logo
Five European States Withdraw from Mine Ban Treaty

Five European States Withdraw from Mine Ban Treaty

Canada Standard02-07-2025
(New York, July 1, 2025) - The withdrawal of five European countries from a longstanding and effective international treaty prohibiting antipersonnel landmines unnecessarily puts civilians at risk, Human Rights Watch said today.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania deposited their instruments of withdrawal from the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty with United Nations headquarters on June 27, 2025, and they will take effect in six months. Earlier in June, Finland and Poland's parliaments formally approved proposals to leave the treaty and their withdrawal deposits are understood to be imminent.
"The five European countries leaving the Mine Ban Treaty put their own civilians at risk and walk back years of progress to eradicate these indiscriminate weapons," said Mary Wareham, deputy crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. "These countries have first-hand experience of the long-term danger caused by antipersonnel landmines, which makes their acceptance of these widely discredited weapons hard to fathom."
Antipersonnel mines are designed to explode in response to a person's presence, proximity, or contact. They are typically placed by hand, but can also be scattered by aircraft, rockets, and artillery or dispersed from drones and specialized vehicles. They are inherently indiscriminate weapons that cannot distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Uncleared landmines pose a long-term danger, until they are cleared and destroyed.
The Mine Ban Treaty, which entered into force on March 1, 1999, comprehensively prohibits antipersonnel mines and requires countries to destroy their stockpiles, clear mined areas, and help mine victims. A total of 166 countries have ratified the Mine Ban Treaty, most recently Tonga on June 25 and the Marshall Islands on March 12.
Russia has not joined the treaty, and its forces have used antipersonnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, causing civilian casualties and contaminating agricultural land. Ukraine, a Mine Ban Treaty member state, has also used antipersonnel mines since 2022 and received them from the United States in 2024, in violation of the treaty.
On June 29, President Volodymyr Zelensky said he had signed a decree proposing Ukraine withdraw from the Mine Ban Treaty. This measure will now be considered by Ukraine's parliament. Under article 20 of the Mine Ban Treaty, withdrawals do not take effect until six months after the state formally submits its notice to the UN. Particularly relevant to Ukraine's situation, if a state party is engaged in armed conflict at the end of that six-month period, it is not allowed to withdraw from the treaty before the end of the armed conflict. The treaty is also not subject to reservations.
"Because Ukraine is in the midst of a war, its proposed withdrawal is effectively a symbolic move to gain political cover while disregarding the core prohibitions on developing, producing, and using antipersonnel mines," Wareham said. "Expanding the use of antipersonnel mines risks causing further civilian casualties and suffering over both the short and long terms."
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has killed more than 13,300 civilians and injured more than 32,700. Civilian casualties during the first five months of 2025 were 47 percent higher than the same period in 2024, according to the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine.
The five European Union member states expressed security concerns raised by Russia's continuing invasion of Ukraine as the main reason for leaving the treaty. Each withdrawing country went through a formal, but rushed, parliamentary-approval process.
Member states of the Mine Ban Treaty, including the withdrawing countries, spent five hours discussing the implications of the withdrawals at a meeting in Geneva on June 17-20. A group of African countries led by South Africa urged the withdrawing states to "reconsider and return to negotiation table" as "the challenges we face today require more cooperation, not less." The groups said, "we must collectively preserve [the Mine Ban Treaty's] integrity and universality."
On June 16, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely concerned" by the Mine Ban Treaty withdrawals, describing the action as "particularly troubling, as it risks weakening civilian protection and undermining two decades of a normative framework that has saved countless lives." Guterres announced a new global campaign to boost support for humanitarian disarmament instruments such as the Mine Ban Treaty and for mine clearance efforts.
A total of 101 Nobel laureates issued a joint statement on June 17 cautioning against withdrawals due to the likelihood of civilian harm and to avoid undermining longstanding legal and humanitarian norms. The laureates specifically criticized Russia and the United States, two countries that have not prohibited these weapons, for undermining the Mine Ban Treaty's norms and putting civilians at risk.
Individual Nobel Peace laureates who endorsed the call include the Dalai Lama and former presidents Lech Walesa of Poland, Juan Manual Santos of Colombia, Oscar Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica, and Jose Ramos-Horta of Timor-Leste as well as Nobel Women's Initiative members Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkol Karman, Narges Mohammadi, and Oleksandra Matviichuk.
Human Rights Watch is a cofounder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, which also endorsed the statement.
On June 17, ICBL ambassador and Cambodian landmine survivor Tun Channereth presented the Mine Ban Treaty president with the Nobel laureates' appeal and a joint statement from 21 eminent people, including former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who led the "Ottawa Process" that created the Mine Ban Treaty. The signers urged the withdrawing states to reconsider, stating that, "[u]pholding [the Mine Ban Treaty] is not only a legal and moral obligation-it is a strategic imperative for all who seek to limit suffering in war."
All EU member states are currently parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and in April 2025, the EU reaffirmed its long-standing common position supporting implementation and universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty.
Finland and Poland have produced antipersonnel mines in the past and have indicated they may restart production. Finland completed the destruction of its stockpile of one million mines in 2015, while Poland destroyed its stocks of more than one million antipersonnel mines in 2016. Finnish and Polish civilians were harmed by landmines and unexploded ordnance during World War II and other conflicts. More than 80 years later, local authorities still receive requests to clear residual contamination from landmines and explosive remnants of war.
"Countries withdrawing from the Mine Ban Treaty will be closely watched as there's now a real danger that they will start producing, transferring, and using antipersonnel mines," Wareham said. "These governments should instead be investing in measures to keep civilians away from mined areas, caring for landmine victims, and promoting mine clearance."
Source: Human Rights Watch
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Recognizing a state, and making a point
Recognizing a state, and making a point

