48. Thiokol operates the government-owned Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, where antipersonnel mines are assembled.

Thirty companies rejected Human Rights Watch's humanitarian appeal to forego any future production of antipersonnel mine components—seventeen companies directly, in writing, and thirteen through silence. These companies will now be the focus of a USCBL stigmatization campaign. The seventeen companies that declined in writing to renounce future involvement in antipersonnel mine production are: AAI Corp. (Maryland), Allen-Bradley (Texas), Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (Minnesota), also representing mine producers Accudyne Corp. (Wisconsin), and Ferrulmatic, Inc. (New Jersey), CAPCO, Inc. (Colorado), Dale Electronics, Inc. (Nebraska), Ensign-Bickford Industries, Inc. (Connecticut), General Electric Company (Connecticut), Lockheed Martin Corp. (Maryland), Mohawk Electrical Systems, Inc. (Delaware), Nomura Enterprise, Inc. (Illinois), Parlex Corp. (Massachusetts), Quantic Industries, Inc. (California), Raytheon (Massachusetts), Thiokol Corp. (Utah),48 and Vishay Sprague (Pennsylvania).

49. In addition to producing antipersonnel mine components, Day and Zimmerman operates the government-owned Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, where antipersonnel mines are assembled. 50. Mason & Hangar operates the government-owned Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, where antipersonnel mines are assembled.

The thirteen companies that did not respond in writing to Human Rights Watch are: Action Manufacturing Co. (Pennsylvania), Aerospace Design, Inc. (California), Amron Corp. (Wisconsin), BI Technologies (California), Consolidated Industries, Inc. (Alabama), Day & Zimmerman, Inc. (Pennsylvania),49 EMCO, Inc. (Alabama), Formworks Plastics, Inc. (California), Fort Belknap Industries (Montana), Intellitec (Florida), Mason & Hangar/Silas Mason Co., Inc. (Kentucky),50 Primetec, Inc. (Florida), and Unitrode Corp. (New Hampshire).

51. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. Alliant was the only company to lobby vigorously against the Leahy-Evans mine export moratorium, claiming that it could cost U.S. producers $500-650 million in overseas business. Alliant Techsystems, "Current Potential FASCAM Overseas Markets," 1993. In a June 11, 1993 letter from former Alliant Techsystems President and CEO Toby G. Watson to Senator Leahy, Mr. Watson argued against a mine export moratorium that included smart mines: "Export of convention-compliant mines will actually help to achieve the goal of avoiding harm to non-combatants, while preserving American jobs and critical elements of our nation's defense industrial base at the same time."

Appendix A contains details on the types of antipersonnel mines each of the recalcitrant producers has been involved with, as well as their address, telephone, and fax number. When contacted by Human Rights Watch, a number of companies objected to their inclusion in this report on a variety of grounds. Most commonly heard were the following: Some companies denied being "mine producers." When presented with our evidence, however, they would have to acknowledge that they had supplied components for use in antipersonnel mines. In the U.S., no company produces mines from beginning to end. The U.S. mine industry consists of component suppliers, with final assembly often done in government-owned, contractor-operated Army Ammunition plants. Some companies insisted that because they are not currently involved in mine production, it is unfair for Human Rights Watch to name them in our report. We explained that, after several major contracts had been completed in 1996, it does not appear any antipersonnel mines are being produced in the U.S. today. The purpose of our report is to identify those companies that have been involved in antipersonnel mine production in the past, and to call on them to make a statement renouncing any future involvement. Some companies acknowledged, after seeing our evidence, that their products had been used in antipersonnel mines, but claimed that they had no prior knowledge of involvement in mine production. Some also stated that because their components could be used for many purposes—military and non-military—they had no control over or knowledge of the end use. Human Rights Watch views the "no knowledge, no control" claims with skepticism. Several companies that initially told us they were unaware of involvement reversed course after a thorough review of company documents. Moreover, other companies that expressed such concerns later joined the ranks of those renouncing future involvement by pledging to make their best effort to not knowingly provide components intended for use in antipersonnel mines.  Alliant Techsystems is the company that appears to have profited the most from landmine production contracts. Alliant was awarded DoD antipersonnel and antitank landmine production contracts worth $336 million in 1985-95; its Wisconsin subsidiary Accudyne Corp. was awarded similar contracts worth $150 million in 1985-95; and its New Jersey subsidiary Ferrulmatic was awarded a $72,000 contract in 1985 for the M128 Volcano landmine dispenser.51

