importers that held the licenses to import under the EU regime. These companies success in Europe depended on their corporate adaptability. Chiquita put themselves at risk by investing so heavily into the foreign market, that they could not easily restructure and adapt to change. Dole and Del Monte realized that they are in business, not in politics, and thus made a sound business decision to adapt to the new policy. Chiquita, on the other hand, pursued a legal and political course. In January of 2001, Chiquita filed a lawsuit claiming damages from the European Commission for not carrying out the EU’s commitment to reform its banana import regime to comply with the 1997 WTO rulings. The Commission’s actions also breach fundamental rights and general principles of EU law, such as non-discrimination and the freedom to pursue a trade or business. The U.S. government also has tried to help Chiquita by asking the European Union to end the barriers against imports of Latin American bananas. The Clinton Administration stepped up the pressure on the EU by imposing retaliatory sanctions on imports from Europe. The EU simply responded to this with threats to strike back with record sanctions on U.S. products. The Clinton administration backed off and did not proceed with the implementation of the newly enacted “carousel” law that would have sanctioned European imports to the U.S. It was not until 1999 that the EU even attempted to mend the problem. In January, in response to the EU’s mandate of WTO compliance, the European Commission amended the banana regime. However, a WTO panel ruled in April of 1999 that these amendments actually perpetuated the WTO incompatibility of the original banana import regime (PR Newswire). With the start of the new U.S. administration, the EU has a real opportunity to improve trans-Atlantic trade relations by ending its protectionist policies and abiding by international...
