The Ottawa landmine ban treaty must remain relevant – here's how

Telegraph

04-04-2025

The decision by four states last month and another one this week to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, widely known as the Ottawa Treaty, is one of the most significant challenges to global arms control in decades.
After decades of protection by America, Europeans are now planning for their own defence of the continent. I run The HALO Trust, the world's largest landmine clearance charity and an extraordinary British success story. But for the first 30 years of my career, I was a soldier.
When I first joined the Army the defence of Europe against the Warsaw Pact was our primary purpose. Soldiers like me spent most of our lives perfecting our skills in defensive warfare. A key defensive tool of the time was the landmine.
For anyone who hasn't dug a slit trench, unrolled razor wire and laid mines at two o' clock in the morning, in order to be ready for a dawn attack, it is probably hard to understand how seriously we took this training. The landmines of the 1980s were designed to slow up the Soviet advance and allow NATO forces the chance to counter-attack.
It is one thing to use landmines in defence, but quite another to be on the receiving end. In Iraq, but even more so in Afghanistan, I took part in campaigns in which hundreds of British soldiers were killed and wounded by the homemade equivalent of the landmine, the IED.
The former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, supported by an Air Vice Marshal and a lawyer, have called for the reintroduction of landmines into the UK's defensive armoury. Distinguished as these individuals are, none of them has had to deal with the consequences of an explosion that rips limbs from the human torso, killing the victim or leaving them severely disabled.
Of course, all weapons can have this effect, but what distinguishes landmines from the rest is their dormancy. While most weapons are used in the moment, landmines lie in the ground long after the war has ended. Instead of harming their intended military victims, landmines will kill and maim civilians decades later. Not only do they kill and maim, they deny land to farmers, roads to travellers, food to the hungry, schools to children and hospitals to the sick.
As someone who has been both a soldier and a humanitarian, I believe that Europe does need to defend itself. I therefore believe in rearmament as a means to protect our democracy and sovereignty. But I also believe in the rules based international system. The Ottawa landmine ban treaty is part of that system, but it must remain relevant to the issues of today.
How? First, by retaining current signatories and encouraging new ones. While some states look to leave, others could benefit from joining. Syria, for instance – where over half the population is at risk from landmines and unexploded ordnance – would gain immensely from the Treaty's expertise and capacity to mobilise international funding for clearance.
To keep countries in the convention, it must be framed as being in their national interest. From Afghanistan to Angola, mine clearance plays a vital role in food security, public safety, restoring infrastructure, and enabling refugees to return home.
The second track involves a serious conversation about modernising military technology. Western nations looking to rearm have a choice between resorting to producing cheap, indiscriminate mines or, alternatively, investing in the development of new smarter munitions as part of a modern industrial defence strategy. These could provide improved protections to prevent long-term humanitarian harm.
Finally, we need to realise that not all non-signatories to the Ottawa Treaty are the same. A sensible approach must allow Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to uphold the Treaty's principles while still ensuring their national security. International norms can, in some cases, be as powerful as international law. The United States, for example, has never signed the Ottawa Treaty but historically has been the largest financial supporter of efforts to eliminate landmines worldwide.
I believe that the UK should not only remain steadfast in its support to the Ottawa Treaty today but should champion it being as a key part of the human security architecture of tomorrow.