Pivot by some countries toward landmine use appalls experts
Moves by five NATO countries to quit a treaty banning the use of landmines have experts worried, ahead of a Geneva meeting aiming to boost efforts on ridding the world of the explosive ordnance.
The decisions announced by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland over the past three weeks are "a dangerous setback for the protection of civilians in armed conflict," the International Committee of the Red Cross said.
The first four countries said in a March 18 joint statement that "Russia's aggression" — evinced by its all-out invasion of Ukraine — forced them to start moves to pull out of the 1997 Ottawa Treaty aimed at eliminating anti-personnel landmines.
Finland followed suit last week with a similar announcement.
The steps come ahead of a three-day meeting starting Wednesday in Geneva organised by the U.N. Mine Action Service (UNMAS) and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD).
Tobias Privitelli, head of the GICHD, admitted to reporters that the meeting would take place in a "challenging environment."
Progress made over decades in ridding the world of landmines was at risk, he said.
UNMAS's head of policy and advocacy, James Staples, said nearly 60 countries or territories, from Ukraine to Myanmar to Sudan and Syria, are affected by explosive ordinance, and "millions of people suffer from their impact on a daily basis."
Adding to the headwinds faced by their two organizations was U.S. funding cuts to foreign aid.
While the United States is not among the 160 signatories of the Ottawa Treaty, it had been the single biggest national funder of mine action.
Washington had been providing over $300 million a year, or around 40% of total international support, according to the 2024 Landmine Monitor.
"The funding that they have provided ... has undoubtedly saved lives and made a difference to hundreds of thousands," Staples said.
While some short-term waivers have been granted to some programmes, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) cautioned that long-term funding was uncertain, with thousands of trained deminers currently sidelined.
In the three decades of the treaty's existence, the number of people killed or maimed by landmines went from 25,000 to below 5,800 in 2023, and millions of landmines destroyed worldwide, according to the Landmine Monitor.
Staples said that, when other types of explosive remnants of war, like cluster munitions and IEDs (improvised explosive devices), were factored in, the number of casualties reached around 15,000 in 2023.
The vast majority of victims of explosive ordnance — 85% — are civilians, and more than half of them are children, Privitelli noted.
He said that, in many territories, the threat of landmines lingers for decades after the end of a conflict, posing a persistent hidden threat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
3 days ago
- Japan Times
Germany's Merz lets Trump do the talking and survives Oval Office meeting
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz successfully navigated a 40-minute meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office without falling victim to the public humiliation the American president has doled out to other leaders — even though both Germany and Europe are two of Trump's perpetual irritants. Merz heeded the advice from a number of European leaders that he should let Trump do most of the talking, and when he did talk, to praise the president. Merz faded into the background for much of the meeting, breaking his silence to say that Germany owes "the Americans a lot.' Merz's meeting with Trump was a high-risk move to try to lobby the president on several existential issues for the European Union: the brewing transatlantic trade conflict, the continent's security architecture and the upcoming NATO summit and how to continue support for Ukraine.
