A HALO demining worker carefully probes for mines in Ukraine. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 5 2025 (IPS)

As a string of European states announce withdrawals from a global treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, campaigners are warning countless lives could be put at risk as decades of progress fighting the weapons come under threat.

On April 16, Latvia’s parliament approved the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. This came just weeks after Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland all announced their intention to pull out of the treaty.

The countries have argued the move is a necessary security measure in light of growing Russian aggression.

But campaign groups have said that pulling out of the treaty is undermining the agreement itself with serious humanitarian implications.

“While far from the end of the treaty, this is a very big setback for the treaty and a very depressing development. Antipersonnel landmines are objectionable because they are inherently indiscriminate weapons and because of their long-lasting humanitarian impact,” Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, which is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told IPS.

“The supposed military benefits of landmines are far outweighed by the devastating humanitarian implications of them,” she added.

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. It has been ratified or accepted by 165 countries—Russia, the United States, China, North Korea, Iran, and Israel are among those that are not signatories.

HALO demining in action. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

Campaign groups supporting the ban highlight the devastation landmines cause not just from direct casualties but also from driving massive displacement, hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid and impeding socio-economic recovery from conflict.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of those killed by landmines—80%—are civilians, with children particularly vulnerable.

“The presence of mines and other explosive ordnance continues to cause high levels of fatalities and serious injury, often resulting in life-long disabilities, with disproportionate impacts on children, persons with disabilities, and those forced to return under desperate conditions,” Shabia Mantoo, UNHCR spokesperson, told IPS.

“In addition to the high death toll, injuries and their aftereffects, including psychological damage, the presence of explosive devices hinders access to local livelihoods such as pastures, fields, farms, and firewood, as well as community infrastructure. They also affect the delivery of humanitarian aid and development activities. For humanitarian actors, their ability to safely reach communities with high levels of humanitarian needs and vulnerabilities and deliver life-saving assistance and protection  are often seriously constrained due to risks posed by explosive devices,” Mantoo added.

Humanitarian groups say the treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine casualties from approximately 25,000 per year in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 in 2023. The number of contaminated states and regions has also declined significantly, from 99 in 1999 to 58 in 2024.

The treaty also includes measures requiring member countries to clear and destroy them as well as to provide assistance to victims, and as of the end of last year, 33 states had completed clearing all antipersonnel mines from their territory since 1999.

But in recent years, landmine casualties have grown amid new and worsening conflicts.

Data from the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor (2024) showed that in 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines in 2023—a rise of 22 percent compared with 2022—in 53 countries.

The highest number of casualties—1,003—was recorded in Myanmar. This was three times the number in 2022. This was followed by Syria (933), Afghanistan (651), Ukraine (580), and Yemen (499).

In a special report on the continuing risks posed by mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), the presence of which is known as ‘weapon contamination,’ released earlier in April, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)  warned that in 2025, the humanitarian impact of weapon contamination would likely continue to rise.

“The increased use of improvised explosive devices, shifting frontlines, and worsening security conditions will make survey and clearance efforts even more complex and therefore leave communities exposed to greater danger,” the report stated.

In two of the world’s most landmine-contaminated countries, Myanmar and Ukraine, the severe humanitarian impact of massive landmine use is being made horrifyingly clear.

In Myanmar, local aid groups say the ruling military junta’s use of landmines has escalated to unprecedented levels, while rebel groups are also deploying them. Roads and villages have been mined—ostensibly for military purposes, although many observers say they are just as often used to terrorize local populations—leading to not just civilian deaths and horrific injuries but also hindering vital medical care and aid efforts. Mines have been used in all 14 Myanmar states and regions, affecting about 60 percent of the country’s townships.

The mines have been an extra problem in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake at the end of March. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said just days after the disaster, which killed more than 3,000 people, that as people relocated to areas less impacted by the earthquake and local and international organizations planned their response, ERWs were threatening not just the lives of those moving but also the safe delivery of humanitarian relief.

A group of HALO deminers with their equipment prepare for work. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

In Ukraine there has been extensive landmine use since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Russian forces have mined vast swathes of land, while there have been reports that Ukrainian forces have also used anti-personnel mines. It is estimated approximately 174,000 square kilometers, almost 30 percent of Ukraine’s territory, are affected by landmines and ERWs.

