I'm Chiquita Banana and I've Come to Say... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 03-22-2007, 12:20 PM

...we'll openly support terrorism, now go away!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Chiquita to plead guilty to ties with terrorists
Federal authorities say the banana producer made transactions with terrorist organizations.
March 14 2007: 6:54 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chiquita Brands International entered a plea agreement with federal authorities on charges that it engaged in transactions with a terrorist organization.

The company agreed to pay a $25 million fine regarding the investigation of protection payments made by the company's former banana-producing subsidiary in Colombia.

Shares of Chiquita (up $0.25 to $12.75, Charts) fell nearly 1 percent in after-hours trading on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday.

The announcement came moments after U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor accused the Cincinnati-based banana producer with paying - through its Colombia subsidiary Banadex - a right-wing paramilitary group in Urabá and Santa Marta, two areas of Colombia where Chiquita grew bananas.

"From in or about 1997 though on or about Feb. 4, 2004, defendant Chiquita made over 100 payments to the AUC [United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia] totaling over $1.7 million," the 17-page information said.

It said Chiquita had also paid money to two left-wing organizations from about 1989 until about 1997, when those groups controlled areas where the company grew bananas. It identified the groups as the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army).

The company recently pushed back its annual report to amend an agreement with lenders after taking a charge related the federal investigation.

Under the terms of the agreement, the company will pay the fine in five annual installments. The agreement is subject to approval and acceptance by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Chiquita did not file its annual report by March 1 as required and now expects to file it on March 16. It is seeking approval of an amendment with lenders under a June 28 credit agreement, it said.

In a Feb. 22 filing, Chiquita said it had voluntarily disclosed that its Colombian banana-producing subsidiary, which it sold in June 2004, had made payments to certain groups there that were designated as "foreign terrorist organizations" under U.S. law.

Following the disclosure, the Justice Department initiated a criminal investigation to examine the role and conduct of the company and some of its officers in the matter, the company said in that filing.
Terrorist payments

The company began making the payments after a general manager for Banadex met with the then leader of the AUC, Carlos Castaño, the information said.

Castaño told the company's general manager that the AUC was preparing to drive FARC from Urabá and asked for payments to be made to the AUC through private security companies, the information added.

"Castaño sent an unspoken but clear message that failure to make the payments could result in physical harm to Banadex personnel and property," it said. Senior company executives knew about the payoffs to AUC, the information said.

Though the checks were written to security companies, the companies provided no actual services.

In 2002, after the U.S. government designated the AUC a terrorist organization, Chiquita began paying the AUC in cash, turning over more than $1 million and continuing to pay even after outside counsel told the company that the payments were illegal and should stop immediately, the information said.

In a written statement, Chiquita Brands International's CEO Fernando Aguirre said the information is part of a plea agreement, "which we view as a reasoned solution to the dilemma the company faced several years ago."

He said Chiquita voluntarily disclosed the payments to the Justice Department in 2003, saying they were made "to protect the lives of its employees."

He added, "The company made this disclosure shortly after senior management became aware that these groups had been designated as foreign terrorist organizations under a U.S. statute that makes it a crime to make payments to such organizations. Since voluntarily disclosing this information, Chiquita has continued to cooperate with the DOJ's investigation."

Frankly, I don't think that corporations with ties to radicals and paramilitary organizations would be allowed to trade. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia is the aforementioned terrorist organization that is responsible for hundreds of assassinations, kidnappings, and massacres. It also has close ties to drug trafficking.

So, does anyone feel like a bloody banana?

Bacon Symphony · 03-22-2007, 12:45 PM

Is that what happens when it breaks the hymen?

Okay... sorry, I just had to say that.

Wow... who would've thought the little sticker girl loved them terrorists.

pig · 03-22-2007, 12:52 PM

i actually would bet this is more common than we might like to think. if you operate in some parts of the world, i think protection payments are pretty standard. the only way to resolve it the way we currently operate, i would think, is as you indirectly stipulate. don't allow them to do business. and americans have to get used to the idea that they can't get a nice bananna (or whatever) year round. i just don't think that's going to happen without significant changes in habits from citizens of first world nations.

Elphaba · 03-22-2007, 02:29 PM

Is it now the case that the victim of extortion is also a criminal? The article doesn't indicate that Chiquita willingly supported terrorism.

Willravel · 03-22-2007, 03:09 PM

They should have informed the CIA. They didn't even contact the boy scouts. Not only that, but even after outside council made it clear what they were doing was illegal.

