Tens of thousands rally in Serbia's capital for anti-graft rally
As a sea of people flooded the streets of downtown Belgrade, the rally was likely set to be the single largest protest since the anti-graft movement first coalesced.
The movement formed after 15 people were killed when a railway station roof collapsed in the city of Novi Sad in November.
The railway station disaster ignited long-simmering bitterness over alleged corruption and lax oversight in construction projects.
But with supporters of President Aleksandar Vucic's embattled government also mobilising in the capital as well, there was growing concern about the risk of clashes.
In statements issued on social media, students urged those attending the rally to act "in a calm and responsible manner".
"The purpose of this movement is not an incursion into institutions, nor to attack those who do not think as we do," read one statement.
"This movement must not be misused."
The rally was due to officially start at 4:00 pm (1500 GMT) and run to 9:00 pm, but thousands had already amassed hours in advance.
The European Union and the United Nations on Friday appealed to the government ahead of the demonstration to respect the right to demonstrate.
For weeks, the student-led protesters have criss-crossed the country, holding rallies in Serbia's major cities.
They have also taken their anti-corruption crusade to the rural villages and towns that have long been the backbone of support for Vucic's government.
Their return to Belgrade on Saturday will likely further ramp up already compounding pressure on the government, with several high ranking officials, including the prime minister, having resigned in recent months.
Ahead of the main afternoon protest, thousands stood for 15 minutes of silence beginning at 11:52 am to honour the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy, with the time marking the moment of the roof's collapse.
Farmers, students, bikers and other civilians mingled along the main thoroughfares in downtown Belgrade, as a parade of tractors headed toward the parliament.
"We came for justice. I hope that after this protest, things will change," Milica Stojanovic, a student at the Faculty of Biology in Belgrade, told AFP.
- 'I will not be pressured' -
But supporters of the government were also mobilising in the capital, including ultranationalists, militia members, and alleged football hooligans who have set up barricades near the parliament.
That has led to fears of a confrontation with the student-led demonstrators planning to march by the parliament later Saturday.
Riot police had also fanned out near the encampment, which is surrounded with barricades and farming tractors.
On Friday evening, Vucic took to the airways with a defiant message as demonstrators began to trickle into the city, vowing to not back down in the face of mass protests.
"Just to be clear, I will not be pressured," said Vucic during a national televised address.
"I'm the president of Serbia and I won't let the streets set the rules in this country."
He went on to call on all sides to refrain from using violence and instructed police to not use excessive force.
On Friday night, thousands lined Belgrade's streets to welcome student protesters arriving in the capital after they marched for days from cities across Serbia.
The interior ministry put the number of those who had amassed in the capital late Friday at around 31,000.
"There definitely won't be any violence here because we all came with the same purpose -- to wait for the people who marched, the people who are liberating Serbia," said Tijana Djuric -- a 20-year-old student at the Faculty of Economics in Belgrade.
- 'Regime escalating tensions' -
Some analysts however warned that the situation could escalate.
"We can already see for a few days that the regime is trying to escalate tensions," said political analyst Srdjan Cvijic.
"It is creating a Potemkin village of support in front of the presidency with pro-government demonstrators who are paid."
Pressure has been mounting in the days leading up to Saturday's rally.
Government-backed media have broadcast increasingly inflammatory accusations, saying the students are planning to launch a "coup".
Earlier, Vucic himself accused the demonstrators of organising "large-scale violence".
Vucic has warned of a "final" showdown on Saturday while some student protesters said they would continue to rally until their demands for greater accountability were met.
ds/cw
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate deal on nominees elusive amid Democratic anger at Trump
President Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) are making slow progress toward a deal to clear some of the Senate's backlog of executive branch nominees to allow weary senators to leave Washington for the four-week August recess. Walking off the darkened Senate floor at 10 pm Friday, Thune said negotiators 'floated' proposals 'back and forth all day' but added that the Democratic demands 'are probably not going to be something at this point we can meet.' 'No deal yet,' he said. The Senate is scheduled to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday and will vote at 10 a.m. to limit debate on Andrew Puzder's nomination to serve as U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Democrats are under heavy pressure to oppose Trump in any way they can, including stymying his nominees, and their anger soared again on Friday after the president fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after the agency released a weaker-than-expected jobs report. Trump accused McEntarfer, a Biden appointee, of manipulating the jobs data for 'political purposes' but Schumer said the president was only 'shooting the messenger.' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), the Democrats chief deputy whip, said called the firing 'absolutely insane' while Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) called it 'Soviet sh–.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he's willing to stick around steamy Washington for however many days it takes to grind through votes on Trump's nominees, showing little appetite for a deal to advance a bloc of Trump picks through unanimous consent or a voice vote. 'I know there's a lot of things being negotiated so I'm not going to comment on that,' he said when asked if he could support advancing a package of Trump nominees. 'I'm okay with sticking around to do work. It's unfortunate that we have a Republican Party right now that's off the rails and doing Donald Trump's bidding,' he said. Booker said Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of a disappointing jobs report was 'very authoritarian, very 1984.' Senators are now expected to spend their weekend voting on Trump's nominees as Democrats have refused to allow any of them — even those tapped to fill subordinate positions at federal departments and agencies — to be confirmed by unanimous consent or voice votes. Senators on both sides of the aisle are eager to get home for the month-long break, having spent more time in Washington than usual since the start of the year. As of this week, members of the Senate have cast more votes during the first seven months of the year than the chamber had previously taken over 12 months in 32 of the past 36 years. But they will have to wait to return to their home states as leaders continue to wrestle over a deal on a nominations package and as Democrats are hearing demands from their party's base to drag out the confirmations of Trump's nominees for as long as possible. Democratic senators said they had little sense of whether Schumer was making any progress with Trump on a deal. 'Could be more votes tonight or could be more votes tomorrow but I don't really know,' Sen. Tim Kaine (R-Va.) said shortly after 8 pm. Some senators were told to 'keep their phones on' Friday night in case they were summoned back to for a late-night flurry of votes. Republicans ranged from pessimistic to optimistic when asked about the prosect of a deal on a package of nominees to spare them from having to return to the Capitol for a Saturday session. 'At this point, I think they're quite a ways apart,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told The Hill upon emerging from a conference luncheon earlier in the day. 'We'll do our best to try to work through as many [nominations] as we can and kind of move from there,' Rounds said. 'We don't have a deal. We're going to continue to try to work on something, but we don't have a deal yet.' Sen. Tom Tillis (R-N.C.) told The Hill after 8 p.m. Friday that it appeared the White House and Schumer's team had made progress since lunchtime. The talks reached new stage on Friday as Schumer began negotiating directly with the White House on the contours of a package. Thune told reporters that he has put White House officials 'into conversation directly' with Schumer's team. 'That is how this is ultimately going to get resolved,' he said. The Republican leader said that 'a number of people' from the White House are talking with Schumer, who is under heavy pressure from his Democratic base to use every tool at his disposal to thwart Trump's agenda. Thune said a deal would be 'up to the discussions between the White House and Schumer and the Democrats.' He and other Republicans assert that Trump is being treated unfairly on the nominations front, noting that none of his choices have been confirmed via unanimous consent or a voice vote — breaking with past precedent. The Democratic tactics have forced Republicans to churn through time-consuming procedural votes and final confirmation votes on every single Trump nominee Democrats only allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to come directly to the floor for a final vote on the same day Trump took the oath of office. Rubio was confirmed by a vote of 99 to 0. 'This isn't normal. This is petty partisan politics at its worst,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said on the floor earlier on Friday. 