPRED, 2006), page 7
6 Interview with SHIK director Kadri Veseli, TV KLAN Kosova, 28 December 2009
7 Statement of SHIK director Kadri Veseli, RTK Public Broadcast, 15 June 2008
8 Partia Demokratike e Kosovës
9 At the time of this writing, the Bllaca case remains under investigation.
10 Lidhja Demokratike e Kosovës
11 Instituti për Hulumtime Strategjike të Opinionit Publik
12 Informal discussion with an independent expert, 14 March 2011
5
5
their unfettered operation undermined the democratic order and left the Kosovar population
feeling ultimately insecure. Even when SHIK and IHSOP disbanded, the prominence of their
former leaders and the networks of colleagues that they maintained perpetuated their influence.
Intelligence Sector
On 10 June 1999, following the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo, the United Nations
Security Council approved Resolution 1244, which placed Kosovo under the authority of the UN
Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The resolution also authorised a NATO-led
peacekeeping force known as KFOR. Working together, UNMIK and KFOR assumed the primary
responsibility for public safety in Kosovo in the aftermath of the war. As a matter of practice,
however, during the nine years of international governance in Kosovo (1999–2008), domestic
security structures evolved in an ad hoc manner to meet the public safety needs, especially
through the consolidation of the police and civil emergency structures. 13
Local authorities and civil society organisations in Kosovo called for the creation of a national
intelligence agency that could collect information on national security threats; but UNMIK
proved reluctant to authorise such an agency, justifying its position with a rather narrow
interpretation of its mandate under Resolution 1244. Eventually, in 2005, UNMIK and the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) initiated an Internal Security Sector Review
(ISSR), the purpose of which was twofold: to assess the expansion of the security sector since
1999 and to make recommendations for a new security-sector architecture. 14 The ISSR report
concluded that the Kosovar government indeed required a domestic security agency capable of
collecting intelligence on national security matters and thereby addressing potential risks and
threats to the population.
In May 2007, a domestic intelligence service for Kosovo moved closer to reality when UN
Special Envoy for Kosovo Marti Ahtisaari included such an agency in a proposal that he
presented during the unsuccessful 2006–2007 final status talks between Prishtina and
Belgrade. 15 The Ahtisaari Package, as the proposal came to be known, contained
recommendations to guide the Kosovar government following a declaration of independence.
On 17 February 2008, less than a year after Ahtisaari presented his proposal, the Kosovo
Assembly declared independence and two months after that approved a new constitution. The
Kosovar Center for Security Studies (KCSS), Context Analysis of the Security Sector Reform in Kosovo, 1999–2009
(Prishtina: KCSS, 2011)
14 ISSR, Kosovo Internal Security Sector Review (Prishtina: ISSR, 2006)
15 United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo, Final Comprehensive Proposal for a Kosovo Status Settlement
(May 2007)
13
6
constitution expressly created the Kosovo Intelligence Agency (KIA) to “identify, investigate,
and monitor threats to security in the Republic of Kosovo.” 16 This language mirrored closely the
text of the Ahtisaari Package, which proposed the creation of a domestic intelligence agency “to
monitor threats to Kosovo’s internal security.” 17 Similarly, the constitutional language directing
that KIA “shall be professional, politically impartial, multiethnic, and shall be subject to
Assembly oversight” 18 was modelled on Ahtisaari’s recommendation that the agency “shall be
professional, apolitical, multiethnic, and subject to parliamentary oversight.” 19
In June 2008, the Assembly enacted the Law on the Kosovo Intelligence Agency (henceforth the
Law on KIA), which provided a more specific mandate and expressed in detail regulations under
which KIA would operate. Specific provisions in the law limited KIA’s executive powers—
denying it the authority to use direct or indirect force, arrest citizens, or initiate criminal
proceedings. 20
Because the process of drafting the Law on KIA was less than transparent, it is difficult to know
the identities of those involved. What is known is that the legislation was derived from the
Ahtisaari Package and passed under Rule 61, an Assembly procedure (foreseen in the Ahtisaari
Package) providing for the accelerated passage of legislation. Under Rule 61, the members of the
Assembly were permitted just one day in session to consider the draft law, following prior
review not by a permanent committee but by an ad hoc group specifically established to
consider Rule 61 legislation. 21
The expedited manner in which the Law on KIA was passed led many citizens to conclude that
the legislation had been imposed on the country by the international community and thus might
not adequately reflect local context. Some critics have argued that because the original law was
written in English (a nonlocal language), the Law on KIA includes “chaotic content as the result
of weak and illogical translation,” 22 which makes many of its provisions ambiguous and difficult
to interpret (as is often the case with the Albanian language).
The Law on KIA’s accelerated passage—in particular, the absence of public debate—was
somewhat justified by the need to pass in a timely manner the legal framework necessary for
Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Article 129.1
United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo, Final Comprehensive Proposal for a Kosovo Status
Settlement (2007)
18 Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Article 129.2
19 United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo, Final Comprehensive Proposal for a Kosovo Status
Settlement (2007)
20 Law on KIA, Article. 3.1
21 Institute GAP Policy Brief, Rule 61: Ahtisaari Laws—consequences and lessons derived from the approval of laws
through an accelerated procedure (December 2010), page 3, and author’s participant observations during the 27
January 2011 Institute GAP conference Laws of the Ahtisaari Package—two years after their application.
22 Quoted from Abdullah Prapashtica, Lajme Dervina, http://lajme.dervina.com/archive/arkivi_.php?lajmi=47491596:489&printo=4749-1596:489
16
17
7
the establishment of the new Kosovar state. The Law on KIA may still be amended, and
legislators can now take into account the experience gained by agency officers and oversight
bodies. But no such process has yet taken place.
From an operational point of view, KIA is still in its initial stage of development. For instance, it
took the President and Prime Minister, who share the responsibility jointly, 23 nearly a year to
appoint the first KIA director. The public was never informed of the reason for the delay, but it
was widely assumed that the two leaders were vying for political control of the agency,
especially considering the tendency of former members to influence the politically led
intelligence services. The appointment of the Director was finally made in February 2009 as
part of a deal that included the appointments of the Deputy Director and Inspector General,
which had also been delayed.
Given the historical context—specifically, the roles played by the political party–led intelligence
agencies that preceded KIA and the recent declaration of independence—the developmental arc
that KIA has followed seems less surprising, especially in light of the major challenges it faces.
One of these has been the construction of a public profile that differentiates KIA from the likes
of SHIK or IHSOP. Negative perceptions of these former security services, especially following
the allegations in the Bllaca case, have made the creation of a positive public image for KIA
exceedingly difficult. Perhaps unfairly, many opposition parties and civil society organisations
have warned of the potential inclusion of former SHIK agents to positions within KIA, arguing
that such a practice undermines the agency’s legally mandated apolitical character. Public
opinion, meanwhile, fears there may be a conspiracy between former SHIK members and the
current KIA. Whether such worries are reasonable or groundless remains impossible to
determine in view of KIA’s deliberately opaque organisational structure. Generally, the real
profile of the KIA needs to, in the coming years, operate free of scandal and controversy in order
to improve public opinion and increase public trust towards this institution
Similarly, there are concerns about the “politicization” of KIA, as well as its potential
“policization,” (that is, the process of police practices becoming increasingly prevalent within
the agency). Interviews with stakeholders have revealed a fear that a number of former police
officers have been hired by KIA despite its explicitly non-police mandate. 24 Although one might
consider the experience of former police officers valuable, police modes of operation and the
police mindset might be incompatible with the manner of agency operation described in the
Law on KIA.
Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Article 129.3
Interview with an independent expert in Kosovo, 12 March 2011
Nevertheless, the author of this paper has been unable to determine the extent to which former police officers have
been recruited into KIA.
23
24
8
Very little public information exists regarding the operational activities of KIA to date. The one
notable exception is contained in the US State Department’s annual Country Reports on
Terrorism for 2009, which applauded the performance of the newly established KIA in
identifying several potential Islamic terrorist cells in Kosovo. According to the report, KIA
“suspected that some of the Islamic nongovernmental organisations were involved in suspicious
activities in laundering money for future terrorist acts in the Middle East.” 25 Yet without
additional information, no comprehensive assessment of KIA effectiveness can be made.
