What it means when countries step back from the Landmine Ban Treaty
From a public health perspective, disarmament is prevention - preventing injury, trauma, disability, displacement and intergenerational harm. Progress is often imagined as linear: treaties signed, stockpiles destroyed, areas cleared. But sometimes, that trajectory falters.
Recently countries including Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have signalled intentions to withdraw from the Mine Ban Treaty - a sobering reminder that even hard-won global norms can unravel, especially under the pressure of shifting geopolitical priorities.
Why the Mine Ban Treaty Matters
Adopted in 1997, the Antipersonnel Landmine Ban Convention, also known as the Mine Ban Treaty or Ottawa Treaty, was a landmark achievement. It banned the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines and came about thanks to years of tireless advocacy from civil society, survivor-led movements, and a coalition of committed states.
It was inspiring and it worked, to a point. Over 160 countries are party to the treaty and millions of landmines have been destroyed, but this progress remains fragile.
The Growing List of Holdouts - and Now, Withdrawals
While major powers like the United States, Russia, and China have never joined the treaty, the more alarming trend is that a growing number of countries are now questioning their continued participation.
This year, several countries have announced plans to withdraw from the treaty, citing national security concerns or regional tensions. These decisions carry serious and immediate risks. They not only open the door to renewed landmine use but also erode the international norms that protect civilians in conflict. The result? Increased likelihood of new injuries, deaths, and long-term harm undoing decades of humanitarian progress.
Is National Security More Important?
Some argue that in this era of escalating geopolitical tension, national security must take precedence - even if that means stepping back from past humanitarian commitments. But this framing presents a false trade-off.
In reality, long-term peace and national stability depend on safeguarding human lives, protecting essential infrastructure, and ensuring communities can recover after conflict. Landmines undermine peace long after wars end, threatening civilians, disrupting food systems, and placing enormous burdens on health services.
While landmines may offer short-term tactical gains, they do so at the cost of long-term safety, recovery, and trust. Their lasting impact causes indiscriminate injury, disabling communities, and can deepen cycles of poverty, violence, and insecurity.
Sustainable security is built on a foundation where human wellbeing and peace are prioritised alongside defense. It means protection today does not come at the expense of future generations.
The Tension Between “Security” and Humanitarian Commitments
Landmines don’t respect ceasefires. They don’t disappear when wars end. They remain, buried and waiting, in schoolyards, on footpaths, and in farmland. Decades later, it’s still children who step on them, farmers who lose limbs, and families who carry the trauma.
Withdrawal from the treaty isn’t just a policy shift. It signals that long-term human consequences are secondary to short-term military calculations.
What History and Communities Teach Us
In my research, I’ve seen how landmines devastate not just individuals, but entire communities. Contaminated land disrupts agriculture, fuels food insecurity and deepens poverty. Survivors face not only physical injuries but also stigma, loss of livelihoods, and psychological trauma.
The Ottawa Treaty represents more than a ban on weapons. It is a pledge to accountability, justice, and shared responsibility. It reflects a global commitment to protect civilians and prevent the long-term harms that landmines inflict on communities worldwide. Upholding this treaty is not just a legal duty, but a moral imperative.
So, Where to From Here?
If you work in policy, advocacy, health, or humanitarian action, this is a moment to watch and act. Here are three things that matter now:
Reaffirming international norms: Countries that remain committed to the treaty must speak up — not just in statements, but through active diplomacy.
Listening to survivors: Their voices have always driven this movement. Their leadership is needed more than ever.
Supporting clearance and assistance programs: Especially in places where the treaty’s promise hasn’t yet translated into full safety or access to care.
This isn’t just about landmines - it’s about the kind of world we choose to build after conflict. One that puts people first, or one that relives the same mistakes, buried just beneath the surface
