A week ago, the Attorney General's Office of Colombia stated that financing paramilitary groups is a crime against humanity. The objective of this is to prevent investigations into the supporters of these groups, which committed such serious crimes, from going nowhere and ending up with no one charged.
In this context, the banana sector, represented by Juan Camilo Restrepo, president of Augura (an association that brings together all the banana companies), said that they did not provide any resources to self-defence groups; that the three cents on a dollar given to Convivir back in the day were donated legally, and that they will pay a visit to the Public Prosecutor's Office to attend to this court requirement.
Who does Augura bring together?
"It brings together producers and marketers of Colombian bananas. There are a total of 35,000 hectares in Uraba, where social responsibility has been considered a very important issue over the past 25 years, with more than 600,000 million pesos invested in road maintenance, education and health, and more than 13,000 housing solutions built for our workers. There is respect for union activities, and that is why this is a union with great strength, because of all it has done for Urabá. It has managed not to distance itself from the daily life of Uraba while bringing together 100 percent of all Uraba banana producers."
How are banana producers affected by the statement from the Public Prosecutor's Office, in which they assert that the crimes of financing paramilitary groups will not be prescribed?
"As long as bananas continue to be stigmatised, not only domestically, but also internationally, there is a risk of compromising the progress and stability of the area. When Uraba and the banana sector are stigmatised, what is threatened the most is the generation of employment, the stability of the area, or foreign trade. Besides, it is a stigmatisation that does no good to either the Uraba area or Colombia. When you go to the US or Europe and the headline is that paramilitary groups were sponsored by us, it just cannot be. Outside our borders, we are explaining that when you buy a Colombian bananas, what you are buying is reconciliation; an environmentally-friendly banana grown with respect for trade union activities and protection for the workforce, and which is certified by international standards."
But do the prosecution's indications go beyond a stigmatisation? Why has the research institution insisted for some years on this funding hypothesis?
"The Prosecutor's Office relies on some versions, but we are going to say that this is not true and show that our three cent contribution was made to a legal entity created by the State itself. If they say that that was sponsoring paramilitary groups, we say no: it was sponsoring entities which the state itself had created, promoted and audited. That is why we are going to go to the Prosecutor's Office, to make that great distinction in case the Office says that some of these groups, or some members, ended up in paramilitary groups. That cannot be blamed on the Colombian banana sector. It is not acceptable for the Colombian banana sector to listen to the call of the State and then end up being accused of sponsoring paramilitary groups by the same State.
But could these contributions to Convivir have become a front for channelling resources to self-defence groups?
"This is one of the versions in the hands of the Prosecutor's Office, but there is no sentence. The Office of the Prosecutor General has taken some testimony in Justice and Peace, and with these testimonies, the investigations are moving forward. There is no evidence backing these implications about the financing of paramilitary groups through the three cents in a dollar. That is why we will go to the Prosecutor's Office, to make a clear distinction between the actions of Chiquita Brands or multinationals and those adduced to Colombian banana producers. Chiquita acknowledged in North American courts that not only did it provide funding to paramilitaries, but it also helped with a shipment. That was proven, and the marketer was not Colombian. We didn't have to sponsor paramilitary groups because we, banana producers, did not create them.
Speaking of violence in Uraba, it was very intense in the 90's, and the displacement suffered by the banana sector hit many links in the chain. There have been abandoned farms and even murdered farm managers. When the paramilitaries entered from the north towards the banana axis, they were the dominating force and we the victims."
Did the banana sector at some point say that they would no longer continue donating the three cents to Convivir, which were legal, because it gave rise to paramilitary groups?
"The contributions stopped when the State, which had created it, caused it to disappear in 2004. This is the same state that promoted private security companies, and once it is finished, the contributions stopped. These three cents on a dollar were reflected in the accounting of the companies. It is not that we contributed under the table or under the intention of sponsoring paramilitary groups. We were convinced that this was the State.
But by 2004, when you stopped contributing to the Convivir, the paramilitaries created in Uraba were very much alive. Were you unaware about this situation?
"Totally. We attended a call from the state; we did not create paramilitary groups. Now, if some people from Convivir ended up becoming paramilitaries, why does that have to be the fault of the banana sector? The auditing, monitoring and follow ups were carried out by the State, and it was the State that put an end to them. You cannot tell me that because of an omission from the State, banana producers should have to pay for the suffering caused by the paramilitaries."
Is the argument of the three cents donated to the Convivir sufficient to prove to the Public Prosecutor that you did not finance the paramilitaries?
"That's the point. The proof that we knew that we were responding to a call from the State was their audit of the funds. That's a strong argument. They call us, they show us the Convivir, we contribute above board, then the State puts an end to them and we withdraw the donations. Chiquita will have to provide answers, but you cannot use the three cents as an argument to involve us with paramilitarism in Colombia."
Could you say that no banana entrepreneur financed paramilitary groups?
"The Colombian banana sector did not fund paramilitary groups through the three cents in any way. The responsibilities are individual, not business-wide; you cannot generalise and mix that with the Chiquita issue. The banana sector and Augura would not sponsor those groups and the case should be won in court."
Were banana growers the victims of guerrillas and paramilitaries? Were there extortions in this sector?
"There were displacements and murders of banana workers and of many entrepreneurs, all because of the absence of the State. When it was time to provide a solution it created private security companies. This was a national policy audited by the superintendent on duty."
What arguments do you have as a banana sector to face the accusations of paramilitaries like Raúl Hasbún, who was also a banana producer?
"By telling the truth, and if he went to the Prosecutor's Office to tell the truth, we will also go, as is our right as entrepreneurs, as people who have brought development to the area. What we cannot do is believe that development was brought to the area by the guerrillas or paramilitaries, and not by the banana sector, and the way to confirm that is by saying that the three cents on a dollar were not illegal; that they were donated responding to a call from the Government. It is unacceptable for the story to be told and frame us as the bad guys in the story."
Source: El colombiano
