The thrust of his argument is presented in a verse from Tolstoy in the introduction
“Nought remains
But vindictiveness here amid the strong,
And there amid the weak an impotent rage.”
Could we sum up the Afghan, Palestine and Muslim situation better?
Keynes was very clear that a policy based on vindictiveness and vengeance that did not allow Germany room to grow would be disastrous and eventually lead to another war. He does not mince his words.
“The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable -- abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilized life of Europe.”
Keyness was aware of the need to satisfy domestic lobbies but he also alerted the leaders of the then civilized world of 2 important principles. First, it was important in the modern world to act through international bodies such as a UN by achieving a true global and just consensus. Second, self determination has a role in the modern world. No power should attempt to stand in the face of people seeking to determine their own destiny. The world is big enough for all of us; we just have to free ourselves from the shackles of historical myths. Self-determination should not always be hijacked by big powers for their own Balance of power considerations as has been done in Afghansitan with disastrous consequences. Once again Keynes is crisp and biting.
“Prudence required some measure of lip service to the 'ideals' of foolish Americans and hypocritical Englishmen; but it would be stupid to believe that there is much room in the world, as it really is, for such affairs as the League of Nations, or any sense in the principle of self-determination except as an ingenious formula for rearranging the balance of power in one's own interests.”
Keynes described the leaders of the victor nations in details. They were no statesmen. In fact, Keynes describes them as small time politicians who were totally unequal to the task of defining a new age. Of the French Prime Minister, he disdainfully says
“One could not despise Clemenceau or dislike him, but only take a different view as to the nature of civilized man, or indulge, at least, a different hope.”
The British Prime Minister was more worried about an ill-timed election and
“Within a brief period, therefore, after the armistice, the popular victor (England), at the height of his influence and his authority, decreed a general election. It was widely recognized at the time as an act of political immorality. There were no grounds of public interest which did not call for a short delay until the issues of the new age had a little defined themselves, and until the country had something more specific before it on which to declare its mind and to instruct its new representatives. But the claims of private ambition determined otherwise.”
Of America and its president, it seems that Keynes expected a lot. He was very disappointed int eh poor quality leadership that the president provided. In fact the leader fot eh world appeared to show no leadership and clearly was not at his ease in that historical setting. A very disappointed Keynes says.
“The President was not a hero or a prophet; he was not even a philosopher; but a generously intentioned man, with many of the weaknesses of other human beings, and lacking that dominating intellectual equipment which would have been necessary to cope with the subtle and dangerous spellbinders whom a tremendous clash of forces and personalities had brought to the top as triumphant masters in the swift game of give and take, face to face in council -- a game of which he had no experience at all.”
“But in fact the President had thought out nothing; when it came to practice his ideas were nebulous and incomplete. He had no plan, no scheme, no constructive ideas whatever….”
Keynes was indeed very disparaging of the lack of leadership that the American president provided. He says that “the President was far too slow-minded and bewildered.” And that “in the last act the President stood for stubbornness and a refusal of conciliations.”
* * *
I re-read The Economic Consequences of Peace in the last few days watching bombs rain over Afghanistan and our world heading towards another disastrous clash. It amazed me how relevant Keynes’s thoughts are to the current situation. Despite our technological progress, our approach to solving political problems remains the same. Politically, we appear to have wasted a century. Keynes had appropriately challenged politicians to move away from base, vindictive and vengeful policies, saying, “nations are not authorized, by religion or by natural morals, to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers.”
Sadly, politicians and political processes still remain of the nineteenth century variety. In an era of globalization, sovereign egocentric agendas of a feudal era abound. Like petty feudal monarchs, they continue to connive for control of resources like oil. Expansionist and territorial policies continue to be practiced. Domestic narrow-minded lobbies determine policies while “slow-minded and bewildered” politicians appear to be unequal to the task of providing the leadership that is required in the 21st century. Lobbies and sovereign leaders continue to stand “for stubbornness and a refusal of conciliations.”
What a pity, that the age of internet and global media has no room for a Keynes. All journalism as well as intellectual thought appears to be paid for by the lobbies. Academics, so locked into their research funding, find it difficult to air views that are not politically correct. I wonder whether these funding arrangements and this media might even have stifled an eminent person of Lord Keynes’s stature?
