BACKGROUNDER

Money, Power and Politics at the WHO

Fien van den SteenGEOPOLITICS

2 OCTOBER 2020

 

The World Health Organization has once again found itself in the spotlight in 2020. Protecting the world against the new coronavirus implies navigating numerous obstacles, from managing severely limited funds to placating the world powers that provide them. Fine van den Steen takes a look at the geopolitics that has shaped the WHO’s manoeuvring throughout the global coronavirus pandemic.

“Sometimes they’re too fast, sometimes they’re too slow,” is the echo which follows every epidemic. 10 years ago, the WHO overreacted to the swine flu, resulting in excessive medical costs. Four years later, with Ebola, its reaction was too slow and cost lives.

Both approaches were heavily criticised, confirmed a European diplomat to the United Nations in Geneva: “I am sure the WHO experts were not satisfied. But just because they’re dissatisfied does not necessarily mean that the director-general can openly express that.”

Whether the WHO was too slow or too fast in tackling the new coronavirus will become clear in the final report of an independent committee of inquiry, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPR). This independent panel, under the leadership of former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and former President of Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, will examine the actions of both the WHO and its member states. A first interim report is expected in November 2020, and the final report is due in May 2021.

Reliant on goodwill

Following the fiasco with the SARS virus in 2003 and the realisation that increased globalisation can also lead to more epidemics, the WHO took action. In 2005, it updated its International Health Regulations (IHR) that are the basis for international collaboration in response to public health risks.

The IHR is a multilateral agreement between the WHO and its 194 member states that requires signatories to develop the capacity to detect, assess, and respond to acute public health risks. The agreement is binding but – as with most forms of international law – the WHO has neither the authority nor the means to enforce it. The assumption is that member states will pursue compliance because the consequences for failing to do so are disastrous: a high number of sick people and fatalities, a bad image, or exclusion by the international community.

As of 2020, no member state fully meets the requirements of the IHR. Nevertheless, it could have saved lives. Indeed, the regulation obliges countries to share information about any disease that could develop into an international health threat. Covid-19 was – and remains – such a threat par excellence.


“The only teeth the WHO has is ‘naming and shaming’ and international health law […]”

Some countries had fierce discussions with the WHO this year about closing international borders due to the coronavirus. That is because the IHR not only protects lives, but also the economy. The regulations thus stipulate that countries may not take measures that unnecessarily affect trade and transit.

Although the WHO’s “neutral” position should make it ideally suited to judge whether or not to close borders in order to contain a health threat, geopolitical interests play a strong role. Some countries, including the United States, unilaterally decided to close borders with China in January, although this went against the WHO’s advice.

“The only thing that the secretariat [of the WHO] did was to point out that countries had to report and account for travel restrictions according to the IHR”, explained the UN diplomat in Geneva. “The WHO gave an opinion on this and published it. WHO regulations do not prohibit such travel restrictions, although the opinion is interpreted as a condemnation. That is a nuanced difference. Perhaps the regulations here are too weak and instruments need to be created, but not within the remit of the WHO.”

“The WHO has a relatively small secretariat with a couple of thousand people and the budget of an average hospital”, continued the diplomat. 80 per cent of this budget comes from voluntary contributions, and the destination of most of these is earmarked by the donors. The United States government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are the biggest sponsors. “The only teeth the WHO has is ‘naming and shaming’ and international health law. That is all the WHO has. It has no coercive tools, and no power.”

The WHO has been left to depend on the goodwill of its member states, which is problematic when superpowers such as China and the US are flexing their muscles. “UN institutions are very quickly paralysed when there are major disagreements and diplomatic tensions,” added the diplomat.

Inconsistent information

On 14 January 2020, the WHO sent a now infamous and much debated tweet out into the world: “Preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the new coronavirus.” As a result, many questioned the seriousness of the virus.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore tightened border controls for passengers from Wuhan, China. These three pioneering countries remembered another coronavirus whose severity China had downplayed: SARS.

It was the eve of the Chinese New Year and the region was preparing for the biggest mass migration of the year. The Chinese government expected 440 million rail journeys and 79 million air journeys by the end of January. If the virus were to move with these travellers, it would spread at lightning speed not only within China, but also to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

But Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, was confident: China had been asked for more information and replied immediately on 31 December. Indeed, Tedros praised China’s cooperation and transparency and accused other countries of underestimating the information themselves.

“I was slightly embarrassed that [Tedros] had a little too much praise for the Chinese leadership,” said the diplomat in Geneva. “But to really go against China can be counterproductive, because you close communication channels.”

Tedros’ commendations stood in stark contrast to reports of media censorship and the arrest of doctors in China. The WHO was already aware of these challenging information flows, according to internal WHO documents made available to the US press agency Associated Press.

Those same documents explained that Tedros’ choice was also a strategy to entice China into providing information – like the fabled fox who steals the raven’s morsel of cheese by complimenting him so much that he eventually opens his beak and drops it. “A director-general of the WHO cannot be too harsh on a member state, and certainly not one like China or America”, explained the diplomat.

The concern about Covid-19 was of course real, as the Chinese doctor Li Wenliang also testified. He was one of the first whistleblowers to state the dangers of the virus, one of the first doctors to be arrested, and he eventually died of the disease. On his deathbed he reportedly said: “I think there should be more than one voice in a healthy society.”

Chinese scientists engage in self-censorship in order to avoid reprisals from Beijing. At the same time, the regime actively censors and slows down the flow of information. Former WHO Secretary-General Gro Harlem Brundtland experienced this in 2003. When she discovered that China was withholding information about the new SARS virus, she publicly reprimanded Beijing. Brundtland paid the price for her bold behaviour, as cooperation with the aggrieved People’s Republic proved difficult from that time onwards. With that in mind, it was perhaps unsurprising for Tedros to choose the carrot rather than the stick at the beginning of 2020.

Money is power

Tedros’ praise of China may also have echoed his loyalty to the country. The word in Geneva is that “Dr Tedros was elected [as WHO director-general in 2017] with Chinese support.” That same year, China expressed its ambition to increase its influence on the United Nations, “and we are already feeling that” (keeping in mind that the WHO is one of the UN’s specialised agencies).

“China has become much stronger”, said Gro Harlem Brundtland in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel. “Anyone who now openly criticises the country […] runs the risk of China’s withdrawal.”

“The WHO has a relatively small secretariat with a couple of thousand people and the budget of an average hospital”

Taiwan experienced this back in 2016. Their newly elected government was not well received in China, which is why Taiwan lost its observer status at the annual WHO meeting. Incidentally, Taiwan is not a member of any UN organisation because, according to Beijing’s One-China policy, it belongs to China. Taiwan’s independence is therefore not recognised by China, nor by those countries that do not want to challenge China.

