|
|
|
| |
| |
Statements Archive |
LAST UPDATE
September 27, 2005
|
|
|
| August 30, 2005 |
Voices from Japan's NGOs to the Millennium +5 Summit |
|
| |
 |
| The audience at the August 30 Public Forum on UN Reform |
As part of the Japan NGO Network on UN Reform, Peace Boat has been active in compiling the following set of recommendations entitled "Joint Proposal by NGOs on UN Reform", which was produced through collaborative efforts among Japanese NGOs working
on peace, development, and human rights. It contains concrete proposals on specific points to be included in the Outcome Document of the Millennium +5 Summit, being held between September 14-16, 2005 at the UN Headquarters in New York, as well as proposals for UN structural reform.
The three NGOs coordinating the Network - Peace Boat, Japan International Volunteer Center, and the Shimin Gaikou Centre - held a Public Forum, in co-sponsorship with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, on August 30, 2005 with the objective of having a comprehensive policy consultation prior to the Summit. This Joint Proposal served as a background document. |
site design imagesparkle.com |
Joint Proposal by NGOs on UN Reform
28 June, 2005
1. Principles for UN Reform
1) Restoring Credibility
The most important issue in the current UN reform is the need to restore its credibility. For that purpose, the UN has to refrain under any circumstances from maintaining or enlarging existing privileges, or allowing double standards applied by particular Member States to undermine the credibility of the UN as a whole.
• In pushing for reforms, all Member States should clearly recognize that the use of double standards by particular Member States with political, economic and military powers has led to the increase in distrust towards the UN, as was seen in the war against Iraq.
• It should be clearly borne in mind that terrorism and its proliferation are caused by the feeling of unfairness, injustice and distrust arising from the double standards created by the war against terror and the counter-terrorism policies, as well as the policies of economic globalization.
2) The Importance of Universality
The fact that international human rights laws and humanitarian laws are applied equally to all individuals in all Member States, regardless of whether they are large or small, developing or developed, and that all these States are monitored equally regarding their progress in implementing these human rights and humanitarian laws should be reaffirmed. It should also be reaffirmed that international human rights laws and humanitarian laws are applied equally to the UN organs, other international bodies, civil society organizations and the private sector working with the UN, and their compliance monitored. Further, there has been an increase in incidences of states, which take an active interest in refugee issues elsewhere, showing strict response to refugees seeking asylum within their own borders. Even for these issues regarding human security, the UN should engage in active response, under the principle of universality.
3) The Importance of the Rights-based Approach
The victims of poverty, discrimination and violence exist in the entrenched social structures, which enable these afflictions to thrive. It should be recognized that the transformation of the social structures cannot be achieved through promotion of mutual understanding and building of support systems such as vocational training and rehabilitation alone. Many of the issues, in which the UN is involved, such as poverty, discrimination and violence, arise from the deprivation of various rights of the victims. For a long-term solution, the restoration of the rights, such as that of self-determination, to land and water, to education, and to access to resource, should be ensured to these victims.
• The UN and the Member States should recognize the need for a rights-based approach in solving the issues, and should implement the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Plan of Action (A/59/2005/Add.3) which emphasizes the need for the rights-based or human rights-based approach.
4) Remedies for Vulnerable or Marginalized Groups
The “Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” adopted as a target for achievement for the new millennium at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held just before 9.11 should be reaffirmed. In particular, the importance of providing various forms of remedies in all areas including human security, development, human rights, environment and education, proposed therein, for vulnerable and marginalized victims should be clearly recognized.
• A programme of remedies for various groups of victims, such as minorities, indigenous peoples and victims of trafficking should be clarified. A more detailed “Plan of Action for UN Reform” should be prepared from this perspective after the decision on the overall direction of the UN reforms in September.
5) Strengthening the Financial Basis to Enhance Credibility
The non-payment of contributions, unilateral withdrawal of contributing states from certain UN specialized agencies, opaque pressure regarding the use of contributions were all factors leading to the decline in the credibility of the UN. If the current financial structure of the UN is maintained, whatever efficiency is sought for in the administration, policy planning and implementation, there are no guarantees that there will be no control or undue interference by particular states. Such incidences will lead to further undermining of the UN credibility. A more neutral financial source is needed for the fair implementation of policies.
