Chiquita Paid for Left- and Right-Wing Terror, and Victims of Both Demand Justice (by Ryan Rodrick Beiler)
I posted last November about legal proceedings against Chiquita for protection money paid to Colombian right-wing paramilitary organizations (AUC) that had been designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. Two stories this week shed more light on the situation and are worth checking out.
First, last week's 60 Minutes broadcast included a segment called "The Price of Bananas," which gives a good overview, including the origins of the paramilitaries:
The second comes from Christianity Today in an article titled, "Corporate-Sponsored Terror." It describes the lawsuit against Chiquita brought by former missionaries with New Tribes Mission, widows whose husbands were kidnapped and killed by left-wing guerrilla forces (FARC) when they controlled the region where Chiquita was operating:
When Chiquita Brands International pleaded guilty last year to violating anti-terrorism laws -- and was fined $25 million for its payments to Colombian terrorists -- Tania Julin and Nancy Hamm felt betrayed and angry.
Though Chiquita's plea did not involve the group that murdered their husbands 12 years ago, the women learned through the case that Chiquita had also paid protection money to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
"I believe they need to be held accountable," said Hamm, who retired from New Tribes Mission (NTM) last year. "This affected us in a horrible way, but I think it could affect a lot of other Americans, too, if Chiquita or other American companies continue to blatantly fund terrorists." ...
While Julin said none of the widows are bitter about the dangers that ultimately ended their husbands' lives, she does hope that winning the lawsuit will pose a warning to companies tempted to do business with terrorists.
"Chiquita had a choice whether to deal with the terrorists or not. If they felt they had to deal with the terrorists or not be in Colombia at all, they could have chosen not to be in Colombia," Julin said. "They chose to work with these terrorists."
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners. He traveled to Colombia in 2003.
Add to:
Category: Corporations, Criminal Justice, Human Rights
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
No surprise here. We, the good old US of A military were fighting "banana wars" for years back before WW2. Since then we just supported right wing killing squads ot keep the few rich in power and the fruit companies in cash.
Check out Smedly D. Butler's book "War is a Racket." http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865
Posted by: RandyT | May 16, 2008 11:40 AM
This is interesting as there has been some publicity about this issue here as well.
Listening to a book review / discussion on the ABC (Australia) of the history of this company just reinforced the problem of defining and enforcing accountability for multi national corporations.
The book being reviewed was
"Jungle Capitalists: A Story of Globalisation, Greed and Revolution",
Author: Peter Chapman, Publisher: Text Publishing. Program details http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2008/2243765.htm. Listen if you want to, to the interview as it is down loadable, it is a good chilling story.
I was saddened but not surprised on reading the article on the Christianity Today web site that there were Widows preparing to take legal action against the company. I guess the old statement of “What is Truth?” comes to mind. By what moral, and legal code are these multi national entities accountable?
Is maintaining market dominance by all means including war acceptable? I see too much of this in the pesticide industry in which I work.
It is actions and policies like that which gives rise to Liberation movements and Liberation Theology. It would seem that there is a dual standard of what is acceptable at home in the especially in the first world, and abroad. It would appear that neo colonial or just good old fashioned imperial attitudes are still alive and well, and on a stock market close to us.
Of course we could use the UN Human Rights Charter to form a basis for standards of conduct or could we?
It seems that when the original cooperations were first formed in in England, way back when, they were limited to a life of 12 years to prevent them from getting too powerful.
Posted by: JohnH | May 17, 2008 10:44 AM
This piece is as much an indictment of the US government as it is of the companies that engaged in the conduct. $25 million in fines and NO criminal prosecutions of company officials in their individual capacity? $25 million will be considered a mere cost of doing business.
You can bet that if those plantations had been in Gaza and it was a terrorist organization in the Middle East that had been funded, heads would have rolled. But, alas, the wheels of commerce must be greased, even if it is with the blood of the innocents.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 18, 2008 10:34 AM
But if I don't get my potassium, how can I ever be healthy? And no bananas? What will we ever eat?
Posted by: canucklehead | May 19, 2008 12:25 AM
Thank you, Ryan. This is exactly the kind of article I look for on the Sojo blog. We may not be able to change the world, but we can at least watch what we spend our money on. I was part of the nationwide Folgers boycott in the 1980's because of their support of El Salvador's rightwing militias--but of course, that was the lovely apathetic 80's and few people seemed to give a rip. I think/hope the times are changing, and that more people will come to see that EVERY PURCHASE HAS A RAMIFICATION. If people in this country have to mount a full-fledged boycott of all bananas, so be it.
Posted by: I and I | May 20, 2008 2:46 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?