The degree to which KIA follows the principles of good governance is another area of interest to
researchers, especially among civil society organisations. The fact that KIA was being created
from scratch increased the hope that the best practices of democratic governance would be
applied to its development. Some lack of openness is to be expected, especially with regard to
the so-called “grey zone” of intelligence work. But even this accommodation for the operational
side of KIA activities does not explain the behaviour of the agency—which, in its complete
opacity, blocks access even to data that should be transparent. KIA communicates with the
public hardly at all, lacking even a web site. The agency’s excessively closed nature thus makes it
difficult to measure whether KIA is conducting its activities in accordance with relevant
legislation and the rule of law.
Intelligence Cooperation on the Local and International Level
Relevant law requires KIA to cooperate with other domestic security institutions—a
relationship that appears to have been formalised in some cases. Media reports indicate that
KIA has signed cooperation agreements with the police and the customs service, but there is no
open-source information to indicate any similar arrangement with the Kosovo Security Force or
other domestic security institutions. Nevertheless, de facto cooperation may be taking place.
Cooperation with foreign intelligence services is a different matter. The Law on KIA gives the
Director the authority to liaise with other intelligence agencies, but no provision of the law
places this cooperation under government or parliamentary control or oversight. The author of
this paper could not identify any open sources of information relating to cooperation between
KIA and other countries, but such cooperation almost certainly exists, especially with United
States and European Union member states’ intelligence services. The international presence in
Kosovo is far too great to imagine that foreign intelligence services are not active in the country.
Moreover, the geographic commonality of risks and threats in the Balkans makes regional
cooperation inevitable as well. Organised crime and terrorism impede the development of every
25
US State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 (August 2010), page 89
9
nation in the area, but KIA must balance regional threats with Kosovo’s delicate political
situation—specifically, its struggle for recognition of its statehood. The Director has asserted
publicly that sound cooperation exists between KIA and its regional counterparts, especially
with the Albanian State Intelligence Service. 26 There is no open-source information by which to
evaluate this statement, and it may well be true, but the author of this paper doubts that KIA
cooperates with either Serbian or Bosnian services because their respective countries have
refused to recognise the independence of Kosovo.
Oversight and Control
Like the agency itself, the mechanisms for control and oversight of KIA are still in their early
stages of development. To understand how these mechanisms function, one must first grasp the
position of KIA within the vertical hierarchy of the Kosovar government. According to the
agency’s legal framework, KIA is an independent body reporting directly to the Prime Minister
and the President. It does not belong to any ministry, nor is it part of the Office of the Prime
Minister. In addition, the KIA director sits on the Kosovo Security Council in an advisory
capacity. 27 Generally, there are actors supporting this type of structure responsible to the Prime
Minister, and there are also those advocating for an agency under the umbrella of Ministries
(either Ministry of Internal Affairs or Ministry of Foreign Affairs). However, a truly independent
agency responsible to the Prime Minister shall be likely considered as the Ministry without
portfolio. 28
Internal Bodies
KIA’s internal control mechanisms reflect a desire to operate institutionally within a system of
checks and balances. Chapter III of the Law on KIA describes in detail the powers and
responsibilities of the Inspector General, who is appointed jointly by the President and Prime
Minister. 29 The fact that the Inspector General is appointed directly by the President and Prime
Minister provides him/her with strong powers and legitimacy to exercise internal control
functions, which is not the case in other countries in the region. The term of office is four years,
renewable once for another four years. 30 The mandate of the Inspector General is to report to
the Prime Minister and to relevant parliamentary committees on the activities of KIA. In doing
Interview with KIA director Bashkim Smakaj, RTK Public Broadcast, January 2011
Law on Kosovo Security Council, Article 3.4
28 Interview with an official from an EU country, 3.03.2011
29 Law on KIA, Article 9.1
30 Ibid, Article 9.2
26
27
10
so, the Inspector General may initiate internal investigations, conduct financial audits, and
recommend corrective actions. 31
Delays in the development of KIA have also delayed the development of its internal controls.
