<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/kovalik01122010.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/kovalik01122010.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#990000">January 12,
2010<br><br>
</font><h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><b>Super Criminals
<br><br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">
Chiquita Lauded for Human Rights Abuses
</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>By DAN KOVALIK
<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Verdana" size=2>In its most recent edition, the magazine,
“Super Lawyers,” gave its cover story to the General Counsel of Chiquita
Brands International, praising him for navigating the complex and
difficult waters of Colombia. What it failed to mention is the trail of
tears in Latin America left behind by Chiquita (formerly United Fruit,
the architect of the 1954 coup in Guatemala as well as the 1928 massacre
of striking banana workers in Cienaga, Colombia memorialized in One
Hundred Years of Solitude). The following letter, by union labor lawyer,
Dan Kovalik highlights the contradictions in the applause given to
Chiquita. We note that, just after this letter was written, Chiquita also
received (quite ironically) a “sustainability award” for its business
abroad.<br><br>
<br>
</dl>Re: Super Criminals<br><br>
Dear Mr. White,<br><br>
I just had the unfortunate experience of reading the cover story of your
recent publication, "Super Lawyers," which lauded the
atrocities of Chiquita (formerly, United Fruit) -- a company with a
laundry list of atrocities to its name, to be sure. <br><br>
Your publication, which purports to highlight "not just the 'Usual
Suspects,'" actually did focus on one of the "Usual
Suspects" for war crimes in this issue. In this particular issue,
you chose to applaud the General Counsel of Chiquita for what he claimed
to be Chiquita's "extra-difficult decisions to save lives" by
paying murderous paramilitaries over $1.7 million over a 7-year period.
Nothing is said of the lives lost due to these payments, nor is there
mention of the cache of arms provided to the paramilitaries by Chiquita's
Colombian subsidiary (another count Chiquita pled guilty to). <br><br>
According to Colombia's Attorney General, Mario Iguaran, Chiquita's
payments to the paramilitaries were "not paid for protection, but
rather, for blood; for the pacification of the Uruba banana region."
Iguaran, hardly a liberal, having been appointed by President Alvaro
Uribe, estimates that around 4,000 civilians were killed as a result of
the assistance Chiquita gave to the paramilitaries. Moreover, Iguaran has
opined that the very phenomenon of parmilitarism which has gripped
Colombia for years and which has led to countless murders, rapes and
other atrocities, would not have been possible without this assistance by
companies like Chiquita.<br><br>
Yet, notwithstanding these facts, you chose to give Chiquita's General
Counsel your cover story to spew his apologies for his company's support
for war crimes. Of course, I should not be surprised, the law, after all,
being an instrument created and maintained to protect the rich and strong
from the poor and oppressed. I might just suggest that, to keep up the
facade of a justice system blind to the pocketbook of the parties coming
before it, you might not want to be so obvious in your publication in
highlighting the legal profession as a guardian of those who amass profit
through acts of massive violence. <br><br>
I guess Bob Dylan said it best when he wrote, "All the criminals in
their suits and their ties, are free to drink martinis and watch the sun
rise . . . ." <br><br>
I could end my note here, but a bit more is worth saying. Thus, even if
we take Chiquita and Mr. Thompson at their word, their conduct hardly
warrants congratulations. First, even by their own admissions to the
Justice Department and to your magazine, it allegedly took them over 2
years to realize that the paramilitaries they were paying and providing
arms to were designated by the U.S. State Department as
"terrorists." Is this a mark of great lawyering? Most of us
would be fired for taking so long to realize our client was engaged in
such a high crime. Indeed, what you call "super lawyering"
would simply be called "malpractice" by most reasonable
observers. And, even if they were paying "protection" to these
killers to grow and profit from bananas as they claim, is that also a
reason for praise? The Justice Department, which certainly let these
folks off quite easily (they should all be in jail), certainly didn't
think this excused them from punishment. <br><br>
I will end this by asking that you please refrain from ever sending me
your publication again. You should be ashamed of yourself and your
magazine. But, of course, we live in a world largely without shame, where
petty criminals spend years in jail and the big criminals rule the world,
thanks to the law you claim to be so dedicated to.<br><br>
Sincerely,<br>
Dan Kovalik<br><br>
Dan Kovalik</b> is a labor lawyer. He can be reached at:
<a href="mailto:DKovalik@usw.org">DKovalik@usw.org</a>.<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>