It was precisely this growing influence of China on the WHO that the US took umbrage at, causing President Donald Trump to withdraw his funds. Covid-19 triggered this decision which fits in perfectly with the US’s “America First” attitude.

In recent years, Washington has withdrawn from several UN organisations and international conventions. In fact, it had already warned the WHO about its lack of transparency in the run-up to the elections of the new director-general in 2017. Moreover, the US and China were at odds even before the pandemic, as the trade wars and public muscle flexing demonstrate.

[…] the departure of the US may also lead to a reshaping of influence in the WHO.

The fact that the US has withdrawn its money is a serious drain on the World Health Organization. Nonetheless, according to the diplomat it appears that “US influence on the WHO is still strong.” It is reassuring that Trump’s successor can reverse the decision before the departure goes into effect on 6 July 2021. And even if Trump is re-elected in November, hope lies with other organisations that can fill the financial gap, such as the newly established WHO Foundation.

However, the departure of the US may also lead to a reshaping of influence in the WHO. Trump denounces the growing influence of China, but when the WHO was set up it was the Soviet Union that withdrew from the organisation because of the excessive influence of the US. At that time, the US provided a third of the WHO’s budget. Today, the amount is only 15 per cent.

Geopolitical rumblings

Tedros has stressed that the coronavirus should not be misused to score political points. But the political undertone had already been set before the epidemic broke out.

Politicians around the world reacted according to existing fault lines. Republicans and Democrats in the US express their political colour by whether or not they wear a mouth mask. Northern European member states prioritised their own interests over solidarity with Southern European countries which were harder hit by the pandemic, something which was compounded by their already weaker economic position.

The flow of medical supplies perpetuated and severed geopolitical relations. Italy and Serbia, for example, blamed the European Union for not coming to their aid, whereas China did reach out to them. With China and Russia supplying relief to other countries in need, the Chinese propaganda mill also scored domestic political points. Even the demand for independent research was politically echoed in trade wars, such as the sudden increase in import duties on Australian barley.

However, just like the post-war American aid from the Marshall Plan, Chinese support also has a political agenda. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative mega-project will not only be a worldwide network of trade and transit, but also one of debt and power. China’s flow of corona aid seems like a foretaste of the health trajectory of the New Silk Road.

[…] just like the post-war American aid from the Marshall Plan, Chinese support also has a political agenda.

“All roads should lead to universal healthcare”, Tedros announced back in 2017, a sentiment he reiterated on 18 June 2020. A partnership between the WHO and China seemed like a good idea to him. As the Ethiopian Minister of Health (2005 to 2012) and Foreign Affairs (2012 to 2016), Tedros was familiar with Chinese policy. Beijing regards Ethiopia as the gateway to East Africa, and the country is thus an important stop on the New Silk Road. China is not only Ethiopia’s most important trading partner – it is also its largest foreign creditor. Chinese loans account for half of Ethiopia’s national debt. It was precisely this combination of ministerial posts that made Tedros the perfect candidate for WHO chief in 2017.

The counterarguments were dismissed as smear campaigns by the opposition. In response to the accusation that as Minister he had concealed cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia, Tedros replied again and again that these were “cases of acute watery diarrhoea”. He referred to issues in the authoritarian regime that he had served, which had a poor record for respecting human rights, as the “teething troubles of a young democracy”.

Moreover, Tedros enjoyed the support of Asia and Africa, respectively led by China and the African Union (which was then chaired by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe). Shortly after his election, Tedros appointed Mugabe as the WHO’s Goodwill Ambassador, and China as a partner for universal health care. He withdrew the first of these decisions under international pressure due to the dictator’s atrocities. The second decision will have proved troubling this year.
China today, another power tomorrow

“There are political sensitivities that states do not respect, which prevent them from showing their best side,” explained the UN diplomat. “This prevents scientists from doing their work and hampers scientific organisations.”

Across Europe, there is an awareness of the high politics that plays out in the United Nations. In Belgium, the conclusion that the power of UN institutions is limited was voiced in May in the Foreign Policy Committee of the Flemish Parliament, during an “exchange of views” on managing the corona crisis: “The WHO cannot defend itself. It is a membership organisation in which the Member States have the last word.”


“[…] the Flemish government continues to take a critical stance with regard to China’s role and demands clarity about the origin of the pandemic.”

The same committee expressed that: “a confrontation with Beijing would have cut off access to essential information from China […] That does not alter the fact that the Flemish government continues to take a critical stance with regard to China’s role and demands clarity about the origin of the pandemic.” This clarity must be provided by the independent committee of enquiry.

Too fast or too slow? This crisis also shows that the goodwill of member states, rather than effective instruments, determines the rhythm of the WHO. The room for manoeuvre is limited due to tense geopolitical relations and a tight budget. In this way, the WHO dances a pernicious tango between health, economics, geopolitics and diplomacy. Today with China, tomorrow with another superpower.


This article was first published in Dutch in MO* Magazine.

Post-Covid Economy Beyond Capitalism
Irene van Staveren
FINANCE AND ECONOMY
6 OCTOBER 2020 

The corona crisis has made it extra clear that capitalism is only one way the

market can take form. It can also be quite different. What follows is a plea for a post-corona economy in which the market is once again embedded in the community and can be better regulated by the state.

Adam Smith was optimistic about the possibility of curbing capitalism via the state and embedding it in the values and goals of communities. Karl Marx, on the other hand, simply did not believe that this was possible. Over the last decade, both economists have been proven right. The financial crisis of 2008 and the major recession that followed proved Marx right: unbridled capitalism allowed the financial sector to spiral out of control and drove bubbles into the housing market. The Covid-19 crisis proved Smith right: first, when markets implode, the state takes over and, second, a sense of community can lead to all sorts of initiatives, from help with grocery shopping to switching factory production to make masks to be sold at cost price. What exactly is capitalism anyhow, and how can it be distinguished from the market? According to both Smith and Marx, capitalism is a certain expression of the market and cannot be equated with the concept of the market itself. The market can therefore also be envisioned differently – for example in a post-capitalist economy, an economy that no longer displays the specific characteristics of capitalism.

According to both Smith and Marx, capitalism is a certain expression of the market and cannot be equated with the concept of the market itself.

Remarkably, most contemporary economists and politicians have forgotten the difference between the market and capitalism. The two concepts are often used interchangeably in parlance. What’s more, thinking in terms of capitalism is often confused with economics as a science – as if the whole of economics is dominated by market thinking or, worse, at the service of capitalism. This narrow view does not do justice to the economists who look beyond the mainstream and have a comprehensive knowledge of the classics. The rich history of economic thought can help elucidate the difference between the market and a specifically capitalist interpretation of the market. This analysis allows us to draw out some characteristics of a perfectly feasible post-capitalist market economy: a post-corona economy in which the market is once again embedded in the community and better kept in check by the state.

The market and the economy

The market is an efficient exchange mechanism for supply and demand. Market transactions are a win-win situation for both buyer and seller; they are both better off than without the swap. But there is a condition for that, as Nobel Prize winners Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu mathematically proved over half a century ago: every participant in the market must have sufficient resources that are in demand. That condition is by no means always met.

For example, John Maynard Keynes recognised that if more labour is offered than demanded during a recession, unemployed people may be willing to work for less than the market wage. Nonetheless, they will simply not be hired because companies will be unable to sell extra products due to a lack of consumer confidence or purchasing power. The labour surplus can therefore not be exchanged. This is why Keynes argued that, in a crisis, the government should create jobs and deploy its purchasing power in the market so that companies can produce more and employ more staff. The Covid-19 crisis has seen governments across the world take on this role on a large scale.

[…] the market is nothing more and nothing less than an exchange mechanism where mutually beneficial transactions can take place. However, those without purchasing power cannot participate in the market.

In developing countries, governments generally lack the necessary capacity for this strategy. Currently, Venezuela is desperately trying to cash in on its gold reserves and a record number of developing countries have knocked on the International Monetary Fund’s door for emergency loans. The development economist and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has explained the famine that he experienced as a child – not from a lack of food, but from a lack of purchasing power on the part of the poor landless population. Meanwhile, food was being exported to other states in India and even abroad, where there was a strong demand for it. A win-win situation for the exporting rice farmers in Bengal and the importers elsewhere, but starvation for landless farmers and unemployed workers.

In short, the market is nothing more and nothing less than an exchange mechanism where mutually beneficial transactions can take place. However, those without purchasing power cannot participate in the market. And without their own resources, such as land to grow their food on or to let out, they cannot earn a living. As a reaction to this, the state has partly begun to take on basic social services in modern times.

Lessons from Adam Smith

The market thus appears to be an efficient win-win mechanism only under certain conditions and thanks to state support. Even then, the market is often not optimal due to all kinds of market failures: negative externalities, rent-seeking (opportunism), moral hazard (misuse of incomplete information), and the inability to deliver certain public goods (such as healthcare and education for all) to name a few. These shortcomings imply that the economy must consist of more than just the market. And that is exactly what Adam Smith argued in 1776, in his famous book The Wealth of Nations. Smith’s lesson is that every economy is made up of three value domains: the market with exchange based on freedom of choice (provided that everyone has sufficient resources), the state with regulation and redistribution based on certain principles of justice (whether democratic or patriarchal or otherwise), and the domain of the community economy of the commons and mutual care based on what he called the value of benevolence. According to Smith, every economy consists of these three domains, each with its own values. That explains why certain goods or interactions fit into one domain but not into another. In the Netherlands, for example, payment for donated blood feels distasteful, and in the US it has been shown that such market transactions often lead to contaminated blood, unstable supply and higher costs. In the healthcare economy, voluntary blood donations are thus more efficient.


[…] the market is only an effective transaction mechanism […] if it is embedded in a local community in which people collectively provide a significant proportion of basic services

Two hundred years after Smith, economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi discovered and described this threefold division outside Europe as well. He too noted that the economy is much more than the market, and that the market is only an effective transaction mechanism – that is to say, an efficient way to achieve mutual benefit – if it is embedded in a local community in which people collectively provide a significant proportion of basic services, such as food, knowledge transfer, and basic healthcare. Polanyi also argued that the market is framed by all kinds of rules to prevent a few rich people or outsiders from appropriating community resources through the market mechanism. Hence, for example, the principle of common farmland for the cultivation of food for domestic consumption that is still used today in many African countries. Maintaining common land for food production is a smart way to build resilience in the food supply in case food prices rise or exports of cash crops such as coffee and cocoa collapse and foreign currency cannot be earned to import food. In short, the market can only contribute effectively to prosperity if each of the other two domains have room to function on the basis of their own values. It was not for nothing that Smith said that the function of the market for the state is to provide the government with sufficient tax resources. In doing so, he underlined the importance of good interactions between the three domains.

Historically, markets were the third domain of economic interaction – only important if there was something favourable to trade. For millennia, the bulk of prosperity was achieved in the first value domain, the care economy, comprised of the commons and mutual care. This includes jointly managed resources such as water for fishing and land for grazing, and mutual care and cooperation such as the cultivation of food and housing. Even today, this first domain still makes up a large part of our economy: think of domestic work, informal care, home production of food and clothing and volunteer work, as well as civic initiatives such as wind cooperatives. The second economic domain is that of the state, or formerly of authorities such as kings or chieftains. Those authorities determined what tenants or serfs had to produce, and they levied taxes, paid wages and issued recognised currency. Because the people had to pay their taxes in cash, they increasingly had to make money on the market in addition to their economic activities in the first domain of the economy.

Until the rise of capitalism, markets and money played a modest role in the economy. It was only when more goods were exchanged, more debts settled, and means of production appeared on the market that capitalism took off. In this way, labour markets, land markets (and with them the privatisation of community land) and financial markets came into being. Only with capitalism, therefore, did markets become increasingly important compared to the care economy and the state.

The market and capitalism: lessons from Marx

Marx wrote Das Kapital in 1867, almost 100 years after Smith’s publication of The Wealth of Nations, in order to understand capitalism as well as to lecture economists like Smith on their market-derived value theory of prices. Marx’s labour theory of value states that the value of every good is determined by the labour it contains, and also indirectly by the labour contained in the capital goods with which it is produced. This conception of value is the opposite of that of a capitalist enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise aimed at maximising profits, all other factors are paid first (material, labour, rent) and what remains is the profit, paid to the provider of the capital as a dividend. In other words, the capitalist receives what remains after deducting all of the costs, and in the event of a loss that is nothing. Marx swapped the roles of capitalist and worker in the remuneration of the factors of production. He argued that following the payment of the other factors, including a reasonable risk allowance for the entrepreneurship of the capitalist, the rest belongs to the labour factor. After all, this factor provides the work, meaning, collaboration, and creativity needed to make the product.


Only with capitalism, therefore, did markets become increasingly important compared to the care economy and the state.

Capitalism, according to Marx, consists of three elements, as can be read between the lines of his book. First, the asymmetry between capital and labour: the first factor always hires the second and not the other way around. Therefore, wage income falls and capital income gradually increases. Second, the reversal of the exchange chain: an ordinary market starts with a good that is exchanged for money that is then used to purchase another good. The win-win situation of exchange is therefore about the exchange of goods and not about the accumulation of money. However, a capitalist market begins and ends with money, whereby the exchange of goods, or securities, or anything else that can be monetised, is only a means. The far-reaching repercussions of this exchange are embodied today in Airbnb and Uber.

