An especially egregious example was confirmed in 2018 when two former Ford Motor Company executives in Argentina were convicted of crimes against humanity for their cooperation with the military dictatorship in operations leading to the kidnapping and murder of twenty-four labor activists (link). The crimes occurred during the dictatorship of the 1970s, and the trial of executives and military officers culminated in 2018. Here is the summary of facts provided in the New York Times story:
A three-judge panel sentenced Pedro Mรผller, 87, then a manufacturing director at a Ford factory in Buenos Aires province, to 10 years, and Hรฉctor Francisco Sibilla, 92, then the security manager at the plant, to 12 years for assisting in the kidnapping and torture of their colleagues.
The two executives โallowed a detention center to be set up inside the premises of that factory, in the recreational area, so that the abductees could be interrogated,โ according to court papers.
These judicial findings establish the inexcusable behavior of Ford Motor Argentina. The question arises here, as it did in the case of Ford Werke during the Holocaust, the level of knowledge and control possessed by Ford Motor's parent corporation. This question is addressed in the New York Times article as well:
โIt is clear that Ford Motor Company had control of the Argentinian subsidiary during the โ70s,โ said Mr. Ojea Quintana. โTherefore, there is a direct responsibility of Ford Motor Company and that might give us the possibility to bring the case to the U.S. courts.โ
Ford said in a statement the company was โaware of the verdict about the supposed participation of ex-employees of the firm in events related to human rights in the โ70s.โ The company added that it โalways had an open and collaborative attitude with judicial authorities supplying all the available information.โ
It is evident that Ford's corporate position on its responsibility for these atrocities was ambivalent. The statement that the corporate headquarters is "aware of the verdict" is quite different from "FMC acknowledges and expresses remorse for these crimes that occurred in its Argentine subsidiary in the 1970s."ย
Victoria Basualdo, Tomรกs Ojea Quintana, and Carolina Varsky address these issues of corporate responsibility in greater detail in "The Cases of Ford and Mercedes Benz", contained in The Economic Accomplices of the Argentine Dictatorship. In their very informative chapter they describe the background of the crimes committed at the Pacheco manufacturing plant in the 1970s:
An especially egregious example was confirmed in 2018 when two former Ford Motor Company executives in Argentina were convicted of crimes against humanity for their cooperation with the military dictatorship in operations leading to the kidnapping and murder of twenty-four labor activists (link). The crimes occurred during the dictatorship of the 1970s, and the trial of executives and military officers culminated in 2018. Here is the summary of facts provided in the New York Times story:
A three-judge panel sentenced Pedro Mรผller, 87, then a manufacturing director at a Ford factory in Buenos Aires province, to 10 years, and Hรฉctor Francisco Sibilla, 92, then the security manager at the plant, to 12 years for assisting in the kidnapping and torture of their colleagues.
The two executives โallowed a detention center to be set up inside the premises of that factory, in the recreational area, so that the abductees could be interrogated,โ according to court papers.
These judicial findings establish the inexcusable behavior of Ford Motor Argentina. The question arises here, as it did in the case of Ford Werke during the Holocaust, the level of knowledge and control possessed by Ford Motor's parent corporation. This question is addressed in the New York Times article as well:
โIt is clear that Ford Motor Company had control of the Argentinian subsidiary during the โ70s,โ said Mr. Ojea Quintana. โTherefore, there is a direct responsibility of Ford Motor Company and that might give us the possibility to bring the case to the U.S. courts.โ
Ford said in a statement the company was โaware of the verdict about the supposed participation of ex-employees of the firm in events related to human rights in the โ70s.โ The company added that it โalways had an open and collaborative attitude with judicial authorities supplying all the available information.โ
It is evident that Ford's corporate position on its responsibility for these atrocities was ambivalent. The statement that the corporate headquarters is "aware of the verdict" is quite different from "FMC acknowledges and expresses remorse for these crimes that occurred in its Argentine subsidiary in the 1970s."ย
Victoria Basualdo, Tomรกs Ojea Quintana, and Carolina Varsky address these issues of corporate responsibility in greater detail in "The Cases of Ford and Mercedes Benz", contained in The Economic Accomplices of the Argentine Dictatorship. In their very informative chapter they describe the background of the crimes committed at the Pacheco manufacturing plant in the 1970s: