The clash between the Serbian government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is escalating, particularly in the context of growing protests against lithium mining. The government has recently criticized NGOs for receiving foreign funding, despite Serbia itself being a significant beneficiary of international aid.
President Aleksandar Vučić has claimed that NGOs in Serbia have received substantial foreign funds aimed at undermining the government, amounting to tens or even hundreds of millions of euros over the past year. He described these figures as unprecedented and argued that this funding is intended to destabilize the country.
Vučić highlighted that, according to his estimates, 78 million euros were invested in politically oriented NGOs in just the first half of this year. This has sparked a verbal confrontation between the government and these organizations.
The debate raises questions about the government’s stance on foreign funding for NGOs while accepting similar funds for state projects. Serbia has been a major recipient of EU aid, given its candidate status for membership. Over the past 12 years, the country has received over eight billion euros from the EU, including 3.3 billion euros in grants, making the EU the largest donor to Serbia and Serbia the largest recipient of EU aid in the Western Balkans.
Serbia also benefits from various donation packages and funds, including two cycles of pre-accession assistance and the ongoing IPA fund program for 2021-2027. The country has access to 1.4 billion euros from the IPA fund, depending on how much it draws down.
In 2024, Serbia is expected to receive over 122 million euros from the EU for various projects. The EU offers additional programs that provide further financial support to the country.
Furthermore, Serbia receives significant aid from the United States. The latest package, delivered in July, included 18 million dollars from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). To date, the U.S. has invested 937 million dollars in Serbia through USAID, as noted by U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill.
Vladimir Međak from the European Movement in Serbia criticized the government’s portrayal of foreign-funded NGOs as threats. He dismissed the claim that Western funds are used to undermine Vučić, arguing that the protests are driven by local opposition to lithium mining, not foreign agendas.
Međak pointed out that the Serbian state is the largest recipient of EU funds, and projects funded by the EU, GIZ and USAID are generally seen as positive. In contrast, funding for NGOs is unfairly portrayed as a threat to state stability.
He emphasized that all NGO funding is processed transparently, with electronic reports and bank transactions. There is no cash involved, and all transactions are monitored by the National Bank of Serbia and other institutions.
Recalling the “List” scandal, where the state conducted an illegal investigation into NGOs for alleged money laundering and terrorism financing, Međak argued that the government has no basis for these claims.
He questioned why, if foreign funds were indeed threatening the Serbian state, the government does not expel them or cease negotiations with the EU. He stressed that Serbia remains the largest beneficiary of EU aid.
Advocate Miloš Janković also weighed in, suggesting that the government’s focus on foreign funding reflects a deep-seated fear of losing power. He argued that such accusations are driven by a desire to maintain control and that the fundamental principle of a democratic state is the ability to change leadership.
Janković criticized Vučić for conflating his personal rule with the state, and for resisting the possibility of political change. This, he believes, reveals a determination to cling to power at any cost.