 The third element of the capitalist market is that, the dynamic between the first two results in companies growing progressively larger once they have a small head start or when they are simply lucky. They do so by taking over others and pricing them out of the market through economies of scale. As a result, any capitalist market, which starts with competition, ends in monopoly. In Marx’s time, this tendency was already happening on a regional scale. Today, we see it on a global scale with companies such as Unilever, Shell, Apple, and Google.

A post-Covid economy without capitalism

What we can learn from Smith and Marx is that a true post-capitalist economy, i.e. without capitalism, must have three characteristics.

First, more room for the care economy and the state, so that the market is more strongly kept in check and better embedded in society. The social objective, rather than accumulation for shareholders, takes priority. This also means a shift from linear efficiency through far-reaching specialisation, mass production, and a high degree of globalisation to complementary efficiency with synergy, resilience, and local employment. Take, for example, nature-inclusive agriculture and agroforestry, or the strong local economy of the English town of Preston after a severe recession.

Second, a post-capitalist economy requires enterprises without inequality between labour and capital. For example, cooperatives such as the in which the owners are also the workers (as with the Spanish Mondragon, which has over 70 000 members) or the customers (as with wind cooperatives). This would also apply to self-employed people united in bread funds who initiate start-ups that come much closer to meeting social needs, such as in the incubators at the old Philips site in Eindhoven. Or social enterprises rooted in communities, where profit is only a precondition for social impact. No money is thus leaked away to external shareholders.


[…] private ownership and accumulation are being replaced by a new type of commons, in which the material efficiency of goods is paramount from an environmental point of view, rather than efficient accumulation for a company or shareholder

Third, a post-capitalist economy needs markets that operate more locally, in which a need-fulfilling product or service is central, and money can just as well be a local community currency. There are numerous examples of successful community currencies that operate in parallel with official money. There are also LETS systems and timebanks in which people at a distance from the labour market provide services whose value is expressed in time, and for which they can buy a service themselves. Or markets where it is no longer about buying and selling goods, but about the rental and leasing of circular services. As a result, private ownership and accumulation are being replaced by a new type of commons, in which the material efficiency of goods is paramount from an environmental point of view, rather than efficient accumulation for a company or shareholder at the expense of equality, the environment and economic resilience.

What about the suggestions from economists for an improved version of capitalism? For example, Thomas Piketty’s higher wealth tax, Kate Raworth’s doughnut economy, or Joseph Stiglitz and Bas Jacobs’ proposals for the stricter regulation of oligopolies and the pricing of negative externalities? For the most part, these ideas can also find their place in a post-capitalist economy. But they will only be effective in the long term if the three Smith-Marx criteria are also met. Otherwise, after the Covid-19 crisis, capitalism will just run off with the market again.


This article was first published in Dutch by De Helling.

Scientists are seeing ice age beginnings for very first time

Some fantastic 3D images have emerged from the bottom of the North Sea, making it possible to document the beginning of the ice ages 2.6 million years ago.

The very first ice that reached the ocean during the ice ages probably came from right here in Sognefjorden. (Photo: Raul Hernaiz Cao / Shutterstock / NTB)

Bård Amundsen

 JOURNALIST
Friday 16. october 2020 - 

“We were enthusiastic, to say the least, when we understood what these new 3D images from the North Sea could show us.”

“Suddenly we were sitting on fantastic data,” says geologist Helge Løseth.

The last two million years or so have seen somewhere between 30 and 40 ice ages in a row. This relatively short ice age period brought an awful lot of changes to Norway.

We see the results quite clearly in the form of fjords, mountains, valleys and the low plains along the coast from Trøndelag and northwards.

But we know surprisingly little about what was really going on – especially at the beginning of this last and very dramatic period.

Much better preserved in North Sea

The remains of both the ice ages and earlier periods in the Earth's history have been much better preserved on the continental shelf in the North Sea than on land in Norway.

On land, the ice ages themselves effectively removed almost all traces of them, except the very largest indications that we see today as valleys, fjords and towering mountain peaks. There may have been as many as 40 ice ages. But we only see the traces of the last one, which lasted for 100 000 years.

In stark contrast to this, the new 3D images from the North Sea seabed can tell geologists in detail about the development during all the ice ages, all the way back to the beginning.

This information is largely due to the fact that the North Sea is now probably the best mapped seabed in the world.

Very first ice flowed out of Sognefjorden

When the first thick glacier covered Norway 2.6 million years ago, it sent giant glacier arms out to sea, like glaciers are still doing in Greenland and Svalbard today.

“The very first glacier arm probably came out where Sognefjorden meets the sea", says Løseth.

Eventually glacier arms extended out from the Nordfjord, Sunnfjord and Hardangerfjord systems. The ice that flowed from the mainland spread beyond the continental shelf.

On land in Norway, we can see the results of the ice ages. But the seabed in the North Sea reveals a lot more of what really happened during the ice ages. From the northern part of the North Sea, researchers have now received fantastic new 3D images. In the upper left you can see parts of a large river delta outside Sognefjorden, created just before the beginning of the ice ages. To the right you see sedimentary masses spreading outwards on the continental shelf. At the bottom you can see how the large meltwater river that flowed out of Sunnfjord in the north of Western Norway, has created the over 100 kilometre long underwater Sunnfjord channel, also at the very beginning of the ice ages. (Pictures from H. Løseth et al: 3D sedimentary architecture showing the inception of an Ice Age)

Sunnfjord channel over 100 kilometres long

At Sunnfjord in the north of Western Norway, a large river of meltwater might have sent huge amounts of water into the sea during the beginning of the very first ice age.

The meltwater continued as a strong underwater stream. At least 100 kilometres to the west, it dug a deep canal on the seabed.

“The Sunnfjord Canal is up to two kilometres wide and 150 metres deep.”

“We can see that the sediments in the canal are younger than the river deposits that came out of Sognefjorden valley just before the ice age, but older than surrounding masses that were also deposited during the ice ages. This is how we’ve been able to establish the time of the Sunnfjord channel to the beginning of the ice ages,” says Løseth.

Researchers have only been able to locate the outer part of the Sunnfjord channel in the 3D images. Further inland on the shelf, both the Sunnfjord channel and other traces on the seabed have been removed by the ice masses that flowed along the South Norway coast and out into the ocean and scraped the ocean floor. The broad Norwegian Trench was formed by this ice stream activity.

Today Shetland is a small archipelago. The Shetland land mass that existed not that long ago was much larger. Large rivers from the interior of the Shetland region spilled into the North Sea and met the glacial ice and meltwater from Norway. (Photo: AlanMorris / Shutterstock / NTB)

A much bigger Shetland

Today Shetland is a small archipelago on the western side of the North Sea.

But just 2.6 million years ago, Shetland was a much larger land mass.

“Strangely enough, this land wasn’t covered by ice during extended periods of the ice ages,” Løseth says.

“Instead, large rivers flowed out of Shetland during the ice ages. They brought with them sediments that encircled Shetland on the continental shelf.” (See the figure below.)

Researchers can now see how the water from the rivers in the Shetland land mass met river water and glaciers that came from Norway. The images show how masses that were carried into the ocean from Norway and Shetland were deposited on the seabed.

Here is more about what happened at the very beginning of the ice ages:

The picture to the left shows the startlingly straight coast of Norway before the beginning of the ice ages, completely different from the Norwegian coast today. From the great Shetland land mass, rivers carried large amounts of sediments into the sea. You can also see the river delta on the seabed off of Sognefjorden. The picture in the middle shows the beginning of the ice ages and the very first ice flowing out of Sognefjorden. A little further north, the Sunnfjord channel is formed by large amounts of meltwater. In the picture to the right, the ice age is in full swing. The ice cap (purple) extends all the way to Shetland country. It is still Sognefjorden that delivers the most ice into the ocean. (Image from the research article)

Discovering layers upon layers of ice age history

Løseth, with research colleagues at the Norwegian Geological Survey (NGO) and the University of Cambridge in the UK, have now published an article in the journal Nature Communications where they use the 3D images from the bottom of the North Sea.

The researchers talk about how they have identified layers from different parts of the ice age in what they call a seismic sequence. They see layer upon layer – the time from before the ice ages set in until the emergence of a full ice age – and in fact all the way to today's seabed. They can also observe traces of the giant Storegga Slides from the Stone Age.

The researchers for the new Nature article are also the first to believe they can confirm that the ice, from the very beginning of the ice ages, stretched far out to the edge of the continental shelf in the North Sea.

And there it broke apart into enormous icebergs.

Why are there ice ages?

We don’t know for sure. Several interactions could be the cause.
The amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) in the atmosphere changes with the ice ages. But whether this is a cause or an effect of the ice ages is uncertain.

Changes in large ocean currents can alter the Earth's climate.

Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Earth's distance from the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axix are probably contributing factors to the ice ages.

Two other possible causes could be volcanism on Earth and changes in the Sun's radiation.

Source: Wikipedia's English article on ice ages

Translated by Nancy Bazilchuk

Reference:

Helge Løseth et.al: 3D sedimentary architecture showing the inception of an Ice Age, Nature Communications, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16776-7

Who lost when the ancient wonders of Rome were built?

What sacrifices were made during the construction of Rome's ancient monuments, churches, and temples? 

“When urban development happens, there are winners and losers,” says Christopher Siwicki.

“Emperors and local politicians invested huge sums of money in improving the city. There was an idea that the grandeur of Rome should reflect the grandeur of the empire,” says Christopher Siwicki, research fellow at the Norwegian Institute in Rome. 

(Foto: BeBo86 / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Silje Pileberg FREELANCE JOURNALIST
University of Oslo
Wednesday 11. november 2020 - 


We often assume that grandiose buildings like temples, bathhouses, and entertainment complexes were welcomed by inhabitants, but what if they were not?

Christopher Siwicki, research fellow at the Norwegian Institute in Rome, part of the University of Oslo, adresses this question in his research.

“Emperors and local politicians invested huge sums of money in improving the city. There was an idea that the grandeur of Rome should reflect the grandeur of the empire,” he says.

Siwicki is the first scholar to systematically explore the unpopularity and the damaging effects of monuments that are traditionally thought of as beneficial.
A city built on cities

Much of ancient Rome is still standing, particularly the area around Forum Romanum. This was a monumental construction that emerged in the early years of Rome in the valley between the Palatine Hill and the Capitoline Hill, two of the Seven Hills of Rome.

Every year millions of tourists visit both Forum Romanum and many other attractions, like the old temple of the Pantheon and the arena Colosseum.

However, there is history also below ground. Siwicki describes Rome as a patchwork.

“Rome is a city built on former cities. Archeologists have been excavating Rome for 250 years, but still, there is a lot that we do not know. Some parts have been excavated, others not.”

Even The Norwegian Institute in Rome is hiding a treasure; a Roman watermill in the basement, part of the city’s former aquaduct system.

A glimpse of the modern staircase through the ancient aqueduct ruins in the basement of the Norwegian institute in Rome. (Photo: Anne Nicolaysen)

Two types of sources

In his research, Siwicki uses two types of sources. One is archeological evidence, examining the structures themselves and how they were incorporated into the existing urban fabric.This will involve charting the changes in urban land-use across multiple sites in Rome, and examining which buildings and places were replaced due to the construction of new monuments.

He considers using non-destructive archeological methods like ground penetrating radar to investigate what is beneath the antique structures.

The other sources are Greek and Latin texts from betwen 2nd century BC and 3rd century AD, which is the time period he studies.

Recorded speeches shed light on public opinion

An important written source is the Greek writer and philosopher Dio Chrysostom, who visited Rome and then returned to his Greek (today Turkish) city of Prusa. There, he tore down part of the city center in order to build a construction with a grandiose portico, which is a long, aisled hall with a colonnaded porch opening onto a public square.

Around 80 of Dio Chrysostom’s speeches have been preserved, and some of them were adressed to people of Prusa. Five of the speeches are in defence of his construction project.

“We know from these speeches that he received an enormous amount of criticism. We see that people cared about their city center,” Siwicki explains.

Prusa was part of the Roman empire, and what happened here ties in nicely with what happened in Rome, according to Siwicki.

“Not everybody loved the magnificent buildings of Rome when they were built,” says Christopher Siwicki. (Photo: Anne Nicolaysen)

The rich displaced the poor

A lot of the money spent on magnificent constructions came from taxation. Also, members of the elite gave gifts to the general population, in the form of buildings or gladiator games. In return, they got prestige, political power, and a lasting monument.

“If we think the wealth gap is bad today, it was enormous in ancient times. Some individuals and local politicians were close to billionaires,” Siwicki says.

There are still many unanswered questions, but researchers know that magnificent buildings had negative consequences, also in Rome. The area around Forum Romanum was for a long time a market and public meeting place, but as emperors and others started building temples, these activities were pushed away, according to Siwicki.
People were forced to move

In the same area there are forums built by the dictator Julius Cæsar and emperor Augustus, who were in power before and around year 0. These forums, which served as public spaces, demanded large areas in the center of Rome that had been residental areas.

Many inhabitants were displaced in a city that was already overpopulated. Siwicki aims to investigate the consequences of these displacements.

A few ancient writers may give some hints. For instance, the Roman biographer Suetonius wrote that “Augustus made his forum narrower than he had planned, because he did not venture to eject the owners of the neighbouring houses”.

