E-mail:
icbl@icbl.orgWebmaster: webmaster@icbl.org
Webversion/Compilation © www.icbl.org 1998
Posted 11/12/98 by kk
|
Prepared for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia10-15 November 1998I. SUMMARY II. BACKGROUND III. TREATY SIGNATORIES |
As of 20 October 1998, 133 countries have signed or acceded to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On their Destruction (also known as the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty) and forty-seven have ratified or acceded to it. This comprehensive treaty prohibits, in all circumstances, any use of antipersonnel landmines. It also requires that stockpiles be destroyed within four years of the treaty's entry into force, and that mines already in the ground be destroyed within ten years. It calls on governments to provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation of mine victims.
This Fact Sheet was prepared for distribution at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 10-15 November 1998, in an effort to better inform governments and non-governmental organizations about the current status of the global effort to ban antipersonnel landmines, and the ban positions of APEC nations. While APEC is primarily an economic forum, antipersonnel landmines represent an immense economic problem for nations such as Cambodia struggling to rebuild after decades of conflict. Human Rights Watch calls on the five APEC members that have not signed the Mine Ban Treaty to do so immediately and the eight APEC members that have signed but not yet ratified to do so as soon as possible. Human Rights Watch calls on all APEC members to devote greater resources to global mine clearance and victim assistance programs.
The eighteen members of APEC include some of the world’s strongest supporters and opponents of an international ban on antipersonnel mines. Eleven APEC members have signed the Mine Ban Treaty to date (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines and Thailand), three of which have already ratified (Canada, Japan and Mexico). Five APEC members are not signatories (China, Republic of Korea, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and the USA). Four of these are producers of antipersonnel mines (China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and the USA). On the positive side, all four producers have declared that they no longer export antipersonnel mines, and every member of APEC has openly acknowledged the global humanitarian crisis caused by antipersonnel mines.
This Fact Sheet will examine the antipersonnel mine policies and actions of APEC members, including their participation in the “Ottawa Process” leading to the ban treaty, their sponsorship of relevant UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions, attendance in key meetings of the process, and other factors.
The region of the Asia-Pacific includes several countries heavily affected by the presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. No APEC member is severely affected by landmines, although civilians are at risk from mines in Chile, China, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, and Thailand. The demilitarized zone between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is heavily mined. Thailand's borders with Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos are littered with uncleared landmines as is China's border with Vietnam. Different parties to the internal conflicts in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea have used landmines, and at least in the latter, World War II mines pose a lingering problem. Chile's borders have uncleared landmines.
Among the APEC members are countries which played a key role in the “core group” of governments leading the Ottawa Process toward the treaty signing (namely Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines) and those most resistant to a total ban on antipersonnel landmines such as China and the Republic of Korea. Many APEC nations have stockpiles of antipersonnel mines. Three of the four APEC mine producers were major mine exporters in the past (China, USA, and Singapore), though all have declared that they no longer export antipersonnel mines.
The Canadian government-sponsored strategy conference held in Ottawa, from 3-5 October 1996 marked a turning point in the global movement toward a total ban on landmines. Fifty pro-ban governments (including seven APEC members - Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines and the USA), twenty-four observer states (including Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia and Republic of Korea), dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representing the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other international and United Nations agencies convened in Ottawa to strategize on ways to reach a total ban on antipersonnel mines. States agreed to a Final Declaration, committing to seek the earliest possible conclusion of a legally-binding agreement to ban the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of antipersonnel mines. Perhaps more importantly, the participants developed a Chairman’s Agenda for Action, which laid out concrete steps at the international, regional and national levels for achieving a ban rapidly. And in a dramatic announcement at the end of the conference, Canada’s Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy stated that Canada would host a ban treaty signing conference in December 1997. The success of what has come to be known as the “Ottawa Process” has been stunning.
On 10 December 1996, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 51/45S, which urged all states to pursue vigorously an international agreement banning antipersonnel landmines, was passed 156-0, with only ten abstentions, including two APEC members -- China and the Republic of Korea.
Austria hosted a meeting from 12-14 February 1997 to begin discussions of the elements of the ban treaty. Prior to the meeting Austria circulated a draft ban treaty text which served as the basis for discussion. One hundred and eleven governments participated, though many of them were not prepared to commit to a December 1997 deadline. Twelve APEC members were in attendance. Subsequently, Germany hosted a technical meeting on possible verification measures for the ban treaty in late April 1997, which 120 governments attended, including twelve APEC members.
