Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (known to most non economists perhaps for his immortal line "India is a functioning anarchy") wrote in his book 'The Affluent Society' that society does not accord that much respect to businessmen.

He said intellectuals are held in higher esteem, even though society may depend on businessmen for keeping the economy up and running. Man, he concluded, does not live by bread alone, and if he did, businessmen would have been the champions of society, and lecturers or philosophers would have been ignored and forgotten.

But he said, writers for instance, never hired Public Relations men to promote their books. Besides, writers had their books reviewed. Not so with businessmen, who always needed to hire PR men to promote their books, and whose books were not reviewed, except in a category of their own. That ' business books' were classed only as business books to be reviewed only in relation to similar work was the best indication to Galbraith that entrepreneurs do not enjoy the same status in society as intellectuals do.

If that is so, peculiar it seems, the workings of society. Take for instance this business of conflict resolution. There were days when conflict resolution was thought to be a cerebral problem which was to be taken on and attacked at seminar rooms. If not attacked at least conflict resolution was something meant to be suitably deconstructed in a scholarly atmosphere, where words that were currency were those that had a distinct intellectual twang to them such as 'asymmetrical power sharing,'' or 'quasi federalism.''

But now they believe in throwing money at anything to solve a problem. This is not said in jest either. The way they are throwing money at the Sri Lankan conflict, or the way they are throwing money at the conflict in Aech in Indonesia has proved that conflict resolution has evolved remarkably since the time they used to discuss such things inside centrally heated rooms in places such as Upssalla.

Sri Lankan's conflict resolution process has been punctuated by panel meetings in which aid pledges were made both to the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government with clockwork regularity. Japan's involvement was the ultimate test of the 'Galbraith principle'. From a Western point of view, Japan is the entrepreneurial society, where people live by the business ethic and where people get up in the morning to make deals and make money.

Now, this may be so -- or more so -- in the West, but in the West money is suitably couched in different kinds of clothing. When the West is really talking money, there is human rights and human freedoms that always march ahead of the discourse.

When George Bush talks of Iraq he rarely mentions the word oil. In fact he has almost never mentioned the word oil. When the British were getting totally frothy about the diamonds in Sierra Leone, for instance, a British Minister went and made a speech about how the diamonds in Sierra Leone are making the people there poorer when they ought to be making them richer. It is always about the people.

But when the Japanese start throwing money, they are more candid about it, and therefore, however, the net result is that the whole thing about throwing money to solve a problem becomes de-mystified. The Japanese are said to have pledged money separately to the LTTE, and have therefore dispensed with all the niceties that the West generally pretends to observe when it comes to making aid pledges involving conflicts with rebels groups -- which they used to call terrorist groups.

Pledging money has been seen by the Japanese well as the Europeans as a legitimising exercise. The crude way used to be for rebel groups to be corrupted with money and vice, and it has been said that the Sri Lankan government tried this method too which has been a favourite of the RAW, the notorious Research and Analysis wing of the Indians.

The new aid pledges are seen as a variation of the old 'honey trap''-- the money trap. The rationale is that capitalism is the great equaliser, and that capitalism can bring in any hard nosed recalcitrant outfit back into the cosy confines of the mainstream, and back to heel.

In many ways throwing money at a conflict to solve it brings the issue back a full circle. Most conflicts in the end are fuelled by the large market for arms, and other military merchandise - - and that is all about money which is made by arms entrepreneurs from far afield, but particularly from the West. It is now said that George Bush is using the oldest method to kick-start the rather lethargic US economy for instance. He is starting a war so that the armaments industry will feel very sanguine, and the mood will catch on with the rest of the economy which is now on the brink of trouble.

So it is only logical that if money is the root of the evil of conflict, that money and more and more of it can solve the problem as well. The money needs to be thrown around in different ways, and a fair slice of it should go to the NGO community -- the 'old faithful' as it were. They have given the word mercenary a new meaning.

Since Japan cottoned on to the realisation that money talks louder than anything despite what Galbraith says, the country has been outwitting the West almost in getting involved in sorting out conflicts, and thereby jockeying a good deal of international clout for itself. India which has no money is bristling.

But this is not so much the Marshall plan kind of victor and vanquished transaction.
The LTTE for instance is not vanquished -- not yet by any standards. So this money throwing proclivity brings in an altogether new dimension into conflict resolution.

But it is still worth remembering Galbraith, even in an elemental way. Money will increase productivity, it may increase spending power, but people will not forget what they need most, which is that vast intangible something that money cannot provide - - which is why the entrepreneurs are never the most respected men in any society.

Eventually throwing money may buy a trophy peace for the intervening countries, which they can go back and display on their mantelpiece. But, the peace that money bought will have to sustain itself, and if there is not enough of bucks in the long term -- rebels, even moneyed rebels may start getting other ideas.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster