Countries Quitting the Ottawa Convention

Context

The Ottawa Convention, formally known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, was adopted in 1997 to prohibit the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. It has been instrumental in reducing civilian casualties and promoting demining efforts globally. However, recent developments have sparked concerns as NATO members Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) announced their plans to withdraw from the treaty. This decision marks a significant shift in global disarmament norms.

About the Ottawa Convention

• Adoption and Scope: Adopted on September 18, 1997, and entering into force on March 1, 1999, the treaty forbids anti-personnel landmines while excluding anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines.
• Impact: The treaty has facilitated the destruction of millions of landmines worldwide and has significantly reduced civilian casualties worldwide for the past 30 years.
• Membership: By March 2025, 165 states were parties to the treaty, while other notable non-signatories include India, the United States, Russia, China, and Pakistan.

Reasons for Withdrawal

• Security Concerns: The main reason given by Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states has been heightened threats to security from Russia in the wake of the latter’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. These nations fear some form of aggression from Russia or Belarus and contend that landmines would be an important instrument of defense.
• Military Parity: The reasoning of countries withdrawing from the treaty is that to comply with its provisions places them at a disadvantage to others, such as Russia and Belarus, which continue to use landmines. Such countries emphasize that the strengthened deterrent effect would stem from the unimpeded use of such weapons.
• Regional Instability: The ongoing situation in Ukraine has heightened fears of escalation throughout Eastern Europe. Countries exiting the Convention consider landmines necessary to prepare for the advance of Russian forces during or immediately following the war.

Impact of Withdrawal

Global Norm Erosion: Withdrawal undermines efforts to stigmatize landmine use the world over for decades. Critics warn this may weaken international disarmament agreements and allow other nations to back out en masse from comparable treaties. 

Civilian Harm: Anti-personnel mines have a disproportionate impact on civilians, with over 80 percent of victims being non-combatants. Ukraine has already reported substantial civilian casualties due to landmines during the full-scale war.

Resumption of Landmine Production: Countries leaving the treaty will regain the ability to produce, stockpile, and deploy landmines. For instance:

• Poland plans to restart production.
• Lithuania may also exit the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), further expanding its arsenal.

Humanitarian Concerns: Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned these decisions as disastrous for civilian safety. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warns that such moves weaken protections for civilians during armed conflicts.

Criticism and Challenges

• Military Utility Debate: Experts argue that anti-personnel mines have limited military utility in modern warfare but impose long-term risks on civilian populations. Abandoning the treaty may not provide significant strategic advantages while increasing humanitarian costs.
• Domino Effect: This withdrawal could set a precedent for other nations to reconsider their commitments to international disarmament agreements. Such actions threaten multilateralism and global peace efforts.

Economic Impact

Landmine contamination reduces agricultural productivity and hinders development in affected areas. Critics caution that reintroducing mines could harm local economies in addition to causing human suffering.

Conclusion

The decision by Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention reflects growing regional insecurity amid escalating tensions with Russia. While these nations emphasize defense preparedness, their actions risk undermining global disarmament norms and exacerbating civilian harm. The move highlights a broader challenge for international treaties: balancing security needs with humanitarian principles.

Download as PDF