For The Love Of Landmines: European States Exit The Ottawa Convention

Paranoia manifests in various ways. It can eat away individuals in desperate solitude, whittling away sanity and balance. It can be enlisted in the making of policy. The latter can be particularly dangerous, notably when readying for a fantastic threat. For the Baltic States, Poland and Finland, there is much talk about the Russia threat, one that will supposedly manifest in boots, armour and missiles once the war against Ukraine concludes. Unfortunately, that talk is now manifesting in preparations for war. So eager are these countries in making such preparations, they are willing to exit important treaties in doing so.

The 1997 Ottawa Convention, otherwise known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, is one such document. The number of state parties is impressive: 164 in all. The omissions are, however, also notable, including the United States, China, Russia, India and Pakistan. Despite such impediments, the Convention has been instrumental in inducing a near halt of global production and reduction in the deployment of these weapons.

With the vibrant war chat that has gripped European capitals, the stockpiling and use of landmines is now being revisited as a genuine possibility. Even Ukraine, which is a signatory to the Convention, has received landmines from the United States and stated that its compliance with the treaty “is limited and is not guaranteed.”

Last month, the defence ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia released a statement expressing their belief “that in the current security environment it is paramount to provide our defence forces with flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster our defence of the alliance’s vulnerable Eastern flank.” For that reason, a unanimous recommendation was made: that all parties withdraw from the Ottawa Convention. “With this decision, we are sending a clear message: our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom.”

This liberation from obligations imposed by international humanitarian law was seen as entirely consistent – and here, perversity creeps in – with all states’ continued willingness to observe it, “including the protection of civilians during an armed conflict. Our nations will continue to uphold these principles while addressing our security needs.”

Estonia’s Defence Minister, Hanno Pevkur, attempted to give the recommendation some context, while trying to dispel notions that these countries had somehow scorned important legal obligations, let alone a global consensus on landmines. “Decisions regarding the Ottawa Convention should be made in solidarity and coordination within the region. At the same time, we currently have no plans to develop, stockpile, or use previously banned anti-personnel landmines.”

In a post on the X platform, Finland’s President Alex Stubb declared his country’s intention to join the four states, while still making the claim that “Finland will always be a responsible actor in the world”. The decision, which was already being considered last November given Russia’s liberal use of such weapons in Ukraine, was made “based on a thorough assessment by the relevant ministries and the Defence Forces.”

Rather anomalously, Stubb went on to claim that Finland was “committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines.” Similarly, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Sari Essayah told reporters that Helsinki would “use mines in a responsible way, but it’s a deterrent we need.”

Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, in keeping with language that has become very modish, also stated that exiting the Ottawa Convention would allow preparations “for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way”. Despite admitting that Finland was not in any immediate danger from Moscow, he was confident that it posed a continuing, European-wide threat.

Given that such devices are indiscriminate and lingering in their lethal and maiming potential, squaring their use with the dictates of international customary law is nigh impossible. Despite their inherently clumsy nature, their skulking defenders can be found. In January 2020, then US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authored a memorandum reversing a 2014 ban on US production and acquisition of antipersonnel landmines, while permitting their use outside any future conflict on the Korean Peninsula. In doing so, he insisted in rather novel reading that landmines were essential to “becoming more lethal, resilient, agile, and ready across a range of potential contingencies and geographies.”

In its 2023 Landmine Monitor report, Human Rights Watch found that the active remnants of landmines killed more than 1,600 people and injured 3,015 in 2022. Of these, 85% were civilians, with children accounting for half of them. (So much for the protective principle and civilians.) The report also noted various groups most vulnerable to such weapons: nomads, hunters, herders, shepherds and agricultural workers, along with refugees and internally displaced persons.

With such grim assessments and bloody statistics, the recent volte face towards international humanitarian law by Poland, Finland and the Baltic states seems even more remarkable and ill-founded. Paranoia is producing its casualties.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media