radiofree.asia

Category: Serbia

  • The Non-explosive Iranian Bomb

    The non-existent Iranian bomb has lesser importance to the existing bombs that threaten the world. United States (US) demands that Iran promise to halt pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile developments distract from the real intent of US actions — deter other nations from establishing more friendly relations with Iran and prevent them from gaining a correct perspective on the causes of the Middle East crises.

    The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) created a potential for extensive political, economic, and social engagements of the international community with Iran. The investments would lead to attachments, friendships, and alliances and initiate a revitalized, prosperous, and stronger Iran. A new perspective of Iran could yield a revised perspective of a violent, unstable, and disturbed Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia would finally receive attention as participants in bringing chaos to the Arab region. Economies committed to Iran’s progress and allied with its interests could bring pressure on Israel and Saudi Arabia to change their destructive behaviors.

    Because arguments with Iran could have been approached in a less provocative and insinuating manner, the previous demands were meant to provoke and insinuate. Assuredly, the US wants Iran to eschew nuclear and ballistic weapons, but the provocative approach indicated other purposes — alienate Iran, destroy its military capability, and bring Tehran to collapse and submission. For what reasons? Accomplishing the far-reaching goals will not affect the average American, lessen US defense needs, or diminish the continuous battering of the helpless faces of the Middle East. The strategy mostly pleased Israel and Saudi Arabia, who engineered it, share major responsibility for the Middle East turmoil, and consistently try to use mighty America to subdue the principal antagonist to their malicious activities. During the 2016 presidential campaign, contender Donald Trump said, “Many nations, including allies, ripped off the US.” President Donald Trump has verified that statement.

    Noting the history of US promises to leaders of other nations – give up your aggressive attitudes and you will benefit – the US promises make the Ayatollahs skeptical. The US reneged on the JCPOA, sent Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to the World Court and eventual death (although his personal compromises were the key to the Dayton Accords that ended the Yugoslavian conflict), directly assisted NATO in the overthrow of subdued Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, pulverized Iraq after sanctions could not drive that nation to total ruin, rejected the Iranian pledge of $560 million worth of assistance to Afghanistan at the Tokyo donors’ conference in January 2002, and, according to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, disregarded Iran’s “decisive role in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands of wanting 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government.” Tehran has always sensed it is in a no-win situation. Regardless of its decisions and directions, the U.S. intends to pulverize the centuries old Persian lands.

    If the US honestly wants to have Iran promise never to pursue nuclear and ballistic missile weapons, it will approach the issues with a simple question, “What will it take for you (Iran) never to pursue these weapons?” Assuredly, the response will include provisions for the US to withdraw support from a despotic Saudi Kingdom in its oppression of minorities and opposition and propose that the US eliminate financial, military and cooperative support to Israel’s theft of Palestinian lands, oppressive conditions imposed on Palestinians, daily killings of Palestinian people, and expansionist plans. The correct question soliciting a formative response and leading to decisive US actions resolves two situations and benefits the US — fear of Iran developing weapons of mass destruction is relieved and the Middle East is pointed in a direction that achieves justice, peace, and stability for its peoples.

    Despite the August 2018 report from Trump’s U.S. Department of State’s Iran Action group, which “chronicle Iran’s destructive activities,” and consists of everything from most minor to most major, from unsubstantiated to retaliatory, from the present time to before the discovery of dirt, Iranians will not rebel in sufficient numbers against their own repressive state until they note the end of hypocritical support by western powers of other repressive states. Halting international terrorism, ameliorating the Middle East violence, and preventing any nation from establishing hegemony in the Arab world starts with Trump confronting Israel and Saudi Arabia, two nations whose records of injustice, aggression, oppression, and violation of human rights exceed that of the oppressive Iran regime.

    Otherwise, it will occur on a Sunday morning; always occurs in the early hours on the day of rest. It will come with a roar greater than the sum of all shrieks and screams ever uttered by humankind, rip across fields and cities, and burn through the flesh of a part of the world’s population.

    The post The Non-explosive Iranian Bomb first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Plenums In The Post-Yugoslav Space

    We see that in different temporal and spatial realities, in moments of social upheaval, that societies begin to move and self-organize. There is a common trait that often connects such experiences – the emergence of grassroots institutions that allow for direct participation of the citizenry. These reflect what CLR James has termed as universal sentiment towards direct democracy. Such democratic institutions emerged during the French Revolution in the form of sectional assemblies, in the heyday of the Haitian Revolution as organs of the people, in the early stages of the Russian Revolution as soviets, throughout the Spanish Revolution in the shape of popular committees.

    The post Plenums In The Post-Yugoslav Space appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Some governments are ‘weaponising’ Trump language to attack NGOs

    On 2 April 2025 AFP reported that language used by President Donald Trump and his government to slash US-funded foreign aid is being adopted by other governments to attack NGOs and independent media.

    Civil society groups in parts of Eastern Europe and beyond — long targeted by discredit-and-defund campaigns because of the light they shone on corruption and lack of transparency — are now also dealing with Trumpian rhetoric, human rights groups said.

    Trump administration statements “are being weaponised in real-time by autocrats and dictators across Eastern and Southeastern Europe to justify and deepen their crackdown on independent media, NGOs, and human rights defenders,” Dave Elseroad, of the Human Rights House Foundation, told AFP.

    From Hungary to Serbia, to Georgia and Bosnia, non-governmental organisations and independent media outlets working to bolster democratic norms are hearing officials borrow White House phrases to justify officials’ stances against them.

    © Kayla Bartkowski / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File

    It includes Trump’s claim that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was “run by radical lunatics”, and his billionaire advisor Elon Musk’s calling the agency a “criminal organisation” that needed to be put “through the woodchipper”.

    Such terms are “seriously encouraging language used in Budapest or in Belgrade or in Bratislava or Banja Luka,” said Miklos Ligeti, head of legal affairs at Transparency International’s Hungary chapter.

    In some countries, the verbal ammunition comes on top of a sudden funding gap wrought by the dismantling of USAID, which is hitting the NGO sector hard. USAID had been providing funding to a vast array of independent organisations in countries like Hungary where such groups have been “financially suffocated domestically,” Ligeti told AFP.

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has hailed the crackdown on USAID by his ally Trump as a “cleansing wind”. Orban has vowed to “eliminate the entire shadow army” he says is made up of his political enemies, judges, the media and NGOs.

    The UN rights office in Geneva slammed “escalating attempts worldwide to weaken and harm domestic and international human rights systems, including defunding and delegitimising civil society”. It said that “it is all the more worrying to see these trends also emerging in established democracies”.

    In some countries there is a direct line between utterances in Washington and action to undermine civil society. In Georgia, for example, the ruling Georgian Dream party last month called for the country to adopt its own version of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) — which observers warn could be turned against NGOs receiving foreign funding.

    And in Serbia, which has been rocked by months of protests over government corruption, authorities referred to statements made by Trump and other top US officials to justify raiding a number of NGOs. The Serbian government saw the Trump administration’s labelling of USAID as a “criminal organisation” as “a fantastic opportunity to basically punish civil society”, said Rasa Nedeljkov, programme director at the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA).

    CRTA’s offices were raided in February by heavily armed police. The operation took 28 hours because prosecutors had CRTA staff manually copy documents related to USAID-funded projects to hand to them, rather than accepting digital versions.

    Serbian authorities have explicitly referred to statements by Trump and other US officials to justify raids on a number of NGOs.

    Pavol Szalai, head of the EU-Balkans desk at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), said leaders in a string of countries were using “the suspension of USAID by Trump to attack media which had received USAID funds”. He said such groups were being doubly punished: they “lost their funding from one day to the next” while also increasingly being “targeted by intimidation”…

    He warned that, “as these media retreat.. they will be replaced by propaganda”.

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250402-other-governments-weaponising-trump-language-to-attack-ngos-rights-groups

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Yasmine Al-Mashaan, a Syrian human rights defender, on transitional justice

    On 12 March 2025 the OHCHR published the feature:

    Two women looking at the camera

    From left:Human rights defenders Sofija Todorovic (Serbia) and Yasmin Al-Mashaan (Syria) © OHCHR/Gabriela Gorjón

    “I’m the only girl of six siblings. And suddenly I lost five brothers between 2012 and 2014,” said Yasmine Al-Mashaan, a Syrian human rights defender and victim. “Before they were taken, they were around to love and protect me. I think it’s my duty to give them a little bit of their love and to fight for truth and justice for them and for everyone,” said Al-Mashaan, a former pharmaceutical assistant.

    She spoke during an enhanced interactive dialogue on transitional justice at the 58th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, where UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk presented a report on lessons learned and good practices related to transitional justice in the context of sustaining peace and sustainable development.

    “In 2018, I co-founded, along with other families of forcibly disappeared persons, the Caesar Families Association, which brings together families who identified their loved ones among the victims in the photos smuggled out of Syria in 2013, known as the Caesar Photos,” Al-Mashaan said.

    Her brother Oqba, one of her two disappeared brothers, was among the photos. 

    Türk emphasized that transitional justice tackles the demons of the past to build a better future.

    “It grapples with difficult questions about truth and memory. It looks for justice, in all its complex and myriad forms,” he said. “And it helps to repair the institutional and social fabric of fractured societies. Above all, transitional justice is about victims, dignity and healing.”

    According to the Office’s report, in the aftermath of a conflict or large-scale and serious human rights violations and abuses, States have an obligation to provide truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. The report showcases some 36 victim-centred, inclusive, and gender-responsive transitional justice efforts led by victim associations and grass-roots organizations from dozens of countries, from Colombia to Syria, and Chad to Timor Leste.

    However, Türk said, the path to peace is never easy.

    “Transitional justice is often held up and slowed down by political instrumentalization, discriminatory or selective design and focus, insufficient buy-in of affected populations, and weak State institutions,” he said.

    Women and youth as a driving force

    Türk said that civil society, including grass-roots organizations often led by women and youth, play a crucial role in overcoming these challenges.

    Sofija Todorovic, Programme Director of Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Serbia, who also participated in the dialogue, believes the role of youth organizations in transitional justice is indispensable.

    “These organizations ensure that the voices and perspectives of young people are integrated into the policies and strategies shaping their future,” she said. “In many cases, their mission extends to educating youth about the history that has been deliberately concealed from them.”

    Todorovic’s determination was fuelled by the realization that her country had hidden the truth from her.

    “My State and the institutions within my State didn’t give me the right to truth and to make informed conclusion about the past, but rather they forced only one side of the story of the past,” she said. “And I think that that it’s unfair.”

    She emphasized the need to address intergenerational trauma in transitional justice efforts.

    “Only people who have space to heal can be able to build functional democracy,” she said. “We need a political climate that will resolve the trauma, not exploit it.”

    Both Todorovic and Al-Mashaan’s organizations exemplify the power of women’s leadership, resilience, and strategic action in advancing transitional justice despite significant obstacles.