Belgium hosted a critical conference in late June 1997 in which 107 governments agreed to a declaration endorsing the principles of the Austrian draft ban treaty, the negotiation of the treaty in Oslo in September 1997, and the signing of the ban treaty in Ottawa in December. Thirteen APEC members attended, six of which endorsed the Brussels declaration by the end of the meeting.
Eighty-nine governments came to Oslo, Norway as full participants (and another thirty-two as observers) to negotiate the ban treaty from 1-18 September 1997. The treaty prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. It requires that stockpiles be destroyed within four years of the treaty's entry into force, and that mines already in the ground be destroyed within ten years. It also requires state parties to provide detailed information about antipersonnel mine stockpiles and minefields. It calls on states to provide assistance for care and rehabilitation of mine victims. It is a treaty strongly supported by the ICBL and ICRC. Ten countries of the region (Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines and the U.S.) attended the Oslo negotiations as full participants and five as observers (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand). Only China, in keeping with its non-attendance at previous meetings of the Ottawa Process, did not attend. Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) and Hong Kong were not eligible to attend.
Following Oslo, Canada introduced a U.N. resolution (UNGA Resolution 52/38A), supporting the December treaty signing, which was passed by the General Assembly 127-0 with nineteen abstentions, including APEC members (China, Republic of Korea). The United States, Singapore and Papua New Guinea voted for the resolution, but still have not signed the treaty.
On 3-4 December 1997, in Ottawa, Canada 122 countries signed the Mine Ban Treaty, including Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines and Thailand (eleven out of the sixteen eligible APEC members). China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and the U.S. sent representatives to witness the signing ceremonies. Papua New Guinea, a supporter of the Ottawa Process, was absent. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called the treaty “a landmark step in the history of disarmament.” About this, there is no doubt. I am confident that it will provide the final impetus for a universal ban, encompassing all mine-producing and mine-affected countries. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and its coordinator Jody Williams, were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on 10 December 1997, largely because of their role in making the treaty a reality.
Top priorities for the ICBL in 1998 include speedy ratification of the treaty and convincing new governments to sign. After the signing ceremony in Ottawa, the treaty was opened for signature at the United Nations in New York, where nine more nations have signed and two have acceded, making for a total of 133. With the deposit at the United Nations of Burkina Faso's instrument of ratification on September 16, 1998, the forty ratifications necessary for the treaty to take effect occurred in less than ten months - a record in any disarmament or humanitarian law treaty. The treaty will now enter into force -- become binding international law - on March 1, 1999. Only then does the clock start ticking on the crucial requirements to destroy stocks within four years and emplaced mines within ten years. The first meeting of States Parties is scheduled for 3-7 May 1999 in Maputo, Mozambique.
A further challenge is monitoring the implementation of and compliance with the treaty. The treaty requires states to submit an annual report on their compliance to the U.N., which will then make it available for public scrutiny. But NGOs are worried that this is not enough and that there needs to be an annual independent assessment of progress. There also needs to be an inventory of progress in mine clearance and victim assistance, and abuses of the Mine Ban Treaty must be exposed. Some lead members of the ICBL, including Human Rights Watch, have formed “Landmine Monitor” with the intention of carrying out these monitoring functions. “Landmine Monitor” consists of a global reporting network, a database, and production of an annual report in advance of the annual meetings of states parties.
The other international instrument dealing with landmines is the CCW Landmines Protocol. The Landmines Protocol is not a total prohibition but rather a complicated series of rules on the use of landmines. A two-and-a-half-year review of the CCW at United Nations meetings in Geneva and Vienna ended on 3 May 1996 having failed to adequately address the humanitarian crisis caused by landmines with only weak amendments to Protocol II. To date, over 70 countries have ratified or acceded to the original 1980 CCW and at least 20 countries have ratified the amended Landmines Protocol, which will now enter into force on 3 December 1998. The CCW, along with its Landmines Protocol, will be reviewed again in 2001.
While there have been a number of regional initiatives on landmines by non-governmental organizations in the Asia-Pacific, regional actions by governments have been lacking in contrast to regional initiatives or resolutions on landmines taken by other regional bodies such as the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States and the European Union. It is notable that all of APEC's members (with the exceptions of Chile, Hong Kong, Mexico, Taiwan) are also members of ASEAN's Regional Forum (ARF). In July 1998, at the Fifth ASEAN Regional Forum in Manila, ARF made a weak declaration on landmines, "noting" the conclusion of the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa and "welcoming" the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to re-appoint a Special Coordinator on landmines. ARF members agreed to support initiatives to enhance international cooperation on demining, removal of unexploded ordnance, and victims' assistance toward the goal of "zero victims".
