Around Latin America (Now With Suriname!)

-For all the talk about the (il)legality of Manuel Zelaya trying to get a vote on whether or not Honduras should have two-term presidencies or not, Colombia has fallen by the wayside a bit. Nonetheless, efforts to amend the Colombian constitution to allow Alvaro Uribe to run for a third term continue, and the issue continues to cause some civil-but-intense debate in Colombia. The Catholic Church in Colombia has finally come out strongly against a third consecutive term for Uribe (though it seems open to the possibility of Uribe leaving after two terms and returning for a third later). I find it interesting that people who are so outraged at Zelaya simply trying to get a vote on whether Honduras should have two terms (even if it doesn't include him) are for whatever reason very quiet on the situation in Colombia. I think Lula put it best: "One re-election is understandable but two is monarchy." (And you'd think that, with comments like that, the right in Brazil would stop freaking out about Lula trying for a third term, but they haven't.)

-It happened awhile ago, but I was unable to get to it due to travels and then hosting travelers. The Peruvian Congress overturned President Alan Garcia's decree that would have opened the Peruvian Amazon (including large portions of indigenous reserves) to logging, oil drilling, and the construction of dams. The congressional vote was an overwhelming repudiation of Garcia's move, garnering an 82-14 vote in favor of overtuning the decree. The decree led to protests from Peru's indigenous groups, protests that escalated to violence and the deaths of upwards of 30 people, and even racist charges from within Garcia's administration that the killed Indians were not "victims". Not surprisingly, these events have led to Garcia "enjoying" the lowest poll ratings of his administration and one of the lowest in the world, as only 21% of Peruvians had a "favorable opinion" of Garcia after the clashes and the congressional vote.

-Yesterday, I commented on prosecutors going after human rights abuses within the Military Police in Brazil. Gancho has a similar report for abuses within the Mexican military and the challenges in effecting reform institutionally.

-There is good news on human rights abuses in Argentina, though, as the highest criminal court ruled that Carlos Menem's disgraceful 1990 pardon of the junta leaders during Argentina's "Dirty War" (during which the military government murdered as many as 30,000 civilians) was unconstitutional, and that the life-sentences for Gen. Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera should stand.

-Speaking of Argentina: Buenos Aires is commonly tourists' (especially European tourists') favorite stops when they go to Latin America. Gringos love it for a number of reasons, and while I'm perhaps too harsh or general in my assessment, those reasons usually have to do with the fact that Buenos Aires is "European," and so it feels more "civilized" (and my charges against tourists aren't baseless: I've honestly heard Europeans (and, to a lesser extent, Americans) describe Buenos Aires as "just like home," "more civilized," "better-built," and "cleaner." Really). I also know some portenos who hate how much Buenos Aires has basically become a playground for European and American tourists, leading to skyrocketing prices that make many of the "finer" parts of Buenos Aires inaccessible to Argentines. Well, a recent study reveals the very ugly side of Buenos Aires, the side tourists don't see/look for: four million people in Buenos Aires live in poverty, with 1.2 million classified as "indigent." Buenos Aires is a complicated place, and there are legitimate reasons to enjoy it and to dislike it. However, I've never seen anywhere that so successfully tried to conceal its racism and poverty so strongly while catering to Europeans. It's definitely one of the most disgusting aspects both of the global tourism industry (including the tourists) and of Buenos Aires itself.

-Just north of Argentina, there is an interesting effort in Brazil to create a second state-owned oil company. The proposed company, Petrosal, would "manage sub-salt oil assets," while Petrobras remained focused more on regular petroleum deposits, supply and demand, and regulation. I don't know if it would radically alter the structure or functioning of Brazil's largest state-owned company, but it is an interesting proposal as much from an infrastructural and developmental standpoint as from an economic standpoint.

-Also in regards to Brazil: in one of the fascinating vagaries of the globalized world, Indian companies are looking to outsource some of their IT centers to Brazil. Who knows - maybe down the line, tech calls for computer help will involve a Brazilian accent.

-I've written before about lawsuits involving banana companies and workers in Latin America before. While it's practically history now (it happened back in 2007), Suriname entered the fray, as former workers who lost their jobs in 2002 when the state-owned banana company Surland closed filed a lawsuit against Suriname's government, alleging they were underpaid on their back-wages. The lawsuit also alleged that the government (which restarted banana production in 2004) was firing employees who are trying to organize a union in the industry. I have no idea how this turned out. But we need more news from Suriname. (Seriously).

-Finally, a belated R.I.P. for Hortensia Bussi, the widow of Salvador Allende, who passed away on June 18 at the age of 94. Far from being a quiet victim, Ms. Bussi had been heavily involved in social justice before Allende's 1970 election, and continued fighting for human rights and social aid after his death.

More Evil Deeds from Banana Companies in Latin America

Following last year's lawsuit in Colombia, in which over 400 people sued Chiquita for supporting paramilitary troops, the families of 5 men in Panama have also sued Chiquita. They maintain that Chiquita paid the FARC to "protect its workers" (if you'll recall, Chiquita also admitted to paying AUC, the largest paramilitary group in Colombia, to "protect its workers"). The families maintain the FARC raided Panama, kidnapping 5 men and killing them. The lawsuit maintains that Chiquita should be held partially responsible, as they paid the FARC (which the United States government has categorized as a terrorist group) and the FARC was responsible for these deeds.

