theglobeandmail.com
Europe Reconsiders Landmine Ban Amidst Russia Conflict
Ukraine and five other European countries are considering withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel landmines, due to the ongoing war with Russia, despite warnings from explosive disposal experts about the treaty's effectiveness and long-term humanitarian and environmental costs.
- What are the immediate consequences of European countries abandoning the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines?
- European countries are abandoning the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel landmines, citing the threat from Russia. This decision is concerning, as an explosive disposal expert highlights the ineffectiveness of landmines in modern warfare and their devastating long-term consequences.
- How do technological advancements render landmines ineffective, and what are the associated humanitarian and economic costs?
- The ineffectiveness of landmines stems from technological advancements such as drones and sensors, which easily circumvent minefields. The high cost of mine clearance ($1400 per mine versus $4 to plant) and the significant humanitarian impact—444 civilian deaths and 1084 injuries in Ukraine alone—further underscore the problem.
- What are the potential long-term global impacts of a resurgence in landmine use, and what role should Canada play in addressing this issue?
- The abandonment of the Ottawa Treaty could lead to a resurgence in landmine production and use, causing lasting environmental damage and hampering agricultural output, particularly in Ukraine, a major wheat exporter. This also risks undermining other international arms control treaties.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative is structured to highlight the devastating consequences of landmines, emphasizing the humanitarian cost and long-term negative impacts. The headline, while neutral, focuses on the expert's opinion against landmines. The introduction immediately establishes a negative perspective, setting the stage for the rest of the article. The inclusion of the number of civilian casualties strengthens the negative framing. This framing could sway the reader toward a strong anti-landmine stance.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language to describe the effects of landmines, such as "misery and hunger," "insidious," and "maiming and killing." These words evoke strong negative feelings towards landmines. While these descriptions reflect the realities of landmine usage, using less emotionally charged alternatives might present the information more neutrally, for example, instead of "maiming and killing," one could use "causing injuries and fatalities."
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of landmines, quoting extensively from anti-landmine advocates. While it mentions the perspective of countries leaving the Ottawa Treaty, it does not delve deeply into their justifications beyond mentioning the threat posed by Russia. The economic impact of landmines on Ukraine is presented, but there's less detailed analysis of the potential economic consequences of abandoning the treaty. This omission could leave the reader with a one-sided view of the issue, neglecting the potential security concerns driving the decision to use landmines.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between adhering to the Ottawa Treaty and ignoring humanitarian concerns, versus utilizing landmines for national security. It doesn't fully explore the complexities and potential trade-offs involved in weighing security concerns with humanitarian considerations. The article implicitly suggests that using land mines is always wrong, without adequately representing nuances or arguments in support.
Sustainable Development Goals
The use of landmines renders large areas of arable land unusable, impacting agricultural production and potentially leading to food shortages. Ukraine, a major wheat exporter, is particularly affected, threatening global food security.