GENEVA
As Poland and the Baltic nations plan to withdraw from the international deal banning landmines, humanitarian organizations have been raising the alarm, including the coalition of groups that spearheaded the treaty in 1992.
“We have to say very clearly: We condemn the move to leave the mine ban treaty,” Tamar Gabelnick, director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told Anadolu in an interview.
🚨 ICBL warns against NATO states' withdrawal from landmine treaty
— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) March 21, 2025
▪️ Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia plan to leave the Mine Ban Treaty, citing security concerns over Russia
▪️ ICBL’s Tamar Gabelnick: 'We have to say very clearly: We condemn the move to leave the mine… pic.twitter.com/NSK4NzK1we
The 1997 convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, bans the acquisition, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of anti-personnel landmines. According to Gabelnick, it has saved “countless lives,” led to the destruction of 55 million landmines, and helped secure $800 million in annual funding for mine clearance and victim assistance.
The ICBL head said its aim is “to protect civilians from these indiscriminate and inhumane weapons.”
“We don’t believe that having the option to use them will make populations any safer. Quite the opposite — using landmines on one’s own territory is just setting the stage for civilians to be killed or, to be perfectly blunt, civilians to have their legs ripped off, including children,” she said.
“We can’t understand why any country would want to leave it, why any population would want to support that move. It’s damaging not just to the convention. It’s damaging to the whole body of international humanitarian law,” Gabelnick warns.
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — members of both NATO and the EU — announced their intention to pull out of the Ottawa Treaty earlier this week.
The joint statement they released points to the rising threat of Russia amid the ongoing Ukraine war, as well as the need to give their militaries “flexibility and freedom of choice” to defend NATO’s eastern flank. But Gabelnick says this sends a “dangerous” message that international treaties are conditional rather than binding.
“What it’s saying is a country can sign up when times are good, when they’re feeling safe, and when they’re feeling a little bit or very insecure (they can leave).”
Stressing that a “rational fear shouldn’t lead to an irrational response,” she argues that leaving the mine ban convention would not solve the problems these countries face.
‘Domino effect’ in Europe and beyond
The planned withdrawal comes after Lithuania last year exited the Convention on Cluster Munitions, also citing growing security concerns over Moscow’s aggression. Gabelnick fears such moves could further embolden other nations to reconsider their commitments to international arms control treaties.
“We are very concerned about a domino effect,” she said, adding that once, “no one could imagine countries leaving the mine ban treaty … the gold standard in humanitarian disarmament.”
“We now have the potential for five countries leaving all at once. It looks like they are collaborating to make sure that one doesn’t go on their own, because they know that there will be public backlash, even from their allies. They are sort of holding hands and jumping together,” she said.
Gabelnick was also pointing to Finland, which she says could follow suit in leaving the Ottawa Treaty. Although not part of the initial group, Finnish leaders are conducting an extensive internal review of their defense strategy, including the possible re-introduction of landmines to secure its long border with Russia.
“I believe even if (Finland’s) armed forces come to the conclusion that they don’t want or need landmines anymore, they will succumb to political pressure, and there will be a recommendation to leave anyway.”
The risk, she warns, is not limited to Europe. The precedent of treaty withdrawals by NATO and EU members could erode global confidence in international humanitarian law.
“What about countries elsewhere in the world and the double standard this might create?” she asked. “That undermines the entire pretext for international humanitarian law.”
Land minds: Outdated, ineffective strategy
Supporters of the withdrawal argue that landmines are essential for national defense, particularly as a deterrent against potential Russian incursions. But Gabelnick dismissed the claim as outdated and misguided.
She argued that modern militaries have far more effective technological alternatives, pointing to innovations such as drones capable of precision targeting without the long-term civilian risks associated with mines.
The dangers, she stressed, extend well beyond active conflict zones. According to ICBL data, civilians account for 85% of anti-personnel landmine casualties. Long after wars end, leftover mines continue to kill and maim unsuspecting civilians.
On the financial burden they pose, she said that while the cost of planting a landmine is roughly $5, removing one takes about $500. Even after extensive clearance efforts, it is inevitable that some mines will be missed, she added.
“Their explosive power will remain indefinitely, and decades later, they can still be there, posing a threat to … any person,” whether a soldier, a woman going to the market, or a child on their way to school, she explained.
Direct engagement
The ICBL has been working to persuade governments to rethink their decisions, Gabelnick confirmed. The group has held talks with ambassadors in Geneva and traveled to Helsinki to meet with Finnish officials.
“Many diplomats understand the reputational impact of leaving a convention like this,” she said. “But I would say it’s very much a political move by the leaders of these countries trying to assure a population that they’re doing anything and everything.”
She cautioned that such assurances should not come at any cost, urging compliance with red lines, including landmines, as well as chemical and biological weapons.
The ICBL is also rallying its global campaign network to apply pressure, calling on other treaty signatories to intervene.
Importantly, Gabelnick pointed out that the withdrawal process is not immediate. Once approved by national parliaments, countries are required to notify other treaty members, and the withdrawal only takes effect after six months — leaving time to reverse course.
“We hope they will,” she said.
In an appeal to countries considering exiting the deal, she said: “Don’t leave a convention that protects your own civilians. If, for any reason, you make this mistaken move, don’t use the mines, don’t produce the mines.
“If it needs to be a political symbol, let it stay a political symbol. Don’t mine your own countries, because your own people will pay the price.”
