Norway won't exit landmine treaty, foreign minister says
OSLO (Reuters) - NATO member Norway will not withdraw from the global convention banning anti-personnel landmines as all the other European countries bordering Russia have done, the country's foreign minister said on Wednesday.
Finland on Tuesday said it planned to quit the 1997 Ottawa Convention as a way to mitigate the military threat posed by its neighbour Russia, following Poland and the Baltic countries, which announced similar moves last month.
That left Norway as the only European country bordering Russia that does not plan for the possibility to stock anti-personnel landmines again, but that is not about to change, Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Reuters.
It was important to keep a global stigma against a weapon that maims and kills long after a war is over, he said, and to ensure certain types of weapons, including chemical and bacteriological ones, remained ruled out for use in conflict.
"This particular decision (by Finland) is something that we regret," Barth Eide said in an interview.
"If we start weakening our commitment, it makes it easier for warring factions around the world to use these weapons again, because it reduces the stigma."
Norway was not concerned that its defence would be weakened by not changing its policy on anti-personnel landmines, he said. The Nordic country shares a 200km (124 miles) long border with Russia in the far north Arctic region.
"We have a very modern advanced defence system. We have purchased extremely advanced systems that can attack from land, the air and sea," Eide said.
(This story has been refiled to add a dropped word in paragraph 1)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
44 minutes ago
- New York Post
Israel planned to assassinate Iran's supreme leader Khamenei, but Trump say no: report
Israel had a plan to assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but President Trump vetoed the operation, according to reports. Israel reported that they had an opportunity to kill Iran's top leader, but Trump persuaded Israeli officials not to go through with it, the two unidentified officials told Reuters. 'Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership,' an official said. Advertisement 3 Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei meet with the Speaker and Representatives of the 12th Session of the Islamic Consultative Assembly in Tehran, Iran on June 11, 2025. APAImages/Shutterstock 3 President Donald Trump attends a celebration of the Army's 250th birthday on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., U.S,, June, 14, 2025. via REUTERS Axios reporter Barak Ravid said Sunday that his sources also confirmed that Trump nixed an Israeli plan to kill the Islamic Republic's leader. US officials have been in constant communication with their Israeli counterparts since Israel launched a massive attack on Iran in a bid to end Tehran's nuclear program. Advertisement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined comment on the assassination report in a Sunday interview with Fox News' 'Special Report With Bret Baier.' 'There's so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I'm not going to get into that,' he said. 'But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we'll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.'
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel restrictions by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against "foreign terrorists" and other national security threats. The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from U.S. universities and deport others. In an internal diplomatic cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action. "The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," the cable sent out over the weekend said. The cable was first reported by the Washington Post. Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was "questionable security" of that country's passport. Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the U.S. visas their citizens were being granted. Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity. The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed. "We are constantly reevaluating policies to ensure the safety of Americans and that foreign nationals follow our laws," a senior State Department official said, declining to comment on specific internal deliberations and communications. "The Department of State is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the official said. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela — has also been partially restricted. During his first term in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East – but Israel isn't one of them
For Britain, Israel is mostly a strategic liability – but it's also a very close ally in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Now that Israel is locked in a war with Iran and Britain is rushing to send a handful of RAF jets to the region, that relationship needs careful management. The UK cannot afford to be seen as guilty by association in respect of Israel's campaign in Gaza, or to suffer reputational damage by offering Israel unnecessary help – there is plenty for the RAF to do aside from that. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that the aircraft may be used to defend the UK's allies – in other words, shoot down Iranian missiles heading towards Tel Aviv. Helping Israel to stop the erratic and malevolent Iranian regime from making an atomic bomb is smart. Being seen to do so, and protecting Israel against the consequences of its endeavours, is not. Iran has threatened to attack any US ally that defends Israel. The US has already helped to shoot down ballistic missiles fired by Tehran in retaliation for the ongoing, and widespread, Israeli attacks on Iran's air defences, missile systems, military leadership and nuclear programme. The US has a vast array of military assets very close to Iran, with air force and navy bases positioned across the Persian Gulf, in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. These are all vulnerable to attack. Given the UK is a Nato member, joining in with the defence of these locations would be good politics, and could be considered part of its obligations to the alliance under the Article 5 mutual defence agreement. But Reeves was opaque about what the RAF's handful of aircraft, likely operating out of Akrotiri in Cyprus, would be doing. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if it were asked to, the chancellor told Sky News's Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets both to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' Let's be very clear. Israel is prosecuting a campaign against the population of Gaza with the intent, according to Israeli cabinet ministers, to empty the territory of 2.5 million people. It is simultaneously campaigning on the West Bank, illegally taking land from Palestinians there, setting up colonies, and imposing a system of grand apartheid on the non-Jewish population. The UK has attracted widespread criticism for its reluctant and tardy criticism of these operations, and continues to operate a spy plane over Gaza while supplying small amounts of military equipment to Israel. This is a very bad look – a moral failure that could lead to blowback in the form of violence against the UK. In April last year, former head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger told a Commons committee: 'You cannot pretend that the international environment, our foreign policy or the way in which the West is perceived are not significant drivers of all of this.' This is obvious. It should be obvious, too, to the British government that the very limited military capacity the UK has will make no difference at all to the defence of Israel. Israeli forces were able to fly 200 planes in their first attacks on Iran this week. There's no way the UK can get that many into the air under any circumstances. According to Military Balance 2025, a report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Israel has 240 fighter-bombers. The UK has 113. Israel has more attack helicopters (Apaches mostly) – 38 vs 31 – and the RAF has only nine aerial tankers compared with Israel's 14. Israel also has the kind of air-defence capability that the UK could only dream of; this includes the Iron Dome system, so effective against Hamas attacks. It also has the David's Sling system, which has a range of about 185 miles and, like the Iron Dome, can take down short- and medium-range missiles by smashing into them mid-flight. Meanwhile, its Arrow 2 defence system can hit incoming missiles 30 miles away at very high altitude, while Arrow 3 has a range of 1,500 miles and can shoot down missiles in space. The UK and US do have a very important listening station in Akrotiri, which is also a busy airfield for planes flying over Gaza and the whole of the Middle East. It is within range of Iranian missiles and would need defending by the UK's extra jets and other assets. Iran is likely to try to strangle oil traffic through the Gulf. The UK used to help patrol the region, but the Royal Navy has been steadily reducing its presence there. Meanwhile, Britain runs the UK Maritime Trade Operations service, which advises shipping in the Gulf and Red Sea about security threats. It has stepped up its warnings to shipping in the Gulf and has reported the jamming of navigation systems and ramming attacks by small, unknown vessels before Israel's sorties against Tehran. These operations are clearly ongoing rehearsals and training being carried out by Iranian forces. So, there is plenty for Britain to do without risking the reputational damage that could occur as a result of helping Israel with military aid that it hardly needs right now. It's geopolitical dirty linen.