This Special Coordinator, Australian diplomat Ambassador John Campbell, has spent two years now (1997 and 1998 ) in fruitless attempts to place landmines on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the United Nations forum for arms control negotiations located in Geneva, Switzerland with 61 member states (including Australia, Canada, China, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and the U.S.A.). It has proved impossible to achieve a mandate among CD members to negotiate a transfer ban on antipersonnel mines. Human Rights Watch believes that such an effort could be counter-productive to the overall objective of a total ban on the weapon.
The Mine Ban Treaty marks a watershed in disarmament and humanitarian law endeavors. Its unique blend of NGO and government activity and cooperation is clearly a new post-Cold War development. The challenge is to ensure the Mine Ban Treaty is not just beautiful words on paper but that it becomes binding international law and is fully implemented, so that it brings about an end to the scourge of landmines. The nations of the Asia-Pacific should heed the call of humanity and ban antipersonnel landmines now, so that no more children and other innocent civilians will be injured or killed by antipersonnel mines in the next century. This is happening on Asia's doorstep every day in countries such as Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The way to end this carnage now is to sign, ratify and implement the Mine Ban Treaty. In December 1997, Cambodian landmine survivor and ban campaigner Tun Channereth accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. His message continues to be heard:
My country is a handicapped country, a country where good land is planted with mines instead of rice, where women collect wood in fear, where children are afraid to run and play freely in the fields, where families are displaced from their homes. Support the ICBL in its goals: 1) a ban on landmines; 2) lands demined; 3) the development of people and communities victimized by mines.
Eleven of the eligible sixteen APEC members have signed the treaty to date (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines and Thailand) and three have ratified (Canada, Japan and Mexico).
Australia is not mine-affected. It has devoted considerable resources to mine action programs. In April 1996 Australia announced its support for a total ban. It participated throughout the Ottawa Process while at the same time indicating its willingness, even preference, for negotiations on a ban on antipersonnel mines through the Conference on Disarmament. In November 1997, Australia finally announced its intent to sign the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa in December. Australia has not yet ratified the treaty.
Brunei does not have a landmine problem. Brunei voted "Yes" on the December 1996 UNGA Resolution, but did not endorse the Brussels Declaration and attended the Oslo Negotiations only as an observer. Brunei however signed the treaty in December 1997. It has not yet ratified.
Canada is not mine-affected. In January 1996 Canada announced a moratorium on the production, transfer and operational use of antipersonnel mines. By May 1996, Canada had offered to host an international strategy meeting for those nations interested in pursuing a ban on the weapon. This October 1996 meeting in Ottawa, Canada marked the beginning of what became known as the “Ottawa Process,” culminating in the December 1997 treaty signing by 122 nations. On 3 December 1997, Canada was the first nation to sign and ratify the Mine Ban Treaty. Canada has played an unsurpassed leadership role in the effort to ban mines, and continues to put the necessary financial and political resources into the ratification, universalization and implementation of the treaty, as well as mine clearance and victim assistance programs.
Over 500,000 landmines were laid by Chile over the last three decades in its border disputes with Argentina, Bolivia and Peru. Victims of these mines are usually civilians. The cost of removing these mines is estimated at between $300 and $600 million. Chile is a former producer of mines. Chile took part in meetings of the Ottawa process and signed the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa in December 1997. Ratification by the national assembly is currently underway.
Indonesia does not have an antipersonnel mine problem. Indonesia states that it has never produced, exported or used antipersonnel mines. It voted for the December 1996 UNGA resolution and attended the Vienna and Bonn preparatory meetings. Indonesia, however, did not endorse the Brussels Declaration and came to the Oslo negotiations only as an observer. Still, Indonesia did sign the treaty in Ottawa in December 1997. It has not yet ratified.
Japan is not mine-affected. Japan's position in support of the U.S. and against the ban treaty changed in October 1997 when then-Foreign Minister Keizo Obuchi announced his nation’s intent to sign the treaty in December 1997. On 30 September 1998, Japan became the forty-fifth nation to ratify the treaty. Japan has devoted considerable resources to mine clearance and mine victim assistance programs. Japan, a former producer of mines, holds about one million antipersonnel mines and plans to start reducing the stockpile by destroying 220,000 in 1999. A new law enacted by the Diet imposes punishment of up to seven years in prison for the production and possession of antipersonnel mines.
NGOs are concerned that the government of Japan has apparently decided to allow the United States to maintain U.S. antipersonnel mines, intended for use in Korea, at U.S. military bases in Japan. The ICBL believes this would constitute a violation of the treaty.
