Why some EU countries are bringing back landmines | DW News

Key Concepts

• Anti-personnel mines
• Mine Ban Convention (Ottawa Treaty)
• International humanitarian law
• Civilian casualties
• Deterrence
• National defense

Landmines: A Persistent Threat

The transcript highlights the severe danger posed by landmines, specifically anti-personnel mines, which are described as "tiny but very deadly devices" buried in the ground. These weapons are particularly controversial due to their indiscriminate nature, failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians. The overwhelming majority of victims are civilians. A critical aspect of their danger is their longevity; once placed, they can remain active and lethal for decades, long after conflicts have ceased.

The Mine Ban Convention: A Success Story

In response to the widespread threat, the Mine Ban Convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, was established in 1997. This treaty, signed by a vast majority of countries, prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. Currently, over 160 countries have adopted this ban.

• Impact of the Convention: Before the treaty, an estimated 25,000 people were wounded or killed by landmines annually. By 2023, this figure had significantly decreased to below 6,000, demonstrating the convention's success in reducing casualties.
• Notable Non-Signatories: Major global powers such as the United States, China, India, and Russia did not sign the treaty.

Withdrawal from the Convention: Shifting Defenses

Despite the success of the Mine Ban Convention, a concerning development has emerged: five EU and NATO countries – Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – are withdrawing from the treaty.

• Stated Rationale: These nations cite Russia as the primary reason for their withdrawal. They argue that heightened Russian aggression, particularly following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, necessitates a strengthening of their defenses. This includes the potential use of anti-personnel mines.
• Ukraine's Position: The transcript notes that Ukraine, despite being a member of the Mine Ban Treaty, has used anti-personnel mines on its own territory, arguing it is for defensive purposes against Russian aggression.

Criticism and International Condemnation

The decision by these five countries to withdraw has drawn significant criticism.

• UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' Statement: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has urged all states to refrain from withdrawing from international humanitarian law treaties, emphasizing the extensive suffering caused by anti-personnel mines. This statement underscores the international humanitarian law implications of such withdrawals.

Logical Connections and Conclusion

The transcript establishes a clear progression from the inherent danger of anti-personnel mines to the international effort to ban them, and then to the recent challenge to this ban posed by specific European nations. The core argument presented is that while the Mine Ban Convention has been a significant success in reducing civilian casualties, the perceived threat from Russia is leading some countries to reconsider their commitment to this humanitarian treaty. The supporting evidence for the danger of mines is the statistic of reduced casualties post-treaty, while the evidence for the rationale behind withdrawal is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Russia's alleged use of these weapons. The key takeaway is the tension between national security concerns, particularly in the context of geopolitical instability, and the established international norms and humanitarian principles aimed at protecting civilians from indiscriminate weapons.