Finland's lawmakers vote to leave land mine treaty as Nordic country boosts defenses against Russia
HELSINKI (AP) — Finland's parliament voted overwhelmingly to pull out of a major international treaty on antipersonnel land mines Thursday as the Nordic country seeks to boost its defenses against an increasingly assertive Russia next door.
Finland shares a 1,340-kilometer (830-mile) land border with Russia and joined NATO in 2023. Finland says land mines could be used to defend its vast and rugged terrain in the event of an attack. Finnish lawmakers voted 157-18 to move forward on a government proposal to leave the Ottawa Convention.
The Nordics and Baltics have been sounding the alarm on a potential Russian incursion since it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Analysts say Ukraine is among the countries that are the most affected by land mines and discarded explosives, as a result of Russia's ongoing war.
The Ottawa Convention was signed in 1997, and went into force in 1999. Nearly three dozen countries have not acceded to it, including some key current and past producers and users of land mines such as the United States, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Russia.
In a report released last year by Landmine Monitor, the international watchdog said land mines were still actively being used in 2023 and 2024 by Russia, Myanmar, Iran and North Korea.
In the Baltics, lawmakers in Latvia and Lithuania earlier this year voted to exit the treaty.
Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said civilians will pay the price if more countries leave the treaty.
'The global consensus that once made anti-personnel mines a symbol of inhumanity is starting to fracture,' Spoljaric said in a news release earlier this week. 'This is not just a legal retreat on paper—it risks endangering countless lives and reversing decades of hard-fought humanitarian progress.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The reason Trump is spending as little time as possible at the Nato summit
Donald Trump will spend as little time as possible on European soil next week when he heads to a crucial Nato summit for just 24 hours. He was set to arrive in The Hague on Monday evening before returning to Washington on Wednesday, but the White House says he will now arrive on Tuesday. A week after he left a meeting of the G7 in Canada early, apparently irritated at having to sit through a meeting on wildfires when his mind was on the Middle East, it will raise fears among allies that he has no time for the sorts of summits that underpin international diplomacy. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, said the shortened trip was not a snub, but a reflection of how Nato has tightened the schedule. 'The president is a man of efficiency. He wants to get things done,' she said. 'More action, less talk.' Mr Trump has expressed his irritation with Nato in the past, even threatening to withdraw the US in protest at the way allies were shirking spending targets. But relations have improved in recent years as member states have accepted Mr Trump's arguments. His new schedule means he will still arrive in time for a leaders' dinner and will attend a session devoted to discussing allies' efforts to spend the equivalent of five percent of their gross domestic product on defence. 'He wants to see that happen,' said Ms Leavitt. At the same time, the tight turnaround reflects Mr Trump's impatience with big, multilateral groups. The president upended this week's G7 summit in Kananaski, Canada, hurrying home on Monday night to deal with the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. He had hinted at his frustration as he addressed the media beside Sir Keir Starmer during the afternoon. He was asked about the chances of reaching a deal with Iran and said: 'As soon as we leave here we are going to do something. But I have to leave here. I have, you know, this commitment. I have a lot of commitments.' With the Middle East in flames, he then had to sit through a session on tackling wildfires. A former White House official said: 'He already thinks these meetings are a waste of time. I think you can see the timeline of a wildfire meeting followed by the announcement that he was leaving and draw your own conclusions.' Nato had already accounted for Mr Trump's mercurial nature, condensing its format from three sessions to a single two-and-a-half-hour meeting. Ms Leavitt said the president's travel plans simply reflected that shift. 'Nato has shortened its schedule,' she said. 'The president is rolling with the schedule that Nato has given us.' Organisers have shortened the summit and drafted an abbreviated joint statement in part to avoid a repeat of Mr Trump's last Nato meeting. In 2019, he left early, abandoning a planned press conference after other leaders were caught on camera joking about him. Brett Bruen, a former Obama official and president of the Global Situation Room, said the shortened trips were 'becoming a pattern.' 'He may not want to sit through a session on wildfires but it is the prerogative of the host of any of these summits to decide the agenda,' he said. More to the point, side meetings and other interactions were the place where a lot of business got done. He said: 'If we are no longer to use summits for substance then I think it begs the question: Where else are leaders getting together?' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
Associated Press
39 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' Why does it matter? When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. What does the AP consider? The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. What are previous examples of conflicts where the AP issued guidance to use the word 'war'? The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. Why is it 'war' and not 'War'? AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Could the guidance change? Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
