EU countries' withdrawal from anti-landmine convention sparks controversy

ADVERTISEMENT
Russia's war against Ukraine has led some EU countries to reassess use of anti-personnel mines leading to the prospect of their re-introduction to Europe after a long-standing ban under the
Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
.
Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have all recently announced their plans to withdraw from the treaty, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
The treaty was agreed in 1997, since when 164 states have signed it including all EU member states as well as most African, Asian, and American countries.
The 33 states which haven't signed up include China, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the US along with several Arab countries.
Countries not joining the Ottawa Convention
Euronews
Anti-personnel mines were widely used around the world in 2024, according to the
Landmine Monitor 2024
report, published by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC).
In some cases, national armies or government forces have used them, such as Myanmar, which has deployed them since at least 1999, and Russia has made extensive use of them in its invasion of Ukraine, turning the country into the
most heavily mined
in the world.
Anti-personnel mines are also often used by non-state armed groups. This was the case in 2024 in Colombia, Gaza, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and probably also in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Niger and Nigeria, according to the report. At least 58 countries around the world are currently contaminated by anti-personnel mines.
Where anti-personnel mines have been used in 2024
Euronews
A 'weapon from the past'
'We know that over 80% of the victims of anti-personnel mines are civilians and especially children,' Gilles Carbonnier, vice president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, told Euronews.
He considers anti-personnel mines 'weapons of the past', since they principally kill and maim civilians and have little military effectiveness.
'First, they often harm the army's own side, their own soldiers or friendly forces. Second, clearance is extremely costly and takes a long time,' he said, adding that Croatia has not yet cleared the last remaining mines from the Yugoslav Wars of 35 years ago.
According to
Landmine Monitor 2024
, anti-personnel mines caused 833 casualties in 2023, the highest annual number recorded since 2011.
But beyond fatalities, anti-personnel mines leave behind a long trail of wounded and mutilated, according to Socialist Italian MEP Cecilia Strada, former president of the NGO Emergency, which was founded by her father in 1994.
'I saw the first person injured by a landmine when I was nine years old. Then I counted hundreds of them,' she told Euronews, recalling her past experiences in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia.
Civilians are the main victims—84% of all recorded casualties, according to the statistics—because mines remain in situ long after conflicts end. 'In Afghanistan, I saw children stepping on landmines put there by Russians who had left the country 15 years before,' Strada said.
Women and children are most affected in her experience. 'What happens in a war-economy, or a post-war economy? Men are at the front, or wounded, and so they can no longer bring home the bacon. So women and children graze sheep, take water from the rivers, cultivate the land, and go to collect metals.'
ADVERTISEMENT
'Banning anti-personnel mines is quite obvious,' she states, recalling EU law and the Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law. 'But now, in Europe, we are going down a slippery slope.'
Related
Landmines are being used again. Bold UN action must help their post-conflict victims
The plans of EU countries
Defence ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland issued a
joint statement
to explain their recommendation to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention, citing a 'fundamentally deteriorated security situation' in the Baltic region.
Contacted by Euronews, Estonia's Defence Ministry said that 'there are currently no plans to develop, stockpile, or use anti-personnel mines.' However, with this decision, the four Baltic countries are sending a clear message, as they write in the statement: 'Our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom.'
Finland's defence minister also
explained
the decision by stating: 'Withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Latvian government was even more outspoken in its answer to Euronews: "War in Ukraine has shown that unguided anti-personnel landmines, in combination with other mines and weapon systems, increase the lethality of defence forces by delaying or stopping Russian military mass movements".
The Latvian Parliament will take the final decision on whether the country shall withdraw from the Ottawa Convention and Latvia does not currently plan to produce or transfer unguided anti-personnel mines to Ukraine.
On the contrary, use of landmines is not ruled out: "In our opinion, anti-personnel mines can be used, to disperse enemy forces or channelize and direct it to deny terrain to the enemy that cannot be sufficiently defended", reads the government's statement to Euronews.
Related
Poland and Baltic states want to exit landmine treaty over Russia's military threat
The European Union's institutions are broadly in line with these plans, despite the EU's position on the topic being very clear: 'Any use of anti-personnel mines anywhere, anytime, and by any actor remains completely unacceptable,' reads the official
document
on the ban against anti-personnel mines, adopted in 2024.
ADVERTISEMENT
Asked by Euronews during a press briefing, the European Commission
stopped short
of condemning the decisions of the five Baltic member states.
'We have contributed over 174 million since 2023 to humanitarian mine action, including 97 million euros specifically for mine clearance,' recalled Commission spokesperson Anouar El Anouni, without commenting on the withdrawal plans.
The topic was included in the European Parliament's annual report on the 'Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy' voted on in April in Strasbourg.
An amendment that 'strongly condemns the intention of some member states to withdraw from the 1997 Convention' was rejected by a show of hands. Another motion, tabled by the European People's Party and approved with 431 votes in favour, essentially justifies the steps taken by the Baltic countries and blames Russia for them.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Russian threats do not justify EU countries responding in kind, Gilles Carbonnier told Euronews.
'International humanitarian law and humanitarian disarmament treaties apply precisely in exceptional circumstances of armed conflict, in the worst of circumstances. And international humanitarian law does not rest on reciprocity, because this would trigger a downward spiral,' he said.
Moves such as these by EU countries could provoke a domino effect, he claimed, sending a 'negative signal' to those countries around the world that are in armed conflict but are still adhere to the convention.
'They might say: 'Why should we continue to adhere to that treaty?''
ADVERTISEMENT

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Euronews

2 hours ago

• Euronews

Meeting between top EU diplomats and Iran's FM yields hope of talks

A meeting between top European diplomats and Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, on Friday yielded hopes of further talks but no indication of any immediate or concrete breakthrough, a week after Israel attacked Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, erupting into war between both sides. Foreign ministers from Britain, France, and Germany and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, emerged from the talks at a Geneva hotel nearly four hours after Iran's Araghchi arrived for the meeting. It was the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials since the start of the conflict. In a joint written statement issued after the talks ended, the three European nations and the EU said that they 'discussed avenues towards a negotiated solution to Iran's nuclear programme.' They reiterated their concerns about the 'expansion' of the nuclear program, adding that it has 'no credible civilian purpose.' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said, 'We agreed that we will discuss nuclear but also broader issues that we have and keep the discussions open." 'The good result today is that we leave the room with the impression that the Iranian side is fundamentally ready to continue talking about all important issues,' German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said, adding both sides had held 'very serious talks.' While France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told reporters, military operations can slow Iran's nuclear program, but in no way can they eliminate it. 'We know well—after having seen what happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Libya—how illusory and dangerous it is to want to impose regime change from outside.' Barrot also said that European nations 'invited the Iranian minister to envisage negotiations with all parties, including the United States, and without waiting for the end of the strikes." However promising, Iran ruled out new nuclear talks until attacks from Israel stop. According to Araghchi, Iran was ready to consider diplomacy only if Israel's "aggression is stopped." "I make it crystal clear that Iran's defence capabilities are non-negotiable," the Iranian foreign minister stressed after the Geneva talks. He expressed support for 'a continuation of discussions with the E3 and the EU and expressed his readiness to meet again in the near future.' He also denounced Israel's attacks against nuclear facilities in Iran and expressed 'grave concern' about what he called 'non-condemnation' by European nations. For his part, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy urged Tehran to continue its talks with the United States. Lammy said, 'We are keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran, and we urge Iran to continue their talks with the United States.' He added that 'we were clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' He added there is 'a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution' and urged Iran 'to take that off-ramp.' Trump delays decision Meanwhile, it remains unclear how that will happen as US President Donald Trump continues to weigh whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Trump said on Wednesday that he'll decide within two weeks whether the US military will get directly involved in the war, given the 'substantial chance' for renewed negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. Israel says it launched its airstrike campaign to stop Iran from getting closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon. Iran and the United States had been negotiating over the possibility of a new diplomatic deal over Tehran's programme, though Trump has said Israel's campaign came after a 60-day window he set for the talks. 'We are entitled … to defend our territorial integrity' - Iran In light of the possibility of US involvement, Iran's supreme leader rejected Trump's calls for surrender Wednesday and warned that any military involvement by the Americans would cause 'irreparable damage to them.' Just before meeting the European diplomats on Friday, Foreign Minister Araghchi made a brief appearance before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, telling the council that Israel's 'attacks on nuclear facilities are grave war crimes'. Araghchi insisted that Iran is "entitled … and determined to defend our territorial integrity, national sovereignty, and security with all force.' Tehran has long insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, though it was the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The initial 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers was negotiated in large part by the three European nations. However, Iran has been found wanting in its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, leading to warnings by the EU states to reimpose sanctions that were suspended under the agreement.

France 24

5 hours ago

• France 24

Trump says two weeks is 'maximum' for Iran decision

Trump added that Iran "doesn't want to talk to Europe," dismissing the chance of success in talks between European powers and Iran in Geneva on resolving the conflict between Israel and Iran. Trump also played down the possibility of asking Israel to halt its attacks, after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran would not resume talks with the United States until Israel relented. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump told reporters when asked if he could decide to strike Iran before that. He added that the aim was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." Trump had said in a statement on Thursday that he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because there was a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. Those comments had been widely seen as opening a two-week window for negotiations to end the war between Israel and Iran, with the European powers rushing to talks with Tehran. But his latest remarks indicated that Trump could still make his decision before that if he feels that there has been no progress towards dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Trump dismissed the chances of Europe making a difference, saying the talks between Britain, France, Germany and EU diplomats and Tehran's foreign minister "didn't help." "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump told reporters as he arrived in Morristown, New Jersey. Asked if he would ask Israel to stop its attacks as Iran had asked, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens."

Local France

6 hours ago

• Local France

Big-name porn sites back online in France after age check row

France has gradually introduced requirements this year for all adult websites to have users confirm their age with details such as a credit card or ID document. The aim is to prevent minors from accessing pornography. But the Paris administrative tribunal on Monday suspended a government decree while investigating whether it was compatible with EU legislation. The French government has shared its intention to appeal to the Council of State, the country's highest administrative court. Advertisement The three platforms' owner, Aylo, said the decree's suspension was an "opportunity to reconsider more efficient approaches" to age verification. Aylo, based in Cyprus, had made its websites unavailable in France in early June as a protest against the French decree. Failure to comply could have lead to sanctions including fines or the blocking of the websites. Aylo argued that this was an ineffective mechanism that exposed people's data to bad actors, hacks or leaks. "Requiring you to repeatedly provide sensitive personal information creates an unacceptable security risk that we refuse to impose on our users," the company said in a message displayed on the sites' homepages earlier this month. About 40 percent of children in France access to porn sites every month, according to a 2024 study by France's Arcom audiovisual watchdog. In a bid to preserve privacy, the government decree also required operators to offer a third-party "double-blind" option that would prevent the platforms from seeing users' identifying information. Aylo, which reports seven million visitors in France daily across its various platforms, has called instead for governments to require makers of operating systems such as Apple, Microsoft and Google to verify users' ages at the level of individual devices. Advertisement The platform also argues that the French law "diverts users to thousands of sites that deliberately circumvent regulations" and fails to moderate videos for issues such as the age and consent of performers. Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites.