Last week, the foreign ministers of five European countries – Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland – announced their intention to leave the Mine Ban Treaty. The rationale for the five European countries is to have all the tools at their disposal to prevent and counter potential Russian aggression. Met with widespread criticism and outrage, the announcement reflects an unfortunate erosion of the 30-year global norm to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines.
The Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention was adopted in 1997 and currently has 164 Member States. The treaty prohibits the stockpiling, production, transfer, and use of anti-personnel landmines in all circumstances as well as assistance with these prohibited acts. Over the past three decades, the treaty has had a measurable impact on reducing civilian injuries and deaths from landmines, catalyzing demining efforts that have restored thousands of acres of land to productive civilian use, and providing assistance to those harmed by these indiscriminate weapons.
Though deeply disappointing, the withdrawal of these five governments from the convention can possibly trace its roots to an undermining of the Treaty by the United States. In November 2024, shortly after the somber 1000-day anniversary of the war in Ukraine, the Biden administration agreed to provide anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine to support continued efforts in the war against Russia. Although the United States faced widespread domestic and international criticism for its decision, it continued to send tranches of landmines to Ukraine.
While the United States is not a State Party to the Mine Ban treaty, the U.S. decision to resume sales after decades of adhering to the spirit and principles of the Mine Ban treaty has indeed led to the outcome many feared – the deterioration of the treaty itself.
Last week’s announcement by the five European governments sends a chilling signal to the Mine Ban Treaty States Parties. The potential withdrawal undermines global norms and erodes a longstanding taboo around these weapons, which have limited military utility, disproportionately impacted civilians, and have a legacy of undermining development and opportunities for years to come in the countries in which they are used.
Across international disarmament agreements, it is rare for governments to withdraw from their legal obligations. To have five governments at once leave a long-standing treaty portends a disruptive message for the international rules-based order and for multilateralism, writ large. In the particular case of the Mine Ban treaty, leaving the agreement is highly unlikely to provide a significant military advantage for the five countries concerned. Unfortunately, these decisions will certainly present new risks to civilians in those countries and wherever landmines are used for years to come.