quote:

---

ROME (Reuters) - Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Monday railed against U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling them "international terrorists" bent on world domination like Adolf Hitler.

Mugabe departed from his text at a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to accuse Bush and Blair of illegally invading Iraq and looking to unseat governments elsewhere.

"Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed (an) unholy alliance, formed an alliance to attack an innocent country?" he asked rhetorically.

"The voice of Mr Bush and the voice of Mr Blair can't decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq," he said.

---

PS. Notice Mugabe seems a bit... uncomfortable with the Chavez hug. What do you folks wanna bet he's been taking his insecurities out onto homosexuals in Zimbabwe? (Yes, I know the situation's far more serious than that, but a leader's personal fears have driven the fate of nations before.)

[ 17 October 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Sadly, Robert Mugabe is probably closer to Hitler than Blair or Bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
I guess he figures British and American jails are a good equivalent for Nazi concentration camps?

---

He said Bush and Blair were

a) international terrorists, and
b) bent on world domination.

He said Hitler was, also.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What part of that don't you agree with?

---

The part that makes it so easy for listeners to dismiss comments like Mugabe's as overblown and therefore frivolous.

Edited to add:
Wouldn't leftists be happy with, say, hypothetically, Pat Robertson comparing Hugo Chavez to Pol Pot? Such rhetoric would help Mr. Chavez, not hurt him.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yst:
Hitler's name doesn't get people thinking. Hitler's name stops people from thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Sadly, Robert Mugabe is probably closer to Hitler than Blair or Bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Wait a sec...Why exactly did Chavez hug Mugabe after a speech like that? Not a guy to be in cahoots with.

---

[ 19 October 2005: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
He has also wrecked the economy in what was once a relatively well-off country, and has denied Zimbabweans any semblence of political freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
...Mugabe has stolen more elections more brazenly than Bush.

---

Many Still Homeless in Zimbabwe

quote:

---

Many thousands of Zimbabweans whose houses were destroyed earlier this year remain in rural areas without proper homes, say a group of church leaders.

---

quote:

---

Just six months after the MDC's launch on 11 September 1999, President Robert Mugabe suffered his first - and still only - national election defeat in a referendum on a new constitution.

But that set-back only stirred him into action and the MDC has been unable to loosen his grip on power.

The opposition says he used violence and rigging to narrowly win elections in June 2000 and March 2002. In 2005 polls the MDC dropped back further.

"The MDC has succeeded in maintaining the hopes of Zimbabweans that change is possible, said Lovemore Madhuku, chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly, which is pressing for a new constitution.

"But it has achieved nothing tangible. There has been no change of government, oppression has got worse and the economy has collapsed."

---

quote:

---

It seemed almost inevitable that last week's strike in protest against the bulldozing of illegal housing in Harare and elsewhere would be a flop.

The media in Zimbabwe, now entirely under the strictest of controls, carried no mention of the strikes.

The main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, joined in only the day before they were due to take place.

The police warned that they would attack any street protests ruthlessly.

That meant they would shoot people down in the streets if necessary.

---

quote:

---

The year 2003 saw increased activity by ZANU-PF youth militias, which have disrupted meetings and campaigning by opposition members. Political violence prevalent in the countryside has increasingly spread to urban areas as security forces target church leaders and civic organizations, according to the New York based Human Rights Watch. Mugabe has on several occasions invoked the Presidential Powers Act, which enables him to bypass normal governmental review and oversight procedures.

Corruption is rampant. Much of the seized land has gone to ZANU-PF officials, who often have no farming background, instead of the landless black Zimbabweans who were supposed to benefit.

Freedom of the press is severely restricted. There are no privately owned radio or television stations in Zimbabwe, and the state-controlled newspapers and radio and television stations are seen as mouthpieces of the government and provide negative coverage of opposition activities. The Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities Act has been used to force journalists to reveal their sources regarding reports on corruption before the courts and parliament. Internet access is limited but growing.

---

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Zimbabwean government commission again has refused to license the banned independent 'Daily News', Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, shut down in September 2003. Also the independent weekly 'The Tribune' was refused to reopen after having been suspended for one year in June 2004, officially on "financial" grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Unfortunately they haven't been able to make much progress - or agree on exactly how to approach the problem. Hopefully this doesn't discredit the pro-democracy programs in the region, especially the peer review mechanism which Zimbabwe has not signed up to, for obvious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Many Still Homeless in Zimbabwe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Opposing Mugabe No Easy Task

---

quote:

---

What utter propaganda from John Simpson! This is the same kind of rhetoric and demonizing that got the US into trouble in Iraq. The people of Zimbabwe are not stupid, nor weaklings. They in their majority have accepted and voted for their government, warts and all. Those who complain are mostly disgruntled 'Rhodie' whites, misinformed foreigners and general malcontents with power-hunger ambitions. All this because Mugabe had the courage to take back land that was stolen from the people of Zimbabwe. Let us not ignore the psychological impact of that on Africans. Do you not wonder why he gets a standing ovation wherever he goes in Africa? You cannot orchestrate that kind of reaction. All this comes down to is Western fury at the loss of white privilege and the subversive example that creates.

---

quote:

---

Because you are unable to control Zimbabwe like a stooge, you call him all names. How was Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia, governed under Ian Smith? Blacks were killed everyday or doesn't that matter. I wish we in Africa had lots of Robert Mugabes. Stooges like Morgan Tsvangirai are a disgrace to Africa.
Kwasi Pabi, Accra, Ghana

The Simpson article, like most compiled by members of the western media about African leaders can best be described by just one word, nonsense. We Africans appreciate the concern of the outside world regarding issues in Africa but don't like people calling our leaders murderers. President Mugabe is a true African patriot and people hate him because he is not afraid to speak his mind.
Philip Buchanan, Morrisville, PA, USA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Freedom House

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Waiting for Change in Zimbabwe

---

Oops. Wait a minute.

Robert Mugabe is supposed to be another Hitler. How come there is any opposition party, or any elections at all? Perhaps not everything the pro-imperialist MSM and the fascist-friendly Freedom House say about Zimbabwe is the incontrovertible truth, after all. Or just maybe there's two (or more) sides to these stories.

The MDC ("Movement for Democratic Change") party was formed in 1999 and immediately began receiving funding from the imperialist globalization forces seeking to subvert and overthrow the Mugabe government. In 2000, the MDC won 57 out of 120 parliamentary seats in the general election.

In the 2002 elections, Mugabe won the presidential vote by a margin of over 400,000.

Unhappy with Mugabe's re-election after all the money they had poured into Zimbabwe to support his opponents, the U.S. and British imperialists cried fraud. But the South African observer team that monitored the elections said the results "should be considered legitimate." Namibia's observers characterized the election as "watertight, without room for rigging." Nigerian observers saw nothing to question the integrity of the vote. An observer from the Organization for African Unity called the election "transparent, credible, free and fair."

quote:

---

It obviously stops some people from thinking. Especially the airheads who are quick to jump all over someone for outing Bush and Blair as terrorists instead of meekly observing the diplomatic niceties.
Bush & Blair can take care of themselves just fine. They don't need any help from the clucking tongues of self-styled progressives.

---

Spector, normally your posts are interesting, but I have to admit I'm wondering about your credibility. Do you really believe that anyone who thinks that Bush and Blair aren't in Hitler's category of evil is a toady to the American-British military? If so, is that because you do not believe in the death camps (Dachau and Auschwitz for instance), or is it because you have evidence of Bush and Blair doing the same?

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: retread ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
My, we are so quick to parrot the imperialists' lies and propaganda, aren't we?

Do a little reading, people. All of the above statements are false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
Do you really believe that anyone who thinks that Bush and Blair aren't in Hitler's category of evil is a toady to the American-British military? If so, is that because you do not believe in the death camps (Dachau and Auschwitz for instance), or is it because you have evidence of Bush and Blair doing the same?

---

If you read the words of mine that you quoted you ought to be able to discern that I was not making any comparison or distinction between B&B and Hitler. I was saying (as Mugabe had said) that B&B are terrorists, and that any self-styled progressive ought to be able to recognize and acknowledge that fact when somebody points it out. There are plenty of right-wing hacks around who can come over all indignant on behalf of their heroes Bliar and Bush when someone dares to speak the truth about them. I see no reason for anyone else to save them the trouble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I did a lot of reading via Amnesty International on Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Would you say Amnesty are 'parroting the imperialists' lies and propoganda?' Sounds to me like you will happily take the side of anyone who opposes the neo-cons and their proxies regardless of their own crimes.

---

As a matter of fact, however, if I have to choose sides between the imperialists and the countries that they seek to victimize (as every progressive person must eventually do) I will take the side of the victim. As such I will not shill for the imperialists or accept their propaganda as fact. Nor will I accept their political analysis, based as it is on an ideology that is abhorrent to me. I will try to formulate my own analysis, with the assistance of those whose worldview is similar to my own.

As for Amnesty International, I don't see any reason why they would be immune to the traps of disinformation promulgated by the imperialists and their compliant mass media, apart from the fact that Amnesty seems to do a lot of independent investigation on their own.

quote:

---

We Africans appreciate the concern of the outside world regarding issues in Africa but don't like people calling our leaders murderers.

---

The writer is a bit sweeping in his assumption that he speaks for "Africans" on the subject of "their leaders". It would probably be more accurate to say "We Mugabe supporters do not like people calling Mugabe a murderer".

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:

Do you really believe that anyone who thinks that Bush and Blair aren't in Hitler's category of evil is a toady to the American-British military? If so, is that because you do not believe in the death camps (Dachau and Auschwitz for instance), or is it because you have evidence of Bush and Blair doing the same?

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: retread ]

---

Well for one, Mugabe has no direct links to funding Hitler's war machine. The Bush crime family does.

The west doesn't want democracy for Africa. Like Chilean's in the 1970's, African's simply can't be trusted with democracy. People's revolutions the world-over are on hold. Power to the people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I do find it interesting that despite Mugabe's known human rights violations that no country has offered to "liberate" the Zimbabweans from their oppressive dictatorship. Are they of lesser value than the "liberated" Afghanis and Iraqis?

---

But don't imagine for a minute that the imperialists are not actively trying to overthrow Mugabe by supporting subversion against him.

Remember the Helms-Burton Act that the U.S. passed in order to mandate sabotage and subversion against Cuba? Well, there's a Zimbabwe version. It's called, ironically, the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001." It was sponsored by none other than the late Sen. Helms himself.

The law instructed American officials in international financial institutions to "oppose and vote against any extension... of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe," and to vote against any "cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe," until such time as President Bush was satisfied that Zimbabwe was knuckling under to the globalization demands being made by the IMF and the World Bank for privatization of government enterprises and utilities, tax reduction, deregulation, removal of foreign investment/ownership restrictions, and reductions in social spending.

The law also authorized Bush to fund "an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe," referring to anti-government media. Six million dollars was granted for aid to "democracy and governance programs," a euphemism for groups seeking to topple the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The people who write this crap want to send Zimbabwe back to the good old days of Rhodesia, when whites owned all the land and the black majority toiled to make them rich.

---

Are you going to claim that freedom of the press isn't severely restricted or eliminated? Are you going to tell us that Mugabe hasn't in fact abused powers to bypass democratic process?

Interesting to note that Freedom House clearly stated that Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was not-free (barely a step better than North Korea), until (guess when!) Ian Smith's government fell. In 1979 the country was promptly upgraded to partly-free by the organisation thanks to the ZANU-ZAPU victory. It's all been going downhill since then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fast_twitch_neurons:
After a month on babble I'm still not sure what the consensus view is here on the concept of humanitarian intervention, which inevitably means casualties. Is it no under any circumstance?

---

quote:

---

Gee, I dunno.

Maybe you should go and brainstorm it with your co-thinkers in the Pentagon, while conjuring up scenarios for how they will be able to "manage" their newly conquered territories in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fast_twitch_neurons:
I point out one reason the USA might be less willing to do certain kinds of work in Africa is because it would have a harder time to doing it, and so you accuse me of being a cothinker of the pentagon.

---

Is that your euphemism for a war of conquest and occupation in Zimbabwe?

Isn't that exactly what the pundits in the Pentagon do - sit around discusssing how they might "patrol" the terrain in a "post-war" period, and have to deal with infrastructure, security, and public health issues - just as you were doing in your post?

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by fast_twitch_neurons:
I point out one reason the USA might be less willing to do certain kinds of work in Africa is because it would have a harder time to doing it, and so you accuse me of being a cothinker of the pentagon.

"...do certain kinds of work?"
Is that your euphemism for a war of conquest and occupation in Zimbabwe?

Isn't that exactly what the pundits in the Pentagon do - sit around discusssing how they might "patrol" the terrain in a "post-war" period, and have to deal with infrastructure, security, and public health issues - just as you were doing in your post?

I'm sure the Pentagon could make good use of your well-planned scenarios for bringing the uppity African nations to heel. Why don't you give them a call?

---

JOE BLOW: People who leave their parked cars unlocked are more likely to have their cars robbed, because criminals look for the easiest cars to get into.

SPECTOR: Ah-ha! Thinking like a criminal, are you? I'm sure you and your co-thinkers in the break-and-enter racket have LOTS of good ideas about how to rob people!

JOE BLOW: No, I'm just saying that unlocked cars are easier to rob.