“We also know, from the Greek author Cassius Dio, that Cæsar was criticized for tearing down temples and peoples’ houses when he built a new theater,” Siwicki explains.

Emperor Augustus built a 30 meter high wall to protect his forum from fires. The view shows the rear of the wall, with the remains of the temple and forum beyond.

 (Illustration: Giovanni Battista Piranesi / metmuseum.org)

Around year 2 BC Augustus built a wall 30 meters high around his forum. The wall was meant to protect the forum from fires. However, it also destroyed roads and routes in the city. Some people got the gigantic wall as their closest neighbor.

“Augustus was praised for building the forum, but what about the people who were on the other side? When urban development happens, there are winners and losers,” Siwicki says.
We should learn from history

Many years have passed. Those who suffered injustice in Ancient Rome, have been dead for a long time. Still, Siwicki believes that it is important to explore this unknown part of history.

“Today’s understanding of history is shaped by writers and what we see. The writers belonged to the upper class, and the buildings that survived, belonged to the elite. If we are to understand what ancient Rome really was, we cannot just limit ourselves to what certain individuals said and did.”

He also believes that these topics are relevant for cities of today. When buildings and areas are gentrified, that is upgraded to make them more attractive, some people fall behind.

“Creating and developing future cities is one of the biggest global challenges in this century. In some areas huge investments are being made, but it doesn’t mean that they are welcomed by all. Perhaps we can draw some lessons from history,” Siwicki says.

THIS ARTICLE IS PRODUCED AND FINANCED BY UNIVERSITY OF OSLO - READ MORE

KEYNESIANISM 2.0

UK to unveil record £400 billion borrowing plan next week

PRIME THE PUMP, END AUSTERITY

THIS IS WHAT ALBERTA SHOULD DO

END KENNEY'S CUTS

By David Milliken
Fri, 20 November 2020

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak is seen at Downing Street in London


By David Milliken

LONDON (Reuters) - British finance minister Rishi Sunak will announce the heaviest public borrowing since World War Two when he spells out his spending plans next week after the biggest economic crash in over 300 years.

With Britain in the midst of a second wave of COVID-19 cases and economic recovery on hold, Sunak has postponed longer-term plans for the public finances.

Spending on the pandemic is on track to exceed 200 billion pounds this year after the extension of job protection programmes, and other costs are likely to spill into the 2021/22 fiscal year.

Only the armed forces will receive a multi-year increase in funding as Prime Minister Boris Johnson seeks to boost Britain's profile outside the European Union.

Sunak's other spending announcements on Wednesday are likely to be dwarfed by the scale of new borrowing forecasts which will underscore the need for future tax rises.

"Events next week might... prove an important prelude for a pivot to a tighter fiscal approach in the spring budget," economists at Citi said in a note to clients.

As Sunak starts to look for ways to begin reining in the huge surge in borrowing, media reported that he plans to freeze pay for public-sector workers other than health staff.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has refused to commit to maintaining spending on overseas aid.

Britain's economy shrank by 20% between April and June, more than any other major economy, and it has been slower to recover.

The Bank of England has pencilled in an 11% fall in GDP for 2020, a drop last seen in 1709.

Government borrowing this financial year is likely to be around 400 billion pounds, according to Citi, while HSBC has forecast 365 billion pounds.

This is equivalent to between 17% and 20% of GDP, well above its 10% peak at the height of the global financial crisis.

Data published on Friday showed 215 billion pounds of borrowing in just the first seven months of this financial year, nearly five times more than at the same point in 2019.

This is likely to fall as emergency pandemic spending is scaled back but HSBC expects it will be a still unsustainable 8.5% of GDP in 2021/22.

Citi predict an extra 800 billion pounds of borrowing over the next five years, compared with forecasts in March.

TAX RISES

Sunak has warned of hard decisions ahead to get the public finances "on a sustainable path" over time.

Big spending cuts are less likely than after the financial crisis because public service have undergone a decade-long squeeze and pressures from an ageing population are growing.

The scale of any tax rises will not become clear until the economy is on a more even keel.

The Resolution Foundation think tank says tax rises raising 40 billion pounds a year will be needed before the 2024 election just to stabilise the public finances and fund social care.

For now financial markets are happy to fund the borrowing at almost record low interest rates. Britain's Debt Management Office will publish bond sale plans on Wednesday.

HSBC sees a further 100 billion pounds of gilt issuance this financial year, taking the total to a record 480 billion pounds, and up to 300 billion pounds more in 2021/22.

The government will also publish a delayed review on when to phase out the RPI measure of inflation used to calculate payments on inflation-linked bonds, which now overstates price rises.

(Reporting by David Milliken; Editing by Toby Chopra)

UK coronavirus job losses: the latest data on redundancies and furloughs

Antonio Voce, Ashley Kirk and Richard Partington
Thu, 19 November 2020 THE GUARDIAN



Tens of thousands of people are being made redundant in the UK as the coronavirus pandemic stalls the economy.

After a nationwide lockdown was imposed on 23 March to try to halt the spread of the virus, all non-essential retail and hospitality had to stop, putting intense pressure on companies to stay afloat.

Britain’s economy plunged into the deepest recession since modern records began. Gross domestic product fell by 20.4% in the three months to the end of June, the biggest decline of any major nation, following the later imposition of lockdown than in other countries and slower relaxation of restrictions. Almost three-quarters of a million jobs have been lost from company payrolls since the start of the crisis.

Even now, with the economy slowly reopening, many businesses fear that they are no longer viable with social distancing measures limiting customer numbers and behaviour.

As a result, companies have announced tens of thousands of redundancies, and with millions more people on furlough, experts say this number will get higher. The government’s economics forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has said unemployment could more than double by the end of this year to the highest levels since the 1980s. Aviation, retail, hospitality and leisure are among the hardest-hit sectors.

In the coming months, the Guardian will track these redundancy numbers as they are announced.
Furloughs point at more to come

While the UK’s number of redundancies is high, the number who have been furloughed is far higher. More than 9m jobs at more than 1m companies in Britain have been furloughed since the launch of the government’s wage subsidy scheme in March.

The coronavirus job retention scheme is being scaled back from August and will close entirely at the end of October, at which point experts warn that furloughs could become permanent redundancies.

default

This is particularly the case in at-risk sectors such as hospitality which, without a vaccine or treatment that limits the need for social distancing, will face low labour demand and significant revenue hits for the foreseeable future.

When the furlough scheme ends, some think that the redundancy count will get higher. The OBR estimates that at least 10% of furloughed workers will become unemployed.

Steve Turner, the assistant general secretary of the Unite union, told the Commons business select committee: “I am fearful of a tsunami of job losses. Firms are now starting to cut their cloth to meet their needs, which will be devastating for jobs, skills and long-term resistance.”
What’s been included?