Elphaba · 03-22-2007, 04:20 PM

I agree that they didn't make a good choice, but what jurisdiction does the CIA have within Columbia?

Willravel · 03-22-2007, 04:32 PM

The CIA is charged with gathering intel on foreign problems and then reports it to the appropriate agency. While I'm not a fan of the CIA, you should still follow the procedures in this type of situation. The CIA isn't all secrets and lies, after all.

Rekna · 03-22-2007, 04:45 PM

I don't know how I feel about this. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Anxst · 03-22-2007, 05:51 PM

Yes, they were kind of screwed. Still, they should have at least informed someone as to what was going on. That's where I think they really made the mistake.

Still, they're only being hit with a 25 million dollar fine. It could have been a lot worse, under the current legislation.

djtestudo · 03-22-2007, 06:11 PM

Unless I'm missing something, Chiquita is the former United Fruit Company, which was the reason for the term "Banana republic", so this isn't exactly shocking, although it is a little surprising that they would still be, even indirectly, working with people like this.

Elphaba · 03-23-2007, 01:47 PM

Will, feel free to give me a verbal thrashing for my ignorance in giving Chiquita the benefit of the doubt. That outfit is anything but a victim in this.

The following article is by Amy Goodman:

Link

Quote:

Friday, March 23rd, 2007
Chiquita Admits to Paying Colombian Paramilitary Group on U.S. Terror List

The Cincinnati-based fruit company Chiquita has admitted to paying off the group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia which is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Chiquita has agreed to a $25 million fine on the condition that it doesn't have to reveal the names of the executives involved. Chiquita says it fell victim to an extortion racket that threatened its employees. But Colombia's attorney general has said he will seek the extradition of eight Chiquita employees over what he calls "a criminal relationship."

The Cincinnati-based fruit company Chiquita has found itself at the center of another major controversy over its practices in Latin America. On Monday Chiquita admitted it had paid off the group AUC, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia which is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Chiquita has agreed to pay the U.S. government a fine of $25 million dollars on the condition that it doesn't have to reveal the names of the executives involved. The $25 million dollar penalty comes out to around half of what Chiquita received from selling its Colombian subsidiary in 2004. Chiquita has defended the payments, saying it fell victim to an extortion racket that threatened its employees.

James Thompson: "The payments made by the company at all times were motivated by the company's good faith and desire and concern for the safety of all of its employees. Nevertheless, we recognize the obligation to disclose the facts and circumstances of this admittedly difficult situation to the United States government and the Department of Justice."
Colombian authorities have taken a different view. Colombia's attorney general has said he will seek the extradition of eight Chiquita employees allegedly involved in making the payments. The attorney general, Mario Iguaran said: "The relationship was not one of the extortionist and the extorted but a criminal relationship... When you pay a group like this you are conscious of what they are doing."

Colombian prosecutors have also accused Chiquita of providing arms to the right-wing paramilitary groups that were then used to push leftist rebels out of an area in northern Colombia where Chiquita had its banana plantations.

This is not the first time Chiquita has been accused of criminal activity in Colombia and Latin America... /snip

dc_dux · 03-23-2007, 02:18 PM

It should also be noted that Columbia is one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid...mostly military aid to the right wing government of Pres. Alvaro Uribe who has long-standing ties to right wing paramilitary.

Quote:

Uribe is clamping down on the opposition, while sidling yet closer to the Republican White House in Washington. Uribe was the only South American leader to back President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. At the time, he even went so far as to invite the United States to invade Colombia. Uribe hopes to double the size of the Colombian Armed Forces, and has asked the United States for more helicopters and greater involvement in areas such as intelligence gathering. Many in the Bush administration are keen to see the United States expand its multi-billion dollar military investment in “Plan Colombia.” U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James T. Hill, for example, recently told a Senate committee, “It would be a terrible loss if democracy failed in Colombia. You need to let me get on the ground.”

But before that happens, the United States is pushing for Uribe to reign in his illegal paramilitary allies. The peasant militias and million-strong informers’ network that Uribe has launched are evidence of the way in which the paramilitary strategy is being institutionalized. Under the “state of unrest” that Uribe decreed upon assuming the presidency, the police and army were granted the right to detain citizens on the slightest suspicion of supporting the guerrillas, without evidence or legal counsel, and to enter people’s homes without a warrant.
...
As Bush and Uribe have both said time and again, in the “war on terror” there can be no neutrals. President Uribe has branded those NGOs that do claim to occupy a non-partisan position on the armed conflict “political agitators in the service of terrorism, cowards who wrap themselves in the banner of human rights.” Only pro-government, anti-guerrilla NGOs are being left untouched.

Uribe’s strategy is to bring the war out into the open, to declare social organizations illegal, and to use the army and police against them directly, while holding “negotiations” with the paramilitaries. Given the murderous tactics that Uribe is prepared to resort to, it is easy to understand why trade unionists and human rights defenders are inclined to feel despondent. It also makes the unquestioning support being offered Uribe by the U.S. and British governments all the more immoral.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia185.htm

Recent testimony from the head of U.S. Southern Command, Admiral James Stavridis:

Quote:

In Colombia, we have spent over $4 billion since 1999 to stem the flow of illegal drugs into our country and aid the Colombians in their fight against home-grown terrorists. But, according to the latest figures from the Justice Department, the supply and purity of illicit narcotics on our streets has not changed much in the last several years.

The Administration of President Uribe is also currently embroiled in a criminal investigation into a seemingly widespread conspiracy between high-ranking government officials and leaders of the terrorist paramilitaries.

I fear that this scandal and the underlying unholy alliance, if proven to be true, will severely undermine the ability of the Colombians to assume greater responsibility for combating narcotics trafficking and taking the fight to the terrorists, both of which may place a larger strain on our American forces during this time of war.
http://www.cipcol.org/archives/000423.htm#more

Another example of the US foreign policy approach of getting in bed with a right wing thug (Uribe) to counter an imaginary "terrorist" threat to the US and/or a "threat" from the left wing neighbor (Hugo Chavez, who is no angel either).

How many examples do we need from recent history that this kind of "diplomacy" and this kind of "ally" is not in our long-term interest?

Bill O'Rights · 03-23-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Unless I'm missing something, Chiquita is the former United Fruit Company...

I thought that Dole took over United Fruit Company's assets. Or, is Chiquita a subsidiary of Dole?

The old axiom that the more things change, the more they stay the same certainly applies here. If I actually liked bananas, which I do not, then I suppose boycotting them might actually have greater significance. Kinda like giving up liver for Lent.

roachboy · 03-24-2007, 08:14 AM

here's a blurb concerning a 1998 segment on "democracy now!" concerning chiquita/united fruit..strange that it sounds so similar to the situation outined in the op....

Quote:

Last week, in one of the largest and most unusual settlements by a news organization, The Cincinnati Enquirer published an apology across the top of its front page and said it had agreed to pay Chiquita Brands International Inc. more than $10 million to avoid being sued for a series of articles that exposed the fruit company's criminal practices. [includes rush transcript]

The articles, which appeared in an 18-page special section on May 3rd, were partially based on 2,000 internal voice mails that were said to have been obtained from "a high ranking Chiquita executive."

The newspaper however, after initially defending its year-long investigation of Chiquita, said last week that it was convinced that the voice mails had been stolen from the company, and that it had renounced the articles. The Enquirer also fired Michael Gallagher, the reporter who led the investigation.

The ties between Chiquita banana C.E.O Carl Lindner and the Cincinnati political and business elite are strong; until 1979 Lindner was the controlling shareholder of the company that owned The Enquirer before its current publisher, the Gannett newspaper chain. The Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters, whose office is driving the investigation into Gallagher and who is responsible for appointing a special prosecutor, has received campaign donations from Chiquita.

While Chiquita hailed The Enquirer for acknowledging "that the conclusions in the article were untrue," Harry Whipple, the Enquirer's publisher, has said he believed the voicemails, despite how they may have been obtained, were real. In an interview with the New York Times, he said "We are not aware of anything to suggest that this is an instance of a reporter fabricating something."

Nevertheless, the Enquirer has erased all the articles from its website; previously existing links on the internet to the stories now all lead to the Enquirer's apology to Chiquita instead.

Chiquita, formerly known as the United Fruit Company, is the world s largest banana producer. Among the illegal Chiquita practices uncovered by the Enquirer s investigation:
Chiquita secretly controls dozens of supposedly independent banana companies. It also suppresses union activity on the farms it controls.
Despite its pact with environmental groups to abide by pesticide safety standards, Chiquita subsidiaries have used pesticides in Central America that are banned in the U.S., Canada, and the European Union. Chiquita also released harmful toxic chemicals into farms, killing at least one worker in Costa Rica according to a coroner's report.
Chiquita's fruit transport ships have been used to smuggle cocaine into Europe. More than a ton of cocaine was seized from 7 Chiquita ships in 1997. (The Enquirer story says the illegal shipment was traced to lax Colombian security rather than to Chiquita)
Chiquita executives bribed Colombian officials
Chiquita called in the Honduran military to evict residents of a farm village; the soldiers forced the farmers out at gunpoint, and the village was bulldozed.
An employee of a competitor filed a federal lawsuit charging that armed men hired by Chiquita tried to kidnap him in Honduras.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/07/0342243

here is a more extensive background piece on chiquita/united fruit and rightwing paramilitary action in colombia--see in particular the james petras letter (second item on the page as of now)....