Given the recent ruling in favor of Dole, I find it unlikely Chiquita will be held responsible or have to pay anything. Chiquita already has been ordered to pay a $25 million (with an m) fine for supporting the AUC, but the lawsuit of the 400 families hasn't been settled yet. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a judge ruled that the evidence tying FARC's murder of these 5 men to the Chiquita payments was not enough or that Chiquita had already paid enough, but I could be wrong. The plaintiff's use of antiterrorism laws to try to prosecute Chiquita in the civil court is definitely an interesting approach that would probably not have existed in a pre-2001 context. Still, I imagine this will get thrown out, and once again, a banana company will not have to suffer the consequences for its unethical support of and payment to groups from both the left and right that commit crimes against the regular populations of multiple countries, all in the name of "protection" of its own interests.

$2.5 Million Case against Dole Fruit Thrown Out

Yesterday, a Superior Court Judge threw out a decision against Dole fruit company that gave 2.5 million dollars to former Dole employees in Nicaragua. The employees had originally sued Dole for using the pesticide DBCP in the 1970s, leaving the workers sterile and with other health problems. The effects of DBCP were already known in the 1970s, yet Dole continued using it on its bananas without warning its workers. In her decision, Judge Chaney ruled 'that punitive damages cannot be used to punish "a domestic corporation for injuries that occurred only in a foreign country.'"

This is obviously a setback on several fronts. Environmentally, is possibly sets precedent for companies not to have to pay such damages in cases involving pesticides that are bad for both the environment and for workers. Financially, it does nothing to stop companies like Dole from worrying about the consequences of their actions. And, at the most basic level, the ruling is absurd in terms of labor and business. Dole (and all the other fruit companies, past and present) is in no way, and never was, a "domestic" corporation. Are they based in the U.S.? Yes. Do they make all their tax claims and ownership claims in the U.S.? Sure.

But it's not because Dole is some strong domestic company. The amount of land Dole (and other fruit companies) own in Latin America, from Honduras to Colombia, is absurd. They frequently buy up all land they can, pushing the poor off or forcing the poor to become what are virtually peon laborers, just to continue producing bananas. They do this because the pesticides and chemicals they use to grow and preserve bananas are so destructive that, after about 20 years, the lands that currently grow bananas become sterile. Instead of being environmentally responsible by spending a little more to use less damaging products, or instead of waiting for the land to regain its fertility, they just pick up and relocate everything to one of their massive landholdings that they have held fallow, waiting for just such a moment, at which point the production begins anew, with the currently-used land certain to be sterile in another 20 years or so.

And they do this all while having a ridiculous amount of say in the politics and economy of these Central American countries. Sure, it's not quite like it was when Minor Keith of United Fruit Company owned Costa Rica's "national" railroad, ports, and transportation lines, but it's not like Dole has no stakes in the Caribbean. It is absolutely dependent on the region for its land, its production, its labor, and its profits, and its connection to politicians, businessmen, and leaders in the region, while diminished in the last couple of decades, is far from lost. Dole is about as "domestic" as GM with its plants in Mexico and throughout the world.

Chaney's decision is extremely disappointing and even ridiculous. Dole is domestic only in the strictest, most narrow-minded sense of the word ("it's based in the U.S., so it's domestic!"), yet her decision has once again screwed over workers whose lives were already irreparably damaged by Dole's policies in the 1970s. A decision like this does nothing to discourage Dole or other companies in the future. It is extremely infuriating, and it is probably a major setback.

Colombian Families Sue Chiquita for Funding Terrorism

Banana companies in Latin America have never behaved, to put it mildly. However, the Chiquita company seemed to reach a new low in its relations with Latin America, as earlier this year a court ordered the company to pay a $25 million fine for paying the Colombian terrorist paramilitary organization AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia). AUC, one of the largest paramilitary groups in Colombia, is also one its grosser human-rights violators, having killed thousands of peasants and "leftists" in Colombia's civil war. In the case this year, the courts ruled against Chiquita when it became clear that the fruit company had paid $1.7 million to AUC between 1997 and 2004 for what Chiquita claimed was coerced "protection." The word "protection" itself seems to have taken on a new meaning in this case, though, for Chiquita used the AUC to try to gain even more land for banana production in Colombia, using the AUC to force out poor farmers via eviction or, where there was justified resistance, murder. Colombia was shocked, SHOCKED! to find multinational big business in bed with the paramilitaries (President Álvaro Uribe didn't seem so bothered, though, given the steps he took at the time of the ruling).

Now, almost 400 family members of victims of the AUC have filed a civil suit against Chiquita, seeking $7.86 billion in damages (a fee that seems much fairer for sponsoring terrorism, widespread human rights violations, and murder than the $25 million court ruling). I don't know enough about civil cases (especially those involving multinationals) to predict how a case like this would work out. It strikes me that the $7.86 billion wouldn't actually be the final figure if the Colombian civilians won, but any major (hundreds-of-millions to billion) decision would be meaningful, I think. Chiquita really has to be punished severely for this, and given its enormous profits from its domination in the fruit sector, $25 million, while real money to you and me, is probably no more than a slap on the wrist for the company. One especially wants to see Chiquita bled dry in the face of their attitude towards this whole episode. Chiquita spokesman Michael Mitchell defended the company, claiming in the Times piece "that Chiquita and its employees were victims and that the actions taken by the company were always motivated to protect the lives of our employees and their families.”

Memo to Mitchell: when hundreds of people end up dead or dislocated thanks to your funding of a true terrorist group, you aren't the victim. Here's hoping Chiquita pays very VERY dearly for this.