Until the first half of 2011, the agency’s internal controls are said to be functioning only partially
and without a full complement of personnel. 32 One problem has been that the procedures
necessary to recruit and train qualified officers are complicated and quite sensitive. In the
meantime, the Inspector General’s operational capacity continues to grow. 33
Among the challenges to the effective functioning of KIA’s internal controls is a loophole in the
Law on KIA that permits the Director to stop any investigation by the Inspector General if the
Director determines that doing so is necessary to protect vital security interests. 34 This
provision may be overly broad, given that KIA’s mandate to gather information concerning vital
security interests seems to qualify nearly all of its activities for this protection. 35 For this reason,
the Law on KIA should be amended to avoid potential misuse of this provision.
Parliament
Chapter VII of the Law on KIA requires the Assembly to establish a “parliamentary oversight
body” whose primary mandate is to “oversee the legality of the work of KIA.” 36 (The body’s
mandate also includes the review of reports on KIA operations and expenditures.) In
accordance with this requirement, the Assembly established the Parliamentary Committee for
the Supervision of KIA in November 2009. 37 The Law on KIA empowers the committee to
initiate inquiries should it suspect that “KIA is performing its duties in an unlawful,
inappropriate, or unprofessional manner.” 38
Information provided by committee staff indicates that the committee has taken a proactive
approach to its responsibilities. 39 During its first year of operation, the committee met twelve
times or about once per month. In the course of these meetings, members prepared the
committee’s annual report and raised thirty-nine issues for discussion, resulting in three
decisions. Overall, this high level of activity suggests that the committee is, at present, one of the
most important actors in Kosovo fostering democratic oversight of KIA. Although the frequent
Ibid, Articles 10.3–10.5
Interview with KIA inspector general Agron Selimaj, 30 March 2011
33 Ibid
34Law on KIA, Article 10.6
35 KCSS, Control Functions of Independent State Institutions in the Security Sector in Kosovo, page 103
36 Law on KIA, Article 36.6
37 E-mail interview with Nur Çeku, Coordinator for the Parliamentary Committee for the Supervision of KIA, 31
January 2011
38 Law on KIA, Article 37.1
39 E-mail interview with Nur Çeku, Coordinator for the Parliamentary Committee for the Supervision of KIA, 31
January 2011
31
32
11
contact between members of the media and members of the committee has supported the
oversight process, journalistic access has been limited by the need of the committee to hold
closed sessions when considering confidential matters.
The committee is composed of nine members, a majority of whom typically belong to the
governing coalition. The chairperson, however, may not be a member of the ruling coalition. 40
Yet this respect for minority rights does not extend to gender. At present, only one member of
the committee is female, reflecting the limited interest the political parties have in assigning
women to security-related committees (currently, women make up about one-third of the
Kosovo Assembly).
In order to carry out their oversight functions, the members of the committee require access to
information that is often classified. With the specific exceptions of the President, the Prime
Minister, and the Chairperson of the Assembly, the Law on Classified Information and Security
Clearances in Kosovo requires everyone, including members of the Assembly, to undergo a
security check before being granted access to classified information. This leaves open the
possibility that a member of the committee may be denied the necessary security clearance, but
it was determined by those drafting the law that the protection of classified information
outweighed the inconvenience to members of the Assembly and their potential exclusion from
the work of the committee. The drafters had in mind, no doubt, the immaturity of the Kosovar
democracy and its weak electoral system, which has allowed in some cases the election of
Assembly members under suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, even after vetting, members
of the committee can be denied classified information if “its disclosure would threaten vital
national security interests linked to the protection of sources or methods in a specific case.” 41
One of the major weaknesses of the committee has been a lack of consistency arising from many
causes. The committee has taken a proactive approach thus far primarily because of the efforts
of the chairperson, who is a member of the opposition; but relying on individual members of the
committee to keep it moving forward begs inconsistency. Meanwhile, members of the
committee from the ruling coalition tend to insert their political agendas into committee
discussions in a manner that can sometimes shift the scope of oversight on a specific issue. To
illustrate, the several month long focus on the issue of party intelligence services has taken the
attention of the commission away from carrying out its mandate – oversight of the KIA. 42 In
addition, quite apart from these political concerns, the committee has only two staff members to
carry out all its administrative tasks and no professional staff to advise it. The rules of
Law on KIA, Article 36.2
Ibid, Article 37.6
42 Progress Report – Made in Kosova, p.31
40
41
12
confidentiality notwithstanding, the committee could certainly benefit from the availability of
external expertise.
