By Zhang Gaosheng

Recently, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland have repeatedly signaled their potential or ongoing preparations to withdraw from the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the Ottawa convention), sparking widespread international attention and debate.

Landmines cause numerous casualties worldwide each year, with civilians making up the majority of the victims. During the Vietnam War, US forces planted vast numbers of landmines across Vietnam, leaving many still unexploded to this day. In 1997, the international community adopted the Ottawa Convention, aiming to completely prohibit the production, stockpiling, use, and transfer of anti-personnel mines while promoting the destruction of existing stockpiles. So far, more than 160 countries and regions have signed the convention.

The above-mentioned five countries are among the signatories of the Ottawa Convention. Their consideration of withdrawing from the convention is primarily driven by security concerns. Since the escalation of the Ukraine crisis in 2022, Europe's geopolitical landscape has remained in turmoil. The five countries, bordering Russia, face heightened border pressure, making military defense a central policy focus. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's transactional approach to NATO has deepened security anxieties among European allies. Against this background, the five countries began to reevaluate their own defense strategies.

In the meantime, the extensive use of landmines by both Russia and Ukraine to slow enemy advances has highlighted the effectiveness of traditional defense methods. By withdrawing from the convention, the five countries not only gain more tactical flexibility in border defense but also send a strong signal to the international community about their commitment to strengthening autonomous security.

However, if these countries withdraw from the convention, it could lead to a dual negative impact.

On one hand, it could severely disrupt regional security. The withdrawal of these five countries may trigger a chain reaction, prompting neighboring and even other countries to take similar steps. Russia might respond with corresponding military measures to safeguard its own security, further escalating tensions in Europe. This would not only drain significant resources but also heighten the risk of military conflicts and make the regional security environment even more unstable.

On the other hand, it would harm the international humanitarian cause and have a negative impact on international relations. The convention is a significant achievement of international cooperation in the fields of humanitarianism and arms control. The withdrawal of these five countries would have a detrimental spillover effect on international relations, undermine cooperation and mutual trust in arms control and humanitarian efforts, and poison the atmosphere of international cooperation.

In conclusion, the withdrawal of these five countries reflects the geopolitical backlash against the international community's humanitarian efforts to ban anti-personnel landmines. The clash between national security claims and humanitarian concerns highlights the deep-rooted contradictions in contemporary international security governance. The international community should actively promote peaceful resolutions to regional conflicts, use diplomatic mediation and negotiations to ease geopolitical tensions and reduce the use and spread of landmines in conflicts.

(The author is an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.)

Editor's Note: Originally published on thepaper.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.