Winnipeg Free Press

time5 hours ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Recognizing a state, and making a point

Opinion Canada will recognize a state that does not exist. A state that may never exist. A state that has yet to meet the internationally accepted attributes of statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and exercised sovereignty. This is Palestine. Palestine is not yet a reality, but Canada is recognizing another reality. The reality of war, hunger, hardship, and politics. Almost two years after the horrific Hamas massacre of Israelis and others on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel is locked into a grinding war of lethal attrition against Hamas in Gaza. No immediate ceasefire prospects and no clear end game by any of the protagonists except the destruction of the other exists. ABDEL KAREEM HANA / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILES A Palestinian boy carrying a plastic jerry can of water walks past buildings destroyed during Israeli air and ground operations in Gaza City on July 25. The most volatile neighbourhood in the world has seen more than 50 wars, insurgencies, coups, and rebellions of one sort or another since the end of the Second World War. The pattern is violently familiar and, therefore, depressingly inuring to most of us. Many expected Gaza to follow this same pattern. Israel's right to exist in peace and the monstrous scale of the Hamas terrorism gave it the legal and moral agency to strike back, hard. Retaliation by Israel would be harsh but somehow acceptable. Few shed any tears when key Hamas leaders were hunted down and eliminated. The tears came afterwards. The relentlessly dangerous and difficult task of eradicating a deeply embedded terrorist network in dense urban areas has meant more civilian casualties and visible suffering than much of the international community could stomach. With no end in sight. This is what prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney's momentous decision to recognize the State of Palestine during the next United Nations General Assembly this fall. 'The deepening suffering of civilians leaves no room for delay in co-ordinated international action to support peace, security, and the dignity of all human life', he said in a formal statement this week. There is something else, though. Canada has concluded that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu will never accept a two-state solution of a fully sovereign Palestine living side by side with Israel. This has been the bedrock foreign policy principle of Canada — and many other countries — for peace in the Middle East. Unwilling to dismiss this principled approach, the Canadian prime minister has decided to dismiss the Israeli prime minster's approach to the principle. 'Regrettably, this approach is no longer tenable', Carney said. 'Prospects for a two-state solution have been steadily and gravely eroded' he went on, listing four reasons, three of which identify Israeli actions, making clear where most of the blame resides. With zero influence over how Israel is prosecuting the war, Canada is joining other countries to influence what happens after the war. In that sense, Canada is remaining consistent with the United States. Not the U.S. of President Donald Trump but the U.S. of former president Joe Biden. One month into the war, in November 2023, the U.S. set out a 'day after the war' declaration for Gaza and Israel. Meant to prevent a wider conflict from erupting, that declaration stated: 'The United States believes key elements should include no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. Not now. Not after the war. No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza.' Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. This may yet come to pass, but it appears very far off right now. Politicians though live in the here and now. They see hunger lines in Gaza and become distressed. They read motions to annex the West Bank from the Israeli Knesset or statements by the Israeli prime minister to never agree to a fully fledged Palestinian state and become disturbed. They see no end in sight and are frustrated. All this is leaving Israel more politically isolated today than it was before Oct. 7. But it is also more militarily powerful, capable, and dominant in the region than ever before. And it has a fast friend in Donald Trump creating a superpower 'alliance of two' giving it more licence to act as it sees fit in Gaza and the region. It is doing so, and countries have taken notice. Short of declaring war, recognizing a governing entity, no matter how tenuous, as a sovereign state is as declaratory you can get in international relations. Canada, like France and Great Britain, is utilizing the entirely precedented and legal discretion it has under international law to unilaterally recognize another state. But doing so now, absent a negotiated peace settlement to create such a state, is not so much a diplomatic gesture of support for Palestinians, but a diplomatic rejection of Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. For Canada, the momentous part is not breaking with international law by declaring its recognition of Palestine as a state but breaking with its own international tradition of allying with the U.S. on key international issues. Indeed, this decision signals a widening chasm with America. Trump wants 'to break us, so that America can own us', said Carney on election night. What he didn't say is that maybe Canada has to break with America first. David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.

