https://nacla.org/blog/2013/7/4/revisiting-cincinnati-enquirer-vs-chiquita


Revisiting the Cincinnati Enquirer vs. Chiquita
Kevin Edmonds <https://nacla.org/nacla-bloggers#Kevin>
The Other Side of Paradise <https://nacla.org/node/7887>
July 4, 2013
[image: Printer-friendly version] <https://nacla.org/print/9197>[image:
Send by email] <https://nacla.org/printmail/9197>
Tweet <http://twitter.com/share>



Given the ongoing debate surrounding Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning—and
whether or not they committed a crime or acted in the public good—it is
fitting to revisit a case that showed how the “illegitimate” gathering of
evidence was considered a more serious crime than that of engaging in
widespread murder, bribery, arms trafficking, and knowingly poisoning the
environment of communities throughout Latin America. It is the story of the
Cincinnati Enquirer vs. Chiquita Banana.

In 1998, Mike Gallagher and Cameron McWhirter, two investigative reporters
from the Cincinnati Enquirer, published an 18-page expose which revealed
that Chiquita banana (headquartered in Cincinnati) was engaged in wide
ranging human rights abuses and environmental crimes. The journalists had
worked with Chiquita lawyer George Ventura, who provided access to
Chiquita’s internal voicemail system. They were able to obtain confidential
information about Chiquita’s role in widespread criminal activity by
monitoring internal communications.

[image: 1882]"Photo Credit: Policymic.com

Shortly after the publication of the story, the Cincinnati Enquirer had to
issue both a retraction and
apologize<http://dlib.nyu.edu/undercover/apology-chiquita-cincinnati-enquirer>
not
for the acts being untrue—but for the way in which Gallagher and McWhirter
gained their information. In addition to the apology and retraction, the
Cincinnati Enquirer was forced to pay Chiquita a settlement of over$10
million<http://dlib.nyu.edu/undercover/chiquita-banana-expose-cincinnati-enquirer>
for
damages. Both Gallagher and Ventura were convicted of stealing Chiquita’s
internal voicemails—with Gallagher being immediately fired from the paper.
The ruling was a clear statement that investigations of corporate
wrongdoing was subject to severe punishment and should be discouraged by
the example set by the Cincinnati Enquirer. While the articles were
retracted, they are still available
here<http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Equirer_Chiquita_1998_censored_articles>
on
the WikiLeaks website.

Clearly with the case of Chiquita, it did not learn its lesson—as the
damaging reports from 1998 did nothing to stop it from admitting to paying
Colombian right wing death squads in
2003<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/chiquita-brands-international-inc/index.html>.
Represented by current Attorney General Eric
Holder<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/25/attornery-general-eric-holder-chiquita>,
Chiquita claimed that they were being extorted by the groups and had to pay
the money in order to protect their workers. Mario Iguaran, the Attorney
General of Colombia claimed otherwise, bluntly stating
that<http://www.searcylaw.com/files/chiquita%20brands,%20an%20american%20corporation,%20admits%20financial%20support%20of%20colombian%20terrorist%20groups.pdf>
"this
was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed
group whose methods included murder."

Simply, the attempt by the court system to erase any wrongdoing from
Chiquita’s record allowed it to continue with the status quo and terrorize
communities throughout Latin America. According to Iguaran, Chiquita's
payments to the AUC paramilitaries (an organization listed as a terrorist
organization by the U.S. State Department) led to the murder of
4,000<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html>
civilians
in the banana growing regions of Colombia and funded the growth of
paramilitary organizations throughout the country. Additionally, court
documents <http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15697> have shown that a
shipment of 3,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 5 million rounds of ammunition
from Nicaragua to Colombia in 2001 was invoiced to Chiquita.

This shows the double standard that exists between the people on one side
and corporations and the government on the other. In the Snowden
controversy, the Obama administration has defended the actions of the
National Security Agency by stating that their monitoring of the civilian
population allowed them to prevent terrorist attacks—thus Snowden is a
criminal and the government was seeking to protect the public. In the case
of Chiquita, Gallagher, McWhirter, and Ventura exposed the criminal
activities of a multinational corporation with close ties to the United
States and Colombian governments in addition to terrorist organizations—yet
they were the ones who were punished. It was only five years later in 2003
that Chiquita was forced to pay a $25
million<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031500354.html>
fine
for their criminal activities throughout Latin America—with none of the
money going to the affected communities.

Despite the U.S. Justice Department stating that Chiquita's payments to the
paramilitaries ''were reviewed and approved by senior executives of the
corporation, to include high-ranking officers, directors and employees,''
they did not list specific names to avoid wider measures of accountability.
What the Cincinnati Enquirer revealed about Chiquita Banana was the
stranglehold that corporations have over the legal system and the double
standard regarding the application of justice. The courts deemed that the
crime committed by Gallagher, McWhirter, and Ventura was more serious than
the multitude of crimes committed by Chiquita.

In the end, the issue of whistleblowing and the government's response is
dictated by unequal relationships of power. Actions which challenge the
status quo and shed light of matters regarded as inconvenient by
governments and multinational corporations will be portrayed as illegal or
unethical, while those which seek to further cement the legitimacy of
everyday criminal activity by the powerful is applauded. Eventually, in
July of 2012, Gallagher had his record
expunged<http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120723/NEWS010701/307230064/Fired-reporter-has-his-criminal-record-erased?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1>
by
the courts, but not after having his career destroyed and his courageous
work silenced.

One glimmer of hope regarding Chiquita being held accountable for its
criminal activities is the ongoing lawsuit in a Florida court brought about
by thousands of Colombians, who are the relatives of victims, in seeking to
hold the company accountable for murder, torture, and environmental
destruction. Villagers allege
that<http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/170/chiquita> the
death squads used “random and targeted violence in exchange for financial
assistance and access to Chiquita’s private port for arms and drug
smuggling.” Furthermore, over 5,500 pages of documents contridicting
Chiquita’s claim that it was extorted by Colombian paramilitaries have been
released and are available online
here<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB340/>.
Chiquita’s continued involvement in criminal activity highlights how large
and influential corporations feel as if they are above the law. Openly
lying to the court and paying a relatively small fee in proportion to the
damage they have caused across Latin America is not evidence of justice—it
is blatant evidence of corruption which go up to the highest levels of
government.


------------------------------



*Kevin Edmonds is a NACLA blogger focusing on the Caribbean. For more from
his blog, "*The Other Side of Paradise*," visit
nacla.org/blog/other-side-paradise. Edmonds is a former NACLA research
associate and a current PhD student at the University of Toronto, where he
is studying the impact of neoliberalism on the St. Lucian banana trade.
Follow him on twitter @kevin_edmonds <https://twitter.com/Kevin_Edmonds>.*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to