Exit from ban on anti-personnel landmines imminent?
Citing the need to better protect themselves against the growing threat posed by Russia and Belarus, Poland and the Baltic states have jointly declared their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty which bans the use of anti-personnel mines. Finland is also considering withdrawal. Between outrage and understanding, commentators also cast about for a middle way that minimises the risks to civilians.
Response to mounting concerns
Spotmedia understands the decision in Warsaw:
“Poland will withdraw from the Ottawa Convention, which regulates the use of anti-personnel mines. This decision, which was taken because of the Russian threat, could turn Nato's eastern border into a minefield. However the decision to withdraw from the treaty emphasises the mounting concern in Europe about Russian aggression. It is part of a series of steps taken by Warsaw to prepare for a potential conflict with Moscow.”
No need for banned weapons
The Tages-Anzeiger warns:
“It's understandable that these states are more concerned about their security than other Nato members situated far away from Russia. It must nevertheless be remembered that all of these countries also have domestic political motives. Poland is in the midst of a presidential election campaign, and this is not the first time that Prime Minister Donald Tusk has suddenly acted on proposals from the former ruling right-wing nationalist PiS party. In Estonia, a collapsed coalition recently plunged the government into crisis. And in all the countries concerned there is an ongoing political confrontation over the best defence strategy. Open-mindedness and ethical action appear to be increasingly overlooked in this process. Defence and deterrence are vital. But there is no need for the use of justifiably banned weapons to achieve this.”
Self-defence is not reprehensible
The Frankfurter Rundschau puts in:
“For neurotics like Trump and Putin who are far away from the front lines, war always remains a tried and tested means of expanding and maintaining power. For Trump, the victims of war are 'losers', and the Kremlin has never cared much about its own losses. For Poland and the Baltic states, however, it's a matter of survival if the two big dogs in the manger start divvying Europe up between themselves. We in as-yet-safe Western Europe must respect the sacrifice that it entails when the small Baltic states that have no strategic room for retreat are willing to turn huge swathes of land into permanent killing fields. That this has to happen by the use of such a despicable weapon - there is no other option - should make us angry. At Russia.”
Responsible use is possible
Finland's defence capabilities would be further strengthened by the reintroduction of mines, explains Aamulehti:
“Mines have caused fear around the world because they injure and kill civilians. But our mines would only be used to prevent the enemy from invading our country. ... Finland is also a responsible mine layer in other respects: the locations of mines are digitally recorded on a map and when the crisis is over, the mines are cleared so that they no longer pose a threat to the civilian population. Europe is calling for stronger defence. Finland has already complied, but the reintroduction of mines would be an important and cost-effective addition. And they would act on our enemies as a strong deterrent.”
Mines have advanced
The Defence24 website welcomes the decision:
“Withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Nevertheless it poses further challenges for Poland. ... Because the withdrawal doesn't mean not respecting humanitarian law with regard to the use of anti-personnel mines. ... Of course, we can't be content with simply producing anti-personnel landmines as we know them from the last century. As a state, we must invest in modern solutions for so-called 'smart' mines. Firstly, these can be deactivated remotely. Secondly, they can be located so that they can be neutralised more easily once the fighting is over.”