The recognition of Palestine: Western unity is collapsing
The recognition of Palestine: Western unity is collapsing

Canada News.Net

time15 hours ago

  • Canada News.Net

The recognition of Palestine: Western unity is collapsing

The recent declarations by US allies are not merely symbolic and represent the first steps toward a new international reality The ongoing armed conflict in Gaza, along with the intensification of Israeli military operations against Palestinians - including in the West Bank - has provoked growing concern and condemnation from the international community. The deepening humanitarian catastrophe, marked by destroyed infrastructure, acute shortages of food, water, and medical aid, has pushed millions to the brink of survival. The increasing scale of destruction, the mass displacement of civilians, and violations of fundamental norms of international humanitarian law are increasingly being interpreted as elements of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. Numerous international organizations, human rights groups, and independent observers have expressed alarm over the disproportionate use of force and the systematic pressure exerted on the civilian population. In the face of inaction by leading international institutions - which continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and unfettered humanitarian access - criticism of double standards has intensified, and public trust in the global community's ability to stop the violence and uphold the rights of conflict victims is rapidly eroding. Even among Israel's Western allies, discontent with the actions of the Israeli authorities is becoming more pronounced. Large-scale military operations resulting in widespread destruction and civilian casualties have triggered sharp reactions not only from international organizations but also within Western societies themselves. Regular mass protests in major cities across Europe and North America are increasing pressure on political leaders, compelling them to reassess their stance and respond to the demands of their citizens. Under the influence of mounting public pressure, some countries have already taken concrete diplomatic steps. On May 28, 2024, Norway, Spain, and Ireland formally recognized Palestine as an independent state - an act that resonated widely and set a precedent for other nations in the region. At this juncture, calls are growing louder for similar steps to be taken by two key European powers: France and the United Kingdom. Both countries are facing escalating domestic and international pressure, which may hasten the process of Palestinian recognition and shift the balance on the diplomatic front of the Middle East conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron has already announced his intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine on behalf of France during his address to the United Nations General Assembly this September. He made the announcement via X, emphasizing that the decision reflects France's unwavering commitment to justice and the pursuit of a lasting peace in the Middle East. The French leader underscored the urgent need for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza and the swift delivery of humanitarian aid to the affected civilian population. To further demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions, he also released a letter addressed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, reaffirming France's support for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. If France follows through with this step, it will become the largest and most influential member state of the European Union to recognize Palestine as an independent state. According to the Associated Press, the State of Palestine has already been recognized by more than 140 UN member countries, including major powers such as Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Sweden, and Poland. Macron's announcement marks a potential turning point in European diplomacy and may serve as a catalyst for similar moves by other major states. Indeed, calls for the recognition of Palestine have also gained momentum in London. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that his country is prepared to recognize the State of Palestine during the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, should Israel fail to take concrete and meaningful steps to end the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. This statement came amid mounting international pressure and growing criticism of the IDF's actions. Starmer emphasized that the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood would be a response to the Israeli government's inaction, should it fail to demonstrate a clear political will to de-escalate the conflict. In particular, the Prime Minister called on Israel to implement an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and to revive efforts toward a sustainable peace process based on the principle of "two states for two peoples." He noted that only a return to a credible prospect of two sovereign states coexisting peacefully could bring an end to the ongoing violence and suffering of the civilian population. Among the additional conditions set forth by the British side are: the provision of humanitarian access to Gaza under UN auspices and a halt to Israeli annexation efforts in the West Bank. According to Starmer, adherence to these conditions would signal Israel's readiness for a political resolution, while disregarding them would indicate that the international community must act independently in the interest of peace and