10 Sept 2025

Serbian government escalates violence against protesters

Markus Salzmann


Ongoing demonstrations and protests in many cities against the right-wing Serbian government led by President Aleksandar Vučić are being met with increasing police brutality.

Protest in Belgrade on January 24, 2025 [Photo by Emilija Кnezevic / wikimedia / CC BY 4.0]

The protests have now been going on for nine months. In addition to demonstrations attended by up to 500,000 people, universities across the country are being occupied by students with almost daily protests taking place in various cities.

The protests were initially triggered by the deaths of 16 people, including two children, when a train station canopy collapsed in the northern Serbian city of Novi Sad in November last year. The collapse of the canopy followed a reconstruction of the train station, but the dilapidated canopy was never replaced. Protesters blame the tragedy on the corruption rampant within the ruling party and the state apparatus.

The protests quickly became an expression of a rejection of the government’s anti-social policies and its resort to police-state methods. After initially responding to the movement with bans and intimidation, the government is now deliberately resorting to violence. Vučić and his right-wing Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) are using not only regular police units but also paramilitary, fascist gangs.

In mid-August, masked supporters of the government attacked demonstrators in the towns of Vrbas and Backa under the watchful eye of the police. Seventy were injured. In response, further protests took place across the country the following day, in which the government also gave the right-wing mob free rein.

The most violent clashes occurred in Novi Sad and the capital, Belgrade. There, masked gangs of thugs attacked demonstrators with flares, fireworks, bottles and clubs. Once again, numerous injuries were reported with ensuing street battles and the burning down of an SNS party office.

According to media reports, the attacks by the police and the masked attackers were coordinated. One report described a clash at an intersection in downtown Belgrade: A line of police officers in full military gear confronted demonstrators. When a group of right-wing, armed thugs advanced towards the demonstrators, the police retreated.

Although the mob is usually masked, some of the attackers were identified from footage posted on social media. They belong to notorious fascist groups or the hooligan scene, among them a former hooligan leader who was tried in 2009 for the murder of a French football fan.

Independent media representatives are also increasingly being targeted by the government. The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) reports more than 160 attacks this year alone.

During a rally on August 14, right-wing extremist government supporters attacked a group of journalists. A day later, journalist Vuk Cvijić was targeted and injured by a police officer. Nova TV presenter Sanja Ignjatović Eker received threats that her children would be killed after she gave a live report on the protests in Novi Sad. She told Die Zeit newspaper that the driving force behind these threats was the president himself, who incessantly incites hatred against independent media.

The SNS emerged in 2008 as a breakaway from the fascist Serbian Radical Party (SRS). Vučić himself served as Serbian minister of information under former President Slobodan Milošević. The SNS remains infused with Serbian nationalists and maintains close ties with fascist groups.

The special unit responsible for the protection of state officials, the JZO, has been expanded from 300 to around 1,300 personnel in recent years. This unit operates without any legal restrictions and is effectively subordinate to the president.

On August 14, a law student was taken by the JZO to a garage of the government building, where she was insulted and threatened by Marko Kričak, the head of the JZO. At the same time, arbitrary arrests of students and protesters are increasing. Although such arrests lack any legal basis, they are intended to create a climate of intimidation and fear.

Vučić has continued to announce a “harsh response from the state” and even threatened to kill demonstrators. He compared the demonstrators to fascists and Nazis and declared that it was only a matter of time before someone died.

In grotesque government statements, Vučić claimed that the demonstrators were “terrorists” being paid by the West—Germany or Great Britain—to overthrow him. He described the demonstrations as an “uprising of the rich” that was only prevented thanks to the “fantastic efforts” of the Serbian security forces.

Although the protest movement has now grown far beyond its original student milieu, it has so far barely developed beyond its initial demands for democracy, the rule of law, and the fight against corruption. It rarely raises social or even anti-capitalist demands.

Although the accession negotiations with the EU, which have been ongoing since 2014, have stalled, no EU flags are to be seen at the demonstrations—unlike at the so-called “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and other countries. While many participants place their hopes in the EU, this sympathy is not reciprocated from Brussels.