In addition to the Parliamentary Committee for the Supervision of KIA, other committees with
KIA oversight responsibilities include the Parliamentary Committee on Budget and Finances,
which approves KIA’s annual budget; the Parliamentary Committee for Supervision of Public
Finances, which reviews KIA’s budgetary expenditures and audit reports; and the Parliamentary
Committee on the Rights and Interest of Communities and Returns, whose mandate includes
oversight of potential KIA abuse with regard to the rights of minority communities.
Media and Civil Society Organisations
The roles played by civil society organisations and the media in KIA oversight have been
relatively weak, likely because they are also in the early stages of their development. Few
nongovernmental organisations research or otherwise monitor the performance of the agency,
and these have so far issued but a few ad hoc reports evaluating the good governance aspects of
KIA oversight. 43 The media, in comparison, has primarily focused on the institutional
development of KIA. As discussed previously, media reports have raised concerns about
inappropriate political influence within the agency and have also monitored both the level of
KIA operability and the functioning of parliamentary oversight through interviews with
Assembly members. 44 Yet this reporting would be even more informative and valuable were it
not for KIA’s resistance to increased transparency. Beyond a few brief statements to journalists,
KIA has been silent, issuing no press releases and no reports. 45
Independent State Bodies
At present, independent state bodies play almost no role in KIA oversight. The Ombudsperson
and the Auditor General have, respectively, the responsibility to monitor human rights abuses
and to review the expenditure of public funds. To date, no cases of human rights abuse involving
KIA have been reported to the Ombudsperson, 46 apparently due to the so-far limited practice of
KIA. Of greater concern, however, is the failure so far of the Auditor General to conduct any
audit of KIA funds, 47 despite the legal requirement that all allocated public funds be subject to
external auditing. Although KIA might reasonably object to such auditing on the grounds of
43The Kosovar Center for Security Studies (KCSS) is one of the most active think tanks assessing good governance in
the security sector.
44 Unlike the minutes of the meetings of other parliamentary committees, the minutes of the meetings of the
Parliamentary Committee for the Supervision of KIA are not made available to the public.
45 Interview with security sector communication specialist Abit Hoxha, 24 March 2011
46 KCSS, Control Functions of Independent State Institutions in the Security Sector in Kosovo, page 34
47 Ibid
13
confidentiality, workarounds could easily be developed, included the prior security vetting of
auditors assigned to the task.
Judiciary
Under normal circumstances, the judiciary would play an important role in ensuring the legality
of intelligence agency operations. In Kosovo, however, where the judiciary remains weak, one
cannot expect judges to exert control any time in the near future. The Law on KIA specifically
requires the approval of a Supreme Court Judge before KIA can institute such special
investigative
measures
as
surveillance
in
non-public
places
and
interception
of
telecommunications. 48 But it has been impossible to analyze the functioning of this provision
because KIA admits to no operations that have required such measures.
Strengthening Oversight and Control
Given the lack of information about KIA operations and the brief lifespan of the agency, one
must be tentative in suggesting changes for the improvement of KIA oversight. Nevertheless, the
following recommendations can be made confidently:
•
The relevant parliamentary committees should focus on consistency as they carry out
their oversight responsibilities.
•
The Assembly should increase staff support for the relevant parliamentary
committees, including the provision of civil society experts capable of advising the
committees on the intricacies of intelligence work.
•
Both the relevant parliamentary committees and especially KIA should be more
transparent so that the public can be better informed. KIA should create a web site that
presents key information about its mandate and operations to the public for the
purpose of building public trust.
•
The role of the Inspector General should be given more emphasis, and the legislative
provision allowing the Director to halt investigations initiated by the Inspector General
should be modified.
•
KIA and civil society organisations should engage with one another over key
developmental issues related to intelligence. Roundtable discussions involving KIA and
48
Law on KIA, Article 28.1
14
civil society representatives, as well as independent experts and academics, could also
serve as effective platforms for communication.
•
Communication between KIA and the media also needs to be improved so that, through
greater access to information, the media can feel confident that it is adequately
informing its audience. Specifically, KIA should create a communications office, or at
least appoint a spokesperson, to transmit information to journalists and address their
questions.
•
The Auditor General should begin auditing the financial statements of KIA immediately
or, if necessary, as soon as the assigned auditors receive the necessary security
clearances.
Conclusion
The limited activity of KIA to date makes understanding its functionality and the mechanisms
for its oversight difficult. However, this absence of data does not make the KIA immune from
analysis or criticism. The fear that the newly established KIA may inherit the failings of its
political party–led predecessors is quite real, as is the concern that former SHIK and IHSOP
operatives will dominate its personnel. These fears help to keep alive the perception that
politicisation is the natural state of all intelligence services, and this adds the risk that the
agency’s public image might be compromised.
To counteract these views, the KIA needs to develop a public image that emphasises openness
and professionalism rather than menace and secrecy. It could begin by adopting a more
proactive attitude toward its relationships with the media and civil society organisations. In this
way, KIA could make a clear break from feelings about past non-statutory services
The growth in influence of the relevant parliamentary committee is another avenue by which
KIA oversight might be effectively fostered. But parliamentary control by itself is insufficient.
Civil society organisations, the media and independent state institutions, too, must be included
in the process if it is to be successful. Only when all of the parts work together as an integrated
system can the goal of democratic oversight confidently be achieved. At the time of this writing,
there still remains much work to be done.
15
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Email interview with Nur Çeku, Coordinator for the Parliamentary Committee on Supervision of
KIA, 31 January, Prishtina, 2011
Interview with Abit Hoxha, Security Sector Communication Specialist, 24.03.2011, Prishtina
Interview with Agron Selimaj, Inspector General of Kosovo Intelligence Agency, 30.03.2011
Interview with an official from one of EU countries, 3.03.2011
Interview with independent expert in Kosovo, 12.03.2011
Kosovo Assembly, Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, 2008
Kosovo Assembly, Law on Classified Information and Security Clearance, 2010
Kosovo Assembly, Law on Kosovo Intelligence Agency, 2008
Kosovo Assembly, Law on Kosovo Security Council, 2008
Secondary Sources
Belgrade Centre for Security Policies, Context Analysis of Security Sector Reform in Serbia
(1989-2009), 2011, Belgrade
Government of Kosovo, Internal Security Sector Review, 2006, Prishtina
Institute GAP, Rregulli 61, Policy Brief, 2010, Prishtina,
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies, Context Analysis of Security Sector Reform in Kosovo
(1999-2009), Prishtina, 2011
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies, Control Functions of Independent State Institutions in the
Security Sector in Kosovo
Kosovapress: www.kosovapress.com
KIPRED, Shërbimet në hije të inteligjencës në Kosovë: Shpërbërje, Shkrirje apo Integrim? 2006,
Prishtina
KLAN Kosova Interview with Kadri Veseli, Director of SHIK, TV KLAN Kosova, 28 December
2009
Lajme Dervina: www.lajme.dervina/archive/arkivi_php
Portali Telegrafi: www.telegrafi.com
RTK Interview with Bashkim Smakaj, Director of KIA, RTK Public Broadcast, January 2011
16
RTK, Statement of Kadri Veseli, Director of SHIK, RTK Public Broadcast, 15 June 2008
UNOSEK, Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo’s Status Settlement, New York, 2007
US State Department, Country Reports on Counterterrorism, Kosovo Part, Washington, 2010
Veseli, Kadri. SHIK-u 1999-2008, Rrethanat e veprimit dhe përfundimi i misionit, Daily “Zëri”,
17.03.2011
17