justice. At the same time, the British prime minister also criticized Hamas, stressing that recognition of a Palestinian state does not imply overlooking the role the group has played in escalating the conflict. Starmer demanded the immediate release of all remaining hostages, the laying down of arms, and an official renunciation by Hamas of any claim to governance in the Gaza Strip. He underlined that the United Kingdom does not recognize any legitimate role for Hamas in the future political structure of Palestinian governance. Following the announcements from France and the United Kingdom, several other countries have also declared their intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine, further strengthening international support for the two-state solution as the foundation for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Ottawa will recognize Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly. According to him, Canada has long supported a resolution based on the peaceful coexistence of two states - Israeli and Palestinian - within a framework of security and mutual recognition. Carney stressed that the actions of the Israeli government, which have led to a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, are met with deep condemnation by Canadian authorities. He also noted that Mahmoud Abbas has provided assurances that elections will be held in the Palestinian territories in 2026, in which the Hamas movement will not participate. Furthermore, Abbas has pledged that the future Palestinian state will not be militarized - a key condition for ensuring stability and fostering trust from the international community. Malta has also joined the move to recognize Palestine. On the evening of July 30, Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela confirmed that his government intends to make a formal statement at the upcoming UN General Assembly session. He emphasized that this step is part of Malta's broader diplomatic strategy, aimed at achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. Abela had initially announced similar plans back in May, stating his intention to recognize Palestine at the UN conference in June, although the event was later postponed. Israel's response to these international initiatives has been sharply negative. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the decisions of Canada and other countries, calling them "a reward for Hamas" and "a blow to efforts to establish a ceasefire." Nonetheless, the growing list of nations willing to recognize Palestinian statehood points to a significant shift in global diplomacy and to the increasing isolation of Israel's position amid the ongoing conflict. What makes the current situation around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly unique is that the decisions by France, the UK, and Canada to recognize the State of Palestine are not occurring in a vacuum - they are unfolding against the backdrop of profound shifts in global politics, most notably the deepening rift within the so-called "collective West." The return of Donald Trump to the White House has heightened tensions between Washington and its traditional European allies, directly impacting the foreign policy priorities of those countries. Thus, the actions taken by Paris, London, and Ottawa should be seen not only as a response to mounting domestic pressure and public discontent over the situation in Gaza, but also as part of a broader struggle to shape an independent and sovereign position on the international stage. It is increasingly clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long ceased to be merely a regional issue - it has historically served as a stage for wider geopolitical rivalry, and the current developments only reaffirm this reality. Since its inception, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been accompanied by global competition among great powers. Today, amid the collapse of the old world order and the emergence of new centers of power, it once again stands as a symbol of global division. Judging by recent statements, the national governments of Europe are now attempting to articulate an independent stance on the Palestinian question, signaling a clear distancing from the Trump administration's policies. Despite occasional disagreements with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the US under Trump remains a staunch ally of Israel. In his trademark style, Trump has already expressed skepticism regarding the statements made by European leaders. In particular, he claimed that Emmanuel Macron's initiative to recognize Palestine "changes nothing" and "means nothing." Moreover, he sharply criticized Canada, warning of potential complications in trade relations with Ottawa should it proceed with the recognition of Palestinian statehood. "It will make it much harder for us to reach a trade deal with them," Trump wrote on his social network, Truth Social. As for the UK, Trump has distanced himself from any prior agreements with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating that "the issue of recognizing Palestine" had never been discussed between them. The US Department of State also weighed in. Spokesperson Tammy Bruce declared that the UK's recognition of Palestine is "a slap in the face to the victims of October 7" and "a reward for Hamas." According to her, such a move "gives one side false hope" and undermines diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace, ultimately playing into the hands of radical forces. Thus, the emerging bloc of countries willing to recognize Palestine stands in stark contrast