Font size:
Print
Ottawa Convention
Context:
Several European countries have recently announced plans to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in response to growing security concerns, particularly regarding potential aggression from Russia.
- These decisions mark a significant shift from decades of international disarmament efforts and have raised concerns among activists and humanitarian groups.
Exiting Countries
- Countries Involved: Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia
- Geographical Context: These countries all border Russia and are members of NATO (with the exception of some non-NATO states) and the Baltic region.
- They are responding to what they describe as an increased threat from Russia.
- Notable Exception: Norway remains in the treaty because it believes in maintaining the international stigma against landmines despite heightened security concerns.
Ottawa Convention (Mine Ban Treaty)
- A legally binding international treaty adopted in December 1997 and effective from March 1999, aimed at eliminating anti-personnel landmines.
- It prohibits their use, stockpiling, production, and transfer, and includes provisions for victim assistance, mine clearance, and international cooperation.
- Signatories: 164 countries (as of 2024)
- Non-members: India, US, Russia, China, Israel
- India cites security concerns due to porous borders and insurgencies.
Objective: To end human suffering caused by landmines, prevent civilian casualties post-conflict, and support victim rehabilitation and land restoration.
Reasons for Withdrawal
- National Security and Defence: The primary reason is to shore up defences and deter potential Russian aggression.
- The moves are partly driven by the perception that Russia might rearm while these countries remain bound by the treaty.
- Equal Footing in Arms Control: By leaving the treaty, these countries aim to be on a more equal footing with nations like Russia, the US, China, India, and Israel, which have not signed or ratified the treaty.
- Military Autonomy: Resumption of landmine production and stockpiling is seen as a way to enhance national security measures.
Implications of Withdrawing from the Treaty
- Resumption of Landmine Use: Countries exiting the treaty will be allowed to produce, use, and stockpile landmines once again.
- Impact on Global Disarmament: This decision challenges decades of progress made in global arms control and could potentially lead to more nations reconsidering their stance on landmines.
- It may undermine international consensus on disarmament and the broader International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
- Concerns for Civilian Safety: Activists and organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have raised alarms about the risks landmines pose to civilians, often remaining active long after conflicts end.
- The humanitarian implications include long-term dangers to civilian populations, as seen in regions like Ukraine.
Funding Cuts and Humanitarian Impact
- Reduced Demining Efforts: Global demining efforts have been hampered by crippling funding cuts from the US, which historically provided a significant portion of the international support for mine clearance.
- Consequences for Victims: The treaty not only banned landmines but also included provisions to assist victims of these weapons. Withdrawal could impact future support for those injured or affected.
- Shift in International Priorities: The changes come amid broader shifts in international military strategies and aid programs, reflecting a move towards national defence over international humanitarian obligations.