• In order to keep the financial structure free from politicization, promotion of initiatives such as the establishment of a “deposit fund” or those securing its own funding source similar to the Tobin tax is recommended.
• The UN Information Center should provide information to the public in the Member States, not only on the activities of the UN, but also on its financial situation and promote direct contribution from the public to the voluntary funds established under various UN organs.
6) Staff Training
UN organs have increasingly conducted training programmes for personnel in various countries in areas such as security, peace-building, development and human rights. It happens all too often, however, that the UN staff themselves, who plan these programmes, lack basic knowledge and comprehensive understanding of international humanitarian laws, social rights, right to environment and international human rights. Systematic and effective human rights education for personnel taking part in peace-keeping and peace-building operations, prior to their deployment is indispensable along with the non-impunity and punishment of perpetrators in the prevention of abuse and misconduct by UN personnel in these activities.
• Human rights education including women’s and children’s rights, rights of minorities and indigenous peoples as necessary, along with education on international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be provided for all personnel taking part in peace-keeping and peacebuilding prior to their deployment.
• Comprehensive and basic education on rights, such as civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, rights of minorities and indigenous peoples should be provided for all UN and specialized agency staff, with education on additional human rights areas appropriate for each organ.
|
| |
2. Peace
The world in the 21st century stepped into a new era of wars, of the “chain of violence,” including attacks targeting non-combatant civilians, military build-up and increasing military preparedness in the states, the war on terror by the U.S. as the single superpower, and armament and violence by non-state actors. This is the time we should reaffirm the significance of the UN Charter, as well as the Constitution of Japan, the ideas of which were built on the calamities of the wars in the first half of the 20th century, and to recognize the non-violent resolution of disputes as the basic principle. Concrete security policies should be developed and implemented to that end.
In this 60th anniversary of the end of World War II and the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan should take the lead in international negotiation for this purpose.
1) Conflict Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should reaffirm the two major principles of “shift from reaction to prevention” and “peaceful settlement” in responding to armed conflict, whether international or internal.
• It should also adopt “human security” as the basic principle. Conflict prevention and peaceful settlement based on human rights and human security should apply to internal conflicts and violence by non-state actors.
• Member States should make more effective use of the measures for pacific settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. They should make full use of the International Court of Justice and procedures under international treaties.
• The UN should acknowledge that conflict-sensitive approach to development and regular monitoring of human rights situations contribute to conflict prevention. It should elaborate a ”Long-Term Strategy on Development and Human Rights for Conflict Prevention.”
2) Disarmament
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should endorse the Expert Report “Disarmament and Development” (May 2004) and call for global reduction in military expenditure. States with larger military expenditure have the responsibility to take the first steps, and Japan, along with the United States also has a special responsibility in this regard.
• The UN should discuss the issue of military bases under the agenda item “disarmament and development.” The United Nations Environment Programme and other UN organs should study the damages brought on human beings and the environment by the existence of military bases.
• Member States should make coordinated efforts to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The CD should immediately respond to issues of nuclear disarmament, production ban on fissile materials and prohibition of arms race in outer space.
3) Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should call for coordinated efforts by the Member States to revitalize the deadlocked NPT process. Japan, as the country that was devastated by nuclear weapons, has a special responsibility to take the lead in the international negotiations in this regard.
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should reaffirm the disarmament obligation of nuclear-weapon States and declare ban on development of new generation of nuclear weapons and threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should call for the immediate commencement of negotiation for a universal and verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty as well as adopt a decision on a temporary halt on uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing.
4) Regional Security
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should make an appeal for confidence building and tension-alleviation measures in regions with military tensions and territorial conflicts.
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should express support for the Six-Party Talks, and explicitly refer to the need for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia. Japan should initiate regional confidence-building measures including the prohibition of military exercises close to conflict and tension areas and establishment of Demilitarized Zones.
5) Use of Force
• The Outcome Document of the Summit should clearly proclaim the prohibition of pre-emptive attacks and preventive military actions. Discussions on the standards for collective action under Article 51 of the UN Charter should be based on the standards set forth in the Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2004), in the direction of placing strict limitations, so that the provisions are not used to justify virtual military intervention by superpowers. The discussions should be held not just within the Security Council, but on a comprehensive basis, involving the General Assembly, related UN organs as well as the civil society. Provisions on sanctions for violators should also be discussed.
• Member States should take coordinated steps to strengthen the International Criminal Court, the response through courts against crimes against humanity, and the competence to adjudicate perpetrators of crimes of war in violation of international law.
6) Peacebuilding
• We welcome the proposal for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission and a Peacebuilding Support Office. Its objectives would be to realize sustainable peace in the areas affected by conflict, which cannot be achieved by transplants from outside of the society concerned. Peacebuilding should be based on the principle of local ownership through democratization. Involvement of civil society is therefore indispensable.
• Regarding civil society involvement, NGOs with experience in peace, conflict prevention, human development and human rights in the area concerned should take part. Intervention in decision-making by private sectors that have direct economic interest in the reconstruction should be avoided.
• Whenever the destabilization of a society, such as through human rights violations, becomes apparent, the proposed Peacebuilding Commission should, in cooperation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, initiate a “dialogue for peace” and play a role in early warning and conflict prevention process.
7) The Security Council
• The veto is the major factor undermining the universal application of international law. We oppose any reform proposal, which leads to additional veto. The current five Permanent Members should conclude an informal agreement to suspend or limit the use of their veto powers.
• Involvement of the civil society in the Security Council discussions, such as through NGO participation, should be formalized. The Council should seek active participation of NGOs involved in the issues concerned through formalization of the Arria formula, public fora and regional meetings. In particular, integrating views of citizens affected by the conflict concerned is indispensable. |
| |
3. Development
 |
| Peace Boat staff member Akira Kawasaki speaks at the Public Forum |
We welcome the proposals on “development” set forth in the Report of the Secretary-General on UN reforms (In Larger Freedom) as a general outline, in so far as they emphasize the integration and correlation of the development and security issues. We also appreciate his prioritizing from that perspective, poverty, infectious disease and environmental destruction among the “threats” faced by the international community. We understood the proposals as intended to place “human security” as the basic concept underlining the activities of the UN. In response to the proposition that reducing poverty is the immediate challenge for the international community as a whole, Japan should also embrace human security as a central pillar of its diplomatic policies and actively take initiatives, such as reviewing the “quality” and “quantity” of aid necessary for achieving the Millenium Development Goals and revising the unfair trade system.
1) Poverty Reduction
We basically support the proposals set forth in the Report of the Secretary-General (In Larger Freedom) stating efforts towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals as a way to reduce poverty. We would like to draw attention, however, that “poverty,” in particular “poverty” today, has a complex structure in its root-cause created by the history of colonialism, unfair trade, and inappropriate foreign aid lacking in consideration towards governance, environment and human rights. “Poverty” is not merely a situation of economic need, but is also a condition which is being reproduced daily through unfair distribution of income, resource and assets, unequal employment opportunity, and unjust protection of political rights, and other such practices. In that sense, we would like to point out, that profound analysis and recognition of the structural factors leading to “poverty” is above all necessary. Based on this understanding, we propose the following.
• The Report, while generally emphasizing the importance of economic growth, does not mention how to transform the currently dominant macro-economic system. The current economic system prioritizes growth over fair distribution, rights or sustainable development. Therefore all measures to reduce poverty must be based on an approach prioritizing social justice and human rights.
• In its chapter on “development,” the Secretary-General’s Report is so intent on emphasizing the urgency of the “poverty” situation, that it is front-loading in its proposals, generally looking for short-term and immediate effects. It is apparent from past experiences that initiatives such as the “green revolution” have mid to long-term negative impact on the poor, and are not appropriate. Careful selection of sustainable assistance measures should be made, respecting the self-reliance of the local residents.
• Instead of International Finance Facility schemes, which provide front-loading funds, schemes, which secure necessary development funds on a constant basis, should be created.
• We basically welcome the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, which, in recognition of the correlation of security and development issues, will have intersectoral functions. However, the involvement not just of the Security Council, but also of the Economic and Social Council is indispensable in its establishment and operation. Also, for the Commission to function properly, necessary funds and human resources must be secured, participation of NGOs and citizens must be ensured and public information and accountability must be fully discharged.
• For developing countries to be able to continue sustainable development without being overly dependent on outside funds including foreign aid, strengthening governance, including securing tax revenues is indispensable. To that end, appropriate involvement by the UN and other international organizations in as neutral and fair form as possible, is more desirable than bilateral aid. The UN should strengthen its efforts in this regard.
Based on the above proposals, we believe that the Member States including Japan should set forth a clear policy for “high quality aid contributing to the reduction of poverty.” We urge them to study the Report of the Secretary-General in detail, examine what is necessary to achieve a genuine reduction of “poverty,” and to fully implement the resulting policy. Regarding aid effectiveness, the discussions on the issue at the OECD High-level Meeting (coordination and coherence of aid) this March should be continued further. Japan, in particular, has received the following recommendations from the OECD-DAC Peer Review (December 2003) regarding its ODA, and improving the “quality” of its aid is an immediate challenge.
• (On the ODA Charter revised in 2003)In implementing the ODA Charter, Japan should highlight that the primary objective of ODA is for the development of the recipient country and should ensure that, narrower national interests do not over-ride this objective.
• Japan should develop a government-wide approach to mainstream cross-cutting issues, rather than treating them as separate sectors, particularly concerning poverty reduction.
• (In view of the large proportion of loans in the Japanese ODA)More attention should be given to debt sustainability issues.
• The development of a clearer policy on how Japan intends to focus on poor countries or poor populations within countries should be considered.
• Japan should strive to achieve a more balanced sector portfolio by focusing more investment in basic health and education services to reduce poverty.
• Japan should establish a system for monitoring the environmental, social and governance aspects of the ODA.
• Japan should progressively untie the use of grant funds for primary.
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should consider delegating most grant management to Japan International Cooperation Agency.
• More development cooperation staff are needed.
Japan should seriously consider the recommendations and conduct a thorough review of its ODA policy and implementation systems. In particular, to cooperate with the UN and effectively engage in global scale issues, such as poverty and environment, Japan should adopt a basic law clearly setting forth the concept and objectives of the ODA, and establish an agency for assistance to ensure its independence and to clarify where the responsibility lies.
2) Strengthening the Economic and Social Council
As the Report of the Secretary-General makes clear, a comprehensive approach is needed to resolve the issue of poverty under the recognition that security, development and human rights issues are correlated. From that perspective, development aid should focus more on multilateral rather than bilateral initiatives, and among multilateral initiatives, the role of the UN should be emphasized, to enable increased integration of the views of residents in developing countries. This means assistance through UN development related organs (UNDP, UNCTAD, UNICEF) rather than Bretton-Woods institutions (World Bank, IMF, etc.). It is necessary, therefore to coordinate with these organizations and other development related UN organs. It is also necessary to review the roles and functions of the current Economic and Social Council, and to strengthen them, after organizing and integrating overlaps with the General Assembly and related subsidiary committees, in order to strengthen its system to monitor progress towards international development goals such as the Millennium Development Goals.
|
| |
|
4. Human Rights
1) Rule of Law
We reaffirm that the rule of law, human rights and democracy are not readily integrated into a coherent policy, as long as they are based on easy definitions. As long as democracy is understood simply as elections and decision-making based on majority rule, the progress of democracy may lead to violations of the human rights and fundamental freedom of numerous groups not belonging to the majority. Those human rights violations may even occur under the rule of law. The lessons learned from the human rights violations by the German Nazis, and the idea behind the creation of the UN should be recalled.
• Regarding the rule of law, the domestic laws of the states should be examined in the Human Rights Council, its subsidiary organs or the Peacebuilding Commission, whether these do not violate international human rights laws or humanitarian laws.
• The role of the International Criminal Court in realizing justice and as a process for reconciliation , is important not just for the rule of law, but for the realization of human rights as well as peacebuilding. We urge the Human Rights Council and the UN Secretariat to initiate a campaign for the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
2) Human Rights Council
• We support, from the viewpoint of universality, the creation of a Human Rights Council to protect and promote human rights on a more permanent basis.
• In view of the historical importance ever since the creation of the UN and contemporary significance of human rights, the Human Rights Council should be established as a “principal organ” on an equal footing with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. We urge that the UN Charter be amended in this regard.
• For the Human Rights Council to maintain its operations effectively and functionally, half of its Members must be party to at least six of the seven international human treaties with treaty bodies, and the remaining half should be elected on a regional basis.
• We support the proposal for actions by the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote the activities of the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission.
• At the same time, we urge the Peacebuilding Commission, in support of the activities of the Human Rights Council, to submit an annual report to the Council analysing its security and peacebuilding activities from a human rights perspective.
• We urge the Human Rights Council to appoint a permanent “Special Rapporteur” on counter-terrorism measures and human rights, as well as on economic globalization and human rights.
• We also urge the Human Rights Council to further strengthen cooperation with NGOs and civil society organizations.
3) Expert Bodies
As the High-level Panel Report indicates, the body promoting human rights should consist of people who have the knowledge, commitment and experience in human rights. Recognizing the contributions by the current Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Working Groups, treaty bodies, and Special Rapporteurs to the human rights activities of the UN in this regard, we recognize the need for these bodies consisting of individual experts on human rights to be established under the Human Rights Council.
• We strongly urge that the activities of the Sub-Commission and various Working Groups be maintained or enlarged under the Human Rights Council. Also to increase effectiveness of the activities of the individual experts, the system of electing two persons, Member and Alternate, from a state should be reviewed, and a third of the Members should consist of experts recommended by NGOs, which have been involved in human rights work.
• To increase effectiveness of the activities of the treaty bodies, it is indispensable that these should be given the powers to effectively monitor the compliance/non-compliance of the reporting obligations by the States Parties, as well as compliance/non-compliance of the recommendations, instead of coordinating the bodies. In particular, we urge that a “human rights dialogue” be held between states which have not ratified the human rights treaties and the relevant treaty bodies.
• We also urge the increase in funding and personnel of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to enable more active and effective activities by the “Special Rapporteurs.”
4) Enhancing the Activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
We strongly support the Plan of Action (A/59/2005/Add.3) prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
• As pointed out by the High-level Panel Report, the financial basis of the Office has been weak in comparison to the importance of its human rights activities. Its proportion in the regular budget should be increased from the current 2% to 5% in 2010 and 10% in 2015.
• We support the High Commissioner for Human Rights preparing an annual report on the situation of human rights in the world.
• We urge the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to be responsible for conducting systematic and effective human rights education to all UN staff and personnel taking part in UN operations.
• It is important that the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office in Geneva are integrated with those of the other UN departments and organs in New York and Vienna, and that they can monitor other UN policies from a human rights perspective. We urge enhancing the system in this regard by appointing Deputy High Commissioners for Human Rights in Geneva, New York and Vienna to participate freely in conferences and meetings held at these locations, and to speak on human rights.
5) Democracy
It is important that UN engages in assistance for democratization, and we support their efforts, but in order to pursue these activities effectively, the UN must urgently define “democracy.”
It is possible to assist democratization, but it cannot be transplanted from the outside, and requires continuous efforts by the citizens as well as a lot of time.
• The Peacebuilding Commission and Rule of Law Assistance Unit must have personnel who are skilled in these issues. At the same time, it is imperative for these organs to build daily cooperation with NGOs or civil society organizations, which have been working in democratization.
|
| |
|
5. Participation of the Civil Society
We strongly urge that a cooperative relationship based on accountability and transparency between the UN organs, the NGOs and the civil society organizations as well as the private sector be rebuilt under cooperation of the Member States.
1) NGOs and Civil Society Organizations
We recognize that important part of the UN activities including planning, implementation and monitoring has been borne by a broad spectrum of civil society organizations since the provision for cooperation under the UN Charter in 1945.
Also, we recognize that grass-roots civil society organizations with expertise have engaged in important activities, as was proven by the series of World Conference in the 1990’s.
• In this regard, we recognize that it is necessary to enhance the consultative status established by the Economic and Social Council with the NGOs to cover all Councils and UN related organs under the General Assembly.
• Rules to permit grass-roots NGOs with expertise and indigenous peoples organizations to participate in relevant conferences and meetings should be adopted.
2) Private Sector
We recognize that the creation of the Global Compact in 2000 in order to promote international cooperation with the private sector was a major progress.
However, we recognize that the private sector entities are essentially not those pursuing public interest, and it is not always possible to ensure transparency of the activities, due to “confidentiality” and other limitations.
In this regard, we recognize that when the private sector is taking part in the activities of the UN and other related organs, the rights and duties arising from the relationship should be more explicit than would be the case with civil society organizations.
(Translated by Ms. OKADA, Kimiko, HURIGHTS OSAKA.)
This Joint Proposal by NGOs on UN Reform is endorsed by
(Organizations)
- Shimin Gaikou Centre (Citizens’ Diplomatic Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) (SGC)
- Peace Boat (PB)
- Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC)
- Network for Indonesian Democracy, Japan (NINJA)
- Jubilee Kyushu on World Debt and Poverty
This Joint Proposal by NGOs on UN Reform is endorsed by (Individuals)
1. SHIMOSAWA, Takashi (Jumma Net)
2. OHASHI, Masaaki (Shaplaneer)
3. KUDO, Setsuko (Jubilee Kansai Network)
4. HIGASHIZAWA, Yasushi (Japan Civil Liberties Union=JCLU)
5. HARA, Yuriko (International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism – Japan Committee=IMADR-JC)
6. KONDO, Makiko (Development Education Association and Resource Center=DEAR)
7. UTSUMI, Aiko (Pacific Asia Resource Center=PARC)
8. AOYAGI, Yukinobu (Catholic Fukuoka Council for Justice and Peace)
9. MAEGAWA, Minoru (Soksabay Japan)
10. YAMANAKA, Etsuko (People to People Aid=P2)
11. KOMACHIYA, Ikuko (Japan Civil Liberties Union=JCLU)
12. KOSHIDA, Kiyokazu
13. NAMISE, Yoshiko (Women’s Empowerment 21 Japan=WE21 Japan)
14. GUNJI, Mayumi (Women’s Empowerment 21 Japan=WE21 Japan)
15. KAWAMURA, Akio (Kobe College)
16. FUJII, Daisuke (Water Policy Check=WAPOC)
17. NAKAMURA, Midori (Japan International Volunteer Center, Intern)
18. NAGASE, Riei (ODA Reform Network Tokyo)
19. OTANI, Mikiko (Japan Civil Liberties Union=JCLU)
20. TANAKA, Yu (Credit Union MIRAI BANK)
21. ARAI, Toshikazu (Soai University)
22. SUGIMOTO, Masatsugu (Community-based Development Initiatives Center=CDIC)
23. MUSHAKOJI, Kinhide (Osaka University of Economics and Law, Centre for Asia Pacific Partnership)
24. FUJIMOTO, Nobuki (HURIGHTS OSAKA)
25. OGAWA, Misako
26. YOSHIDA, Yasuhiko (Osaka University of Economics and Law)
27. SUZUKI, Atsushi (attorney)
28. KIMURA, Yuko
29. OGAWA, Hideyo (Women’s Empowerment 21 Japan=WE21 Japan)
30. KITAJIMA, Noriyuki
31. SHIGETA, Yasuhiro (JVC Kyushu Network)
32. INAGAKI, Seiko
33. IMAMURA, Kimiyasu (Buddhist monk, Nihonzan-myohoji)
34. HORI, Yoshie (Pacific Asia Resource Center=PARC)
35. NAKANISHI, Ayako
36. SAKUMA, Tomoko (Japan Centre for a Sustainable Environment and Society=JACSES)
37. SAITO, Yuriko
38. IMAIZUMI, Yumiko (Hosei University)
(As of 30 August, 2005)
For further information, please contact
Mr. Kiyotaka Takahashi
email: kiyo[a]ngo-jvc.net.
|
| |
|
|
|