52. Letter from Alliant Techsystems, Inc. President and CEO Richard Schwartz to Human Rights Watch, August 22, 1996. 53. CAPCO's statement repeated word for word Alliant's four arguments in favor of smart antipersonnel mines. For example, both declared: "The U.S. has used self-destruct, self-deactivating antipersonnel mines in a disciplined manner only in combat situations." 54. Statement from CAPCO, Inc. Vice-President John Younger to Human Rights Watch, September 3, 1996.

In response to Human Rights Watch's appeal, CEO Richard Schwartz wrote: "The International Campaign to Ban Landmines has served an invaluable role in shedding light on a terrible problem that must be addressed," but insisted that his company's landmines were not to blame. "It is irresponsible to imply in any way that companies such as Alliant Techsystems have contributed to the world's landmine problems. To do so wrongly maligns responsible U.S. citizens, and diverts resources that could be applied toward stigmatizing the governments that violate international law."52 Virtually identical wording came from Colorado's CAPCO, which repeated Alliant's argument that antipersonnel mine production was in the national interest.53 CAPCO insisted: "Our company will continue to support the U.S. need for mines of these types (i.e. self-destruct mines) as deemed necessary by our Government."54

55. Statement from Raytheon Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Robert S. McWade to Human Rights Watch, September 19, 1996.

Raytheon is best known for its air traffic control, fire control, communications, space and navigation systems. Raytheon told Human Rights Watch: "We understand well the importance of the cause you are forwarding.... Furthermore, we understand the basis of the Motorola statement and its flexibility. However...it is generally our practice not to broadly and formally renounce participation in businesses, despite the fact that this is not a business in which we participate and, when we did, it was as a minor supplier of transistors - a business we have since sold."55 Thus, Raytheon acknowledged past involvement and declined when offered the opportunity to renounce future involvement.

56. Letter from Quantic Industries, Inc. President Robert M. Valenti to Human Rights Watch, August 6, 1996. Quantic, despite its stated moral opposition to "landmine warfare," won DoD landmine production contracts worth $1,261,000 in 1987. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. 57. Letter from Nomura Enterprise President Leland Nomura to Human Rights Watch, September 13, 1996. DoD awarded Nomura Enterprise landmine production contracts worth $21,453,000 in 1986-95. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. 58. Letter from Ensign-Bickford Industries, Inc. President Herman J. Fonteyne to Human Rights Watch, August 7, 1996. DoD awarded Ensign-Bickford landmine production contracts worth $15,085,000 in 1989-92. Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996. Contract No. DAAA21-C92-C-0039 (May 13, 1992), obtained by Human Rights Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that Ensign-Bickford was awarded $6.8 million to supply components for Volcano landmines. The components were shipped to army ammunition plants in Iowa and Texas.

Quantic Industries, Inc., a defense contractor involved in producing the GEMSS landmine system, suggested that if government policy changed, so would Quantic: "Quantic does not make mines. Some of our components have been used in mines. All of them were used to ensure the safety of the product by U.S. personnel. I do not endorse warfare period, let alone mine warfare. I look forward to the time when this and other countries do not make such weapons. Clearly these are political decisions. I wish you success in dealing with this problem through our public officials."56  From Nomura Enterprise came a stern warning that banning antipersonnel mines would somehow destabilize U.S. strategic interests: "Although Nomura Enterprise, Inc. (NEI), and the undersigned personally, can join with you in deploring war and the personal tragedies that result, we also consider it necessary for the United States to be able to defend itself and its citizens with military force. We truly wish that that were not the case but at this point in world history it is a hard, cold fact."57 Ensign-Bickford's letter was remarkable for both confirming and denying past involvement in mine production: "Please be advised that while [Ensign-Bickford] has never been a manufacturer or supplier of antipersonnel landmines, mine components or delivery systems, a former subsidiary, Ensign-Bickford Aerospace Company did, at one time, supply products that allowed for the safe separation of such devices from their delivery vehicles."58

59. Letter from Lockheed Martin Vice-President, Corporate Communications, Susan M. Pearce to Human Rights Watch, September 4, 1996. 60. Letter from George R. Schneiter, Director, Strategic and Tactical Systems, Acquisition and Technology, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, to Rep. Lane Evans, November 21, 1994.

Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest U.S. defense contractors, initially sent an indignant letter protesting the company's inclusion on the Human Rights Watch list: "The basis for this listing is completely erroneous - in fact the opposite is true - and Lockheed Martin should be removed from the list. Please confirm that our name has been removed from the USCBL list."59 Human Rights Watch informed Lockheed that the basis for its listing came from DoD, which credits Lockheed with involvement in four antipersonnel landmine systems. According to the DoD, Lockheed supplied components for the Army's ADAM and GEMSS antipersonnel mines, the Air Force's Gator (CBU-89) antipersonnel mines, and the Navy's Gator (CBU-78) mines.60

61. U.S. DoD landmine production contracts for 1985-94, Eagle Eye Publishing, 1996.

In its letter Lockheed also said: "A review of our records indictates that we do not produce landmines and have not since the Vietnam era." But Lockheed Martin New Jersey was awarded DoD landmine production contracts worth $52,444,000 from 1985 to 1990. Lockheed Martin California was awarded landmine production defense contracts worth an estimated $850,000 in 1990.61 It is unclear whether the contracts were for antitank or antipersonnel mine production, or for both.

62. Letter from Lockheed Martin Vice President, Corporate Communications, Susan M. Pearce to Human Rights Watch, September 25, 1996. 63. Telephone interview with Charles Manor, Lockheed Martin, Vice President, News and Information, Corporate Communication, September 27, 1996.

In a subsequent letter, Lockheed told Human Rights Watch, "The agency [DoD] confirms that Lockheed Martin is not now and has never been a producer of landmines."62 However, Lockheed has failed to respond to repeated requests by Human Rights Watch to provide us with any details of such a confirmation. In a telephone interview, a Lockheed spokesperson agreed that DoD's response to Lockheed was contradictory to the official information in Human Rights Watch's possession, and when told that we would keep Lockheed on our list replied, "I understand."63

64. Letter from Human Rights Watch to Susan Pearce, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Lockheed Martin, January 27, 1997. 65. Letter from Susan Pearce, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Lockheed Martin, to Human Rights Watch, March 4, 1997.

In another letter, dated January 27, 1997, Human Rights Watch reminded the company: "Lockheed's failure to provide evidence to the contrary means that the company will be listed by Human Rights Watch as a producer of antipersonnel landmines, components or the systems that deploy them."64 Lockheed Martin responded: "As previous correspondence between our offices points out, Lockheed Martin's records indicate our Corporation is not now and never has been a producer of landmines. Further, our records indicate we have not produced any components for landmines since the 1980s.... Finally, we would repeat our request that your report distinguish between those companies currently manufacturing landmines or components and those firms no longer involved in such activities, as well as identify those companies using technology to detect and remove landmines."65 Thus, Lockheed has acknowledged past involvement in mine production, but has refused to commit to no future antipersonnel mine production activities.

66. Letter from AAI Corp. President G.J. Kersels to Human Rights Watch, August 22, 1996. DoD awarded AAI a $750,000 contract to manufacture the M128 landmine dispenser in 1985. Eagle Eye Publishing , 1996. 67. Fax from AAI Corp. Communication staff person Susan Flowers to Human Rights Watch, September 17, 1996.