    Justice and peace

    Leyner Palacios Asprilla, a Colombian human rights defender and former Truth Commission member currently leading the Unit for Victims of the Chocó Region, participated in the dialogue via video message. The situation in his region remains so critical that he couldn’t leave the victims he works with alone.

    For Palacios Asprilla, UN Human Rights in Colombia has been instrumental in navigating the challenges of consolidating peace, protecting victims, and defending human rights.

    “Today, the world cannot forget our country because we have not yet crossed the finish line or overcome the obstacles to reach a point of tranquillity,” he said. “Colombia is an example to the world in its commitment to consolidating peace. But the world must not forget that this task is not yet complete.”

    Türk said that in this fragmented world, transitional justice is an essential and creative problem-solving approach. It must be grasped, nurtured and used to build durable peace.

    Many countries, including Nepal, Syria, and Bangladesh, have enormous opportunity to move towards justice and peace, he said.

    Key takeaways

    In preparing the report, UN Human Rights organized consultations with 70 women and 70 men from more than 77 countries, including representatives of national entities implementing transitional justice measures, victims’ associations and civil society organizations, regional and international human rights protection systems, and transitional justice experts and practitioners.

    The report identifies seven key lessons in advancing transitional justice:

    1. Documenting human rights violations is essential for accountability and future justice.
    2. Marginalized victims must be included, ensuring their experiences are recognized.
    3. Victims’ associations play a crucial role in advocacy and justice efforts.
    4. Immediate legal, medical, and psychological support helps victims navigate trauma.
    5. International human rights mechanisms provide accountability when national justice fails.
    6. Universal jurisdiction and international courts offer alternatives when domestic options are blocked.
    7. Grassroots memory and memorialization preserve historical truth and prevent future atrocities.

    see also: Transitional justice and human rights Report by UN Human Rights

    https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2025/03/transitional-justice-confronting-past-building-future

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Was A Sonic Weapon Used On Student Protesters In Serbia? | Witnesses Speak Up


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • How USAID Makes People Homeless In Serbia

    Photograph Source: Embajada de EEUU en Argentina – CC BY 2.0

    The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) played a pivotal role in shaping a legal system in post-socialist Yugoslavia (later Serbia) which exacerbated homelessness and enabled large corporations, banks, state agencies and public institutions to seize people’s only homes and burden the residents of the war-torn Balkan country with overwhelming debt, public sources reveal. While evidence that the US intended to impoverish and displace the people of Serbia is limited, a rare testimony from a former telecommunications minister offers invaluable insight into Washington’s thinking.

    NASCENT NEOLIBERALISM

    Beginning in 1992, the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) had privatized its housing fund, enabling most citizens to purchase apartments at low cost that were previously ‘socially’ owned — a distinct form of ownership pioneered by the Yugoslav socialist experiment. This led to high homeownership rates across all the former Yugoslav republics, similar to other post-socialist states like Russia and current socialist countries such as China and Vietnam.

    In 1999, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), an American regime change instrument operating under the auspices of the national-security state, financed and critically advised a coalition of 19 Serbian opposition organizations (the Democratic Opposition of Serbia – DOS) on the only viable way they could overthrow the bloc around Slobodan Milošević. The US, along with the European Union, has ever since ’’aided’’ pliable governments in implementing gutting neoliberal reforms, with the purported aim of ’’economic stabilization“ , ’’democratic development’’ and other such fanciful catchwords.

    A decade of war, sanctions and an illegal NATO bombing campaign preceded the ’’revolution’’ in 2000, in which pro-Western, decidedly neoliberal parties won the elections by a very narrow margin. In the first decade of ’’democratic“ rule private monopolies were formed, social safety nets were shredded and democratic institutions inherited from socialism pulverized, with estimates of people who lost their jobs in Serbia alone reaching hundreds of thousands.

    The end goal of this first phase of neoliberalizing the economy (and more broadly, the whole of society) was the wanton destruction of domestic industry through the privatization of socially owned enterprises (SSOEs), which were worker-operated businesses, another staple of Yugoslav socialism. Financially solvent SSOEs were declared bankrupt and sold off for less than the value of their bankruptcy estates, with the bankruptcy process marred by irregularities and corruption. The domestic bourgeoisie would later make billions by consolidating privatized firms into oligopolies and selling them off to foreign capital.

    After this came the next phase of “development”– introducing austerity, expanding the debt-based economy and allowing (foreign) capital to pilfer what wealth was left–natural resources and peoples’ homes. This pivot from privatization and deindustrialization to introducing debt slavery and soaring prices of commodities in Serbia coincided with a passing of the torch from the old political elite (DOS), at this point widely hated for it’s overwhelming corruption and haughtiness, to the ruling manager of neoliberalism in Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić and his “Progressive” party. Unlike his predecessors who failed to meet IMF requirements and thus forfeited the help from their “friends” in Washington, Vučić took in every third-rate huckster from the previous regime and disciplined them, centralized political power and provided a “stable investment climate”.

    HOMES AS FINANCIAL “INFRASTRUCTURE”

    A former Minister of Telecommunications in the short-lived government of 2007-2008, Aleksandra Smiljanić, explainedin an interview with the Party of the Radical Left (PRL) how a representative from a US financial consulting firm foresaw that real estate would act as a means of payment and that frequent evictions would become common judicial practice years before this catastrophe fully materialized.

    The American consultant was to advise the ministry on how to sell off the public telecommunications company and the meeting had been arranged by Mlađan Dinkić, the minister of economy at the time. The “advice” was that, after privatizing it, “Telecom” should increase the cost of its services tenfold, so that it could “attract more foreign investors”. Smiljanić was dumbfounded by the suggestion and asked the consultant if he was aware that a lot of her fellow citizens wouldn’t be able to pay such exorbitant prices, especially the elderly.

    The reply was that the people of Serbia have “infrastructure” that would act as a means of payment, but Smiljanić, still surprised, insisted on a straight answer. The explanation she got was as sincere as it was brazen – “Well, your country has a lot of homeowners”. Years later, legislative changes would make this a grim reality – families frequently losing their only home because of piled-up bills.

    Was this calculation a result of pure professional acumen garnered through years of corporate expertise, or did the consultant know something that the minister didn’t, about the bleak future Serbia was barreling towards?

    JUSTICE IS SERVED…DIGITALLY

    On March 6th 2001, just a couple of months after the “revolution” in 2000, the governments of Yugoslavia and the US signed an Agreement “concerning economic, technical and related assistance”. This paved the way for USAID to get intimately involved with Serbian statecraft  – “helping” with legislative changes, the reconstruction of public institutions, the economy, etc. One of the agency’s first endeavors was “digitalization” – USAID donated a mountain of old computers to Serbian institutions, especially courts and public prosecutors’ offices. Money was also allocated for the renewal of some court buildings and even the website of parliament bears a USAID stamp at the bottom.

    This fits the MO, as has been exhaustively documented in other cases and in different countries, in which the US provides some technical support or funds humanitarian groups, in order to obscure the other nefarious developments they put into play. The good will that this charity temporarily ensured with the general public paved the way for another Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Serbian Ministry of Justice and the US government in 2006 regarding the reformation of the Bankruptcy and Enforcement systems. These processes, which resulted in the new Law on bankruptcy (2009) and Law on Enforcement and Security Interest (2011), were vital. Both legislative changes outsourced public authority and judicial power to private entrepreneurs. The former ensured that what was left of SSOEs was privatized with virtually no transparency, while the latter destroyed basic human rights for poor debtors within the enforcement system.

    The work group that drafted the new law on enforcement was composed of lawyers, economists, but also (and very tellingly) – bankers. But before the establishment of the work group, the ministry formed an “expert group” that set the parameters of the new law, which the work group would adopt. Naturally, this group of experts worked closely with USAID, the forerunner of judicial reform in Serbia.

    The seemingly carefully crafted framing in the years leading up to the law on enforcement being changed in 2011 was that it would protect “the little creditor”, the masses of people who’ve lost their jobs during privatization, and were owed severance pay and/or dozens of monthly wages. People were led to believe that private entrepreneurship will help speed up the still sluggish court system. This was the prevailing narrative, in no small part thanks to liberal media outlets, which led the charge in bolstering the voices of “professionals” and ignoring dissenting voices, which were too few.

    In sharp contrast to what was publicly promised, the new enforcement process heavily favored those who could pay for it, the big, giant and gargantuan creditors. In 2024 alone, thousands of workers from Niš and Prokuplje protested, because they are still owed millions of euros in backpay, despite having positive verdicts from the Constitutional court, the highest judicial body in the country, confirming the validity of their claims (and these are only the people we know about through media reports).

    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BAILIFF, AN ENFORCER AND A RACKETEER? 

    With parliament officially adopting it in 2011, the new law uprooted the “traditional method” of enforcing court decisions. Whereas enforcers, or bailiffs, were previously directly accountable to the courts which employed them, after 2011 they became self-employed private entrepreneurs working for profit. This policy effectively privatized a part of the judicial system, with bailiffs now being under the vague control of the Ministry of Justice and their own chamber. Bailiffs now get paid for enforcing each legal writ separately, with an untransparent “reward” system for expedient enforcement.

    The changes also brought a cruel penalty for poor people – if you can’t pay your debt, a bailiff will sell your property or seize your earnings, and you have to pay them for doing so. These are known as “enforcement costs” and can vary wildly, with some going up to 10,000 euros for trying to enforce a single eviction attempt. These new astronomical fees bloated every transaction, so that the enforcement industry made at least two for every euro transferred from debtor to creditor. Bailiffs are now known to make a million euros in sheer profit annually, in a country where the median monthly wage is around 500 euros.

    In actuality, what was created was a “mafia”, cartel, a “state within a state” as attested by a significant portion of the Serbian populace. High-profile debacles involving bailiffs abound, with both sides of the polarized major media machine (government sponsored and western-backed opposition oriented) running stories on bailiffs every month or so. Introducing the profit motive in enforcing court documents opened up the broadest avenues for legalized corruption, with money being the ultimate accelerant of the final part of the judicial process. The more money you had, the more “justice” you could afford.

    Forced evictions became commonplace, with homes being sold for meager debts and often auctioned off for 20-30% market value. The opaque “reward” system meant that bailiffs were paid in proportion to the disputed value between debtor and creditor. This meant that enforcing documents pertaining to immovables became a lucrative business model, which in turn meant a surge of forced evictions, often while the evictees were still in a legal battle against the decision which led to their dislodgement.

    IF IT AIN’T BROKE…

    In 2017, USAID produced an analysis of the price list of the enforcement industry. Their own conclusion was that the system they created might be “unsustainable”, if not for an influx of new cases. The American agency also organized workshops for bailiffs, in which they were taught the art of rhetoric and PR competence, a much needed skill in the industry. USAID even did a public opinion poll asking banks how satisfied they are with the new enforcement process. This should more than suffice as evidence of what the US cares about developing in Serbia – an enforcement system that favor, most of all, banks.

    Even with the extensive power and ample autonomy the enforcement industry was entrusted with thanks to the USAID sponsored law, there are plenty of instances in which bailiffs were accused of forgery, embezzlement, bribery and so on. Working hand in glove with banks, huge construction firms, investors and public utility companies, meant that it pays to break the law sometimes. Conveniently, for violations other than criminal offenses, the only place to file a complaint is the chamber of bailiffs and ministry. However, the endless stream of scandals and strong public outrage forced the government to change the law in 2019, again with the help of USAID.

    This legislative change was presented as a crackdown on bailiff corruption by government controlled media, but in reality it only made the state of affairs worse for everyone except them. Despite their sheer unpopularity, impunity and rampant rapacity, the government gave them more authority over the police in eviction processes, for example. Bailiffs couldn’t sell property they seize to their friends and relatives anymore, but they still can trade in devalued dwellings, just through thuggish third parties, as has been reported from the ground by activist and citizen journalists. The new regulations also allowed for homes to be auctioned off online, without the “occupants” having a real choice in the matter. This too was portrayed as “greater transparency”.

    From a broader perspective, it’s worth pointing out that this kind of brutal enforcement system with privatized entrepreneurial “agents” was established and had major consequences in other European countries, particularly Spain, where hundreds of thousands were forcibly evicted and displaced, with banks repossessing a huge swath of real estate after the crash of 2008 drowned a lot of ordinary people in debt. This in turn gave rise to social movements resisting and blocking eviction attempts all across Europe, including in Serbia, where privatizing a part of the judiciary was one of the preconditions to EU accession.

    The post How USAID Makes People Homeless In Serbia appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jovan Milovanović.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Sovereignty

    With Trump’s recent tongue-lashing of Zelensky at their meeting in Washington DC, social media is now flooded with anguished cries about Ukraine’s sovereignty and how the U.S. must stand up to Russia’s empire-building invasion. The “consensus” claims Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty cannot be tolerated and must be punished.

    Respect for sovereignty? Are these well-intentioned but completely misguided folks incapable of remembering the not so distant past?

    Did America respect Korea’s sovereignty when it canceled free and open elections there in 1950, instigating an unnecessary, brutal war? Over 2 million Koreans were killed.

    Did America respect Vietnam’s sovereignty when it decided Vietnam could not have a Communist government there and slaughtered 3 million people? Vietnam is communist now. I’ve lived there. It does just fine.

    Did America respect Serbia’s sovereignty when it bombed Belgrade for 79 days and finally carved out Kosovo so it could build what was for years the largest NATO base in Eastern Europe?

    Did America respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty when it refused to work with the Taliban when they offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, but chose instead to invade and launch a 22-year war? We killed tens of thousands of Afghanis, lost the war. The Taliban is still in power.

    Did America respect Iraq’s sovereignty when it lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded, killing, and displacing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens?

    Did America respect Libya’s sovereignty when it and its NATO puppets destroyed the richest country in Africa and killed its revered leader, Muammar Gaddafi? Libya is a broken country now with a dysfunctional economy and open slave markets.

    Did America respect Syria’s sovereignty when it funded terrorists to topple the government of Assad and eventually built bases in the country to choke off the food supply of the Syrian people and “steal their oil”?

    Did America itself respect Ukraine’s sovereignty when it engineered the Maidan coup in 2014, toppled the democratically elected president, and installed a US puppet regime in power?

    I could go on. But I’ll mention one last one, keeping in mind the Russiagate hoax where Russia was falsely accused of meddling in US elections …

    Did America respect RUSSIA’S SOVEREIGNTY when it funded the re-election campaign of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, because we knew he would do our bidding?

    Sovereignty, eh? If any of our leaders can even spell ‘sovereignty’, they sure as hell have no idea what it means.

    The post Sovereignty first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Spread of ‘foreign agent’ laws in Eastern Europe

    Natika Kantaria is a human rights advocate with nearly a decade of experience planning and implementing advocacy campaigns in human rights. She has worked with international organizations and watchdog NGOs and collaborated with the public and private sectors. For the ISHR she wrote a piece on 26 February 2025 about a worrying trend: ‘Foreign agent’ laws have been introduced in various countries, violating international human rights law and threatening to silence human rights defenders. This pattern is particularly evident in Eastern Europe, where NGOs courageously resist and need the support of the international community. See e.g. my earlier posts:

    ‘Foreign Agent’ Laws Spread, now also Georgia ?
    Kyrgyzstan (and Slovakia) on their way to emulate Russia with draft law on ‘foreign representatives (agents)’

    Societies thrive when everyone can work, speak out, and organise freely and safely to ensure justice and equality for all. Legislation requiring NGOs to register as ‘foreign agents’ is a barrier to this virtuous cycle. Despite the European Court of Human Rights’ 2022 ruling that Russia’s 2012 foreign agent law violated freedom of expression and association, the governments of Hungary, Georgia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have proceeded undeterred to introduce similar laws. 

    These laws specifically target NGOs and not-for-profits that receive foreign funds and require them to register as foreign agents, organisations serving the interests of a foreign power, or agents of foreign influence. By doing so, they restrict the capacity of  human rights defenders to organise, participate and exercise their right to defend rights by:

    • imposing disproportionately high fines and heavy sanctions to NGOs refusing to comply, which may ultimately lead to the termination of their operations 
    • using vague wording, that ultimately gives too much room and power for government interpretation. For instance, the requirement for NGOs to register in official records or identify themselves as ‘agents of foreign influence’ lacks clarity and specificity.  
    • increasing the burden of NGOs by introducing heavy reporting and auditing requirements. The State’s alleged need for transparency as their primary purpose can, therefore, be effectively addressed through existing legislation regulating NGOs.
    • employing a negative narrative that stigmatises and delegitimises the work of the civil society organisations and human rights defenders. This rhetoric promotes hostility and distrust toward civil society and encourages attacks against defenders.

    Furthermore, such laws contradict the commitments of these countries under international human rights law. Article 13 of the 1998 UN Declaration on human rights defenders recognises the right of defenders to solicit, receive and utilise resources.

    Article 10 of the Declaration +25, a supplement to the UN Declaration put forward in 2024 by civil society, human rights defenders and legal experts, addresses States’ attempts to prohibit foreign contributions or impose unjustified national security limitations. It stipulates that States should not hinder financial resources for human rights defenders and outlines measures to prevent retaliation based on the source of their funding. These laws violate rights related to freedom of expression, association, and privacy, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Foreign agent laws also run counter to commitments made by countries at the regional level as members of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11, which emphasizes the protection and promotion of civil society space and OSCE guidelines for protecting human rights defenders. 

    NGOs are increasingly becoming a primary target for repressive governments. According to the CIVICUS Monitor 2024 report, the countries mentioned above that have introduced ‘foreign agent’ laws have either ‘closed’ or ‘obstructed’ civil society space. In addition, the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its decision to freeze foreign aid have contributed to strengthening hostile narratives already present in ‘foreign agent laws’ in Eastern Europe and have emboldened governments in their efforts to publicly undermine these organisations.  

    While the silencing of NGOs has become part of the agenda for many governments, and the rise of ‘foreign agent’ laws serves as a step towards establishing authoritarian regimes, civil society actors continue to mobilise in response. Strengthening engagement with international human rights mechanisms, fostering joint global advocacy, and providing support to targeted organisations and groups are essential steps that international NGOs and the international community should take to build resistance, reinforce coalition efforts, and protect the work of human rights defenders.

    International and regional human rights mechanisms have called for governments to either repeal these laws, or not to adopt them in their current forms. On 7 February 2025, three UN independent experts issued a statement in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the government reintroduced the ‘Law on the Special Registry and Publicity of the Work of Non-Profit Organisations’ after its initial withdrawal in May 2024. The statement stressed that creating a register of non-profit organisations receiving foreign funding in one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina will impose severe restrictions on NGOs and would grant government control over their operation, including the introduction of an annual inspection, with further reviews of legality of CSOs receiving foreign funding possible upon requests from citizens or relevant authorities.

    In this unsupportive environment, donors have a fundamental role to play. ‘As civil society actors devise strategies to push back against these repressive tactics, private philanthropy and bilateral and multilateral donors have vital support roles to play,’ writes James Savage, who leads the Fund for Global Human Rights’ (FGHR) programme on the Enabling Environment for Human Rights Defenders. ‘They can help civil society prepare for future challenges, so that it is organised not only to respond to evolving forms of repression but also to get ahead of them by tackling their root causes,’ Savage concludes.

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/spread-of-foreign-agent-laws-in-eastern-europe-pose-increasing-threats-to-civil-society

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Prominent Serbian minority newspaper receives threatening letter with white powder

    Berlin, February 11, 2025—Croatian authorities must swiftly investigate the recent threat to the staff of weekly newspaper Novosti, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday, after the country’s most prominent Serbian minority newspaper received a letter containing a suspicious powder and referencing a deadly nerve agent.

    “Croatian authorities must spare no effort in bringing all perpetrators to justice and ensuring the safety of Novosti’s staff,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Such intimidating attacks create a climate of fear for journalists and can have a chilling effect on press freedom. Authorities must take measures to prevent such threats in the future.”

    On February 5, Novosti’s editorial office in the capital, Zagreb, received a letter addressed to the editor-in-chief and referencing the weekly’s recent 25th anniversary. The letter, which contained an unknown powder, referenced “Novichok,” a deadly nerve agent, and accused the newspaper of “Chetnikism” — a reference to the Chetniks, members of a Serbian nationalist guerrilla force.

    In May 2024, CPJ reported that Novosti had received dozens of insulting, hateful, intimidating, and threatening messages after parliamentary elections that brought Croatia’s nationalist right-wing party, Domovinski pokret (DP- Homeland Movement), into a coalition government.

    Lujo Parežanin, a culture editor for Novosti, told CPJ that on the same day as the letter, a reporter received an email containing insults and derogatory, intimidating comments directed at her and the newspaper.

    Police have started an investigation into both threats, Parežanin said, adding that police had charged one person in connection to last May’s attack but that the court proceeding had yet to start in that case.

    CPJ emailed the press office of the Zagreb Police Department for comment but did not receive a reply.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Serbia Protests Going Strong As Students March To Novi Sad


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ‘Students Will Not Be Silent’ After Attacks On Fellow Protesters In Serbia


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Serbian authorities using spyware to illegally surveil activists, report finds

    Advanced mobile forensics products being used to illegally extract data from mobile devices, Amnesty finds

    Police and intelligence services in Serbia are using advanced mobile forensics products and previously unknown spyware to illegally surveil journalists, environmental campaigners and civil rights activists, according to a report.