to Washington's position, underscoring the growing fragmentation within the Western world. The initiatives by London, Paris, and Ottawa are not only political responses to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza but also expressions of a desire to assert a new, more independent role for their nations amid tectonic shifts in international relations. The evolving international dynamic surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict signals a significant transformation in the global approach to this long-standing and tragic confrontation. An increasing number of countries - no longer limited to Palestine's traditional allies among BRICS members or the Islamic world, but now including key Western powers - are adopting more principled and active positions on the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the long-discussed "two states for two peoples" formula. France, the UK, Canada, and previously Spain, Ireland, and Norway, through their public statements and diplomatic actions, are clearly signaling that they are no longer willing to remain passive observers of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Their stance increasingly clashes with Washington's, particularly in light of Trump's return to the White House. Despite occasional tactical differences with Benjamin Netanyahu's government, Trump continues to offer Israel unwavering support. This has not only contributed to Israel's growing international isolation but also reflects mounting frustration among the global majority toward the actions of the Israeli state and its principal ally. The intensification of diplomatic engagement from the Global South - especially from BRICS countries such as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and Russia - is contributing to a new architecture of international pressure. These nations have consistently advocated for a just resolution to the conflict and have emphasized the need to uphold the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and statehood. The Muslim world, particularly Arab states, has also played a pivotal role in this coalition. Despite varying relationships with Israel, these countries are increasingly speaking with one voice in defense of Palestinians, especially in response to the devastation in Gaza and the mounting civilian death toll. As a result, an unprecedented situation is taking shape: a growing consensus among countries representing the global majority is coming into direct conflict with the positions of Israel and the US, which are increasingly seen as stubbornly unilateral and outdated. This is not merely a diplomatic disagreement or a matter of regional instability - it is a fault line in the emerging world order, where the Palestinian issue is becoming a symbol of the broader struggle between a rising multipolar world and the waning era of Western hegemony. The danger of the current moment lies in the possibility that the Middle East may once again become the epicenter of global confrontation. At a time when international institutions are losing their effectiveness and the norms of international law are increasingly being ignored, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks escalating into a flashpoint between the US and Israel on one side, and the rest of the world on the other. This presents a threat not merely of regional escalation, but of the emergence of a new front in a broader global conflict. Israel, which now finds itself in the position of an isolated power steadfastly resisting an emerging global consensus, risks becoming a symbol of defiance against the very notion of a just international order. Support from the US - whose geopolitical hegemony is increasingly being questioned - may prove insufficient in a world where the majority of humanity, represented in the UN and other international forums, is demanding justice, respect for human rights, and the recognition of the Palestinian people. This is why the recent diplomatic moves and declarations by Western nations recognizing Palestine are not merely symbolic or moral gestures. They represent the first steps toward a new international reality - one in which the future of the Middle East conflict will be determined not by behind-the-scenes deals, but by the balance of power in a global struggle to redefine the meaning of international justice.

A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to
A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to

CTV News

time16 hours ago

  • CTV News

A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to

The map above shows countries that recognize - or plan to recognize - a Palestinian State. (AP Graphic) France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Malta announced plans this week to recognize a Palestinian state that does not yet exist. Nearly 150 of the 193 members of the United Nations have already recognized Palestinian statehood, most of them decades ago. The United States and other Western powers have held off, saying Palestinian statehood should be part of a final agreement resolving the decades-old Middle East conflict. This week's announcements were largely symbolic and rejected by Israel, whose current government is opposed to Palestinian statehood. A two-state solution in which a state of Palestine would be created alongside Israel in most or all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem — territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war — is still seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict. The Associated Press

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store