other trade negotiations because it continues a managed market instead of an open, competitive system. Chairman of Dole Foods, David Murdock charged that “the continued effort by the US Trade Representative to force a different solution is just a naked political effort to achieve a one-company solution for Chiquita. Chiquita’s ultimate aim is to gain a guaranteed market share that is disproportionately greater than every other participant.” (Alden). This accusation is not entirely fair to the U.S. government. The government may be pursuing the same goals as Chiquita, but they are not doing it only for Chiquita’s benefit. Their trade negotiations will affect every banana producer and even banana consumers at home and abroad. However, Murdock’s claim against Chiquita is well founded. It seems as though Chiquita is trying to unfairly regain its old market share. The companies goal should be movement toward fair trade, but they oppose such propositions. They propose a closed system based on market shares from five to ten years ago, a time when their market share was the greatest. Chiquita does have a valid claim in their lawsuit against the European Commission. The Commission did ignore the WTO and some of the bylaws of the EU, which resulted in further losses by Chiquita. The European Union did recognize their fault in the past decade, and they are attempting to reform toward fair trade. The EU should pay the reparations that Chiquita is seeking, and pursue further trade negotiations with the US with a goal toward a fair, WTO compliant system. Chiquita should focus their attention on their lawsuit and on restructuring their debt. They already have incurred their losses, and they cannot make up for them. The only thing Chiquita can do from here is to move forward with hope of fair trade so that they can once again, gain a significant share in European markets.Currently, the EU and the US avoided a...
