Unravelling of landmine treaty a ‘major challenge to arms control'

Telegraph

04-04-2025

Other demining charities The Telegraph spoke to were similarly sympathetic to the security concerns of countries bordering Russia.
'We recognise there are no easy choices when a state feels under threat of armed aggression,' said Riccardo Labianco, an international policy manager for the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), another major UK-based charity. 'But International Humanitarian Law (IHL), including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.
'For decades, military and humanitarian experts alike, have agreed, with evidence, that landmines are so dangerous for civilians that the only good choice is to never use them.'
The Ottawa Treaty was hailed as a breakthrough in efforts to eradicate the use of anti-personnel mines – smaller mines designed to kill people rather than blow up vehicles. Since it was signed in 1997, 164 countries have ratified or acceded to it.
Jody Williams, who in 1997 became one of only 12 women ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize for leading the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), warned that the departure of several European countries from the treaty could spur others to leave.
'With a handful of countries leaving, it makes it easier for others to think about it too,' she told The Telegraph.
'Couple that with all the mines being used by both sides with Putin's invasion of Ukraine and [Elon] Musk's slashing of foreign aid money, which includes support for mine clearance operations, and things look bleak in that part of the world.'
Mr Labianco echoed Ms Williams's concerns about the potential proliferation of landmines, noting that 'the Ottawa Convention has had a role in tackling the global circulation of these weapons, preventing their acquisition by irresponsible actors and entities'.
High-tech territorial defence
Despite the setback to arms control efforts, there is hope that the countries leaving the treaty will use landmines responsibly.
Announcing Finland's decision, Alexander Stubb, the country's president, said the move was 'based on a thorough assessment by the relevant ministries and the Defence Forces.
'Finland is committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines,' he said.
Keir Giles, a Senior Consulting Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at the Chatham House think tank, said: 'There's a huge difference between weapons like landmines and cluster munitions when they are used and deployed by responsible countries that are governed by international humanitarian law, or when they used by countries like Russia.'
Anti-personnel mines, if they are used, will be deployed as part of a complex system of defences including trenches, natural barriers like forests and rivers, as well as fortifications like the 'dragon's teeth' obstacles seen in Ukraine.
The way they are used will differ from country to country, Mr Giles said, noting that the Baltic states, due to their small size, 'need to defend all of their territory, because as soon as they run out of space, they're out of time'.
Even the demining charities are sanguine about developments in technology that could reduce the risks associated with the weapons.
Newer landmines can be detonated or deactivated remotely, said Maj Gen Cowan, making them much easier to remove and control than older 'dumb' weapons, that 'stay in the ground, meant to kill a soldier, but actually it will kill a civilian, a child, decades after the event'.
'The Americans, with the mines that they gave to Ukraine in November, stated that the mines they had given can do that,' he said. 'So the technology is emerging that allows that to happen, and we need to have a conversation about what technology could keep the treaty current, live and still meeting its humanitarian remit.'