At first glance, the banana appears benign: the curved, soft, cheerfully-yellow fruit is the most consumed fruit in the United States and the European Union, but a closer look into the production of bananas yields a tragic story of violence and oppression.
Banana giants Chiquita Brands International and the Dole Food Company have troubling histories of supporting paramilitary groups in Columbian banana lands: the left wing Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia (FARC), and the right wing United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). Both of these groups were declared terrorist organizations by the United States Department of State in 1997 and 2001, respectively.
In 2007, Chiquita was charged with paying the AUC $1.7 million in protection payments from 1997 to 2004, despite full cognizance that the group was considered terroristic. Chiquita had also been making payments to AUC’s rival group, the FARC, beginning in 1989 and continuing until at least 1997; Chiquita’s records show that up to 10 percent of the company’s gross revenues was forwarded on to the FARC during this time. In this case, Chiquita pled guilty to violating U.S. antiterrorism laws, and settled the case with a $2.5 million settlement.
Widows and mothers of men kidnapped and killed by these terrorist groups are now beginning to speak out against the company and seek compensation for injuries under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991. It should be noted that similar suits have been brought against Dole, the most recent of which was in 2009. The families bringing suit against Chiquita claim that the company supplied the rebels not only with payments but also with weapons and ammunition. Chiquita also allegedly filled the employee roster with fake names and nonexistent employees, then used the extra money to pay the terrorist groups.
James Thompson, Senior Vice President of Chiquita has defended the company by saying the payments “were motivated by the company’s good faith desire and concern for the safety of all of its employees.” However, as ex-paramilitaries have begun to step forward in Columbia, it has become increasingly clear that the payments indeed were not an act of forced extortion as previously claimed, but rather an avenue by which to protect the company from rampant opposition.
Particularly incriminating was the confession of Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo, referred to as “Carlos Tijeras.” Tijeras was the former commander of the William Rivas Front of the AUC, who operated in the banana lands. As commander, he claimed he had a very close relationship with not only Chiquita but also Dole, and he provided them anything from “security services” to the kidnapping and assassination of labor leaders pegged by the companies as “security problems.”
Tijeras asserted that anybody designated to be a “problem” was executed immediately.
This shit is clearly bananas. It is immoral for American citizens to continue to support U.S. companies Chiquita and Dole as they wreak havoc and fund terrorism in their plantations abroad. The question is, what can be done? Ideally, Chiquita and Dole would be hit the hardest should the demand for bananas sharply decrease in the form of a boycott. However, it is unrealistic to think that Americans will give up their favorite fruit to protest against human rights violations. That’s simply not the American way.
In the case of bananas, we really are what we eat. A Columbian widow whose husband and son were kidnapped by rebels warned, “The next time you eat a banana, take a closer look at what you are really putting into your mouth. You are feeding yourself pure violence.”
What we need are better alternatives to Chiquita and Dole bananas. I was happy to discover that Connecticut College’s Dining Services has already taken a step in the right direction by providing bananas from Turbana Corporation, whose human rights record isn’t nearly as questionable as Chiquita’s. Perhaps with respect to humanitarian concerns, the next logical step for our campus would be to pursue the fair trade option; however, I find this option rife with potential problems.
By paying markedly higher prices for the same product, Ingrid Bushwack, Director of Dining Services, claimed she would be forced to eliminate something in the menu to make up for the losses. While I personally wouldn’t miss ham with fruit or chicken cordon blech, it is understandable that many students would be upset by the loss of their favorite entrees in exchange for bananas that wouldn’t physically appear to be any different from before. Another danger with purchasing more expensive fair trade bananas is that, with the new higher price, Dining Services will purchase fewer and the supply of bananas will decrease. Also, because there are not enough fair trade bananas to meet the demand, becoming reliant on fair trade may mean severe shortages, leaving Conn students banana-less for days at a time.
Furthermore, it has recently become evident that the fair trade system is very flawed. For the most part, the middlemen and grocery stores are the primary benefactors of fair trade banana sales because they are the ones who jack up the prices and reap the rewards. Farmers only receive a fraction more for producing fair trade than for producing regular bananas; often the extra cash they make is not enough to ensure a higher living standard, as the fair trade philosophy touts. As fair trade grows more popular, more and more corporations are striving to become certified in order to “greenwash” their companies and make them appear more eco-friendly to the consumer. As a result, companies with questionable motives have been certified as fair trade.
Because of all this, I am no advocate for switching to fair trade bananas on campus, but I am advocating reform of the fair trade industry. Companies need to be rigorously tested before being certified, and also they must be routinely investigated to ensure a high degree of commitment. The monetary difference between regular bananas and fair trade bananas should be given directly to the farmer, not the grocery store. As soon as a viable alternative exists to Dole and Chiquita bananas, real economic pressure can be placed on the companies to examine with scrutiny the way in which they conduct business abroad in comparison with how they would be legally bound to conduct business at home in the United States.
Sources:
CNN.com
The RAW Story.com
BananaLandCampaign.org
NYTimes.com