    The report shows how mobile forensic products from the Israeli firm Cellebrite are used to unlock and extract data from individuals’ mobile devices, which are being infected with a new Android spyware system, NoviSpy.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Masked protesters attack N1 TV, Euronews camera operators, damage camera in Serbia

    Berlin, November 7, 2024—Serbian authorities must swiftly and thoroughly investigate the November 5 attacks by masked individuals on a journalist and two camera operators working for N1 TV and Euronews as they were covering a demonstration in Novi Sad.

    “Serbian authorities must bring all those responsible for the attack on a journalist and camera operators for N1 TV and Euronews to justice,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Journalists must be able to report on demonstrations without fear of intimidation or violence. Authorities need to send a clear message that such attacks will not be tolerated.”

    The demonstration on November 5 was seeking accountability for the infrastructure collapse at a Novi Sad railway station that killed 14 people on November 1. According to news reports, a group of masked individuals threw stones, sticks, and flares at the City Hall building during the event.

    The individuals shouted insults at N1 TV reporter Žaklina Tatalović and her cameraperson, Nikola Popović, and another protester struck Popović’s hand, causing him to drop and damage his camera. Later a man hit and knocked Euronews camera operator Mirko Todorović to the ground. No injuries were reported.

    SafeJournalists, a regional press freedom group, said that the incidents were reported to the authorities, but that police at the scene did not respond and instead “observe[d] the events silently”.

    CPJ emailed questions to the press department of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the police, but did not receive a response.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Independent Politicians Become Victims of the War on Dissent

    Despite the modern trend of the society liberalization, 2024 was marked by a number of assassination attempts on world leaders and cases of exerting pressure on prominent politicians. On the 15th of May, Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt, and just a couple of months later the similar scenario repeated in the USA, where a young gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Following these events, people began to compare both of these crimes and found out that the shooting victims were independent politicians who actively opposed the continuation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and had an alternative vision of the world order. Therefore, it’s suggested that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic could become the next victims of the “hunt on dissent”.

    Viktor Orban, who had already been criticized by the EU leadership and leaders of several countries, just further worsened situation by visiting Beijing and Moscow in July this year. For some reason, it was not taken into account that the visits were part of Orban’s “peace mission” for Ukraine, and that within the framework of the mission he visited not only China and Russia, but also the USA and Ukraine. The European Union, promoting freedom and independence as its main values and standing against war and violence, strongly condemned the action of the Hungarian minister. European countries can’t admit that Orban is one of the few politicians who at least tries to help resolve the Ukrainian conflict peacefully, while others, on the contrary, can only write about it on social networks. Moreover, in response to Orban’s controversial visits the European Commission decided to boycott Hungary’s presidency of the EU Council. Why is the desire to resolve a conflict considered a negative action? And why is the leader of a sovereign state dictated which countries he can or cannot visit, and punished for “disobeying the instruction”?

    As for Serbia, it faces constant pressure over non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence, maintenance of military neutrality and its attitude towards Russia’s war on Ukraine. It’s quite expected that external actors, in particular the EU, negatively assessing Belgrade’s desire to pursue an independent policy, may try to undermine the stability in Serbia and discredit the “unfavorable” President. Accusations of the possible involvement of high-ranking Serbian officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, one of the closest associates of the Serbian President, in the armed attack in Banjska, are just another attempt to subvert the authority of Aleksandar Vucic with the further aim to replace him with a loyal candidate. The question arises: why does a liberal and free Europe, which condemns aggression and totalitarianism, turn into a harsh censor, punishing those acting against its interests?

    At all times, those who were not afraid to go against the flow, face public misunderstanding and criticism. However, in the 21st century, when freedom and independence are recognized as the highest values, news about the “cancellation” or even elimination of people seems particularly shocking. Instead of working together to peacefully solve global issues and problems, politicians just heighten tensions in the geopolitical arena.

    The post Independent Politicians Become Victims of the War on Dissent first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Belarus’ dangerous push for Serbia to extradite journalist Andrey Gnyot

    New York, September 17, 2024—Belarusian filmmaker Andrey Gnyot is stuck in a legal limbo after a Serbian appeals court announced on September 11 that it had sent his extradition case to the Belgrade Higher Court for a third review.

    Gnyot, who is currently under house arrest, has been held by Serbian authorities since October 2023 and could face seven years in jail if extradited to Belarus and convicted on tax evasion charges.

    Gnyot told CPJ on September 12 that the “most dangerous thing” about waiting for the hearing, which he said was probably one month away, was it would give President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s authoritarian government more time to “make up any number of new fake criminal cases against me” to persuade Serbia to grant its extradition request.

    “If Serbia extradites Andrey Gnyot to Belarus, it could set a dangerous precedent for Belarusian authorities’ transnational repression of journalists and profoundly undermine Serbia’s aspirations to join the European Union,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “If Serbia is serious about being an EU candidate country, it must respect the bloc’s values of democracy and human rights. Serbian authorities must end these baseless judicial proceedings and free Gnyot immediately.”    

    Serbia applied for EU membership in 2009, but European Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi said in May that the country still needed to proceed with democratic reforms.

    Harassment beyond Belarusian borders

    Belarusian authorities cracked down on independent media following 2020 protests against Lukashenko’s disputed reelection. As hundreds of journalists have fled into exile, the government has stepped up its efforts to reach beyond its borders to harass them. This includes stripping citizenship from exiles convicted on anti-state charges, banning citizens from renewing their passports abroad, initiating criminal proceedings against several exiled journalists, and searching the Belarusian homes of others who have left the country. CPJ is working to determine whether the prosecutions are connected to the journalists’ work.

    In 2021, Belarusian authorities arrested journalist Raman Pratasevich and his girlfriend after diverting a commercial Ryanair flight to the capital Minsk. In 2023, Pratasevich was given an eight-year sentence on charges that included organizing protests and insulting the president, while exiled former colleagues from his Telegram channel NEXTA, Stsypan Putsila and Yan Rudzik, were given sentences in absentia of 20 and 19 years respectively. Pratasevich was later pardoned.

    During the 2020 protests, Gnyot worked with independent news outlets, including Radio Svaboda, the Belarusian service of U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and co-founded SOS BY, an independent sports association that influenced the cancellation of the 2021 Hockey World Cup in Belarus. Belarusian authorities later designated both organizations as “extremist.”

    ‘I’m not giving up’

    Serbian authorities arrested Gnyot upon his arrival in the country on October 30, 2023, based on an Interpol arrest warrant issued by the Belarusian Interpol bureau. After seven months in prison, he was transferred to house arrest in June. He denies the charges.

    “No one knows for how long I am stuck in this ‘terminal’ between the East and the West and for how much [longer] I will have enough moral, material, and physical resources. I’m not giving up. But, of course, I’m angry,” Gnyot told CPJ. “I am left in detention, without a job, without means of livelihood, with one hour out of the house, without medical care.”

    Belarus is among the world’s worst jailers of journalists, often using “extremism” laws to incarcerate journalists in retaliation for covering the 2020 protests. At least 28 journalists were behind bars when CPJ conducted its most recent annual prison census on December 1, 2023. (Gnyot was not listed as being held in Serbia at the time due to a lack of information about the connection between Gnyot’s detention and his journalism.)

    A 2023 U.S. State Department report found that prisoners in Belarus jails face harsh conditions, including food and heating shortages, gross overcrowding, and lack of access to basic or emergency medical care.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • War in Sudan: Both Sides Accused of Crimes Against Humanity as UAE, Russia, China, Serbia Send Arms


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • War in Sudan: Both Sides Accused of Crimes Against Humanity as UAE, Russia, China, Serbia Send Arms

    Seg1 sudanraidsbodies

    In Sudan, a recent United Nations fact-finding mission documented “harrowing” human rights violations committed by both the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, schools, hospitals, water and power supplies. Civilians have also been subjected to torture, arbitrary detention and gruesome sexual violence. Over 20,000 people have been killed and 13 million displaced over the past 16 months. The war has also destroyed the country’s healthcare system and caused an outbreak of diseases like cholera, malaria and dengue. Sky News correspondent Yousra Elbagir, whose reporting helped uncover details of a June 2023 massacre of civilians by the RSF in North Darfur, says the world is showing “complete apathy and neglect” over the violence in Sudan today. We also speak with Jean-Baptiste Gallopin, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, who says countries including Russia, China and Iran are supplying both sides with advanced weapons that are “very likely to be used to commit human rights violations and war crimes.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Zionist Hunters

    The Nazi Hunters was a US television docu-drama miniseries in 2009, that described the exploits of Zionist (mostly Mossad) pursuers of Nazi criminals post-WWII. It was made into a film in 2022.

    We have all seen films and read books about Nazis and the holocaust. Sometimes they went too far, such as the fanciful stories of human skin lampshades and victims made into soap, but the long (semi-permanent) and extensive public awareness campaign was immensely successful in creating not only a widely shared awareness, but also a strong revulsion against genocide. To that end, the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide committed nearly all of the world’s nations to the pledge “Never Again”, on the assumption that the Nazi holocaust was and should be an exceptional aberration in human history.

    Of course, genocide is unfortunately not exceptional. It has happened again and again, both before and after the Nazi holocaust and the creation of the Genocide Convention and throughout human history (and probably prehistory). In fact, the coiner of the term, Raphael Lemkin, originally created it in 1943 to describe what happened to the Armenians in the early 20th century, not to the Nazi holocaust. Since WWII, we have had genocides in Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Myanmar, as well as the current Palestinian genocide. Some are disputed and others are possibly eligible, but the point is that genocide is hardly exceptional.

    But neither is revulsion to genocide nor the attempt to make the crime accountable. Long before the Genocide Convention, the Hamurabi code and many religious traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, incorporated many of the same laws, principles and prohibitions. Nevertheless, it is proper to credit the mainly Zionist holocaust remembrance efforts with a profoundly successful mobilization to instill horror of genocide in the minds of the public through a wide array of media and public commemorations, including museums and monuments of the holocaust.

    It was, however, neither the United Nations nor other international bodies that hunted down the Nazis who fled or escaped in order to avoid the fate of those brought before the Nuremberg trials. By and large, this task was left to Zionist individuals and organizations, including the state of Israel and Nazi hunters like Simon Wiesenthal, as well as the center which bears his name. Wiesenthal’s most celebrated success was to find Adolf Eichmann, a major Nazi administrator of the extermination project, whom the Mossad then captured and brought to Israel for trial and execution.

    Oddly enough, the successful effort to publicize the Nazi genocide has not necessarily carried over to other genocides, presumably for lack of organization and influence among the survivors. Furthermore, the Nazi holocaust is largely remembered as being directed only against Jews, even though a total of roughly 17 million noncombatants were  systematically exterminated, mainly Slavs but also Roma (“gypsies”), and other populations. Jews were a major target, of course, but the fact that they are often remembered as the only one is a tribute to the success of the Zionist narrative. It is a lesson and an example to other populations targeted for genocide.