SPECTOR: Yeah, and that's what criminals do. Think of the best ways to commit crimes. Why don't you call up some car thieves, I'm sure they could make good use of some of your scenarios.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

Sorry about that, I keep forgetting. Thanks for the reminder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Andrew_Jay, having locked horns with you on a number of other issues, I'm with you on this one. Having said that, don't you find it odd that no one is suggesting invading Zimbabwe and overthrowing Mugabe, when those were the reasons given for overthrowing Saddam and the Taliban, and that Zimbabwe's the odd one out in having no valuable resources to exploit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Gee, I dunno.

Maybe you should go and brainstorm it with your co-thinkers in the Pentagon, while conjuring up scenarios for how they will be able to "manage" their newly conquered territories in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:
My post has been edited. Hope it's okay now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yst:
...a political critique of oppressive regimes other than the United States of America

---

All the armchair "progressives" here are giving us is warmed-over press releases from the Anglo-American propaganda machine.

Any real political critique of Zimbabwe has to start with a recognition of its history as an oppressed colony of Britain. Rhodesia, as it was formerly known, was conquered by force from its African residents late in the 19th century. The British conquerors confiscated cattle and most of the fertile land for themselves, forcing the Africans to labour as serfs on land they once owned.

The apartheid-like system imposed on Rhodesia saw half the native population confined to reserves. The numbers grew over the years as Africans were forced off their land at gunpoint, their cattle slaughtered or confiscated, their land taken from them by white settlers.

When the Africans finally won their country back in 1980, it was only on condition that the "rights" of the white minority would be protected. Whites were allotted a quota of 20 seats in parliament, far in excess of their relative population.

Zimbabwe's greatest economic activity is agriculture. While land reform was clearly the number one priority for restoring the African majority to economic health, the project was hobbled by the settlement they had been forced to make with the imperialists. A moratorium on land redistribution, other than on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis, was in place until it was finally abandoned in 1997. By then, the UK had only provided slightly more than half of the funding to support land redistribution that it had agreed to provide in the negotiated terms of independence, and payments had ceased altogether in 1996.

During the first decade of independence, Zimbabwe developed economic links with the former Soviet bloc countries, and enjoyed some progress as a result; the economy grew at an average of 4% a year and the country made substantial gains in education and health. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe (as was the case with other small countries trying to chart a course independent of the West, like Cuba and North Korea) was quickly cut off from markets and sources of aid and energy. Zimbabwe was forced to make financial deals with the globalizing imperialists, represented by the IMF and the World Bank, in order to stay afloat economically.

Although some 3 million hectares of land were redistributed to about 70,000 families in the 1980's, by 1992, 70% of the most fertile land was still in the hands of some 4,500 white commercial farm owners. Six million blacks were crowded onto small farms in less productive areas, where deforestation and overgrazing took their toll, while over a million landless peasants toiled for low wages on white-owned farms.

The World Bank had taken its toll as well. In 1991 it imposed a program of "economic adjustment". The scenario, repeated in dozens of struggling countries forced to be drawn into the globalized capitalist economy, is a familiar one: massive privatization, deregulation, reduction of social spending, and deficit cutting. User fees for health and education, elimination of food subsidies, withdrawal of protective tariffs, removal of barriers to foreign investment and foreign ownership. In short, throwing the doors wide open to imperialist profiteers under the banner of "globalization".

The economic "liberalization" program had a devastating effect on the country, driving millions into abject poverty, while food prices and unemployment soared. From 1991 to 1995 manufacturing output fell 40%. Still the globalizers complained that Zimbabwe wasn't moving fast enough with privatization and government spending cutbacks.

Finally Mugabe was forced to stand up to the globalizing imperialists. In 1995 he announced that the country would no longer kowtow to the IMF and the World Bank: "The termination of ESAP [the World-Bank-imposed "adjustment program"] brings to an end the era of control of our economy by the IMF and the World Bank. While we must continue to work with these organizations on agreed projects, they will no longer dictate the direction of policy and the country."

Mugabe brought in price controls for bread, flour, meat, soap, generic drugs, sugar, milk, and other essentials that had become too expensive for many of the poor. When businesses threatened to shut down over the price controls issue, Mugabe said the government would nationalize them and keep them running.

In 1997 Mugabe launched a new phase of land reform. Some 1,471 farms were listed for compulsory purchase, which enraged the rich white commercial farmers and outraged the former British owners of the country.