“According to NATO, Ukraine is now the world’s most mine-affected country and has seen the most mine laying since World War II.  The humanitarian impact of this contamination has been multifaceted—as well as vast swathes of prime farming land being contaminated, adversely affecting food security, civilian areas are also badly affected, including schools, residential zones, roads, and key infrastructure, leading to widespread displacement,” a spokesperson for the HALO Trust, a major humanitarian NGO carrying out demining operations around the world, including Ukraine, told IPS.

The spokesperson added that the effects of extensive landmine laying in the country may be felt for decades to come.

“HALO deminers are working in liberated areas, but it will take many years—if not decades— to clear Ukraine of landmines. Areas closest to the frontlines, such as Kharkiv and Sumy, are the areas where most people have been displaced, and some parts of these regions may remain uninhabitable until made completely safe. Any additional minelaying will extend the risk to civilian populations, agricultural production, and global trade for decades to come,” they said.

Anti-landmine campaigners also warn that if countries pull out of the Ottawa Convention, there is a risk that the use of landmines will become normalized.

“Increased acceptance [of landmines] could lead to wider proliferation and use, recreating the extensive contamination seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, and other conflict zones. In addition, withdrawal risks normalizing the rejection of humanitarian standards during times of insecurity, potentially undermining other crucial international norms. The ICBL has warned of a dangerous slippery slope where rejecting established norms during tense periods could lead to reconsideration of other banned weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons),” Charles Bechara, Communications Manager at ICBL, told IPS.

“Landmine survivors worldwide are shocked and horrified that European countries are about to undermine such progress and make the same mistake that dozens of other countries now regret. When European nations withdraw [from the Ottawa Convention], this sends a problematic message to countries facing internal or external security threats that such weapons are now acceptable,” he added.

However, it is not just withdrawals from the Ottawa Convention that are worrying anti-landmine groups.

Funding for demining efforts as well as services to help victims are under threat.

While the United States is not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, it has been the largest contributor to humanitarian demining and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors over the past 30 years. In 2023, it provided 39 percent of total international support to the tune of USD 310 million.

But the current halt to US foreign aid funding means that critical programs are now at risk, according to the ICBL.

“The US funding suspension threatens progress in heavily contaminated countries where casualty rates had been significantly reduced through consistent mine action work,” said Bechara.

He added the stop on funding would have “severe consequences for treaty implementation goals,” including the disruption or cessation of mine clearance operations in over 30 countries, a pause on victim assistance programs providing prosthetics and rehabilitation services, curtailment of risk education initiatives that help communities avoid mines, job losses at demining organizations, and problems implementing other humanitarian and development work because agencies depend on mine clearance to safely access areas.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Ottawa Convention are urging the countries currently intending to leave the landmine treaty to rethink their decisions.

“For Latvia and other countries considering withdrawal from the Mine Ban Convention, the ICBL is clear that weapons that predominantly kill and injure civilians cannot safeguard any nation’s security. Military experts, including Latvia’s own National Armed Forces commander, have concluded that modern weapon systems offer more effective defensive capabilities without the indiscriminate harm to civilians,” said Bechara.

“Despite the threats against the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL’s message is for countries to immediately cease their withdrawals and stand behind the treaty. Long-term security and safety cannot be ensured by a weakened international humanitarian law, which was conceived specifically to protect civilians in dire security situations,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

State parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are obligated under international law to assess their exports of conventional weapons to determine whether there is a danger that they will be used to fuel conflict. Credit: Karlos Zurutuza/IPS

By Joel Jaeger
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 28 2014 (IPS)

With state support moving at an unprecedented pace, the Arms Trade Treaty will enter into force on Dec. 24, 2014, only 18 months after it was opened for signature.

Eight states – Argentina, the Bahamas, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Saint Lucia, Portugal, Senegal and Uruguay – ratified the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) at a special event at the United Nations this past Thursday, Sep. 25, pushing the number of states parties up to 53.

As per article 22 of the treaty, the ATT comes into force as a part of international law 90 days after the 50^th instrument of ratification is deposited.

“We are dealing with an instrument that introduces humanitarian considerations into an area that has traditionally been couched in the language of national defence and security, as well as secrecy." -- Paul Holtom, head of the peace, reconciliation and security team at Coventry University’s Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations
According to a statement by the Control Arms coalition, “The ATT is one of the fastest arms agreements to move toward entry into force.”

The speed at which the treaty received 50 ratifications “shows tremendous momentum for the ATT and a lot of significant political commitment and will,” said Paul Holtom, head of the peace, reconciliation and security team at Coventry University’s Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations.