There is a problem of uncleared mines from the long guerrilla insurgency mounted by the Communist Party of Malaysia in the mountainous and remote areas along the Malaysia/Thailand border. Malaysia does not produce or export mines and its stockpile is unknown. Malaysia was one of the first nations to express support for an immediate ban on anti-personnel mines in remarks the UN General Assembly in December 1994. Malaysia voted "Yes" on UNGA Resolution 51/45S and endorsed the Brussels Declaration. Malaysia participated in the Oslo Negotiations and signed the Treaty in December 1997. It has not yet ratified.
Mexico is not believed to be mine-affected. Mexico was one of the first nations to call for a ban on antipersonnel mines and was a member of the original core group of nations promoting the Ottawa Process. It became the seventeenth nation to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty on 9 June 1998. Mexico has stated that it has no stockpile of antipersonnel mines and has never used antipersonnel mines.
New Zealand does not have a problem with uncleared landmines. It signaled its support for a ban on antipersonnel mines in October 1995 and participated in the Ottawa Process, signing the treaty in Ottawa in December 1997. New Zealand has devoted funding and resources to mine action programs. It has not yet ratified the Mine Ban Treaty.
Both the Armed Forces of the Philippines and rebel groups such as the National Democratic Front and the Moro National Liberation Front have used mines. Cease-fire agreements have addressed the use of landmines as hostile acts. The Philippines announced its support for a ban on the weapon in a presidential statement issued in December 1995. It became part of the governmental core group driving the Ottawa Process, attended the Oslo Negotiations and signed the treaty in December 1997. It has not yet ratified the mine ban treaty despite recent calls by a number of Philippine senators to ratify as soon as possible.
Thailand's borders with Burma/Myanmar, Laos and Thailand are mine-affected with a number of resultant civilian casualties. Mines were also used extensively along the frontier with Thailand during the many wars in Cambodia. Thailand has produced mines in the past. Thailand did not endorse the Brussels Declaration and attended the Oslo Negotiations only as an observer but signed the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa in December 1997. It has not yet ratified.
Two APEC members are not eligible to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty - Hong Kong (China) and "Chinese Taipei" (Taiwan). Five APEC members out of the remaining sixteen have not signed the treaty - China, Republic of Korea, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and the USA.
China is one of the world biggest producers and suppliers of antipersonnel landmines. China's conventional antipersonnel mines, many of them based on Soviet designs, are among the cheapest and most commonly available in the world. China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) produces at least four types of antipersonnel mines. Chinese-made mines claim casualties in dozens countries around the world including Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique and Somalia. China's southern border with Vietnam is mined from the 1979 border war between the two countries; China has been undertaking an extensive mine clearance effort in the area since June 1998.
China has been one of the nations most hostile to the global mine ban movement. It did not take part in meetings of the Ottawa Process but did send representatives to observe the treaty signing in December 1997. It abstained on relevant UNGA landmines resolutions. On the positive side, China claims to have not exported antipersonnel mines since 1995 and says it has stopped production of mines for export. China is believed to hold a huge stockpile of antipersonnel mines, numbering at least in the tens of millions.
During President Clinton's visit in July 1998, a "Sino-U.S. Presidential Joint Statement on Anti-Personnel Landmines" was issued in which China and the United States "reaffirmed their commitment to ending the crisis caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines," and promoted the Amended Protocol II of the CCW along with negotiations on a transfer ban through the Conference on Disarmament. In July 1998, China published its second national defense "white" paper advocating limited restrictions on use and transfer of antipersonnel landmines.
The Republic of Korea has been identified as a producer of at least three kinds of antipersonnel landmines but it currently has a moratorium on export in place. It possesses a considerable stockpile of antipersonnel mines. It abstained from relevant UNGA landmines resolutions and had minimal participation in the Ottawa Process meetings. The Republic of Korea was present in Ottawa in December 1998 to observe the treaty signing.
Uncleared mines cause civilian and military casualties as mines shift during heavy rains, floods or mudslides into civilian areas or as fences and warning signs deteriorate over time. U.S. war plans call for one million "dumb" antipersonnel mines to be planted over a large area of South Korea, not in the DMZ. These mines would likely cause the type of long-term humanitarian disaster seen in so many other parts of the world. Pentagon war games show that the U.S. and ROK win a war and do not lose Seoul with or without antipersonnel mines.
Papua New Guinea has uncleared landmines and unexploded ordnance left over from World War II. A limited number of landmines and booby traps have been deployed by parties to the conflict in Bougainville. Papua New Guinea's stockpile of antipersonnel mines is unknown. Papua New Guinea voted "Yes" on the relevant UNGA resolutions and participated in many meetings of the Ottawa process, endorsing the Brussels Declaration and fully participating in the Oslo treaty negotiations. However, Papua New Guinea failed to show up in December 1997 at the treaty signing ceremonies in Ottawa and has not yet signed the Mine Ban Treaty.