In fact, the EU is counting on Vučić, who is performing a careful balancing act between the EU, Russia and China. On the one hand, Belgrade agreed to new gas supply contracts with Moscow in May 2022 and hosts Russian broadcasters banned in the EU. On the other hand, despite state media propaganda to the contrary, it supports the EU’s war drive against Russia and is an important partner for Brussels in sealing off refugees attempting to reach Central Europe via the Balkan route.

Serbia is also closely intertwined with the EU economically. Over 60 percent of Serbian exports go to the EU, and over 60 percent of foreign direct investment in Serbia comes from the EU. The former German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, personally traveled to Belgrade in July 2024 to attend the signing of a “Memorandum on Critical Raw Materials” granting the EU access to Serbian lithium deposits.

The EU also fears that further destabilization of Serbia could spread to other Balkan states that are already fully or partially in the EU and whose governments are just as corrupt and authoritarian as Serbia’s.

Isolated expressions of solidarity with the demonstrators from Brussels or EU member states therefore amount to nothing more than empty phrases. In a statement, EU Ambassador to Serbia Andreas von Beckerath cynically called on “all sides to de-escalate tensions.”

The result is increasing alienation and scepticism toward the EU among the wider Serbian population, especially among younger people. In a spring poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, only 40 percent said they would vote for their country’s accession to the EU.

The depth of the rejection of Vučić and the entire political establishment is demonstrated by polls that indicate the student movement is the strongest political force in Serbia and would win parliamentary elections with an electoral list led by it. But despite all its courage and fighting spirit against the right-wing regime, the movement lacks a viable political perspective.

Formally left-wing parties and groups are deliberately trying to keep the protests apolitical or channel them to the bankrupt opposition parties. On May 1, the students demonstrated alongside five trade union associations. However, these represent nationalist positions and are linked to the ruling party themselves. Like the established opposition parties, they fear nothing more than a broad movement directed not only against Vučić but against the entire capitalist system.

Right-wing prime minister installed in Thailand

Robert Campion & Peter Symonds


Anutin Charnvirakul, from the right-wing Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), was officially appointed last Sunday as Thailand’s new prime minister following his election by the House of Representatives on September 5.

Thailand’s new Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul talks to media members after receiving a royal letter of endorsement for the post at Bhumjai Thai party headquarters in Bangkok, September 7, 2025. [AP Photo/Arnun Chonmahatrakool]

The appointment of the third prime minister in just two years is an expression of the growing instability of the Thai political system. The two previous prime ministers were removed by the Constitutional Court on the bogus grounds of “ethical violations.”

Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was removed from office in late August on the basis that she had shown a “lack of unity” with the military over remarks she made in a leaked phone call with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen following a border skirmish.

The collapse of Thailand’s unstable Pheu Thai-led coalition government quickly followed after several parties broke away. The coalition was formed after months of horse-trading in the wake of the 2023 election after the party that had won the most seats—the Move Forward Party—was blocked from forming government and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court.

In August last year, the court ousted Pheu Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin on trumped-up ethics violations. The Constitutional Court, which was stacked by the military following its 2014 coup, has routinely been used by the country’s conservative elites to remove governments and dissolve parties on spurious grounds.

The BJT was founded in 2008 after a right-wing faction representing the rural bourgeoisie split from the Thai Rak Thai—the forerunner of Pheu Thai led by the multi-billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra. It has consistently aligned itself with military and royalist forces to prop up capitalist rule. It maintains its presence in parliament primarily through networks of brokers, vote buying and construction contracts.

Anutin is one of the wealthiest politicians in parliament, with declared assets of more than 4.3 billion baht ($US115 million) that include three private jets, two speed boats and a luxury residence in Bangkok.

He is the son of wealthy construction tycoon and ex-Prime Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul, who founded Sino-Thai Engineering & Construction (STECON) in 1952. Despite the BJT’s close ties to the company, it obtained the Transport Ministry between 2019–2023, which oversaw the control of highways, rail and airports.

Anutin’s previous ministerial posts include deputy prime minister and public health minister in the military-led government of Prayut Chan-o-cha, the 2014 coup leader, formed after the 2019 election. The election—the first since the coup—took place on the basis of a constitution and rules written by the military, and amid widespread allegations of vote rigging.