    Palestinians are clearly learning this lesson, although they are handicapped by having to overcome the biases created by the Zionists, the experts par excellence in creating a narrative, one which is unfortunately and for obvious reasons in stark contrast to that of the Palestinians. Sadly, the same Zionists that taught us to be horrified of genocide are now using their capabilities and organization to justify and enable Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.

    But those Zionists also taught us that it is possible to make the criminals who commit the “crime of crimes” pay the price. The Nazis paid the price at Nuremberg, and they continued paying long afterward, thanks to the Nazi hunters. So too did the criminals of the Bosnian genocide, the Rwandan genocide and many others. Do the Zionist criminals murdering and starving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, as well as their complicit enablers in Washington, London and yes, Berlin, not realize that they will be in the crosshairs of their victims for the rest of their lives?

    If they delude themselves otherwise, I advise them to read the following, which is only a small taste of what is to come.

    https://en.mdn.tv/7yef

    The post The Zionist Hunters first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Zionist Hunters

    The Nazi Hunters was a US television docu-drama miniseries in 2009, that described the exploits of Zionist (mostly Mossad) pursuers of Nazi criminals post-WWII. It was made into a film in 2022.

    We have all seen films and read books about Nazis and the holocaust. Sometimes they went too far, such as the fanciful stories of human skin lampshades and victims made into soap, but the long (semi-permanent) and extensive public awareness campaign was immensely successful in creating not only a widely shared awareness, but also a strong revulsion against genocide. To that end, the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide committed nearly all of the world’s nations to the pledge “Never Again”, on the assumption that the Nazi holocaust was and should be an exceptional aberration in human history.

    Of course, genocide is unfortunately not exceptional. It has happened again and again, both before and after the Nazi holocaust and the creation of the Genocide Convention and throughout human history (and probably prehistory). In fact, the coiner of the term, Raphael Lemkin, originally created it in 1943 to describe what happened to the Armenians in the early 20th century, not to the Nazi holocaust. Since WWII, we have had genocides in Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Myanmar, as well as the current Palestinian genocide. Some are disputed and others are possibly eligible, but the point is that genocide is hardly exceptional.

    But neither is revulsion to genocide nor the attempt to make the crime accountable. Long before the Genocide Convention, the Hamurabi code and many religious traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, incorporated many of the same laws, principles and prohibitions. Nevertheless, it is proper to credit the mainly Zionist holocaust remembrance efforts with a profoundly successful mobilization to instill horror of genocide in the minds of the public through a wide array of media and public commemorations, including museums and monuments of the holocaust.

    It was, however, neither the United Nations nor other international bodies that hunted down the Nazis who fled or escaped in order to avoid the fate of those brought before the Nuremberg trials. By and large, this task was left to Zionist individuals and organizations, including the state of Israel and Nazi hunters like Simon Wiesenthal, as well as the center which bears his name. Wiesenthal’s most celebrated success was to find Adolf Eichmann, a major Nazi administrator of the extermination project, whom the Mossad then captured and brought to Israel for trial and execution.

    Oddly enough, the successful effort to publicize the Nazi genocide has not necessarily carried over to other genocides, presumably for lack of organization and influence among the survivors. Furthermore, the Nazi holocaust is largely remembered as being directed only against Jews, even though a total of roughly 17 million noncombatants were  systematically exterminated, mainly Slavs but also Roma (“gypsies”), and other populations. Jews were a major target, of course, but the fact that they are often remembered as the only one is a tribute to the success of the Zionist narrative. It is a lesson and an example to other populations targeted for genocide.

    Palestinians are clearly learning this lesson, although they are handicapped by having to overcome the biases created by the Zionists, the experts par excellence in creating a narrative, one which is unfortunately and for obvious reasons in stark contrast to that of the Palestinians. Sadly, the same Zionists that taught us to be horrified of genocide are now using their capabilities and organization to justify and enable Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.

    But those Zionists also taught us that it is possible to make the criminals who commit the “crime of crimes” pay the price. The Nazis paid the price at Nuremberg, and they continued paying long afterward, thanks to the Nazi hunters. So too did the criminals of the Bosnian genocide, the Rwandan genocide and many others. Do the Zionist criminals murdering and starving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, as well as their complicit enablers in Washington, London and yes, Berlin, not realize that they will be in the crosshairs of their victims for the rest of their lives?

    If they delude themselves otherwise, I advise them to read the following, which is only a small taste of what is to come.

    https://en.mdn.tv/7yef

    The post The Zionist Hunters first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Remembering a Genocide in the Midst of Another

    This month on 11th July 2024, the UN commemorated the Srebrenica Genocide of 1995 with official statements and speeches by dignitaries, memorial services, moments of silence and designating a day for remembering what has been called the greatest atrocity in modern Europe.

    What is ironic, however, is the fact that the world comes together to remember Srebrenica in the midst of another harrowing genocide — one that is live-streamed straight into every waking moment, all over the world. Ten months into the nightmarish bloodbath in Gaza that has cost nearly 40,000 lives, world leaders are still haranguing over the events of October 7, still unsure and half-hearted towards the urgent and pressing need to enforce a cease-fire to end an unimaginably horrific war, most victims of which have been children.

    Alija Izetbegovich, the iconic Muslim leader of Bosnia during the Bosnian war and Srebrenica massacre, had once said, “Do not forget this genocide. If you forget it, another will happen…” The words bear premonition as they echo the age-old cliche that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

    Here we stand, remembering a genocide while having unleashed another one thirty years on, with the bloody tide showing no signs of abating — as if human lives were like the flies that the wanton boys kill for sport.

    To learn the right lessons from Srebrenica, one must revisit in 1992, the Muslim majority republic of Bosnia immediately after it seceded from Communist Yugoslavia as a result of a popular referendum. Bosnia’s Orthodox Christian Serb minority, however, refused to accept this and began a rebellion. Given how well-armed Serbia was as an ally of powerful erstwhile Communist Russia, what started as ethno-religious strife quickly flared up into a war against which Bosnia was nearly defenceless. Several appeals for help by Alija Izetbegovic resulted in no more than humanitarian assistance from the Arab-Muslim world. Izetbegovic feared a genocide, given the violence displayed by the Serb forces under Ratko Mladic, known as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’. Mladic, as the commander of the army of Republika Sprska (the self declared Serb autonomous zone inside Bosnia), had earlier threatened: “You Muslims cannot defend yourselves if a civil war breaks out.”

    Bosnia’s countless appeals ultimately led to the arrival of UN peacekeeping forces in the area. Not surprisingly, the UN forces proved utterly ineffectual as the Serb army carried on its atrocities with over 100,000 Muslim Bosniaks killed.

    Serb violence against the Bosniaks was neither isolated from context nor sudden. It climaxed after centuries of endemic structural violence built on nationalist Islamophobic narratives rife in the region.  When Mladic began the genocidal operation in Srebrenica, he said on camera while addressing his troops, “This is the time to take revenge on the Turkish rabble and return Srebrenica to the Serbs…” The reference to Bosniaks as “Turks” reeks of ethnocentric hate deeply embedded in a prejudicial understanding of history. Serbia had been under Ottoman rule for three centuries, and the reference to ethnic Bosniak Muslims as “Turks” aims to build on the Islamophobic nationalist narrative of victimhood by Turkish-Muslim rulers centuries ago.

    As the Bosnian war raged on from 1992 to 1995 with terrible atrocities including the blockade of Sarajevo which prevented fuel, food and water to the area, rapes and mass murders, UN peacekeepers from Netherlands were unable to halt the violence. They were outgunned and outnumbered, and could neither expect the scale of the violence nor were they equipped or even really willing to take decisive action against it. As late as in 2022, twenty-seven years after the Srebrenica genocide, the Dutch government acknowledged partial complicity of its peacekeepers in Bosnia and offered “apology for not taking effective action to stop the “Srebrenica genocide” — too little, too late.

    During the war, Srebrenica in Eastern Bosnia had been designated as a “safe zone” where hundreds of thousands were sheltering. However, when the international community warned of action against Republika Srpska and Serbia, driven by a misdirected vengeance, the Serb leadership decided to violate the safe zone and besieged Srebrenica. As the Dutch peacekeepers looked on, Bosniak men and women were segregated, and all men including minor boys, were herded together and shot fatally, their bodies huddled together and thrown into mass graves.

    The horrific reality of the war crimes later surfaced, and it was established after investigations that in July 1995, a massacre of 8,372 Muslim men and boys by Serb forces over just three days had been systematically committed — known now in the annals of history as the “Srebrenica Genocide”.

    Some months later, as the world came to know of the horrors that had been unleashed, there was an attempt by the Serb leadership to cover up the evidence. The mass graves of 8,372 Muslims were bulldozed and whatever remained of the bodies was scattered in unmarked areas all over the region. To this day, search for human remains continues in Srebrenica. Some 1,200 of those who went missing in July 1995 have still not been identified or given the dignity of a proper funeral and burial.

    While the Dayton Accords of 1996 enforced a ceasefire after what the Bosniaks had endured, peace in the region is still tenuous. Tensions are rife as the Serb Autonomous Zone inside Bosnia continues with its ultraconservative nationalism and ethnic prejudice, refusing to acknowledge what was done to the Bosniaks from 1992-1995 as a genocide. The current UN Peace Representative for Bosnia — Hans Christian Schmidt– has warned earlier this year that ethnic tensions between Bosnia and the autonomous Serb community remain dangerously high still, and the possibility of internecine violence once again cannot be ruled out.

    There are some clear parallels between the Bosnian genocide three decades ago and the Israeli military onslaught on Gaza in 2023-24. Like the Serbs, Israelis justify their actions on the narrative of historical victimhood. They present their victim as the perpetrator, stereotyping through Islamophobic propaganda that makes you believe Muslim Palestinian children are fair targets as potential “Islamist terrorists” and “jihadists” in the making. Like in the case of Bosnia, the world was never moved to decisive action to end the bloodbath until too late. Not surprisingly, the victims in both cases happen to be Muslims. While Serbia had been armed to the teeth by its mentor Soviet Russia, Israel has been heavily armed by the US, Germany, UK and other Western allies that continue to send military supplies to the Zionist state. In both cases, the population against whom these lethal weapons are unleashed is extremely vulnerable, unarmed and defenceless. In both Bosnia and now in Palestine, the UN proved a complete failure. And perhaps most poignantly, in both cases the Muslim world failed to stand up and act together, other than sending some humanitarian supplies for the victims.

    Yet there are aspects in which the Gaza genocide emerges as a unique and unprecedented case in point. Gaza’s suffering has been long and historic, since the Nakba of 1948, and the world has continued to ignore its plight. Gaza has for years been under severe blockade, with many observers describing it as an “open air prison.” Israel, on the other hand, seen as the Middle East’s only beacon of democracy with Western liberal values and culture is considered as the West’s only reliable ally in the volatile region — the ‘blue-eyed boy’ of the Western world. It enjoys tremendous influence and solid support from its Western benefactors, even after having committed gross defiant violations of human rights and international law. The ongoing siege and death toll in Gaza is more protracted, and the scale of devastation far greater,  surpassing anything we may have witnessed in modern history.

    Bosnia found some solace with the trial of Serb war criminals at The Hague, as a result of which 21 perpetrators of the genocide were pronounced guilty- including Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, Republika Sprska leader Radovan Karadzic and Serb army commander Ratko Mladic. The case for Palestine, on the other hand, given the global power and influence of the Zionist lobby, has found no echo in the corridors of power, and any wholesale transparent accountability for the genocidal far right Israeli regime seems to be a remote possibility.

    This is precisely why the global commemoration of the Bosnian genocide seems meaningless when the UN and the international community have proven so utterly spineless in the case of Gaza. Remembering and honouring Srebrenica means learning its lessons and promising “Never Again”. With humanity abysmally failing to show any resolve to end Israel’s relentless and brutal assault on Palestine, carefully crafted words for Srebrenica from high podiums ring hollow indeed.

    The post Remembering a Genocide in the Midst of Another first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Serbia court rules to extradite journalist Andrey Gnyot to Belarus

    New York, June 18, 2024—A Serbian appeals court must not indulge a request from Belarusian authorities and should overturn a recent decision to extradite journalist Andrey Gnyot to Belarus, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday.

    On May 31, the Higher Court in Belgrade ruled to extradite Gnyot to Belarus for tax evasion, according to media reports and Gnyot, who spoke to CPJ. The decision was made public and communicated to the journalist on June 13.

    “They want to extradite me, not right now, but this is a very bad decision,” Gnyot told Belarusian independent news outlet Zerkalo. A tax evasion charge carries up to seven years of imprisonment, according to the Belarusian criminal code.

    “The decision to extradite Belarusian journalist Andrey Gnyot to comply with a request from Aleksandr Lukashenko’s repressive regime is not only absurd and unfounded, it also deeply undermines the country’s aspirations to join the European Union,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “The Serbian appeals court should overturn the recent ruling to extradite journalist Andrey Gnyot. Belarusian authorities, on their end, should stop their attempts to instrumentalize Interpol to transnationally repress dissenting voices.”

    Gnyot, a filmmaker, collaborated with a range of independent news outlets, including Radio Svaboda, during the 2020 protests demanding President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s resignation after the country’s election. In December 2021, the Belarusian authorities labeled the outlet an “extremist” group.

    Serbian authorities arrested Gnyot in Belgrade, the capital, on October 30, 2023, based on an Interpol arrest warrant issued by the Belarusian Interpol bureau. He remained in a Belgrade prison until June 5, when he was transferred to house arrest, according to the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), an advocacy and trade group operating from exile, and a report by Radio Svaboda, the Belarusian service of U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

    Gnyot told CPJ that he filed two appeals on June 17, one from himself and one from his lawyers. “I work on my defense every day because a lot of time was lost while I was in prison. So it is not possible for me to relax. Moreover, I even eat and sleep less because I don’t have time. But the end justifies the means — I am fighting to save my life,” he said.

    “Everything I provided to the court was ignored,” he added. “We have a saying that ‘hope dies last,’ and of course I expect that the appellate court will correct this mistake, because to do so, you just need to study the evidence provided and not ignore it. It scares me to think that a judge making a decision would so easily send a man to his death.”

    Belarusian authorities charged Gnyot with tax evasion for allegedly failing to pay around 300,000 euros (US$323,600) in taxes between 2012 and 2018, according to media reports and a friend of Gnyot, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal. Gnyot denies the tax evasion accusations, and his defense considers his persecution as politically motivated.

    Gnyot is also one of the founders of SOS BY, an independent association of Belarusian sportspeople that influenced the cancellation of the 2021 Hockey World Cup in Belarus. The Belarusian authorities later designated SOS BY an “extremist” group.

    If Gnyot is extradited to Belarus, he could potentially face additional charges for creating or participating in an extremist group, which carries up to 10 years in prison.

    Gnyot’s health deteriorated significantly in prison, he said in a May 11 letter reviewed by CPJ. As of June 18, he still had not managed to get medical care while under house arrest, he told CPJ.

    “Unfortunately, I have never received any medical help, and I can’t arrange it myself: one hour of freedom to leave my apartment to get to the doctor and get medical help is just physically not enough for me,” he said. “Psychologically I feel good, because I see a huge support and solidarity of people.”

    CPJ emailed the Higher Court and the Court of Appeal in Belgrade for comment on Gnyot’s case but did not receive any response.

    Separately, on June 8, Serbian border police in Belgrade’s Nikola Tesla Airport banned Russian-Israeli freelance journalist Roman Perl from entering the country, according to media reports.

    “They never explained anything to me at the airport but just gave me a paper stating that my entry into Serbia would pose a security risk,” Perl, who works with Current Time TV, a project affiliated with RFE/RL and U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Voice of America, told Serbian broadcaster N1TV.

    The journalist believes the ban to be connected to his 2023 brief detention in Serbia, after a man he was interviewing for a documentary about Serbia and Russia’s war in Ukraine unfurled a Ukrainian flag near the Russian Embassy. Russian authorities labeled Perl a “foreign agent” in October 2021.

    Belarus was the world’s third-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 28 journalists behind bars on December 1, 2023, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census. Serbia had no journalists behind bars at the time, except for Gnyot, who was not included in the census due to a lack of information about his journalism.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Journalists harassed, obstructed, attacked in Serbia’s election period

    Berlin, June 12, 2023 — Serbian authorities should conduct a swift and thorough investigation into recent attacks against journalists covering elections, and hold those responsible to account, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Wednesday.

    On June 9, Serbia’s ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) won a vote for Belgrade city council and in partial local elections nationwide, which faced claims of voting irregularities and were punctuated with clashes between supporters of populist President Aleksandar Vučis and the opposition, according to media reports.

    On June 2, around noon in Serbia’s north Novi Sad city, a man approached Uglješa Bokić, a journalist for the daily newspaper Danas, punched him in the chest and attempted to snatch his phone before fleeing, according to media reports, a video his employer published, and the journalist who spoke with CPJ via email. 

    Bokić, who was filming in the Novi Sad Fair area where skirmishes broke out between police and opposition supporters, told CPJ that he was clearly identified as a journalist with a press ID around his neck and reported receiving bruises, hematomas, and a sternum contusion in the attack, requiring hospital treatment.

    Bokić told CPJ that he recognized his attacker as a former police officer and supporter of SNS, which “views my media outlet as hostile,” he said. Serbian media reported that the man was Vladimir Kezmić, a former police officer. Bokić, also a former police officer, told CPJ that they do not know each other. Bokić said he reported the attack and gave a statement to the Novi Sad police, and he has not received further updates as of June 11.

    On June 2, in the Zemun Polje neighborhood of Belgrade, a group  of SNS supporters tried to take equipment belonging to Portal Mašina news site journalist Marko Miletić as he filmed alleged voting irregularities outside the ruling party’s local headquarters, according to Cenzolovka, a news website that covers media and press freedom, a video his employer published, and the journalist, who spoke with CPJ via email. 

    According to these reports, Miletić was alerted by opposition supporters about alleged election malpractice in the district. While he was photographing documents provided by the opposition outside the headquarters, several individuals emerged from the building, approached him and the opposition activists. A woman with the SNS supporters attempted to snatch his mobile phone while he was filming, and together with two men, she chased him away.

    Miletić told CPJ that he did not report the attack to the police because he does not trust the “institutions of the justice system” and he fears for his safety after the attack.

    “Serbian authorities must conduct a swift and thorough investigation into recent attacks on journalists covering elections, hold the perpetrators to account, and ensure that members of the press can cover issues of public interest without fear of physical attacks and reprisal,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “The environment for journalism in Serbia is increasingly hostile, and authorities must take effective actions to protect journalists.”

    In a CPJ report published in May, journalists critical of President Vučić and his policies said they sometimes felt targeted in orchestrated campaigns by ruling party supporters, politicians, public officials, and pro-government media.

    In a statement, the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia condemned the attacks against journalists and said on June 3 that the election campaign period and the election day itself “were marked by campaigns to slander journalists, targeting and interfering with their work, and even physical attacks by ruling officials and activists of their party.” 

    CPJ emailed the press department of the Serbian Progressive Party and the prosecutor’s office in Novi Sad but received no reply. CPJ was unable to find contact details for Kezmić. 


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • CPJ calls on Serbia not to extradite Belarusian journalist Andrei Hniot

    New York, May 14, 2024 — Serbian authorities should not extradite Belarusian journalist Andrei Hniot to face criminal charges in Belarus and release him immediately, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday.

    Serbian authorities detained Hniot upon his arrival in the country on October 30, 2023, based on a September 21 Interpol arrest warrant issued by the Belarusian Interpol bureau, according to the Belarusian Association of Journalists, an advocacy and trade group operating from exile, media reports, and Denis Zyl, a friend of Hniot and a former journalist, who spoke to CPJ.

    Hniot has remained in detention in the central prison in the capital, Belgrade, ever since, where his health has deteriorated significantly, according to CPJ’s review of his letter dated May 11, 2024. In the letter, Hniot said his left foot had been partially paralyzed since April, and he was not receiving appropriate medical treatment.

    “I am very worried that he is not receiving medical care,” Zyl told CPJ on Tuesday. “Today, he wrote that he again wrote an application to be provided with migraine pills and was ignored,” Zyl said. “I see that he writes strangely.”

    Belarusian authorities charged Hniot with tax evasion, Zyl told CPJ, adding that if the journalist is extradited to Belarus, he could potentially face additional charges for creating or participating in an extremist group, which carries up to 10 years in prison. A tax evasion charge carries up to seven years imprisonment, according to the Belarusian criminal code.

    The final decision on Hniot’s extradition is expected “anytime,” Zyl told CPJ.

    “As a European Union candidate state, Serbia should not succumb to transnational repressions on behalf of authoritarian regimes like that of Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, a known enemy of a free press,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Serbia should deny Belarus’ request to extradite journalist Andrei Hniot, immediately release him, and provide him with necessary medical aid. Belarusian authorities should stop their attempts to weaponize Interpol’s wanted person list to retaliate against dissenting voices.”

    Hniot, a filmmaker, collaborated with a range of independent news outlets, including Radio Svaboda, the Belarusian service of U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, during the 2020 protests demanding President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s resignation after the country’s election. In December 2021, the Belarusian authorities labeled the outlet an “extremist” group.

    Belarusian authorities have jailed an increasing number of journalists for their work since the 2020 protests. 

    Hniot is one of the founders of SOS BY, an independent association of Belarusian sportspeople that influenced the cancellation of the 2021 Hockey World Cup in Belarus. The Belarusian authorities later designated SOS BY an “extremist” group.

    Hniot’s defense considers his persecution by the Belarusian authorities as politically motivated, and Zyl told CPJ that the whole case was “fake” and “far-fetched.” During an April 1 hearing, Hniot said that he was persecuted as a journalist who was able to gather around him a group of athletes and create content for them, Zyl told CPJ.

    “Lethal torture awaits me in Belarus,” Hniot said in court on February 19, as reported by German public broadcaster DW. “In Belarus, there is no law, no protection, and no independent judiciary. Everyone who opposes the authorities is imprisoned, tortured, and humiliated.”

    Reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and news outlets have extensively documented incidents of torture experienced by political prisoners in Belarus.

    Hniot is accused of failing to pay around 300,000 euros (US$323,600) in taxes between 2012 and 2018, according to media reports and Zyl.

    On November 3, 2023, Hniot’s lawyer, Vadim Drozdov, filed a request to delete Hniot’s data with the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files, according to a report by German public broadcaster DW and Zyl. In February 2024, Interpol temporarily blocked access to Hniot’s data in its database, pending verification that Belarusian security forces were complying with Interpol regulations.

    In December 2023, the Higher Court in Belgrade ruled that the conditions for Hniot’s extradition to Belarus were met. On March 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade overturned that decision but did not cancel the extradition and sent the case for review. The process resumed on March 26.

    CPJ emailed Interpol, the Serbian Ministry of Interior, and the Belarusian Investigative Committee for comment on Hniot’s case but did not receive any response.

    Belarus was the world’s third-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 28 journalists behind bars on December 1, 2023, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census. Serbia had no journalists behind bars at the time, except for Hniot, who was not included in the census due to a lack of information about his journalism.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Xi Visits Serbia, President Vucic Says “Taiwan Is China”


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Chinese President Xi Jinping in Serbia | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China’s Xi Jinping arrives in Serbia on 25th anniversary of embassy bombing | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Xi recalls NATO’s bombing of Chinese Embassy in Serbia

    Xi Jinping’s tour of potential sympathizers in Europe took a gloomy turn Tuesday, as the Chinese president headed to Serbia with an apparent warning to the United States on the 25th anniversary of the NATO bombing of Beijing’s Embassy in its capital, Belgrade.

    “Twenty-five years ago today, NATO flagrantly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, killing three Chinese journalists,” Xi wrote in the Serbian daily Politika prior to his arrival on a flight from Paris.

    “This we should never forget,” Xi wrote. “The Chinese people cherish peace, but we will never allow such tragic history to repeat itself.”

    Three Chinese journalists were killed and 20 Chinese nationals were wounded in the May 7, 1999, attack during the Kosovo War, which prompted outrage in China and an apology from then-U.S. President Bill Clinton.

    ENG_CHN_SERBIA_05072024.3.JPG
    Cleaners walk in front of a Chinese national flag placed on a building in Belgrade, Serbia, Tuesday, May 7, 2024. (Darko Vojinovic/AP)

    The embassy was hit during a campaign against the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to force late Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic to end a crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

    The United States blamed the bombing on a CIA mapping error.

    Xi’s warnings about the “flagrant” NATO aggression come as Beijing steadfastly stands by Moscow amid its invasion of Ukraine.

    China has repeatedly amplified Russian claims its invasion of Ukraine was forced by the expansion into Eastern Europe of NATO, which the United States and other NATO members insist is a defensive pact but Moscow slams as a threat to its “legitimate security interests.”

    European tour

    Xi’s visit to Serbia is the second stop of three in Europe – after France and before Hungary – as Beijing tries to cleave off the continent from decades of geopolitical alliance with Washington.

    In Politika, Xi also hailed the “iron-clad friendship” between China and Serbia, which he said was “forged with the blood of our compatriots.”

    China has poured billions into Serbia and neighboring Balkan countries – in particular into mining and manufacturing sectors – and last year Beijing and EU-applicant Belgrade signed a free trade agreement.

    On Monday in Paris, Xi met French President Emmanuel Macron, who has publicly promoted the idea of France and the European Union pursuing geopolitical “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

    Last year, speaking about a potential dispute over Taiwan between Beijing and Washington, Macron said Europe should not allow itself to become a U.S. “vassal” and be drawn into any conflict.

    ENG_CHN_SERBIA_05072024.2.JPG
    China’s President Xi Jinping attends a trilateral meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Elysee Palace as part of the Chinese president’s two-day state visit in France, Monday, May 6, 2024 in Paris. (Gonzalo Fuentes/AP)

    In Paris, crowds of protesters turned out on the streets to greet Xi, wave flags and express their anger over China’s persecution of Tibetans and Uyghurs as well as its clampdown on freedoms in Hong Kong. 

    Xi next travels to Hungary, whose authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a thorn in the side of NATO as it attempts to support Ukraine’s defense against the invasion by Russian forces.

    Unlike Serbia, Hungary is also a member of the European Union and NATO, and has blocked several EU resolutions critical of China in recent years, including about Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong.

    Edited by Alex Willemyns and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trump Son-In-Law Kushner Plans Luxury Projects In Serbia, Albania

    Long lines formed at polling stations across Russia’s 11 time zones in time for the “Noon Against Putin” protest against a presidential election expected to virtually gift Vladimir Putin another six years of rule, making him the country’s longest-serving leader.

    Voting on March 17, the last day of the election held over a span of three days, took place with virtually no opposition to the long-serving incumbent.

    Russians not in favor of seeing Putin serve yet another term settled on showing up at polling places simultaneously at midday in large numbers, with some taking steps to spoil their ballots.

    Dozens of detentions were reported around the country as the vote took place under tight security, with Russia claiming that Ukraine, which it accused of launching a wave of air attacks that reached as far as Moscow, was attempting to disrupt voting.

    Putin’s greatest political rival, Aleksei Navalny, died a month before the polls in an Arctic prison amid suspicious circumstances while serving sentences widely seen as politically motivated.

    Other serious opponents to Putin are either in jail or exile or were barred from running against him amid a heightened crackdown on dissent and the independent media.

    The situation left only three token rivals from Kremlin-friendly parties on the ballot — Liberal Democratic Party leader Leonid Slutsky, State Duma deputy speaker Vladislav Davankov of the New People party, and State Duma lawmaker Nikolai Kharitonov of the Communist Party.

    Despite Navalny’s death, his support for the idea of using the “Noon Against Putin” action to show the strength of the opposition lived on. The protest, a workaround of Russia’s restrictive laws on public assembly, called on people to assemble at polling stations precisely at noon.

    While it was difficult to determine voters’ reasoning for showing up to vote, many appeared to be answering the call to protest across the country as the deadline moved from Russia’s Far East toward Moscow, and from then to the western area of the country and parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia.

    Videos and images posted on social media showed long lines of voters formed at noon in Novosibirsk, Chita, Yekaterinburg, Perm, and Moscow among other Russian cities.

    “The action has achieved its goals,” said Ivan Zhdanov, the head the Anti-Corruption Foundation formerly headed by Navalny, on YouTube. “The action has shown that there is another Russia, there are people who stand against Putin.”

    The protests were accompanied by a heavy police presence and the threat of long prison terms for those seen as disrupting the voting process.

    The OVD-Info group, which monitors political arrests in Russia, said that more than 65 people were arrested in 14 cities across the country on March 17.

    Twenty people in Kazan, in the Tatarstan region, were detained and later released, according to Current Time. One Ufa resident was reportedly detained for trying to stuff a photograph of Navalny into a ballot box. And in Moscow, a voter was detained after he appeared at a polling station wearing a T-shirt bearing Navalny’s name.

    In St. Petersburg, a woman was reportedly arrested after she threw a firebomb at a polling station entrance, others were detained elsewhere in the country for spoiling ballots with green antiseptic into ballot boxes.

    Some activists were reportedly summoned to visit Federal Security Service branches precisely at 12 p.m., the same time the protest was expected.

    Outside Russia, Russian citizens also reportedly took part in the “Noon Against Putin” campaign, including in Tokyo, Istanbul, and Phuket. In Moldova, voting at the Russian Consulate in Chisinau was reportedly delayed after an apparent fire-bombing.

    The Moscow prosecutor’s office earlier warned of criminal prosecution of those who interfered with the vote, a step it said was necessary due to social-media posts “containing calls for an unlimited number of people to simultaneously arrive to participate in uncoordinated mass public events at polling stations in Moscow [at noon on March 17] in order to violate electoral legislation.”

    Lawyer Valeria Vetoshkina, who has left the country, told Current Time that if people do not bring posters and do not announce why they came to the polling station at that hour, it would be hard for the authorities to legitimately declare it a “violation.”

    But she warned that there are “some basic safety rules that you can follow if you’re worried. The first is not to discuss why you came, just to vote. And secondly, it is better to come without any visual means of agitation: without posters, flags, and so on.”

    The OVD-Info human rights group issued a statement labeled “How to Protect Yourself” ahead of the planned protest, also saying not to bring posters or banners and “do not demonstrate symbols that can attract the attention of the police, do not shout slogans. If you are asked why you came at noon, do not give the real reason.”

    Russian election officials, officially, said that as of late afternoon on March 17 more than 70 percent of the country’s 114 million eligible voters had cast ballots either in person or online.

    Observers widely predict that there was virtually no chance that Putin would not gain another term in office. A victory would hand him his fifth presidential term over a span of 24 years, interrupted only by his time spent as prime minister from 2008-2012.

    Over the first two days, some Russians expressed their anger over Putin’s authoritarian rule by vandalizing ballot boxes with a green antiseptic dye known as “zelyonka” and other liquids, with Russian officials and independent media reporting at least 28 cases.

    Incidents were reported in at least nine cities, including Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sochi, and Volgograd.

    Ella Pamfilova, head of Russia’s Central Election Commission (TsIK), on March 16 said there had been 20 cases of people attempting to destroy voting sheets by pouring liquids into ballot boxes and eight incidents of people trying to destroy ballots by setting them on fire or by using smoke bombs.

    On March 16, independent media reported that Russian police had opened at least 28 criminal probes into incidents of vandalism in polling stations, a number expected to grow.

    Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy head of the Security Council, on March 16 denounced election protesters as “villains” and “traitors” who are aiding the country’s enemies, particularly Ukraine.

    “This is direct assistance to those degenerates who are shelling our cities today,” he said on Telegram. “Criminal activists at polling stations should be aware that they can rattle for 20 years in a special regime [prison],” he added.

    Many observers say Putin warded off even the faintest of challengers to ensure a large margin of victory that he can point to as evidence that Russians back the full-scale war Moscow launched against Ukraine in February 2022.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine stepped up attacks on Russia leading up to the election, including strikes deep inside the country.

    On March 17, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported downing 35 Ukrainian drones overnight, including four in the Moscow region. Other drones were reportedly downed in the Kaluga and Yaroslavl regions neighboring the Moscow region, and in the Belgorod, Kursk, and Rostov regions along Russia’s southwestern border with Ukraine.

    On March 16, Ukrainian forces shelled the border city of Belgorod and the village of Glotovo, killing at least three people and wounding eight others, Russian officials said.

    The same day, a Ukrainian drone strike caused a fire at an oil refinery that belongs to Russian oil giant Rosneft in the Samara region, some 850 kilometers southeast of Moscow, regional Governor Dmitry Azarov said. An attack on another refinery was thwarted, he added.

    Ukraine generally does not comment on attacks inside Russia, but Reuters quoted an unidentified Ukrainian source as saying that Kyiv’s SBU intelligence agency was behind strikes at three Samara region Rosneft refineries — Syzran, Novokuibyshevsky, and Kuibyshevsky, which is inside the Samara city limits.

    “The SBU continues to implement its strategy to undermine the economic potential of the Russian Federation that allows it to wage war in Ukraine,” the news agency quoted the source as saying.

    Russian authorities, who have accused Kyiv of launching assaults designed to disrupt voting, claimed that Ukraine on March 16 dropped a missile on a voting station in a Russian-occupied part of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya region, although the report could not be verified.

    With reporting by RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service, Reuters, and AP


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • U.S. Envoy Frustrated With Kurti’s Refusal To Reverse Serbian Dinar Ban

    Russians have begun a second day of voting in a presidential election that has seen sporadic protests as some, defying threats of stiff prison sentences, showed their anger over a process set up to hand Vladimir Putin another six years of rule.

    By midday of March 16, Russian police had opened at least 15 criminal probes into incidents of vandalism in polling stations, independent media reported.

    More than one-third of Russia’s 110 million eligible voters cast ballots in person and online on the first day of the country’s three-day presidential election, the Central Election Commission (TsIK) said after polls closed on March 15 in the country’s westernmost region of Kaliningrad.

    Balloting started up again on March 16 in the Far East of Russia and will continue in all 11 time zones of the country, as well as the occupied Crimean Peninsula and four other Ukrainian regions that Moscow partially controls and baselessly claims are part of Russia.

    Putin is poised to win and extend his rule by six more years after any serious opponents were barred from running against him amid a brutal crackdown on dissent and the independent media.

    The ruthless crackdown that has crippled independent media and human rights groups began before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched, but has been ratcheted up since.

    Almost exactly one month before the polls opened, Putin’s most vocal critic, opposition leader Aleksei Navalny, died in an isolated Arctic prison amid suspicious circumstances as he served sentences seen as politically motivated.

    Some Russians expressed their anger over Putin’s authoritarian rule on March 15, vandalizing ballot boxes with a green antiseptic dye known as “zelyonka” and other liquids.

    Among them was a 43-year-old member of the local election commission in the Lenin district of Izhevsk city, the Interior Ministry said on March 16.

    The official was detained by police after she attempted to spill zelyonka into a touchscreen voting machine, the ministry said. Police didn’t release the woman’s name, but said she was a member of the Communist Party.

    Similar incidents were reported in at least nine cities, including St. Petersburg, Sochi, and Volgograd, while at least four voters burned their ballots in polling stations.

    In Moscow, police arrested a woman who burned her ballot inside a voting booth in the city’s polling station N1527 on March 15, Russian news agencies reported, citing election officials in the Russian capital.

    The news outlet Sota reported that that woman burned a ballot with “Bring back my husband” handwritten on it, and posted video purportedly showing the incident.

    There also was one report of a firebombing at a polling station in Moscow, while In Russia’s second-largest city, St. Petersburg, a 21-year-old woman was detained after she threw a Molotov cocktail at an entrance of a local school that houses two polling stations.

    “It’s the first time I’ve see something like this — or at least [such attacks] have not been so spectacular before,” Roman Udot, an election analyst and a board member of the independent election monitor Golos, told RFE/RL.

    “The state launched a war against [the election process] and this is the very striking harvest it gets in return. People resent these elections as a result and have started using them for completely different purposes [than voting].”

    Russia’s ruling United Russia party claimed on March 16 that it was facing a widespread denial-of-service attack — a form of cyberattack that snarls internet use — against its online presence. The party said it had suspended nonessential services to repel the attack.

    Meanwhile, Russian lawmakers proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to toughen punishments for those who try to disrupt elections “by arson and other dangerous means.” Under the current law, such actions are punishable by five years in prison, and the lawmakers proposed to extend it to up to eight years in prison.

    No Serious Challengers

    Before his death, Navalny had hoped to use the vote to demonstrate the public’s discontent with both the war and Putin’s iron-fisted rule.

    He called on voters to cast their ballot at 12 p.m. on March 17, naming the action “Noon Against Putin.” HIs wife and others have since continued to call for the protest to be carried out.

    Viral images of long lines forming at this time would indicate the size of the opposition and undermine the landslide result the Kremlin is expected to concoct.

    Putin, 71, who has been president or prime minister for nearly 25 years, is running against three low-profile politicians — Liberal Democratic Party leader Leonid Slutsky, State Duma deputy speaker Vladislav Davankov of the New People party, and State Duma lawmaker Nikolai Kharitonov of the Communist Party — whose policy positions are hardly distinguishable from Putin’s.

    Boris Nadezhdin, a 60-year-old anti-war politician, was rejected last month by the TsIK because of what it called invalid support signatures on his application to be registered as a candidate. He appealed, but the TsIk’s decision was upheld by Russia’s Supreme Court.

    “Would like to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his landslide victory in the elections starting today,” European Council President Charles Michel wrote in a sarcastic post on X, formerly Twitter, on March 15.

    “No opposition. No freedom. No choice.”

    Ukraine and many Western governments have condemned Russia for holding the vote in regions it occupies parts of, calling the move illegal.

    UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres added his voice to the criticism on March 15, saying he “condemns the efforts of the Russian Federation to hold its presidential elections in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russian Federation.”

    His spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, added that the “attempted illegal annexation” of those regions has “no validity” under international law.

    Many observers say Putin warded off even the faintest of challengers to ensure a large margin of victory that he can point to as evidence that Russians back the war in Ukraine and his handling of it.

    With reporting by Reuters and AP


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ban On Serbian Dinar Has Created Challenges In U.S. Relations With Kosovo, Envoy Says

    Russians began voting on the first day of a three-day presidential election that President Vladimir Putin is all but certain to win, extending his rule by six more years after any serious opponents were barred from running against him amid a brutal crackdown on dissent and the independent media.

    The vote, which is not expected to be free and fair, is also the first major election to take place in Russia since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine in February 2022.

    Putin, 71, who has been president or prime minister for nearly 25 years, is running against three low-profile politicians — Liberal Democratic Party leader Leonid Slutsky, State Duma Deputy Speaker Vladislav Davankov of the New People party, and State Duma lawmaker Nikolai Kharitonov of the Communist Party — whose policy positions are hardly distinguishable from Putin’s.

    Boris Nadezhdin, a 60-year-old anti-war politician, was rejected last month by the Russian Central Election Commission (TsIK) because of what it called invalid support signatures on his application to be registered as a candidate. He appealed, but the TsIk’s decision was upheld by Russia’s Supreme Court.

    “Would like to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his landslide victory in the elections starting today,” European Council President Charles Michel wrote in a sarcastic post on X, formerly Twitter. “No opposition. No freedom. No choice.”

    The first polling station opened in Russia’s Far East. As the day progresses, voters will cast their ballots at nearly 100,000 polling stations across the country’s 11 time zones, as well as in regions of Ukraine that Moscow illegally annexed.

    By around 10 a.m. Moscow time, TsIK said 2.89 percent of the 110 million eligible voters had already cast their ballots. That figure includes those who cast early ballots, TsIK Chairwoman Ella Pamfilova said.

    Some people trying to vote online reported problems, but officials said those being told they were in an electronic queue “just need to wait a little or return to voting later.”

    There were reports that public sector employees were being urged to vote early on March 15, a directive Stanislav Andreychuk, the co-chairman of the Golos voters’ rights movement, said was aimed at having workers vote “under the watchful eyes of their bosses.”

    Ukraine and Western governments have condemned Russia for holding the vote in those Ukrainian regions, calling it illegal.

    Results are expected to be announced on March 18.

    The outcome, with Putin’s foes in jail, exile, or dead, is not in doubt. In a survey conducted by VTsIOM in early March, 75 percent of the citizens intending to vote said they would cast their ballot for Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer.

    The ruthless crackdown that has crippled independent media and human rights groups began before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was launched, but it has been ratcheted up since. Almost exactly one month before the polls opened, Putin’s most vocal critic, opposition politician Aleksei Navalny, died in an isolated Arctic prison amid suspicious circumstances as he served sentences seen as politically motivated.

    Many observers say Putin warded off even the faintest of challengers to ensure a large margin of victory that he can point to as evidence that Russians back the war in Ukraine and his handling of it.

    Most say they have no expectation that the election will be free and fair, with the possibility for independent monitoring very limited. Nadezhdin said he would recruit observers, but it was unclear whether he would be successful given that only registered candidates or state-backed advisory bodies can assign observers to polling stations.

    “Who in the world thinks that it will be a real election?” Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, said in an interview with Current Time, the Russian-language network run by RFE/RL, ahead of the vote.

    McFaul, speaking in Russian, added that he’s convinced that the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden and other democracies in the world will say that the election did not offer a fair choice, but doubted they will decline to recognize Putin as Russia’s legitimate president.

    “I believe that is the right action to take, but I expect that President Biden is not going to say that [Putin] is not a Russian president. And all the other leaders won’t do that either because they want to leave some kind of contact with Putin,” he said.

    Before his death, Navalny had hoped to use the vote to demonstrate the public’s discontent with both the war and Putin’s iron-fisted rule. He called on voters to cast their ballots at 12 p.m. on March 17, naming the action Noon Against Putin.


    Viral images of long lines forming at this time would indicate the size of the opposition and undermine the landslide result the Kremlin is expected to concoct. The strategy was endorsed by Navalny not long before his death and his widow, Yulia Navalnaya, has promoted it.

    “We need to use election day to show that we exist and there are many of us, we are actual, living, real people and we are against Putin…. What to do next is up to you. You can vote for any candidate except Putin. You could ruin your ballot,” Navalnaya said.

    How well this strategy will work remains unclear. Moscow’s top law enforcement office warned voters in the Russian capital on March 14 against heeding calls to take part in the action, saying participants face legal punishment.

    With reporting by RFE/RL’s Todd Prince, Current Time, and AP


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.