The number of redundancies shown in the visualisation are, where possible, for UK employees. In the few instances where it is not possible to break down a company’s announcement of global redundancies, we have included this number but have marked it out.

The Guardian has sourced information on company redundancies from their own announcements and media reports. While every effort has been made to include every redundancy we are aware of, the numbers listed will be an underestimate and will miss announcements from smaller companies.
Tell us more

If you are aware of any redundancies that are not included on our tracker, please fill in the form below and we will look into it.

NIGERIA
Nigerian soldiers assault civilians with flogging and forced hair-cutting


Issued on: 16/11/2020 -

Viral online images posted on Twitter on November 1 and 2 show Nigerian soldiers aggressing civilians in Ibadan by flogging and hair-cutting.

 © Twitter

Text by:Diana Liu

Viral images posted to Twitter on November 1 and 2 show Nigerian military officers assaulting civilians in the Beere area of Ibadan: flogging a woman for “indecent dressing” and forcibly cutting the hair of at least six men while taking their money. Oyo state government officials claim to have apprehended the soldiers responsible.

On November 1, a few days after the End SARS protests against police brutality had been put on hold in Ibadan, the capital of Oyo State, Nigerian soldiers from Operation Burst (a joint security team deployed by Oyo State governor Seyi Makinde to protect protesters from violent hoodlums) assaulted civilians in Beere for reasons that remain unclear.

@seyiamakinde, i don't do this oo, but i'll do.. Operation busrt u deployed to Beere/Mapo are just abusing their power. Why on earth will you choose to barb my haircut which is not even full or too much. Sir with all due respct i can't take it. It is totally wrong sir pic.twitter.com/uIuzdbSfW9— Ojo oluwatobi (@MrBabatea) November 1, 2020

This November 1 post shows pictures of Twitter user Ojo Oluwatobi’s hair after he was harassed by Operation Burst military officers.

Deji, a man who had his hair forcibly cut by a military officer, shared his story with FRANCE 24's Observers.

“Before I could say anything, I felt the cold steel of the scissors parting my hair”

It was around 6pm, and I was going to work. Upon arriving at the bus stop, I heard a military man on the other side of the road say “Hey, you, come”. He ordered me to sit on the floor and said that he will have to cut my hair and that I will pay him for the service rendered.

I knew I was in for a serious thing, although I had committed no crime. I started begging him, saying that I did nothing and didn’t have money to pay for his so-called haircut. He got angry and said that he would call on his fellow soldier to beat me up if I continued arguing. Military men in Nigeria have no regard for your fundamental human rights, so I just had to obey. During this time, he also stopped another guy and ordered him to sit on the floor to have his hair cut.

He ruined my haircut. As if that wasn’t enough, he ordered me to take off my shoes, squat, and do ten frog jumps. At that moment, I almost cried. In the end, he did not take money from me, but I’m certain he tried to collect money from the other guy he stopped.

After he let me go, I asked around for a nearby barber shop to remove the rubbish he left on my head. I heard people saying “so they barbed yours too, they have been doing that since morning.

Now I'm forced to enter a barber just to make amendment to the hair, which is already late. @seyiamakinde @oyostategovt please call these men of the @HQNigerianArmy to order. This happened just now at Beere, Ibadan. @connectIBADAN @connectibadan2 @Ibadan247 pic.twitter.com/3Z1tq671Wj— Ayodeji d'boss (@Aytobay) November 1, 2020

This November 1 Tweet shows images of Deji at the barber and a picture of his hair right after it was cut by the military officer.

After Deji posted about his assault on Twitter, he began to see posts about similar cases of violence that day. A video posted to Twitter on November 1 showed a soldier flogging a woman for “indecent dressing” outside what appears to be a gas station as others look on.

Flogging this innocent lady for indecent dressing. We have problems in Nigeria pic.twitter.com/MfgzNt7YMV— Sam6ix (@SamNotPeters) November 2, 2020

On November 2, another video was posted showing soldiers cutting a man’s hair.

Nigerian soldier cutting a citizen's hair. I don't knw the motive behind this pic.twitter.com/uo6mNmBOac— Sam6ix (@SamNotPeters) November 2, 2020

Given the similarity of the buildings in the background, both assaults appear to have happened at the same location — according to Deji, a gas station near Beere’s main bus stop on Orita Aperin-Beere road. Deji affirmed that he also encountered the officer in the same place.

At least three more people tweeted about being assaulted in Beere on November 1. User PrimalHubLtd wrote in a Twitter thread that he was coming back from church when military officers accosted him in the street, cut his hair, and forced him to pay 500 Naira (1,11 Euros).

Hello Nigerians, it seems @HQNigerianArmy are really confused. I'm here 2 share my ordeal in d hand of Nigerian army today on my way coming 4rm church at bodija area of Ibadan where I had to pass Beere axis where operation burst under the directive of Gov @Seyimakinde stationed. pic.twitter.com/KNbcGdduIP— 🐥🦃🐤PRIMAL CHICKS🐤🦃🐥 (@PrimalHubLtd) November 1, 2020


“Harassment, extortion, brutalizing and killing of innocent citizens by the armed forces is not new. Police and SARS brutality is like the order of the day, but military brutality is rare and not an everyday thing. The hair-cutting is new in recent years, especially here in Ibadan. We had some cases 7 to 8 years ago.”


The Nigerian Army has not responded to inquiries from FRANCE 24's Observers.


“Abuses of power sometimes come into play, especially when military officers are rotated.”

The France 24 Observers team spoke to Dr. Jumo Ayandele, a researcher specialising in African militaries and counterterrorism, who said that a number of factors, including occupational privilege and officer training, could help explain the assaults.

“When it comes to the Nigerian military, officers are really put on a pedestal. So a lot of recruits enlist not because of patriotic duty, but for the salaried job and for the privilege of being a soldier over a civilian. So abuses of power sometimes occur, especially when military officers are rotated.

We also have to consider if these troops were adequately trained to respect human rights and humanitarian intervention, and how that affects the way they interact with civilians. There are different degrees of professionalism across the three branches of the Nigerian military. The air force is seen as more professional — you wouldn’t hear of any acts of violence against civilians from them or from the navy. But you do hear about incidents perpetuated by the Nigerian army.

The military has long been trying to change its image of being able to protect the community, for example with the Nigerian Army Transformation Agenda [Editor’s note: implemented from 2010 to 2014]. However, I’m not aware of more recent campaigns.”

The Oyo State government apologizes and promises justice

In a Twitter post on November 2, Seun Fakorede, the Commissioner for Youth & Sports in Oyo State, reported that Captain Usolo, commander of the Operation Burst team, admitted to the allegations against his officers in Beere. An officer named Adesina was identified as the man who was filmed flogging a woman in the video above. Mr. Fakorede also wrote that the commander “apologised to the families of those assaulted by the erring officers”.