http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/search/label/Colombia

this kind of multiple intertwining--american state policy, american-based corporate activity and repression/violence on the part of rightwing militaries and paramilitaries is not new.

it is one of the main faces of american-style domination, particularly in latin america.

united fruit had a long history of exploitation backed with american military power--the arbenz coup in guatemala 1954 is but the most well-known instance. this stuff has continued, in various forms, ever since. backing colombian rightwing death squads which target union activists is just a logical extension of the politics of mcworld. as are the intertwined relations of corporations like chiquita, the us government and the world trade organization, which have acted and act as a bloc in fighting over the international banana trade. have a look here:

http://www.converge.org.nz/lac/articles/news990407a.htm

here is a an overview of the international banana trade itself:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5102e....htm#TopOfPage

when folk go on about the non-sustainability of globalizing capitalism in its present form, they refer to the particular modes of neo-colonial domination around which it is built. the principle agent for the construction and maintenance of the present neo-colonial order has been the united states. the "lifestyle" that americans live owes much to this neo-colonial order. the problems this order generates are legion.

the strange thing is that all are on the back side of the ideological mirror, and that most americans do not see it, do not understand this, and do not make connections between their modes of life and systematic exploitation tht has been transferred geographically to spaces far away.

the current system must be changed. if the americans cannot see what the system that has been fashioned in their name means and does, then the implosion of american power becomes simply an element of that change. conversely, the continuation of american power/domination means the continuation of this system. it obviously does not have to be this way--but it is difficult to see alternatives--they would have to come from within the states, it seems to me, an the condition of possibility for that would be something more like accurate, multi-levelled journalism/information flows that could serve as the basis for political mobilizations within the states.

perhaps the long, slow implosion of the bush administration and the ideology for which it stands will open onto a possibility for awakening from a dark night shaped by neo-liberal dreamtime, the one in which fictional accounts of autonomous entrepreneurs competing manfully against each other across fields of free markets substitutes for neoliberalism as an ideological figleaf for the dismantling of state regulation in a context already shaped by significant concentration of wealth and economic power...a fiction that enables american consumers to construct delusions of global equitability which are reinforced each time they engage in the only everyday politics allowed them in the states, which is to buy things...

that americans live in an ideological bubble, a kind of strange sphere lined with mirrors such that whichever way they look they see themselves and what they want to see, not what is--is a symptom of the more general problem of globalizing capitalism american-style. and it is hard not to see in this unhinging of american domestic life (and the ideology that enframes it) from the system of production that underpins it. from a certain viewpoint, we too are objects to be dominated and controlled--the shaping of information is a form of control, its internalization is a form of domination. that we television viewers do this to ourselves is a simple index of the efficiency of contemporary forms of domination. why bother with direct, violent control when it is cheaper and more efficient to persuade people to do it to themselves? why impose directly when you dont have to? shape information flows and everything else follows.

it may be fun, but sooner or later there'll be hell to pay for this system.
and obliviousness will not excuse anyone.

hiredgun · 03-28-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How many examples do we need from recent history that this kind of "diplomacy" and this kind of "ally" is not in our long-term interest?

Out of curiosity, what do you see as a better policy alternative?

Willravel · 03-28-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Out of curiosity, what do you see as a better policy alternative?

How difficult is it to try and do the right thing?

roachboy · 03-28-2007, 10:01 AM

i suspect that the rightwing whackjobs in power these days would see supporting far right paramilitaries as the right thing to do. the logic would probably follow from a notion of what it means to "protect the national interest"...