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
End of Cold War Spelled Trouble for Liberalism
The world is in great turmoil. In the war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, the brutal fighting continues to drag on, and in the United States, the Trump administration is causing concern among its allies. So what will the international order look like going forward? Behind all this turmoil lurks an ideological climate that is critical of liberalism. In other words, the ideals of liberalism, which spread around the globe as universal ideals following the end of the Cold War, are now facing criticism and backlash around the world. In fact, criticism, dissatisfaction, anger and hostility toward liberalism have emerged as the driving force behind politics in some major countries. From Russian President Vladimir Putin's perspective, the spread of liberal and democratic thought and its arrival in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is a national security threat to his country. This development can be seen as one side of a coin, the obverse side being an eastward expanding NATO and an expanding sphere of U.S. influence. At the same time, the United States, which has embodied liberalism since its founding, has seen its own steady uptick in critiques of such thinking. For instance, in his 2018 book 'Why Liberalism Failed,' Prof. Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame, whose philosophy is close to that of the Trump administration and is close to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, argued that liberalism 'has failed because it has succeeded.' Deneen predicted that in response to the anger and fear felt by the public following the collapse of liberalism, a populist nationalist dictatorship or a military dictatorship would be highly likely. After the end of the Cold War, paeans were made to the triumph of democracy and liberal economics over the communist system. As can be seen in Francis Fukuyama's 'The End of History?' essay, published in 1989, there was a growing utopian belief that foresaw the inevitable spread of liberalism around the world. However, history has not come to an end so easily. John Gray, a former professor at the London School of Economics, was one of the first scholars who warned against such optimistic thinking and criticized it, and he published many papers on the history of liberal thought. In his book 'False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism' — published in 1998, or 20 years before Deneen's own book critical of liberalism — Gray argued there was a rather strong possibility that the United States' laissez-faire economics would implode as emerging economic powers challenged its hegemonic place in the world economy. For 30 years after the end of the Cold War, we blindly believed in the utopian idea that liberal economics and democracy would expand across the world, and we have looked optimistically toward the future world order. But now we are faced with Russia's relentless aggression and violence against Ukraine. On top of that, we have witnessed the Trump administration pull back on international cooperation and challenge global norms time and time again. Lessons from history 'The Counter-Enlightenment' is an essay written by British political theorist Isaiah Berlin, who was one of the most renowned thinkers in the second half of the 20th century and lectured at the University of Oxford for many years. It provides a useful guide to the dynamics of world politics. In his essay, Berlin focuses on the spread of a backlash rooted in the culture, history and traditions of each region in response to the Enlightenment's rationalism and faith in science, which spread throughout Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. He warned that 'Cosmopolitanism is the shedding of all that makes one most human, most oneself.' This way of thinking prompted many to believe that the uniqueness and culture of each nation and region should be preserved. For instance, German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, opposed the spread of Enlightenment ideals and acknowledged that 'There is a plurality of incommensurable cultures.' He maintained that 'To belong to a given community, to be connected with its members by indissoluble and impalpable ties of common language, historical memory, habit, tradition and feeling, is a basic human need.' Berlin also focused on French conservative thinkers such as the Catholic Joseph de Maistre. De Maistre 'held the Enlightenment to be one of the most foolish, as well as the most ruinous, forms of social thinking,' Berlin wrote, adding that, 'The conception of man as naturally disposed to benevolence, cooperation and peace, or, at any rate, capable of being shaped in this direction by appropriate education or legislation, is for [de Maistre] shallow and false.' De Maistre, according to Berlin, believed nature to be 'a field of unceasing slaughter' and that 'Men are by nature aggressive and destructive; they rebel over trifles.' Berlin saw the anti-Enlightenment movement in the 19th century as a reaction to the Enlightenment, and in the same way, we are now witnessing a reaction against the universalist, rationalistic liberalism of the post-Cold War period. Taking a bird's-eye view of the history of the past 150 years, a tendency appears that when you have the spread of utopianism based on the ideas of Enlightenment liberalism, there is a subsequent outburst of anti-Enlightenment thought or nationalism in reaction. Russia, the United States and China are all seeing criticism of liberalism and a rise of nationalism, and the same can be said for many European countries where far-right forces are on the rise. The anti-Enlightenment movement that began in the 19th century, the Romantic movement that defended each culture and tradition, and the rise of nationalism all culminated in World War I. Then, in the 1930s, the rise of fascism and Nazism as a critique of liberalism led to World War II. In our post-Cold War era, Russia is continuing a major war against Ukraine, but we are not yet in another world war. What we can do now is reconcile these two modes of thinking — the liberal international order that is based on free trade and democracy, the very foundations of the post-World War II international order, and the anti-Enlightenment thought critical of liberalism that is flaring up in the world's major countries. In his 1939 book 'The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939,' British historian E.H. Carr, who sought peace in the late 1930s, explored ways to optimally merge utopianism and realism. After the '30 years' crisis,' in which post-Cold War utopianism collapsed, the world remains plagued by crises, uncertainty and conflict. We must find a new balance. Yuichi Hosoya Yuichi Hosoya is a professor of international politics at Keio University and the author of numerous books on British, European and Japanese politics and foreign affairs, including 'Security Politics in Japan: Legislation for a New Security Environment.' The original article in Japanese appeared in the June 1 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
Japan Today
3 days ago
- Japan Today
Trump, Germany's Merz build ties in friendly meeting on Ukraine and trade
By Andreas Rinke, Andrea Shalal, Sarah Marsh and Jeff Mason U.S. President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz bonded during an amicable White House meeting on Thursday with talks about Ukraine, trade, and troops but none of the fireworks that characterized other Oval Office visits by foreign leaders. Trump described Merz as a good representative of Germany and also "difficult," describing that as a compliment. He said U.S. forces would remain in Germany and said he welcomed Berlin's commitment to boost its spending on defense. Merz, who was aiming for a meeting that did not explode negatively as others have, described the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany that Trump opposed as a mistake, and said Germany was ready to deepen ties with the United States. The two leaders met in the Oval Office, which has been the site of showdowns between Trump and visiting dignitaries including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Not so on Thursday. Trump and Merz, both conservatives, appeared to have a warm rapport from the start. Merz started with praise, thanking Trump for putting him up in the Blair House, a presidential guest dwelling across from the White House, and Trump thanked him for doing so. Merz also expressed appreciation for U.S. liberation of Germany from Nazi rule. But tensions over trade simmered beneath the surface. The United States and the European Union are in talks to reach a trade deal, which would be critical for Germany's export-heavy economy, but Trump said he would be fine with an agreement or with tariffs. "We'll end up hopefully with a trade deal," Trump said. "I'm OK with the tariffs or we make a deal with the trade." Merz, who took office last month, told reporters ahead of the meeting that he was not expecting major breakthroughs on tariffs, NATO or the war in Ukraine. Afterwards, he said he was "extremely satisfied" with how things went. "I've found in the American president someone I can speak with very well on a personal level," he said, adding Trump was visibly moved to receive a gift copy of his grandfather Friedrich Trump's German birth certificate from 1869. "We had a really good discussion and I think we were able to build a durable personal relationship," Merz told Germany's RTL television station. He told reporters that Trump accepted his invitation to visit Germany and would now work out a date. Trump has urged NATO countries to spend more on defense, though he suggested there might be some limits on how far Berlin should go given its World War II past. He also assuaged fears that he might seek to move U.S. troops out of Germany, which holds multiple bases and is something he threatened to do during his first term. "The answer is yes," Trump said, when asked if he would leave U.S. troops in Germany. "We'll talk about that. But if they'd like to have them there, yeah." TENSIONS UNDERNEATH The meeting comes amid a broader fraying of ties between the U.S. and many European countries. Trump's administration has intervened in domestic European politics in a break with past practice, aligning with right-wing political movements and challenging European policies on immigration and free speech. Merz, 69, and his entourage sought coaching from other leaders on how to deal with Trump to avoid conflict, according to a source briefed on the matter. The two leaders will meet again this month during a Group of Seven summit in Canada and then at a summit of the NATO Western military alliance, which has been strained by Trump's threats that the U.S. will not come to the aid of allies that do not increase their defense spending. Such threats are of particular concern to Germany, which has relied on U.S. nuclear deterrence for its security since the end of World War Two. Merz has backed Trump's demand for NATO members to commit to a target of more than doubling defense spending to 5% of economic output in the future, earning praise last weekend from U.S. Defens Secretary Pete Hegseth. Merz, who has promised a more assertive foreign policy, also coordinated a visit by European leaders to Kyiv just days after taking office, two European diplomat sources said. The meeting could have been a sour one. Merz was publicly critical of Trump shortly before the 2024 presidential election and, on the evening of his own party's election victory in February, criticized the "ultimately outrageous" comments flowing from Washington during the campaign. Jeff Rathke, a former U.S. diplomat and president of the American-German Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said it was notable that Trump did not seize on their differences. "None of this means that it will be smooth sailing for the next 3-1/2 years together, but it's about the best possible start to the relationship at the leadership level," Rathke said. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