As health minister, Anutin oversaw the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He scapegoated “dirty” tourists while delaying the rollout of vaccines, rejecting early offers from Pfizer and Moderna in favour of those of Siam Bioscience, a company owned by the monarchy. Only 10 percent of the population had been fully vaccinated in August 2021 at the height of the Delta surge, resulting in 300 deaths a day.

Anutin now heads a minority government lacking in popular support. Even after gathering the support of 11 other minor parties, his coalition can only muster 146 seats in the 500-seat lower house of parliament. These parties include Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) and United Thai Nation (UTN), which both derive from the 2014 military junta and the party it established.

Anutin and his BJT have only been able to form government with the backing of the People’s Party (PP)—the reincarnation of the dissolved Move Forward Party—which holds 151 seats and had pledged to block no-confidence motions and support the budget. In return, the BJT has promised to dissolve parliament within four months for a new general election, and to initiate the tortured process to revise the military-written constitution.

The Move Forward Party came to prominence amid the mass protests in 2020–21, particularly by young people, against the military junta, the 2019 rigged elections and the monarchy. Protesters demanded major democratic reforms, including the abolition of the draconian lèse majesté law, under which anyone deemed to be insulting the monarchy can be jailed for up to 15 years. Anutin was a particular target over his handling of the pandemic, with the hashtag #ไล่อนุทิน (Oust Anutin) trending on Twitter.

Now the People’s Party has helped the right-wing, pro-military and pro-monarchy BJT into office on vague promises of fresh elections and constitutional revision. The PP has embraced the BJT for the same reason that its predecessor meekly accepted being blocked from office in 2023 and then dissolved—it is terrified of mobilising mass opposition that would inevitably draw in support from workers and threaten the basis of bourgeois rule.

The People’s Party, like Pheu Thai, is a capitalist party representing sections of big business whose interests are impeded by the political and economic domination of conservative layers of the ruling class centred on the military and monarchy. The PP traces its roots to the Future Forward Party (FFP)—also dissolved by the Constitutional Court—founded by Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, a top executive of the Thai Summit Group, established by his father and the largest auto parts manufacturer in the country.

In explaining the decision to back the BJT, PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said, “The party fears that if we abstain, no one will secure a majority, opening the door for someone outside the system to take power”—an obvious reference to another military coup.

In reality, by blocking the emergence of an oppositional movement of workers and youth, the PP is making another military coup more likely, not less. The collapse of the Pheu Thai coalition government, followed by the installation of the weak minority BJT government, only highlights the deep divisions in the ruling class amid a slowing economy, growing social crisis and the potential for major class struggles.

As has already been demonstrated over the past two years, the so-called progressive parties will quickly join hands with the right-wing parties of the military and monarchies to prop up capitalism and the tawdry façade of parliament amid rising social tensions. Their real fear is not of a military coup, which they will passively embrace, but the eruption of opposition in the working class.

Israeli attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar exposes fraud of “ceasefire” talks

Andre Damon



Doha, Qatar [Photo by Zairon / CC BY 4.0]

Israel carried out an airstrike on the Qatari capital of Doha Tuesday in an effort to kill the Hamas negotiators with whom it is nominally carrying out “ceasefire” talks. While the Hamas negotiators survived, the attack killed six people, including the son of Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s chief negotiator, as well as civilian bystanders.

All factions of the Israeli political establishment endorsed the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted about it, saying, “At the beginning of the war, I promised that Israel would reach those who perpetrated that horror. Today that was done.”

The attack on Qatar is the second major act of international perfidy carried out by Israel in recent months. In June, Israel and the United States used negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program as cover to assassinate large portions of Iran’s military and civilian leadership.

The attempt to murder Hamas negotiators exposes, once again, the complete fraud of US and Israeli claims that they are seeking a negotiated settlement of the genocide they refer to as a “war.” In reality, the negotiations are a fiction, invoked by the US media to cover up the fact that the “war” being waged by the US and Israel is merely a pretext to conquer the entirety of Gaza and kill or expel the Palestinian population.

On Sunday, Trump said he was giving Hamas a “final warning” to accept the US-Israeli terms of surrender. “I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one!” Trump said. The Hamas negotiators were holding a meeting to discuss the terms laid down by Trump.

The strikes targeted the Qatari capital of Doha and occurred near schools and embassies. Qatar is a key regional ally of the United States, and thousands of American soldiers are stationed at the country’s Al Udeid Air Base.

Doha has served as the location of “ceasefire” negotiations throughout the course of the genocide.

The Times of Israel, citing Israeli officials who spoke to Israeli broadcaster Channel 12, reported that “US President Donald Trump gave the green light for the Israeli strike in Qatar.”

Trump confirmed receiving advanced warning of the attack and said that the US had informed the Qatari government that “Israel was attacking Hamas” in the capital. Trump claimed, “This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” adding, “It was not a decision made by me.”

While Trump said the strike “does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” he stopped short of condemning it outright, declaring, “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”

A week ago, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, said that Israel would seek to murder Hamas members throughout the Middle East. “We are operating across the entire Middle East,” he told reserve soldiers. “Hamas will have no place to hide from us. Wherever we locate them, whether they are senior or junior figures—we strike them all, all the time.”

In May, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened Hamas’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya.

In a statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to distance the United States from the attack on Qatar, saying, “Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.”

In a statement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the strike as a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Qatar.”

“What happened today is state terrorism and an attempt to destabilize regional security and stability, and Netanyahu is leading the region to an irreversible level,” said Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in a televised address. He added, “These missiles were used to attack the negotiating delegation of the other party. By what moral standards is this acceptable?”

In a statement, Turkey said the attack on Qatar marked the “embrace of terrorism as a state policy,” amid media speculation that Israel could carry out attacks in other countries, including Turkey.

Just hours before the strike on Qatar, the Israel Defense Forces ordered the evacuation of the entirety of Gaza City as it accelerates its campaign to fully occupy the city. Approximately one million people remain in Gaza City, and Israel hopes to drive them to the south, where they will be interned in concentration camps near Rafah in preparation for their forcible expulsion from Palestine.

“I say to the residents of Gaza, take this opportunity and listen to me carefully: you have been warned—get out of there!” Netanyahu said Tuesday.

Last month, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) hunger monitor officially pronounced a famine in Gaza. To date, hundreds of people have already died of starvation and malnutrition, and the number is only expected to climb higher.

Meanwhile, representatives of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is seeking to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver food, said its ships were struck by two separate drone attacks over the past 24 hours, although no injuries were reported. Among the participants in the flotilla is climate activist Greta Thunberg.

French government’s fall expresses mounting global debt crisis

Nick Beams



A person walks past a Euro logo, at the European Central Bank headquarters, in Frankfurt, Germany on July 24, 2025. [AP Photo/Michael Probst]

The fall of the French government on Monday because of its failure to get through parliament an austerity program to deal with rising government debt is a very sharp political expression of the developing debt crisis in all the major economies.

In the period since the global financial crisis of 2008, governments have been piling up debt at an accelerating rate, particularly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as they provided bailouts to corporations and major tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy.

France is illustrative of this process. The Bayrou government was seeking spending cuts of €44 billion. But according to calculations reported in the New York Times, tax receipts have fallen to 51 percent of GDP from 54 percent from 2017 when president Macron took office, with one estimate being that the tax cuts have resulted in a loss of €50 billion annually to government revenue.

France has a government debt of €3.35 trillion which is expected to comprise 116 percent of GDP this year.

The French government, as with many others, has been able to pile up debt to historically unprecedented levels because for a decade and a half after the 2008 crisis, followed by the euro crisis of 2012, central banks kept interest rates at or near zero. But now the chickens have come home to roost and with the rise in interest rates since 2022 the interest bill has soared. In the case of France, it has risen from €26 billion in 2020 to €66 billion today.

The French financial crisis is the expression of a rapidly developing global trend. According to the International Monetary Fund, the amount of debt as a percentage of annual economic output has doubled since 2007 to reach 80 percent. The IMF has said public debt could reach 100 percent of global GDP by the end of the decade. The United Nations agency UNCTAD reported that global public debt reached around $102 trillion in 2024, an increase of $5 trillion over the previous year.

The interest bill on government debt around the world rose to $2.72 trillion last year, an increase of 11.2 percent from the previous year.

The rise of government debt has seen a sharp spike in global bond markets, particularly at the longer end.

In the UK, the yield or interest rate on 30-year bonds has touched 5.75 percent, the highest level since 1998. Next year the interest bill on government debt is expected to reach the equivalent of $150 billion, nearly twice what is spent on the military. Debt is now at 100 percent of GDP and on present trends will rise rapidly in coming years.

According to Ruth Gregory, deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics, whose remarks were cited in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ): “The UK isn’t alone in all of this. There is a common theme across many G-7 countries that do seem to be in place for a potential fiscal crisis, although that doesn’t mean a crisis in imminent or inevitable.”

However, she went on to warn that the UK was a “potential tinderbox” where a market crisis at home or abroad could lead to a jump in interest rates.

The UK has already experienced such an event. In 2022 the attempt by the short-lived Liz Truss Tory government to fund tax cuts to corporations with debt led to a bond market crisis into which the Bank of England had to intervene with a rescue operation. It was significant that this crisis had a completely unexpected source in that it involved pension funds.

Since then, the overall financial situation has worsened because the British economy is not growing fast enough to generate the revenue to cover debt and balance the budget.

Summing up the significance of the situation in the UK—the “canary in the coal mine,” a designation increasingly being used—Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management wrote that “that the air is getting thinner in the sovereign debt mines.”

“The first cough isn’t coming from the usual fragile corners of emerging markets but from the heart of the developed world. UK gilts—those once staid, gentlemanly instruments of British prudence—are now whistling a warning note that reverberates far beyond Threadneedle Street.”

He noted that even Japan, where bonds typically “dozed undisturbed,” had been “shaken awake” as yields on 30-year bonds hit record highs. “Canada, Germany, name your sovereign—the strain is everywhere.”

The debt crisis is most severe in the US, the heart of the global capitalist system. Government debt has risen to $37 trillion and the interest bill of $1 trillion a year is rivalling the budget outlays on the biggest item, military spending. If the US had not yet reached stage of France or the UK, it is only because the dollar is the global currency providing it with “exorbitant privilege.”

But the dollar’s role is being called into question. Throughout this year its value has been falling in international markets—it is down 10 percent from the start of year—and there is growing concern about the stability of US financial institutions which form the foundation of the global financial system.

In a comment published in the WSJ, Ken Griffin, the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar hedge fund, warned about the stability of inflation and the sustainability of public finances in the face of president Trump’s attack on the Federal Reserve.

“The president’s strategy of publicly criticising the Fed, suggesting the dismissal of governors, and pressuring the central bank to adopt a more permissive stance toward inflation carries steep costs. These actions raise inflation expectations, increase market risk premiums, and weaken investor confidence in US institutions.”

He said that while the US benefited from a “a stock of credibility” built over decades, it was not limitless. “If eroded, markets will demand far higher rates for longer-term debt.”

The erosion of confidence in the US and the dollar is seen in the rising price of gold. On Monday it reached $3600 per ounce, hitting $3500 just a week before.

In what the Financial Times described as its “blistering performance,” it has risen by 9 percent over the past three weeks and by 37 percent since the start of the year. The view from financial analysts is that its rise will continue—it may even reach $4000 by the end of the year—as foreign demand shifts from US Treasury bonds to gold and loses confidence in the US.

The shifts in the bond market indicate that a turning point is being reached. As Bloomberg columnist Allison Schrager recently noted the major economies have “no earthly way of paying for all of their debt.”

“The last few decades of low rates lulled investors, companies and governments into believing that they could keep borrowing and not face any costs—that they could essentially live in a world without economic trade-offs. Higher rates mark the end of this era of magical thinking.”

She did not specify or go into detail as to what those “trade-offs” would be. But they are already emerging in plain sight. They involve massive attacks on the social position of the working class and all the gains of the post-war period, accompanied by escalation of authoritarian and fascist forms of rule to impose them, the development of which is already well underway.