“The challenge now is to translate the political will into action, both in terms of ensuring that States Parties are able to fulfil – and are fulfilling – their obligations under the Treaty,” Holtom told IPS in an email.

So what are the requirements under the ATT?

ATT states parties are obligated under international law to assess their exports of conventional weapons to determine whether there is a danger that they will be used to fuel conflict.

Article 6(3) of the treaty forbids states from authorising transfers if they have the knowledge that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Article 7 prohibits transfers if there is an overriding risk of the weapons being used to undermine peace and security or commit a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law.

In addition, states parties are required to take a number of measures to prevent diversion of weapons to the illicit market and produce annual reports of their imports and exports of conventional arms.

The treaty applies to eight categories of conventional arms, ranging from battle tanks to small arms and light weapons.

The successful entry into force of the ATT will be a big win for arms control campaigners and NGOs, who have been fighting for the regulation of the arms trade for more than a decade.

When Control Arms launched a global campaign in 2003, “Mali, Costa Rica and Cambodia were the only three governments who would publically say that they supported talk of the idea of an arms trade treaty,” Anna MacDonald, director of the Control Arms secretariat, told IPS.

NGO supporters of the treaty often brought up the fact that the global trade in bananas was more regulated than the trade in weapons.

The organisations in the Control Arms coalition supported the ATT process through “a mix of campaigning, advocacy, pressure on governments” and “proving technical expertise on what actually could be done, how a treaty could look, [and] what provisions needed to be in it,” MacDonald said.

All of the legwork has paid off, as the treaty will become operational far earlier than many expected.

Today’s 53^rd ratification is just the start. So far, 121 countries have signed the treaty, and 154 voted in favour of its adoption in April 2013 in the General Assembly.

“There’s no reason why we would not expect all of those who voted in favour to sign and ultimately to ratify the treaty,” said MacDonald.

Sceptics contend that the worst human rights abusers will not agree to the treaty. For example, Syria was one of three states that voted against the ATT’s adoption in the General Assembly.

However, MacDonald believes that once enough countries join the ATT, the holdouts will face an enormous amount of political pressure to comply as well.

With a sufficient number of states parties, the ATT will “establish a new global standard for arms transfers, which makes it politically very difficult for even countries that have not signed it to ignore its provisions,” she told IPS.

MacDonald cited the Ottawa Convention, which banned anti-personnel landmines, as an example.

Many of the world’s biggest landmine users and exporters have not joined the Ottawa convention, but the use of landmines has fallen anyway because of the political stigma that developed.

Much work remains to be done in the months before Dec. 24 and in the upcoming years as the ATT system evolves.

States will need to create or update transfer control systems and enforcement mechanisms for regulating exports, imports and brokering as well as minimising diversion, according to Holtom.

“There are a lot of issues to be discussed before the Conference of States Parties and it will take several years before we can really see an impact,” he told IPS. “But we need to now make sure that the ATT can be put into effect and States and other key stakeholders work together towards achieving its object and purpose.”

The first conference of states parties will take place in Mexico in 2015.

Participating countries must provide their first report on arms exports and imports by May 31, 2015 and a report on measures that they have taken to implement the treaty by late 2015, Holtom said.

No matter the challenges to come, the simple fact that arms trade control is on the agenda is quite historic.

“We are dealing with an instrument that introduces humanitarian considerations into an area that has traditionally been couched in the language of national defence and security, as well as secrecy,” said Holtom.

On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon claimed, “Today we can look ahead with satisfaction to the date of this historic new Treaty’s entry into force.”

“Now we must work for its efficient implementation and seek its universalisation so that the regulation of armaments – as expressed in the Charter of the United Nations – can become a reality once and for all,” he said in a statement delivered by U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane.

Edited by Kanya D’Almeida

At an artificial limbs centre in Kabul. Credit: Najibullah Musafer/Killid/IPS

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Feb 3 2014 (IPS)

The U.S. government is being urged to conclude a review of national policy on landmines that has dragged on for more than four years, a lag that some say has indirectly led to the injury or death of more than 16,000 people.

Rights and advocacy groups are now mounting a new campaign to urge President Barack Obama to finish the review, hold true to pledges that have been lingering for years, and formally join an international treaty to ban antipersonnel mines. In a letter sent to the president on Friday and publicly circulated on Monday, critics of U.S. policy on the issue urged the administration to sign on to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and to move to begin to destroy the millions of landmines that remain in the country’s stockpiles.“It’s a real paradox. The United States has shown extremely good behaviour on this issue in recent years, yet it still reserves the right to use these weapons." -- Mica Bevington

“Your administration’s review is now into its fifth year, and it is hard to understand why the process should be delayed any further, particularly after the administration said more than one year ago that the review would conclude ‘soon’,” the letter, signed by 17 rights, watchdog and advocacy groups on behalf of several hundred civil society organisations, states.

“We have repeatedly urged the US to fulfill its long-held intention to join the Mine Ban Treaty. U.S. accession would help to convince the other countries not yet party to join, strengthening the norm against the weapon, thereby ensuring it is not used in the future and creates no additional humanitarian and socio-economic harm.”

Some 161 countries are currently party to the Mine Ban Treaty, which came into effect in 1999. Last year just a few countries are known to have used antipersonnel mines, including Syria and Myanmar, but nearly three dozen remain outside of the treaty, including China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka and others.

The United States, meanwhile, is the only member of NATO not to have signed onto the treaty, as well as the only country in the Western Hemisphere other than Cuba.

“We believe that U.S. involvement in this treaty would deter others,” Steve Goose, the executive director for Human Rights Watch (HRW)’s Arms Division and a lead signatory of the new letter to President Obama, told IPS.

“These countries wouldn’t come onboard the day after the U.S. signs, but they would be affected by the fact that the United States has aligned itself fully with this new international standard.”

4,000 per year

The treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, bans the use, sale or stockpiling of landmines, while also mandating that members destroy all mines within their territories. The treaty is widely seen as having been successful in significantly bringing down the number of landmine-caused injuries and deaths, from about 25,000 per year to current levels of around 4,000 per year.

Needless to say, that number is still very high. Advocacy groups suggest that millions of landmines remain in upwards of 60 countries, some left over from as long ago as World War II, highlighting the uniquely dangerous nature of these weapons.

Broad recognition of the unacceptably long-lasting nature of anti-personnel mines led then-president Bill Clinton to decide, in 1997, that the United States would join the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006. While his successor, George W. Bush, reversed this decision, stating that the United States would never join the treaty, many had expected President Barack Obama to change course yet again when he took office in 2009.

Instead, in December 2009 the president announced that his administration would undertake a policy review. And while that review seems to have gotten off to a strong start, with administration officials reportedly talking to a broad group of stakeholders in 2010, its finalisation has since been held up repeatedly.

It is unclear what has slowed down the U.S. policy review. Some have pointed to a 2009 Pentagon statement suggesting it wanted to maintain the option of using certain mines in Afghanistan, while others say concerns over the possibility of war on the Korean peninsula could play a part.

The U.S. State Department was unable to comment for this story, though an agency official in December noted that the review was “pressing forward to conclusion”. Yet HRW’s Goose says recent weeks have seen a new flurry of action.

“This review has limped on now for almost five years, though we’ve been hearing that an announcement could now happen in coming days or weeks,” he says.

“That’s why we feel now is the time to try to push them over the hump, get the right decision made and have it announced publicly. We’ve gotten mixed signals about what the review will contain, but we’re optimistic that we’ll have a positive outcome.”

U.S. paradox

Particularly confusing for advocates is that fact that the United States has largely conformed to the Mine Ban Treaty’s mandates for decades. Indeed, since the early 1990s it has been the world’s most generous anti-mine donor.

Further, the U.S. military has reportedly not used antipersonnel mines since the Gulf War, in 1991, and has not exported any of the weapons since 1992. The country even halted all landmine manufacturing in 1997.

Nonetheless, the U.S. military continues to stockpile as many as 10 million landmines. And these, of course, remain available for future use unless new policy specifically bars doing so – or unless the government moves to destroy these caches.

“It’s a real paradox. The United States has shown extremely good behaviour on this issue in recent years, yet it still reserves the right to use these weapons,” Mica Bevington, communications director for Handicap International U.S., a charity that won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its anti-mine work, told IPS.

“We feel that now is the time for the U.S. to put the other foot down and join the treaty. Doing so might encourage other countries – such as China and Russia – to join the treaty, and it would also ensure that these millions of deadly weapons are destroyed once and for all.”

Handicap International, which runs the world’s largest anti-mine operation, currently has de-mining and rehabilitation operations in 37 countries. The group says that 70 percent of the victims of landmines or unexploded ordnance are civilians, with nearly a third being children.

“With these injuries comes a community-wide sense of fear, and they require long-term support rehabilitation and attention,” Bevington says. “We need to put politics aside and remember that the victims here are people.”