Chaquita Brands International Guilty Plea
CORPORATE TERROR FUNDING
CHAQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL
INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS THAT GUERRILLA’S DO EAT BANANAS!
What is protection Money? Is it paid to keep the calm; to keep business operations afloat or is it payoffs to organized criminal gangs to prevent interference, threats and protection of employees from harm or even death. This is the dilemma facing all multi-national corporations. How they individually deal with the problem determines their co-existence in countries that suffer internal chaos, internal civil unrest and even paramilitary interference to control the government and the corporation. For American based corporations, the threat level is greater than ever before.
It’s complicated by U.S. government political decisions, hatred of American people and business. Recognizing that American corporations are vulnerable to extortion and threats, they try to maintain peace to keep business operations productive and profitable. This is the dilemma facing corporate America.
This may clearly have been the case in the Chiquita Brands International Inc. indictment for payments totaling $1.7 million in protection money over six years to protect its profitable banana company by funding terrorists in Columbia, S.A.
In response to Chiquita Brands recent guilty plea in U. S. District Court, civil rights organization, like “EarthRights International”, have filed litigation against the corporation to seek unspecified monetary damages and class action status. This case has been transferred to Newark, New Jersey Federal District Court. The EarthRights group claims that “Chiquita involvement violates not only the Columbian laws but also U.S. and international laws prohibiting crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, torture, war crimes and other abuses.” This action comes four months after Chiquita pled guilty to the payments.
The company, one of the worlds leading produce, banana distributors awaits sentencing to one count of doing business with terrorists organizations. The settlement calls for the company to pay a fine of $25 million and does not identify senior executives who approved the illegal protection payments.
As the former Security Director for two major multi-national corporations, I understand the dilemma that corporations face. At both corporations’ incidents of extortion and threats from foreign operatives, whether identified as terrorists or anti-government social groups were not uncommon. American corporations are faced with this crisis, in that they conduct business in foreign countries, with different social norms. While it may not be acceptable to reach agreements with such identified groups, labor groups or socialist antagonists, the corporate production and operations must continue. It is a difficult decision that all corporations are faced with in foreign territory. The problem exists that if the corporation participates in payment to protect the business operations and its employees, they may be in violation of federal and international laws. If they don’t cooperate, they may be forced to shutdown operations in that particular region, thus having an impact on employees and the bottom line.
The U.S. State Department cannot intervene, nor can the U.S. Military. At one of the companies I represented, a terror group in Central America raided the business operations, killed two security guards and kidnapped an executive. The plan to deal with the problem was to negotiate with the kidnappers, and obtain the freedom of the Manager. Utilizing former government operatives, negotiations and local political input assisted in the release of the Manager. There was no U.S. Government agency which could assist. While they were notified, little assistance was received. U.S. governmental officials assisted in providing information about the group, intelligence and introduction to former governmental agents to handle the problem. There are private companies that make a tremendous living being the intermediary in such situations.
However, in the Chiquita matter, the “United Defense Forces of Columbia” (AUC) is a paramilitary anti-government army. They have been responsible for some of the worst massacres in Columbia’s civil conflict, as well as responsible for the sizeable protection of the country’s cocaine exports. In addition to AUC, it is alleged that Chiquita made payments to the “National Liberation Army” (ELN) and the leftist “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia” (FARC) as the control of the company’s banana business shifted.
Chiquita maintains it made the payments to ensure the safety of its workers. Company spokesman Michael Mitchell explains that “these are payments that the company was forced to make to protect the lives and safety of our employees”.(AP Business Writer. Jeffrey Gold)
It was determined that the payments were made by Chiquita subsidiary “Banadex”, which was sold in 2004. A 2003 Organization of American States report indicates that in 2001 a ship that was owned by Banadex was to bring 3000 assault rifles and ammunition to the paramilitary who had bought the arms from an international arms dealer. At the time the paramilitaries were consolidating control of the URABA banana region through massacres and assassinations. Mitchell went on to explain that Banadex changed its policies after the shipment. He further states that Columbia and the OAS found no wrongdoing by Chiquita or any of its employees.
How do we protect American corporations in foreign lands? It is apparent that the corporation is on its own. Most multi-national corporations develop relationships with the political control of the country and have a local consultant on the payroll to deal with the ongoing business and social problems that face the corporation. Is this criminal? Is the corporation in violation of U.S. Federal or International laws? Incidents like the Chiquita file suggests that decisions of the corporation is a balance on a tightrope of business ethics to protect the business from disruption, extortion and even murder. The risk is great the business decision may well be criminal by American standards, while it may be an acceptable practice in the foreign land that the U.S. Corporation operates within. Our naivety in meeting the standards of U.S. codes operating within a foreign land may not be the right formula to work in a multi-national environment.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? LET US KNOW!!!
CHAQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL
INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS THAT GUERRILLA’S DO EAT BANANAS!
What is protection Money? Is it paid to keep the calm; to keep business operations afloat or is it payoffs to organized criminal gangs to prevent interference, threats and protection of employees from harm or even death. This is the dilemma facing all multi-national corporations. How they individually deal with the problem determines their co-existence in countries that suffer internal chaos, internal civil unrest and even paramilitary interference to control the government and the corporation. For American based corporations, the threat level is greater than ever before.
It’s complicated by U.S. government political decisions, hatred of American people and business. Recognizing that American corporations are vulnerable to extortion and threats, they try to maintain peace to keep business operations productive and profitable. This is the dilemma facing corporate America.
This may clearly have been the case in the Chiquita Brands International Inc. indictment for payments totaling $1.7 million in protection money over six years to protect its profitable banana company by funding terrorists in Columbia, S.A.
In response to Chiquita Brands recent guilty plea in U. S. District Court, civil rights organization, like “EarthRights International”, have filed litigation against the corporation to seek unspecified monetary damages and class action status. This case has been transferred to Newark, New Jersey Federal District Court. The EarthRights group claims that “Chiquita involvement violates not only the Columbian laws but also U.S. and international laws prohibiting crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, torture, war crimes and other abuses.” This action comes four months after Chiquita pled guilty to the payments.
The company, one of the worlds leading produce, banana distributors awaits sentencing to one count of doing business with terrorists organizations. The settlement calls for the company to pay a fine of $25 million and does not identify senior executives who approved the illegal protection payments.
As the former Security Director for two major multi-national corporations, I understand the dilemma that corporations face. At both corporations’ incidents of extortion and threats from foreign operatives, whether identified as terrorists or anti-government social groups were not uncommon. American corporations are faced with this crisis, in that they conduct business in foreign countries, with different social norms. While it may not be acceptable to reach agreements with such identified groups, labor groups or socialist antagonists, the corporate production and operations must continue. It is a difficult decision that all corporations are faced with in foreign territory. The problem exists that if the corporation participates in payment to protect the business operations and its employees, they may be in violation of federal and international laws. If they don’t cooperate, they may be forced to shutdown operations in that particular region, thus having an impact on employees and the bottom line.
The U.S. State Department cannot intervene, nor can the U.S. Military. At one of the companies I represented, a terror group in Central America raided the business operations, killed two security guards and kidnapped an executive. The plan to deal with the problem was to negotiate with the kidnappers, and obtain the freedom of the Manager. Utilizing former government operatives, negotiations and local political input assisted in the release of the Manager. There was no U.S. Government agency which could assist. While they were notified, little assistance was received. U.S. governmental officials assisted in providing information about the group, intelligence and introduction to former governmental agents to handle the problem. There are private companies that make a tremendous living being the intermediary in such situations.
However, in the Chiquita matter, the “United Defense Forces of Columbia” (AUC) is a paramilitary anti-government army. They have been responsible for some of the worst massacres in Columbia’s civil conflict, as well as responsible for the sizeable protection of the country’s cocaine exports. In addition to AUC, it is alleged that Chiquita made payments to the “National Liberation Army” (ELN) and the leftist “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia” (FARC) as the control of the company’s banana business shifted.
Chiquita maintains it made the payments to ensure the safety of its workers. Company spokesman Michael Mitchell explains that “these are payments that the company was forced to make to protect the lives and safety of our employees”.(AP Business Writer. Jeffrey Gold)
It was determined that the payments were made by Chiquita subsidiary “Banadex”, which was sold in 2004. A 2003 Organization of American States report indicates that in 2001 a ship that was owned by Banadex was to bring 3000 assault rifles and ammunition to the paramilitary who had bought the arms from an international arms dealer. At the time the paramilitaries were consolidating control of the URABA banana region through massacres and assassinations. Mitchell went on to explain that Banadex changed its policies after the shipment. He further states that Columbia and the OAS found no wrongdoing by Chiquita or any of its employees.
How do we protect American corporations in foreign lands? It is apparent that the corporation is on its own. Most multi-national corporations develop relationships with the political control of the country and have a local consultant on the payroll to deal with the ongoing business and social problems that face the corporation. Is this criminal? Is the corporation in violation of U.S. Federal or International laws? Incidents like the Chiquita file suggests that decisions of the corporation is a balance on a tightrope of business ethics to protect the business from disruption, extortion and even murder. The risk is great the business decision may well be criminal by American standards, while it may be an acceptable practice in the foreign land that the U.S. Corporation operates within. Our naivety in meeting the standards of U.S. codes operating within a foreign land may not be the right formula to work in a multi-national environment.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? LET US KNOW!!!
Labels: Chaquita Banana, Grocery Markets, Terror Funding
posted by Crimetalk at
11:39 AM
0 Comments
Links to this post