i hope that by saying this you do not imagine that i am endorsing the american policy re. colombia in any way: i just am not at all sure that this language of ethics will get you terribly far--on other words, the claim that "x is the right thing and y the wrong thing" basically assumes different ways of framing policy matters, but ducks the problem of laying out these ways of framing...you could argue just as effectively that present policy does not in fact "protect american interests"--it does quite the opposite, accelerating the process of american political trouble in south america, continuing the pattern of neocolonial domination the americans seem to love so much (all the while blabbing about freedom), confirming the most cynical readings of american policy advanced by critics of it.
or you could argue that the contradiction between what the americans say about themselves and what they do in this case is self-evident and that in itself is a problem for the protection of etc...
you could argue that official american support for organizations that murder trade union acitivists runs against everything the us is supposed to stand for--and it does, and that not only in colombia.
you could make this argument any number of ways--but saying that x is wrong and only that isnt terribly effective simply because the contrary response "no it isnt" in principle ends the discussion.
i mean why, really, is it wrong that the americans support far right paramilitaries? because they kill people? well, isn't the basis for any state power the monopoly on legitimate violence, and isn't legitimate violence defined by the (potential) for the state to kill? so the problem is the direction of state power, which is a political matter, not the nature of state power--at least in this case.

i gotta go.

dc_dux · 03-28-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Out of curiosity, what do you see as a better policy alternative?

A better policy would be to abide by U.S. arms export laws like the Arms Export Control Act that requires that U.S. arms transfers are used only for self-defense, and the Foreign Assistance Act that bars military aid and arms sales to countries that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses (like Columbia, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Nigeria and other "new" allies in our war on terrorism).

03-22-2007, 12:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bacon Symphony Upright Location: California	Is that what happens when it breaks the hymen? Okay... sorry, I just had to say that. Wow... who would've thought the little sticker girl loved them terrorists. __________________ I molested myself last night. I said 'no,' but I knew I wanted it.

03-22-2007, 12:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i actually would bet this is more common than we might like to think. if you operate in some parts of the world, i think protection payments are pretty standard. the only way to resolve it the way we currently operate, i would think, is as you indirectly stipulate. don't allow them to do business. and americans have to get used to the idea that they can't get a nice bananna (or whatever) year round. i just don't think that's going to happen without significant changes in habits from citizens of first world nations. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

03-22-2007, 02:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Is it now the case that the victim of extortion is also a criminal? The article doesn't indicate that Chiquita willingly supported terrorism. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-22-2007, 04:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I agree that they didn't make a good choice, but what jurisdiction does the CIA have within Columbia? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-22-2007, 05:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
Anxst Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance. Location: Madison, WI	Yes, they were kind of screwed. Still, they should have at least informed someone as to what was going on. That's where I think they really made the mistake. Still, they're only being hit with a 25 million dollar fine. It could have been a lot worse, under the current legislation. __________________ Don't mind me. I'm just releasing the insanity pressure from my headvalves.

03-22-2007, 03:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They should have informed the CIA. They didn't even contact the boy scouts. Not only that, but even after outside council made it clear what they were doing was illegal.

03-22-2007, 04:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The CIA is charged with gathering intel on foreign problems and then reports it to the appropriate agency. While I'm not a fan of the CIA, you should still follow the procedures in this type of situation. The CIA isn't all secrets and lies, after all.

03-22-2007, 04:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't know how I feel about this. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

03-22-2007, 06:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Unless I'm missing something, Chiquita is the former United Fruit Company, which was the reason for the term "Banana republic", so this isn't exactly shocking, although it is a little surprising that they would still be, even indirectly, working with people like this. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

03-28-2007, 10:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i suspect that the rightwing whackjobs in power these days would see supporting far right paramilitaries as the right thing to do. the logic would probably follow from a notion of what it means to "protect the national interest"... i hope that by saying this you do not imagine that i am endorsing the american policy re. colombia in any way: i just am not at all sure that this language of ethics will get you terribly far--on other words, the claim that "x is the right thing and y the wrong thing" basically assumes different ways of framing policy matters, but ducks the problem of laying out these ways of framing...you could argue just as effectively that present policy does not in fact "protect american interests"--it does quite the opposite, accelerating the process of american political trouble in south america, continuing the pattern of neocolonial domination the americans seem to love so much (all the while blabbing about freedom), confirming the most cynical readings of american policy advanced by critics of it. or you could argue that the contradiction between what the americans say about themselves and what they do in this case is self-evident and that in itself is a problem for the protection of etc... you could argue that official american support for organizations that murder trade union acitivists runs against everything the us is supposed to stand for--and it does, and that not only in colombia. you could make this argument any number of ways--but saying that x is wrong and only that isnt terribly effective simply because the contrary response "no it isnt" in principle ends the discussion. i mean why, really, is it wrong that the americans support far right paramilitaries? because they kill people? well, isn't the basis for any state power the monopoly on legitimate violence, and isn't legitimate violence defined by the (potential) for the state to kill? so the problem is the direction of state power, which is a political matter, not the nature of state power--at least in this case. i gotta go. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite