“As Anderson and Morrison have observed: ‘Running through all these measures, whether major or minor in their effect, was the concern to stabilize the countryside politically. It was recognised internationally that the peasantry were incipient revolutionaries and if squeezed too hard could be rallied against the new bourgeois-dominated governments in Asia. This recognition led many of the new Asian governments to join the British-American-sponsored Colombo Plan in 1952 which explicitly set out to improve conditions in rural Asia as a means of defusing the Communist appeal. Rural development assisted by foreign capital was prescribed as a means of stabilizing the countryside.’ In Cleaver’s view: ‘Food was clearly recognised as a political weapon in the efforts to thwart peasant revolution in many places in Asia . . . from its beginning the development of the Green Revolution grains constituted mobilizing science and technology in the service of counter-revolution.’” (pp. 34-35)

Does this Cold War-politicization apply to the Mexican case? If so, what were the political (Cold War) ramifications of the Green Revolution’s actual increase in income inequality?