Muslim World Report

Belgrade Protests Escalate as Subsonic Weapons Target Activists

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 16, 2025 2:23 PM | 10 min read | 1947 words

TL;DR: Protests in Belgrade have escalated into violence as the government employs subsonic weaponry against demonstrators. This tactic highlights a worrying global trend of state repression that threatens civil liberties. As tensions rise, the government faces increasing scrutiny, and the situation may inspire similar movements in neighboring countries.

The Situation: State Power and Civil Disobedience in Belgrade

Recent protests in Belgrade have escalated dramatically, revealing deep-seated tensions between state authority and civil dissent. Demonstrators gathered to honor the 15 victims of a railway accident—a tragedy attributed to systemic corruption and administrative negligence—only to confront a violent state response. Here are the main points of concern:

  • Deployment of subsonic weaponry to disperse crowds raises questions about the militarization of civil order, reminiscent of how water cannons were used in the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to quiet dissenting voices.
  • Eyewitness accounts describe panic among peaceful participants due to disorienting frequencies emitted from these devices, bringing to mind the psychological tactics employed by totalitarian regimes to instill fear and compliance.
  • This chaotic scene mirrors historical strategies used by repressive regimes, marking a critical evolution in state-civil society relations (Questier, 1997; Miodownik & Nir, 2015).

The implications of these events in Belgrade extend far beyond the local context, serving as a microcosm of a global trend. Governments worldwide are increasingly resorting to militarized responses to dissent amid a rising tide of authoritarianism. Key observations include:

  • Disproportionate reactions to peaceful protests highlight a disturbing pattern of prioritizing suppression over addressing public grievances. Are we witnessing a shift in the balance of power, where the voice of the people is increasingly drowned out?
  • Such actions threaten civil liberties and undermine the foundations of democratic governance (McLennan, 2009; Knack & Keefer, 1995). Historically, when civil liberties are curtailed, the spirit of democracy diminishes, as seen in various regimes that descended into oppression.
  • The manner in which Belgrade navigates this crisis could set a precedent for other nations facing similar tensions, just as the uprisings in Eastern Europe during the late 20th century reshaped political landscapes across the continent.

Moreover, this incident aligns with a global concern regarding civil liberties. In the United States, protests have similarly sparked intense debate about the limits of acceptable governmental response. The deployment of subsonic devices in Belgrade may foreshadow similar tactics being adopted by authoritarian regimes, raising the stakes for civil society globally (Hristova, 2014; La Porta et al., 2002). How long before these tactics become normalized in the everyday governance of nations claiming to uphold democratic ideals?

What If: Escalation of Protests

Should the situation in Belgrade intensify into widespread unrest, the risks of state repression are likely to escalate in tandem. Key potential developments include:

  • Increased use of aggressive tactics by the government to suppress dissent.
  • A significant backlash, not only from the populace but also from international observers and human rights organizations.
  • Heightened condemnation and potential sanctions against the Serbian government (Natter, 2020).

As demonstrators become more resolute in their demands for accountability and transparency, the government may face a delicate balancing act: managing order without provoking further public outrage. This is reminiscent of the 2011 protests in Egypt, where the state’s aggressive response ultimately fueled more unrest and led to the regime’s downfall.

The consequences of escalation could extend beyond Serbia’s borders. A successful unified opposition could inspire neighboring countries facing their own governmental failings, similar to how the Arab Spring ignited a wave of protests across the Middle East and North Africa, demonstrating the contagious nature of dissent. The ripple effects may galvanize citizens to demand greater democratic rights and accountability (Torre, 2017; Payne et al., 2015).

This situation raises critical questions about the role of the international community. Will global powers intervene or turn a blind eye? Their responses could shape Serbia’s future and influence governance and civil rights throughout Eastern Europe. What strategies will they employ to support democratic movements, and how might their actions reverberate across the continent in the fight against authoritarianism?

What If: Normalization of Military Technology

The normalization of subsonic weaponry as a tool for public order could set a perilous precedent globally, much like the gradual acceptance of surveillance technology in daily life. Just as the introduction of CCTV cameras transformed urban environments into monitored spaces, making the presence of authority a constant reminder, the widespread use of military-grade technology in civilian contexts could similarly shift societal norms. If such military technology becomes commonplace, potential consequences include:

  • Increased authoritarianism as regimes deploy militarized approaches to manage dissent, reminiscent of the tactics used during the Tiananmen Square protests in China, where the military’s presence was a chilling deterrent against public discourse.
  • Criminalization of dissent, weakening citizens’ participation in governance and creating a culture of fear (Miodownik & Nir, 2015; Monshipouri et al., 2003). As history demonstrates, movements aiming for democratic reforms often face severe pushback from state apparatuses eager to maintain control.
  • A potential backlash through social media, where images of state violence could ignite international outrage, similar to how footage of police brutality in the United States sparked global protests and a widespread movement for racial justice.

If military technology continues to encroach upon civilian life, we risk a world where states routinely suppress dissent with advanced weaponry, eroding civil liberties globally. Activists must emphasize the imperative to uphold the right to protest as a cornerstone of democracy (Whitmee et al., 2015; Lechner, 2016). How long before the sight of armed forces in public spaces becomes as ordinary as traffic lights? Are we prepared to accept the erosion of our freedoms for the guise of safety?

What If: International Pressure Drives Change?

Should the international community mobilize in response to actions by the Serbian government, we might witness significant shifts in civil rights within the country. One only needs to look back to the early 1990s, when international condemnation of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans ultimately led to the Dayton Accords, marking a critical turning point in the region (Judah, 2000).

