The news last week that Poland and the three Baltic nations are withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention banning member nations from using anti-personnel landmines (APL) may surprise some observers.
But it shouldn’t. The lofty goals of the agreement simply can’t withstand the harsh realities on the ground.
At the Convention’s first meeting in 1999, host-nation President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique declared it “a driving force … in order to ensure peace, security and prosperity of mankind.”
Yet despite these soaring aims, the Ottawa Convention failed to attract major landmine nations like the United States, China, and Russia, all of whom remained outside the treaty and signaled no intention of joining.
Today, Ottawa’s cheerleaders still characterize APL use as reckless and inhumane. Yet amid the brutality in the Ukraine war, the purported European consensus on antipersonnel landmines is collapsing.
>>> The True Story Behind Donald Trump’s Stance on NATO and Ukraine
The post-Cold War peace created an alluring and illusory moment in which the permanent end of great power conflict seemed within reach. Animated by this vision, Central and Eastern European nations, newly freed from Soviet shackles, sought to establish their western bona fides by signing on to international instruments like the Ottawa Convention.
Baltic officials connected landmines to “poverty, desperation, and regional instability,” and noted their “support [for] all efforts” to ban APL. Similarly, Polish officials declared their government’s constant support for “all efforts” to restrict “anti-personnel and other types of landmines.”
Fast forward to today, though, when we have the Baltic and Polish defense ministers issuing a joint statement declaring their unanimous recommendation to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention in order to “use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom.”
Why the change of heart? Reality.
The grinding war in Ukraine has demonstrated to Europe that Russia has no compunction about deploying APL to deny infantry and armored movement and degrade Ukrainian forces.
Forced to confront their geographic situation and the utility of APL, Ukrainian forces have likewise deployed landmines to protect their country and safeguard their soldiers on the front lines. Indeed, Ukraine turned to the United States to supply it with the weapons to secure its battlefield objectives.
These real-life cases confirm what NATO and American academic reviews demonstrated at the dawn of the 21st century: landmines have unique military value.
In a 2004 policy statement, the U.S. Department of State wrote, “Landmines enable a commander to shape the battlefield to his advantage.” Likewise, a 2003 NATO study described the value of APL in “providing protection to anti-tank minefields, interfering with ground activities, and aiding in economy of force and force multiplier roles.”
Those who oppose APL and support the Ottawa Convention insist that regardless of military utility, mitigating civilian harm requires globalizing the Convention and its limits on APL.
But this ignores the real-world evidence.
>>> Russia’s Libya Push Should Alarm the U.S. and Europe
The country that’s made the most progress toward reducing civilian casualties is the United States—a nation outside of the Ottawa Convention. From supporting landmine clearance to developing non-persistent landmines, America has done more than any Ottawa Convention member to protect civilians while maintaining needed military capabilities.
This points to an even broader reality: Ottawa has failed to achieve its goal of universal landmine destruction.
Instead, the major powers with significant APL stockpiles all remain outside of the Convention. Further, APL remain central to securing South Korea from massed infantry and armor assaults by Pyongyang.
It’s time for sovereign nations to face the facts: universal unilateral disarmament is unlikely under any scenario.
The recent announcements from the Baltics and Poland reflect the effects of this harsh truth. This may soon extend north to Helsinki, where officials are reportedly weighing a similar decision to withdraw from Ottawa.
These NATO allies should follow through on their defense ministers’ recommendations. If they do, European security will be all the stronger.
This piece originally appeared in 1945