'Republicans are not backing down. We will continue to confirm President Trump's nominees. The easy way if we can. The hard way if we must.' Senate Republicans weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday was filled with discussions about changing the Senate's rules for confirming lower-level nominees — either by eliminating the need for procedural votes before the final confirmation votes, collapsing the mandatory debate time, or allowing nominees to move in groups. They would need to establish new rules by a simple-majority vote, a move that's considered so destructive to bipartisanship that it's referred to the 'nuclear option.' Under regular order, it would take 67 votes to change the Senate's rules. Senate Republicans are also talking about putting the Senate into an extended recess so that Trump could fill scores of open positions through recess appointments. But that would require mustering 50 Senate Republican votes, something that's not assured given that several Republican senators, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tillis are reluctant to give up their constitutional role of providing 'advice and consent' on nominees. Entering into a multi-week recess would require passing an adjournment resolution through both the Senate and House, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hasn't given any indication he plans to call House members back to Washington before September. Trump has called on the Senate to stay in session throughout August in order to approve his nominees, but the vast majority of senators are ready for a break. The Senate has been in session for 12 of the past 14 weeks and had its July Fourth recess chopped in half because of marathon negotiations over Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which passed after senators slogged through a long series of amendment votes that went overnight and into the next day. While Senate leaders remain deadlocked over a nominations deal, they achieved a major bipartisan accomplishment Friday evening when they passed a package of appropriations bills to fund military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture, and the legislative branch. The Senate voted 87 to 9 to pass the military construction, veterans affairs and agriculture appropriations 'mini-bus' and 81 to 15 to attach the legislative branch appropriations bill to the package.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty in tariffs as he pushes start date back to Aug. 7
WASHINGTON (AP) — For weeks, President Donald Trump was promising the world economy would change on Friday with his new tariffs in place. It was an ironclad deadline, administration officials assured the public. But when Trump signed the order Thursday night imposing new tariffs, the start date of the punishing import taxes was pushed back seven days so the tariff schedule could be updated. The change in tariffs on 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands was potentially welcome news to countries that had not yet reached a deal with the U.S. It also injected a new dose of uncertainty for consumers and businesses still wondering what's going to happen and when. Trump told NBC News in a Thursday night interview the tariffs process was going 'very well, very smooth." But even as the Republican president insisted these new rates would stay in place, he added: 'It doesn't mean that somebody doesn't come along in four weeks and say we can make some kind of a deal.' Trump has promised that his tax increases on the nearly $3 trillion in goods imported to the United States will usher in newfound wealth, launch a cavalcade of new factory jobs, reduce the budget deficits and, simply, get other countries to treat America with more respect. The vast tariffs risk jeopardizing America's global standing as allies feel forced into unfriendly deals. As taxes on the raw materials used by U.S. factories and basic goods, the tariffs also threaten to create new inflationary pressures and hamper economic growth — concerns the Trump White House has dismissed. Questions swirl around the tariffs despite Trump's eagerness As the clock ticked toward Trump's self-imposed deadline, few things seemed to be settled other than the president's determination to levy the taxes he has talked about for decades. The very legality of the tariffs remains an open question as a U.S. appeals court on Thursday heard arguments on whether Trump had exceeded his authority by declaring an 'emergency' under a 1977 law to charge the tariffs, allowing him to avoid congressional approval. Trump was ebullient as much of the world awaited what he would do. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' he said Thursday morning on Truth Social. Others saw a policy carelessly constructed by the U.S. president, one that could impose harms gradually over time that would erode America's power and prosperity. 'The only things we'll know for sure on Friday morning are that growth-sapping U.S. import taxes will be historically high and complex, and that, because these deals are so vague and unfinished, policy uncertainty will remain very elevated,' said Scott Lincicome, a vice president of economics at the Cato Institute. 'The rest is very much TBD.' The new tariffs build off ones announced in the spring Trump initially imposed the Friday deadline after his previous 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April resulted in a stock market panic. His unusually high tariff rates announced then led to recession fears, prompting Trump to impose a 90-day negotiating period. When he was unable to create enough trade deals with other countries, he extended the timeline and sent out letters to world leaders that simply listed rates, prompting a slew of hasty agreements. Swiss imports will now be taxed at a higher rate, 39%, than the 31% Trump threatened in April, while Liechtenstein saw its rate slashed from 37% to 15%. Countries not listed in the Thursday night order would be charged a baseline 10% tariff. Trump negotiated trade frameworks over the past few weeks with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines — allowing the president to claim victories as other nations sought to limit his threat of charging even higher tariff rates. He said Thursday there were agreements with other countries, but he declined to name them. Asked on Friday if countries were happy with the rates set by Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said: 'A lot of them are.' Thursday began with a palpable sense of tension The EU was awaiting a written agreement on its 15% tariff deal. Switzerland and Norway were among the dozens of countries that did not know what their tariff rate would be, while Trump agreed after a Thursday morning phone call to keep Mexico's tariffs at 25% for a 90-day negotiating period. The president separately on Thursday amended an order to raise certain tariffs on Canada to 35%. European leaders face blowback for seeming to cave to Trump, even as they insist that this is merely the start of talks and stress the importance of maintaining America's support of Ukraine's fight against Russia. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already indicated that his country can no longer rely on the U.S. as an ally, and Trump declined to talk to him on Thursday. India, with its 25% tariff announced Wednesday by Trump, may no longer benefit as much from efforts to pivot manufacturing out of China. While the Trump administration has sought to challenge China's manufacturing dominance, it is separately in extended trade talks with that country, which faces a 30% tariff and is charging a 10% retaliatory rate on the U.S. Major companies came into the week warning that tariffs would begin to squeeze them financially. Ford Motor Co. said it anticipated a net $2 billion hit to earnings this year from tariffs. French skincare company Yon-Ka is warning of job freezes, scaled-back investment and rising prices. It's unclear whether Trump's new tariffs will survive a legal challenge Federal judges sounded skeptical Thursday about Trump's use of a 1977 law to declare the long-standing U.S. trade deficit a national emergency that justifies tariffs on almost every country. 'You're asking for an unbounded authority,' Judge Todd Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told a Justice Department lawyer representing the administration. The judges didn't immediately rule, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court eventually. The Trump White House has pointed to the increase in federal revenues as a sign that the tariffs will reduce the budget deficit, with $127 billion in customs and duties collected so far this year — about $70 billion more than last year. New tariffs threaten to raise inflation rates There are not yet signs that tariffs will lead to more domestic manufacturing jobs, and Friday's employment report showed the U.S. economy now has 37,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than it did in April. On Thursday, one crucial measure of inflation, known as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, showed that prices have climbed 2.6% over the 12 months that ended in June, a sign that inflation may be accelerating as the tariffs flow through the economy. The prospect of higher inflation from the tariffs has caused the Federal Reserve to hold off on additional cuts to its benchmark rates, a point of frustration for Trump, who on Truth Social, called Fed Chair Jerome Powell a 'TOTAL LOSER.' But before Trump's tariffs, Powell seemed to suggest that the tariffs had put the U.S. economy and much of the world into a state of unknowns. 'There are many uncertainties left to resolve,' Powell told reporters Wednesday. 'So, yes, we are learning more and more. It doesn't feel like we're very close to the end of that process. And that's not for us to judge, but it does — it feels like there's much more to come.' ___ AP writer Paul Wiseman contributed to this report. Josh Boak, The Associated Press
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The quiet war: What's fueling Israel's surge of settler violence – and the lack of state response
Since Oct. 7, 2023, as Israel's war against Hamas drags on in the Gaza Strip, a quieter but escalating war has unfolded in the West Bank between Israelis and Palestinians. While precise figures are elusive, United Nations estimates indicate that Jewish settlers have carried out around 2,000 attacks against Palestinians since the war in Gaza began. That number represents a dramatic surge compared with any previous period during the nearly six decades Israel has controlled the West Bank. Attacks include harassment of Palestinian villagers trying to access their crops or work outside their villages, as well as more extreme and organized violence, such as raiding villages to vandalize property. While many of the attacks are unprovoked, some are what settlers call 'price tag' actions: retaliation for Palestinian violence against Israelis, such as car-rammings, rock-throwing and stabbings. Settlers' attacks displaced more than 1,500 Palestinians in the first year of the war in Gaza, and gun violence is increasingly common. Since October 2023, more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed. While most of these fatalities resulted from military operations, some were killed by settlers. As a scholar who has studied Jewish religious extremism for over two decades, I contend this campaign is not merely a result of rising tension between the settlers and their Palestinian neighbors amid the Gaza conflict. Rather, it is fueled by a confluence of ideological fervor, opportunism and far-right Israelis' political vision for the region. Religious redemption Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967's Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, transforming this small region of around 2,000 square miles (5,200 square kilometers) to an amalgam of Jewish and Palestinian enclaves. Most countries other than Israel consider Jewish settlements illegal, but they have rapidly expanded in recent decades, becoming a major challenge for any settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ideological roots of violence lie within religious Zionism: a worldview embraced by about 20% of Israel's Jewish population, including most West Bank settlers. The great majority of the leaders of the early Zionist movement held strong secular views. They pushed for