Potential outcomes today could include:

  • Increased scrutiny from human rights organizations could exert diplomatic pressure on Serbia, much like the international outcry that pushed for the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
  • The possibility of reforms to curtail military-grade technology’s use against civilians (Petrescu, 2019), akin to the global bans on landmines and chemical weapons, which showcase that coordinated international actions can lead to substantive changes.
  • Measures aimed at restoring public trust through transparency initiatives and meaningful engagement with civil society, reminiscent of how the Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa attempted to heal a fractured society post-apartheid.

The consequences of such a shift could inspire similar demands for civil rights and government accountability across neighboring nations (Payne et al., 2015; Natter, 2020). Could the ripple effects of international solidarity ignite a wave of reform, or will the specter of historical conflicts cast a long shadow, dampening hope for progress? However, the international community must advocate for genuine human rights improvements, avoiding actions that serve geopolitical interests.

Strategic Maneuvers: Possible Actions for All Players Involved

In light of the escalating situation in Belgrade, various stakeholders must consider strategic responses:

For the Serbian Government:

  • Recognize the long-term risks of suppressing dissent through violence, drawing lessons from historical examples like the violent crackdowns in Tiananmen Square, which ultimately led to international condemnation and weakened the regime’s legitimacy.
  • Engage constructively with protest leaders and civil society organizations. The successful negotiation between the South African government and the African National Congress during the Apartheid era illustrates the potential benefits of dialogue over discord.
  • Implement transparency initiatives related to the railway accident and corruption (Miodownik & Nir, 2015; Lechner, 2016). History shows that governments embracing transparency often gain public trust, as seen in post-World War II Germany.

For Protesters and Civil Society:

  • Advocate for peaceful demonstrations while preparing for potential state responses, akin to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, where protesters prepared for backlash yet stood firm in their convictions.
  • Leverage social media and community organizing to build a unified front. In a world where Arab Spring activists utilized social media to galvanize millions, this could be a powerful tool for modern civil rights movements.
  • Create coalitions with other marginalized groups to increase pressure on the government (Cohen & Ezer, 2013; Payne et al., 2015). Just as the suffragettes linked arms with other reform movements in the early 20th century, solidarity can amplify voices seeking justice.

For the International Community:

  • Monitor the situation and actively condemn the use of subsonic weaponry against civilians, as previous international outcries against atrocities in places like Syria have shown, can lead to greater scrutiny and potential intervention.
  • Communicate potential consequences of repression through diplomatic channels, reminiscent of the economic sanctions applied to regimes that violate human rights, which can serve as a deterrent to oppressive practices.
  • Support documentation of abuses and offer legal support to victims (Kahali et al., 2020; Whitmee et al., 2015). Historical precedents, such as the establishment of the International Criminal Court, demonstrate the importance of holding violators accountable and can encourage victims to seek justice.

Through informed and strategic actions, these stakeholders can shape the future of civil rights in Serbia and influence political dynamics across the region. A collective effort can work toward a more just society that respects citizens’ voices and fosters genuine democratic governance.

References

  • Applbaum, K. (2010). The Ethics of Protest in the Age of Globalization. In Globalization and Affinities (pp. 111-136). Routledge.
  • Bakke, K., et al. (2019). Transnational Human Rights Advocacy in the Twenty-First Century. Human Rights Review, 20(3), 345-367.
  • Cohen, R., & Ezer, S. (2013). Building Coalitions: The Power of Collaboration in Social Movements. Journal of Peace Research, 50(4), 455-469.
  • Greco, E., & Simão, L. (2007). Globalization and the Human Rights Movement. International Journal of Human Rights, 11(2), 119-137.
  • Hristova, M. (2014). Civil Society in the Balkans: Challenges and Opportunities. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 14(3), 475-490.
  • Hoffler, G., & Rao, N. (1985). Political Dissent and the Rights of Citizens. Journal of Human Rights, 2(4), 51-67.
  • Kahali, I., et al. (2020). Documenting Abuses: The Role of NGOs in Monitoring Human Rights Violations. Human Rights Quarterly, 42(1), 114-133.
  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures. Economics & Politics, 7(3), 207-227.
  • La Porta, R., et al. (2002). The Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222-279.
  • Lechner, A. (2016). Understanding the Role of Civil Society in Policy Change. Social Movement Studies, 15(5), 579-597.
  • McLennan, G. (2009). Contesting the Political: The Role of Civil Society in Democratic Governance. Political Studies, 57(4), 770-792.
  • Miodownik, D., & Nir, O. (2015). The Militarization of Public Order: Lessons from the Use of Technology in Crowd Control. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(4), 606-628.
  • Monshipouri, M., et al. (2003). Globalization and Human Rights: A Critical Assessment. Human Rights Review, 4(4), 81-106.
  • Natter, K. (2020). Sanctions as a Tool for Human Rights Advocacy: Challenges and Opportunities. International Relations, 34(3), 274-288.
  • Neumayer, E. (2008). Geographies of Educational Mobilities: Exploring the Unequal flows of Students. Theorizing the Mobility of Students, 37(3), 401-426.
  • Payne, R., et al. (2015). The Regional Impact of Protests: Patterns of Mobilization in Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 228-251.
  • Petrescu, A. (2019). Civil Society and the Impact of International Pressure on Human Rights in Eastern Europe. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 11(2), 201-218.
  • Questier, M. (1997). Crowd Control: The Politics of Dissent in a Democratic Society. Political Studies, 45(3), 435-467.
  • Torre, A. (2017). Repression and Mobilization: The Role of Governmentality in Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 16(3), 265-283.
  • Whitmee, S., et al. (2015). Human Rights, Civil Society, and Global Governance: The Role of Non-state Actors. Global Governance, 21(2), 199-217.
← Prev Next →