Mr. Fakorede then claimed that “the men involved in this distasteful operation have been arrested and taken to the barracks. This [incident] will not repeat itself again in Oyo State.”

My ears are full with news of the unlawful activities of some Soldiers of the Nigerian Army, over the weekend.

I have immediately reached out to the Commandant of the Operation Burst and I've been assured that the men involved in this distasteful operation have been arrested...— A S I W A J U (@TheSeunFakorede) November 2, 2020

The France 24 Observers team contacted Mr. Fakorede and Kazeem Bolarinwa A., another state official who tweeted about the incident. Neither have provided evidence of these arrests or of charges against the soldiers.

Like many of the Twitter users who responded to Mr. Fakorede’s posts, Deji remains skeptical.

“It’s one thing to come out and address people, and it's another thing to fulfill the promise. The present Oyo State governor has been trying. He says they will face justice, but what about accountability? Maybe we should keep our fingers crossed for the justice.”

POSTMODERN SURREALISM

THAILAND
How giant rubber ducks became shields for Thai 

pro-democracy protesters

Issued on: 18/11/2020
  

A Twitter photo posted on November 17 shows Thai pro-democracy protesters brandishing large rubber ducks as protection in the streets of Bangkok.

© Twitter @OldMan_b1

Text by:Diana Liu


On November 17, Thai pro-democracy protesters faced off against royalist demonstrators and the police in violent clashes near the country’s riverside parliament in Bangkok. Fifty-five people were injured in the clashes. A curious addition to the protest were large, inflatable rubber ducks, used by protesters as safety shields as police bombarded them with water cannons and tear gas.

Since July, a youth-led protest movement for democratic reform of the Thai government and monarchy has mobilised tens of thousands of people across the country.


เก่งมากเจ้าเป็ด ขอบคุณนะ เจ้ามีประโยชน์สำหรับพวกเราจริงๆ🐣#ม็อบ17พฤศจิกา #whatishappeninginthailand pic.twitter.com/V6QOhJ5LWk— บ้านกัซโควท (@GOT7_Quote) November 17, 2020

A series of photos posted on Twitter on November 17. The caption reads: “Good job, duck. Thank you. You are really helpful for us”.

The November 17 protests took place near the Thai Parliament, which was blocked off by concrete blocks and razor wire while lawmakers debated seven bills to reform the constitution.

Amidst escalating violence between the different parties, the ducks made their appearance.


“Rubber ducks became protesters’ shield to protect themselves from the water and the tear gas”

“Crystal”, a pro-democracy protester in Bangkok who requested anonymity, said that the rubber ducks were initially designed to mock the military-backed government.

Since the Parliament House is located by the Chao Phraya River, the protesters were saying that they would gather and ride the rubber ducks to the pier as an insult to the government – not that they would actually ride the ducks. [Editor’s note: the Parliament was otherwise inaccessible due to the barricades.]

However, when the water cannon was brought to the scene, rubber ducks became the protesters’ shields to protect themselves from the water and the tear gas.

A November 17 Twitter video shows pro-democracy protesters, kitted out with helmets and protective goggles, and brandishing rubber ducks, coughing after being hit by tear gas. The caption reads: “The sound of the protesters coughing from a sore throat, stinging nostrils, and tearing gas was clear. The protesters only had rubber ducks without weapons. But the police took measures that were too extreme.”

เสียงไอของผู้ชุมนุมจากอาการเจ็บคอแสบจมูกที่โดนแก็สน้ำตาชัดเจนมาก ผู้ชุมนุมมีแค่เป็ดยางไม่มีอาวุธ แต่ตำรวจใช้มาตรการขั้นรุนแรงเกินกว่าเหตุมาก โคตรเหี้ย!!!#ม็อบ17พฤศจิกา pic.twitter.com/lnXhba7ICX— ᴮᴱJK₇ 🐰🥕นูน่าของบังทัน Life goes On 💜 (@PutMeDown6) November 17, 2020

The pro-democracy protesters also used the ducks as shields when a violent clash broke out with yellow-shirted royalist demonstrators, the first of its kind during the ongoing protests.

A Twitter video posted on the same day shows royalist demonstrators throwing water bottles and other small items at pro-democracy protesters, who use a rubber duck to block the flying debris.

pic.twitter.com/4WMOvPF8lj— จีมชวี่มายสวี้ตตี้ #JIMIM 🤧 (@Tyhjg4) November 17, 2020

Clashes. #WhatHappensinThailand #Thailand #ม็อบ17พฤศจิกา pic.twitter.com/0T7nQTsGEH— Pravit Rojanaphruk (@PravitR) November 17, 2020

In a more zoomed-out video of the scene posted by Thai journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk, Rojanaphruk narrates that “they are telling people to stop, they say we are all Thais, but some are still throwing water bottles and bricks. Both sides are still throwing things”.

Among the 55 people injured during the protest, medical officers said that six suffered gunshot wounds, although it is not clear who was responsible for the shooting. The police denied using live rounds or rubber bullets during their operations

Rubber ducks: a new symbol in Thailand’s pro-democracy movement

After fulfilling their duty to protect protesters yesterday, the ducks have emerged in a new day of protests as another symbol of Thailand’s pro-democracy movement.

Twitter images posted on November 18 show the ducks lined up en masse and protesters holding duck signs that read “Salute Yellow Ducks”.

In Yellow Ducks, We Trust. 💛
Thank you for standing by and protecting Thai people.#18พฤศจิกาไปราษฎร์ประสงค์ #WhatsHappeningInThailand pic.twitter.com/k77ZeuyU6N— For the future of Thailand (@matchalover97) November 18, 2020

A Twitter video posted on the same day shows the ducks being lifted in the air amid cheers from protesters


#WhatsHappeningInThailand: 19:45: After being tear gassed and water cannoned by police during pro-democracy protest yesterday, rubber ducks are now being taken to police forensic center on Henri Dunant Road #ม็อบ18พฤศจิกา #Thailand pic.twitter.com/ZfxpEx2aq2— AG (@ag_fidh) November 18, 2020

The Thai Parliament is voting on November 18 on which constitutional amendment bills are to be further debated. The most popular proposal among the pro-democracy protesters, presented by Thai NGO iLaw, would replace military-appointed senators with elected officials and allow changes to be made in constitutional articles regarding the monarchy.

The protesters' key demands are the resignation of prime minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, (a former military leader who seized power in a 2014 coup and was elected in the disputed 2019 general election), greater scrutiny of and limits on the monarchy, and the democratic revision of the current constitution. None of the six other proposals include provisions for monarchical reform.

As the voting continues, CNN reported that almost all the senators and coalition party members had either abstained from voting or rejected the bill proposed by iLaw.