Now the imperialist subversion and propaganda assault began in earnest. The imperialist countries started funding a new opposition party in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which called for an end to price controls, tax reduction, massive privatization of government functions (including the schools), selloffs to foreign capital, and subservience to the other goals of the IMF. Economic sanctions were levied against Zimbabwe by the UK, the EU, the IMF, and the United States, and threats of withdrawal of humanitarian aid were made against any African country that dared to ally with it. As is the practice of the imperialists with regard to Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere, funding was given to NGO's tasked with subversion of the Mugabe government.

This is the background that has to be kept in mind and should form the context for any "political critique" of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. Yes, Mugabe has much to answer for in terms of human rights and corruption, but the North American armchair left is far too quick and willing to accept without question the emanations from the imperialist propaganda machine and its compliant media. The apolitical "human rights" approach, which usually tends to blur the line between victims and oppressors, is far too blunt an instrument for serious political analysis.

Read George Monbiot on the hypocrisy of those who demonize Mugabe.

Mugabe's legacy is very clear. After carrying his country to true independence in 1979, he has done nothing but deny Zimbabweans their political rights and freedoms while plunging them into poverty and economic disaster.

If you're so interested in history, there's the interesting fact that price controls on foodstuffs, that you celebrate, contribute to food shortages and poverty. By its very definition, someone is going to get paid less for their crop. What poor farmer is going to increase their production if their earnings are going to be limited?

But you know, what do you care? Mugabe gets to do his stage act for you, calling Bush and Blair names, it's all very fun on a very juvenile level. Who gives a fuck if the people of Zimbabwe have to suffer so you can cheer on the supposed "anti imperialists" from the comfort of your own armchair.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Mugabe brought in price controls for bread, flour, meat, soap, generic drugs, sugar, milk, and other essentials that had become too expensive for many of the poor. When businesses threatened to shut down over the price controls issue, Mugabe said the government would nationalize them and keep them running.

---

Did it ever occur to you that he did this because his government has been printing money to make up for the complete lack of any foreign exchange?

It's better than an economic depression but in the process he's unleashed a hefty dose of inflation that drives the prices of such things up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
If you're so interested in history, there's the interesting fact that price controls on foodstuffs, that you celebrate, contribute to food shortages and poverty. By its very definition, someone is going to get paid less for their crop. What poor farmer is going to increase their production if their earnings are going to be limited?

---

Which "fact" would this be? And if we're going to talk about foodstuffs, why not talk about how the agribusiness giants distort food markets by ripping off both the consumers and the producers? Or how about IMF and World Bank imposed policies force countries to grow cash crops for export, which thus creates a food shortage within the country and there's not enough to go around? If you look at farmers on the Prairies, they are treated no differently than their counterparts in the Third World.

quote:

---

But you know, what do you care? Mugabe gets to do his stage act for you, calling Bush and Blair names, it's all very fun on a very juvenile level. Who gives a fuck if the people of Zimbabwe have to suffer so you can cheer on the supposed "anti imperialists" from the comfort of your own armchair.

---

If we're in the comfort of our own armchairs, what practical experience do you have that we don't? Have you travelled extensively? Have you known real economic hardship?

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

If you're so interested in history, there's the interesting fact that price controls on foodstuffs, that you celebrate, contribute to food shortages and poverty.

---

This is ideology, not history. In poor countries, many people cannot afford the market price of any food item at all. So, they either get a controlled price, or they starve.

Mexico has had price controls on basic foodstuffs for many years. Peru certainly had them for decades, too. and if you read my post on Chavez today, you will see that that is policy in Venezuela too.

quote:

---

If you're so interested in history, there's the interesting fact that price controls on foodstuffs, that you celebrate, contribute to food shortages and poverty.

---

This is ideology, not history. In poor countries, many people cannot afford the market price of any food item at all. So, they either get a controlled price, or they starve.

Mexico has had price controls on basic foodstuffs for many years. Peru certainly had them for decades, too. and if you read my post on Chavez today, you will see that that is policy in Venezuela too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
If we're in the comfort of our own armchairs, what practical experience do you have that we don't? Have you travelled extensively? Have you known real economic hardship?

---

I do know however that Mugabe is no hero, and certainly not somebody to be applauded - you'll excuse me for being a dedicated democrat. Just because he gives us a fun and childish show from time to time doesn't excuse him for the damage he's done to Zimbabwean democracy and society. Zimbabwe - and the world - can do a lot better than Mr. Mugabe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
On the subject of food controls - in the African context, governments kept the prices paid to farmers artificially low so as to keep urban populations happy (and also skim off some profits for themselves). This was a major cause of food shortages and economic decline, until the World Bank required that governments stop screwing over their farmers (i.e. the vast majority of the people in their societies) and "get the prices right". But that's really neither here nor there.

---