Obama's Pick For Attorney General Has Banana Problems

Eric Holder, Chiquita defender and Obama pick for U.S. Attorney General.

I've gotten dozens of emails in the 48 hours since Eric Holder emerged as President-elect Barack Obama's choice as U.S. Attorney General. To summarize: Holder is a former deputy U.S. attorney general in the Clinton administration who has been described as a "long-time Obama advisor." He was part of the committee that helped Obama choose Joe Biden as vice-presidential nominee. Holder would be the nation's first African-American attorney general. He's currently in private practice with the law firm of Covington & Burling, which is where the banana trouble begins.

Here's the key part of the Wikipedia page on Holder that explains it (I urge you to read the whole entry, which summarizes his entire career.)

"In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represents Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case."

The civil action mentioned in the article is a lawsuit on behalf of the families of seven missionaries who were murdered by Colombia's United Self Defense Forces (AUC). The suit alleges that since Chiquita was funding the AUC at the times the killings occurred, the banana company bears some responsibility for them.

I agree, and I've blogged about the issue numerous times. Here are links to some of the previous entries:

• In May, the CBS News program "60 Minutes" did a segment on the Colombia-Chiquita story. It included an interview with Chiquita CEO Fernando Aguirre. Read (and view the interview) here.  

• Here's the entry about the lawsuits that Holder and his law firm, Covington and Burling, are defending Chiquita against. 

• The families of U.S. victims of the AUC aren't the only ones suing Chiquita. Similar cases have been brought by 400 Colombian families. My November, 2007 entry on is here.

So what to do about this?

Silence isn't an option. Anyone who reads this blog knows where my political sympathies lie. I was, and remain, and Obama supporter. I know that the Washington merry-go-round - and especially when it comes to attorneys - makes for strange bedfellows. I don't know if I'd excuse the fact that Holder represented Chiquita in negotiating the terms of the fine it paid to the Justice Department. But I know that representing the company against the families of the AUC victims is inexcusable. As my colleague Jason Glaser - whose upcoming documentary, "The Affected," directly illustrates how dangerous the lives of banana workers in Latin America are, even when they don't have to deal with terrorism - notes, "isn't it about time we have a lawyer in [the U.S. attorney general's] position from a plaintiff's firm [italics mine], someone who may have at one time served the interests of a mammal as opposed to a corporate entity?"

The liberal/progressive community is going to do a lot of hand-wringing about this. It needs to do more. We elected Obama - and we need to keep him honest. To fail to do so would be to write him the same kind of blank check that supporters of the previous administration handed over to the officials they elected. Holder owes us an explanation, though I don't see how any words from him could be convincing - especially to those in Latin America whose trust we have already lost. Getting Chiquita to agree  to agree to full disclosure and restitution would be an appropriate way for Holder to spend his remaining weeks in the private sector - and a good start.

So here's what to do.

First, learn about Holder - not just about his actions regarding Chiquita, but his entire career. Decide for yourself whether he deserves a pass. Then, use the network - the one we used so successfully to get Obama elected. Blog, Twitter, and email the links about Holder that you think are most important, good or bad (my Twitter handle is "soulbarn", if you want to follow my posts.) The point is to make sure the information gets out there. The most important thing we can do right now is establish, early, that transparency is one of the things we voted for on November 4th.  Our ability to spread this information quickly, and spark a public debate about it - rather than use this information simply in a destructive way - is key.  

Here are some good places to find out more about Holder, and to discuss the nomination. I invite you to add more links in the comment thread.

• Dan Kovalik, in the Huffington Post (11/18/08), not mincing words. Headline: "Lawyer for Chiquita in Colombia Death Squad Case May be Next U.S. Attorney General." 

• Discussion thread at Democratic Underground forums. 

• Slate's "Bananas of Mass Destruction" (2007), including Chiquita's court filings. 

• "The Trouble With Eric Holder," from The Nation, 11/18/08. Not just bananas - Holder, according to the story, also has some Patriot Act issues. 

• "Preliminary Facts and Thoughts About Eric Holder," from Salon, 11/18/08. A still-being-updated, roundup on Holder's dealings, positive and negative. 

Do you enjoy reading the Banana Blog? Consider making a donation to help keep the flow of banana news coming. Or buy my book.

Comments

[Seth]

I just read the book (from the library, sorry, I'm unemployed), it's great. I literally put it down and came to your blog, which I'll now follow.

Two questions about your attack of the Holder pick:

1. What is your response to Salon's quote in defense of Holder's work with Chiquita:

"Anybody who believes in core liberties should want even the most culpable parties to have zealous representation before the Government can impose punishments or other sanctions. Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system. Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that."

2. Your book describes how the banana companies have divested of most of their land holdings they used to have. You say they now prefer to be middlemen. But doesn't that make their involvement in Colombia something of an exemption? And don't you think that the AUC is still demanding similar bribes from whoever now owns the plantations?

[WWofP]

If every lawyer who had represented unsavory clients were barred from government service, there wouldn’t be many lawyers in Washington at all (which some people would argue would actually be a very good thing, indeed.)

From what I can gather, Holder is held in pretty high regard by both Democrats and Republicans. Most important: unlike most of Bush’s high-level appointments, Obama’s don’t appear to be narrow-minded ideologues. So far he seems to be selecting moderates, some of whom lean left and some more to the right. Again unlike Bush, Obama hasn’t so far picked any extremists. (Read David Brooks’ column in today’s Times.)

It’s always important to keep a skeptical eye on political appointees, but it’s virtually a foregone conclusion that all will have some sort of skeleton in the closet. But Obama’s qualification criteria appear to be really comprehensive and those, in and of themselves, should help screen out the truly unscrupulous and the truly dishonest.

[Dan]

Hi Seth -

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for reading the book (library users are welcome!)

I agree, completely, that Chiquita deserves the most vigorous defense possible. That our justice system grants that right is the best thing about it. But I believe that Holder having been that defender is an important thing to consider as he's considered for his new post.

The backstory in Chiquita's history is almost of invention of the kind of intervention that Obama himself campaigned against - so Holder's defending that company carries a lot of symbolic weight. I'm not against Holder, but I would like to hear him explain that he understands that burden, because people overseas who are hoping that Obama is serious about rebuilding America's shattered reputation certainly will appreciate that.

Your second point: I may be misinterpreting the question, so accept my apologies in advance if I am. There's still horrible stuff going on everywhere in the banana world at the subcontractor level, as well as at company-owned plantations (of which there are enough to still make a difference.) Do the banana companies have the ability to change it? Yes - even when the problems are related to guerilla movements, i.e. in the Philippines.) The answer is to work to change the banana supply chain, from beginning to end, so that there's more fairness and control at the local farm level.

Could Chiquita have done something else in Colombia? One place it could have started was by contextualizing its actions. The violence it helped continue in Colombia by paying the AUC was spawned, originally, but the instability it sponsored early part of the 20th century as it sought to control that country's banana supply.

I don't begrudge Chiquita a defense, or a right to exist, or thrive. Nor do I wish to see Holder shut out of a job that he'd probably be brilliant at (and pragmatically, this is Washington.) But shining a little bit of light into this one small debate could illuminate a century of ugliness - and even help heal some of it, perhaps.

- Dan

[Jay]

Dan,

You are just naive. You believed Obama represented "change", how very pathetic. Did you even understand what Rezko or Exelon was about?

McCain, the most honest politician around, one who repeatedly showed himself willing to incur political cost by doing the right thing, was real "change".

I predict that with time you will become increasingly cynical of all things Obama.

Jay