the creation of a Jewish state over the objections of Orthodox figures, who argued that it should be a divine creation rather than a human-made polity. Religious Zionists, on the other hand, view the creation of modern-day Israel and its military victories as steps in a divine redemption, which will culminate in a Jewish kingdom led by a heaven-sent Messiah. Adherents believe contemporary events, particularly those asserting Jewish control over the entire historical land of Israel, can accelerate this process. In recent decades, influential religious Zionist leaders have argued that final redemption requires Israel's total military triumph and the annihilation of its enemies, particularly the Palestinian national movement. From this perspective, the devastation of Oct. 7 and the subsequent war are a divine test – one the nation can only pass by achieving a complete victory. This belief system fuels most religious Zionists' opposition to ending the war, as well as their advocacy for scorched-earth policies in Gaza. Some hope to rebuild the Jewish settlements in the strip that Israel evacuated in 2005. The violence in the West Bank reflects an extension of the same beliefs. Extreme groups within the settler population aim to solidify Jewish control by making Palestinian communities' lives in the region unsustainable. Opportunistic violence Hamas' Oct. 7 massacre, which killed over 1,200 Israelis, traumatized the nation. It also hardened many Jewish Israelis' conviction that a Palestinian state would be an existential threat, and thus Palestinians cannot be partners for peace. This shift in sentiment created a permissive environment for violence. While settler attacks previously drew criticism from across the political spectrum, extremist violence faces less public condemnation today – as does the government's lack of effort to curb it. This increase in violence is also enabled by a climate of impunity. Israeli security forces have been stretched thin by operations in Gaza, Syria, Iran and beyond. In the West Bank, the military increasingly relies on settler militias known as 'Emergency Squads,' which are armed by the Israeli military for self-defense, and army units composed primarily of religious Zionist settlers, such as the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. Such groups have little incentive to stop attacks on Palestinians, and at times, they have participated. This dynamic has dangerously blurred the line between the state military and militant settlers. The Israeli police, meanwhile, under the command of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, appear focused on protecting settlers. Police leadership has been accused of ignoring intelligence about planned attacks and failing to arrest violent settlers or enforce restraining orders. Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group, asserts that just 3% of attacks have resulted in a conviction. In June 2025, military attempts to curb settler militancy triggered a violent backlash, as extremist settlers attacked military commanders and tried to set fire to military facilities. Settlers view efforts to restrict their actions as illegitimate and a betrayal of Jewish interests in the West Bank. Political vision Violence by extremist settlers is not random; it is one arm of a coordinated pincer strategy to entrench Jewish control over the West Bank. While militant settlers create a climate of fear, Israeli authorities have undermined legal efforts to stop the violence – ending administrative detention for settler suspects, for example. Meanwhile, the government has intensified policies that undermine Palestinians' economic development, freedom of movement and land use. In May, finance minister and far-right leader Bezalel Smotrich approved 22 new settlements, calling it a 'historic decision' that signaled a return to 'construction, Zionism, and vision.' Together, violence from below and policy from above advance a clear strategic goal: the coerced depopulation of Palestinians from rural areas to solidify Israeli sovereignty over the entire West Bank. Levers for change The militant elements of the settler movement constitute a fractional segment of Israeli society. When it comes to improving the situation in the West Bank, broad punitive measures against the entire country, such as economic boycotting and divestment, or blocking access to scientific, economic and cultural programs and organizations, have historically proved ineffective. Instead, such policies seem to entrench many Israelis' perception of international bias and double standards: the sense that critics are antisemitic, or that few outsiders understand the country's challenges – particularly in light of threats from entitles like Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, which openly seek Israel's elimination. More targeted policies aim specifically at the Israeli far right, including sanctions – economic, political or cultural – directed at settler communities and their infrastructure. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the U.K. have imposed travel bans on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and frozen their assets in those countries. Similarly, I believe decisions to ban goods produced in the West Bank settlements, as Ireland has recently debated, would be more effective than banning all Israeli products. This targeted approach, I would argue, would allow the international community to cultivate stronger alliances with the many Israelis concerned about the settlements and Palestinians' rights in the West Bank. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Arie Perliger, UMass Lowell Read more: Israelis have a skewed view on extent of Gaza's hunger plight − driven by censorship and media that downplay humanitarian crisis How the Israeli settlers movement shaped modern Israel Why government support for religion doesn't necessarily make people more religious Arie Perliger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