Singapore is one of the major antipersonnel landmine producers in the developing world. Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS) produces two antipersonnel mines originated by Italy's Valsella. Press reports identified Singapore as one of the conduits for sales of Valsella-designed mines to Iraq and a partly-declassified U.S. Army Intelligence study confirms that the Singapore-made mines were found in Iraqi arsenals. Singapore produces the SPM-1 (like the Italian VS-50) and the Valmara 69.
In May 1996 Singapore declared a two-year limited moratorium on exports of non-self destruct and non-detectable anti-personnel mines. However, it has maintained that anti-personnel landmines are needed for "legitimate self-defense." Singapore voted "Yes" on December 1996 UNGA Resolution but did not endorse the Brussels Declaration and attended the Oslo Negotiations only as an observer. Although it also voted “Yes” on the 1997 UNGA resolution endorsing the ban treaty, Singapore has not signed the treaty. On 5 February 1998 Singapore announced an indefinite extension of its moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines.
As one of the first nations to call for the elimination of antipersonnel landmines, the U.S. finds itself in the awkward position of continuing to resist calls to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty now. In May 1998, the Clinton Administration for the first time announced U.S. intention to sign the treaty - but only in the year 2006 and only if suitable alternatives to landmines were developed by that time. The new policy acknowledges that antipersonnel mines contained in U.S. mixed-munition systems must also be eliminated. Many military experts have said that alternative tactics and technologies already exist for antipersonnel mines.
In June 1998, ahead of schedule, the destruction of over 3.3 million U.S. non self-destructing or “dumb” antipersonnel mines was completed. The U.S. however continues to retain one million deadly “dumb” mines for use in Korea and has approximately ten million stockpiled self-destructing antipersonnel mines. The U.S. has also refused to announce a moratorium or ban on production of antipersonnel mines.
The U.S. has pressured its NATO and other allies, including Japan, who have signed the treaty to allow continued U.S. stockpiling of antipersonnel mines on their territories. The ICBL believes a State Party would be in violation of the treaty if it permitted the permanent stockpiling of US antipersonnel mines. The U.S. has also pressured treaty signatories to narrowly define the meaning of the word "transfer" in the treaty to not include "transit" of antipersonnel mines. Again, the ICBL believes it would be a violation of the treaty for a State Party to knowingly permit another nation to transit mines through its territory. The treaty prohibits State Parties from assisting anyone with an action prohibited by the treaty. It is certainly against the spirit of the treaty for signatories that have declared the weapon illegal to allow other nations to continue to stockpile them or transit them for use in battle.
# # #
This Fact Sheet was prepared by Mary Wareham, Senior Advocate for the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, in October 1998. Sections of this Fact Sheet are drawn from an August 1998 Human Rights Watch and the South Africa Campaign to Ban Landmines (SACBL) Report by Noel Stott and Alex Vines entitled “The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Global Campaign Against Anti-Personnel Landmines.”
Mary Wareham
Senior Advocate, Arms Division
Human Rights Watch
1522 K St. NW, #910
Washington DC 20005
Tel.
+1-202-371-6592
Fax. +1-202-371-0124
email.
wareham@hrw.org or
http://www.hrw.org
Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.
We stand with victims and activists to bring offenders to justice, to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom and to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime.
We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.
We challenge governments and those holding power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.
We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.
The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Michele Alexander, development director; Reed Brody, advocacy director; Carroll Bogert, communications director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Barbara Guglielmo, finance and administration director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Patrick Minges, publications director; Susan Osnos, associate director; Jemera Rone, counsel; Wilder Tayler, general counsel; and Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative. Jonathan Fanton is the chair of the board. Robert L. Bernstein is the founding chair.
Its Arms Division was established in 1992 to monitor and prevent arms transfers to governments or organizations that commit gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and the rules of war and promote freedom of information regarding arms transfers worldwide. Joost R. Hiltermann is the executive director; Stephen D. Goose is the program director; Loretta Bondì is the advocacy coordinator; Mary Wareham is the senior advocate; Ernst Jan Hogendoorn and Alex Vines are research associates; Sharda Sekaran is the associate; William M. Arkin and Monica Schurtman are consultants. Torsten N. Wiesel is the chair of the advisory committee and Nicole Ball and Vincent McGee are the vice-chairs.
Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org
E-mail:
icbl@icbl.org
Webmaster:
webmaster@icbl.org
Webversion/Compilation
© www.icbl.org
1998
Posted 11/12/98 by kk