AAI, curiously, initially told Human Rights Watch that it would not produce or supply antipersonnel mine components in the future, but subsequently asked not to be put on a list of renouncing companies. On August 22, 1996 AAI said: "...AAI Corporation does not manufacture landmine systems or components nor does the company intend to pursue that line of business in the future. I am hopeful that any listing you generate or publish will accurately reflect AAI Corporation's status in the (sic) regard."66 Yet, in response to our congratulatory letter informing them our intention to name them as a renouncing company came a fax on September 17 insisting that Human Rights Watch "not list AAI Corporation on your growing list of companies which have agreed to renounce all participation in future antipersonnel mine production. We do not wish to be so named."67

68. Fax from Vishay Intertechnology Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, Avi D. Eden, to Human Rights Watch, September 19, 1996.

Vishay Intertechnology—identified on Accudyne invoices as a supplier of components for Volcano and Gator antipersonnel mines—intimated possible legal action if Human Rights Watch listed it and its subsidiary Dale Electronics as component suppliers: "....the products in question, passive electronic components, are basically standard products sold either directly to major electronic manufacturers or to independent distributors of passive electronic components. In many cases we do not know either the application for which the product will be used or the end customer. Therefore it would be pointless for us to make any statement regarding our intention not to sell components to any particular customer for a specific application.... We are a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange and any false statement or misleading innuendo about our customers or us can result in substantial monetary damages to our shareholders or to the Company."68

69. Letter from Mr. Avi Eden, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, Vishay Intertechnology, to Human Rights Watch, February 25, 1997.

When Human Rights Watch reminded Vishay in January 1997 of the company's impending listing, and faxed the relevant Accudyne invoices, Mr. Avi Eden wrote: "In response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, Vishay Intertechnology has the following comments: We do not manufacture landmines. We do not manufacture components specifically for landmines. We do sell to the Government and Government Contractors but cannot control the end use of our components."69

70. Letter from Bruce Womer, Vice President, Electronic Components Business, Allen-Bradley, to Human Rights Watch, September 5, 1996. At one point, Allen-Bradley had informally communicated a strong interest in issuing a statement of renunciation.

Allen-Bradley, owned by Rockwell, would only acknowledge that "the document referencing Allen-Bradley resistors in a shipment to Accudyne Corporation was not traceable to a distributor or other immediate source. Further review indicates a 'resistor network' was provided. Allen-Bradley ceased manufacturing resistor networks in 1991."70

71. Letter from Peter J. Murphy, President, Parlex Corp., to Human Rights Watch, September 5, 1996.

The response from the Parlex Corp. was somewhat encouraging: "Parlex does not currently, nor do we have any plans to produce components for landmines." However, Parlex would not rule out future mine component supply: "Company policy is to refrain from any blanket statement concerning our future process."71

72. Letter from Edwin M. North, Corporate Secretary, Thiokol Corp., to Human Rights Watch, August 9, 1996.

Thiokol Corp. would not renounce future antipersonnel mine activities, but said it "does not manufacture landmines. Production operations at Army-owned munition facilities have been discontinued and production contracts ended."72

73. Letter from C.M.Welch, Chairman, Executive Committee, Mohawk Electrical Systems, Inc., to Human Rights Watch, August 15, 1996.

Mohawk Electrical Systems makes the Claymore M18A1. Although the Claymore has been classified as an antipersonnel landmine in government and private reference works in the past, the growing success of the mine ban movement has led the DoD more recently to begin referring to the Claymore as a command detonated munition and not a landmine. Likewise, Mohawk does not consider the Claymore an antipersonnel mine and told Human Rights Watch that it will confine its production solely to Claymores. Mohawk noted that "as a part of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, Claymores were removed from the export moratorium. Suffice to say that our company over a period of about 35 years has consistently refused to even quote on any of the APERS MINES that were targeted by Senator Leahy's crusade."73

Human Rights Watch does not believe that Claymores should suddenly be classified as something other than a landmine. While Claymores operated in a command detonated mode (where a soldier identifies the enemy and explodes the mine remotely) do not pose the dangers to civilians that other mines do, Human Rights Watch remains concerned about the indiscriminate nature of Claymores used with tripwires. Any mine designed to be used with a tripwire should be banned.