fr.euronews.com
Five EU Nations Consider Reintroducing Landmines
Five EU countries—Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—plan to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite the treaty having been signed by 164 states and causing 833 casualties in 2023, the highest since 2011.
- What factors are driving the decision of these EU countries to consider abandoning the Ottawa Treaty?
- The planned withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty by Baltic states reflects a significant shift in EU security policy, driven by Russia's aggression. This decision highlights a growing acceptance of landmines as a tool for defense, despite the treaty's aim to prevent civilian casualties and reduce the global landmine crisis. The high number of casualties from landmines in 2023 (833, the highest since 2011) further underscores the humanitarian cost of this change in policy.
- What are the immediate implications of five EU countries potentially withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines?
- Five EU countries—Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—plan to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a worsened security situation. This decision reverses a long-standing EU commitment to the treaty, which has been signed by 164 states. The use of landmines has sharply increased in 2024, with Russia's use in Ukraine being particularly notable.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of EU countries potentially reintroducing the use of landmines, considering the humanitarian and geopolitical implications?
- The EU's response to the Baltic states' decision to potentially reintroduce landmines signals a potential weakening of international norms against their use. This could create a domino effect, encouraging other nations in conflict zones to disregard the Ottawa Treaty. The long-term impact will likely include increased civilian casualties and prolonged land contamination, reversing decades of progress in landmine clearance and disarmament.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing leans towards understanding the motivations of the Baltic states considering landmine use. While it acknowledges the humanitarian concerns, the justifications of the Baltic states for potential landmine use are given significant weight, potentially influencing readers to perceive their actions as more understandable or justifiable than a purely humanitarian perspective might allow. The headline (if any) and introduction would heavily influence this framing. The inclusion of quotes from officials supporting landmine use reinforces this emphasis.
Language Bias
While the article strives for objectivity, the use of phrases such as "situation de sécurité fondamentalement détériorée" (fundamentally deteriorated security situation) and descriptions of landmines as increasing "létalité des forces de défense" (lethality of defense forces) could be viewed as subtly favoring the perspective of the Baltic states. More neutral phrasing such as "changed security environment" and "enhancing defensive capabilities" could mitigate this. The repeated emphasis on the Baltic states' justifications could also be perceived as subtly biased.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of those advocating for the use of landmines, particularly the Baltic states and their justifications. Counterarguments from humanitarian organizations are presented, but could be more thoroughly explored to provide a more balanced view. The long-term consequences of landmine use, beyond immediate military gains, receive less emphasis than the short-term strategic advantages. The scale of civilian casualties is mentioned, but the article could benefit from more detailed statistics and examples to illustrate the human cost more powerfully. Omission of detailed analysis of the economic costs of landmine usage and clearance is also noteworthy.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between national security and adherence to international treaties. It doesn't fully explore the potential for alternative security strategies that don't involve landmines. The narrative subtly implies that the only options are either using landmines or being vulnerable to Russian aggression, neglecting other possibilities for defense.
Gender Bias
The article includes a quote from Cecilia Strada highlighting the disproportionate impact of landmines on women and children. However, the article could benefit from further analysis of gendered impacts, including the specific ways in which women and girls are affected by landmines beyond their roles as caregivers. More data on gender-disaggregated casualty figures would strengthen this analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The potential reintroduction of landmines in Europe undermines international efforts towards peace and security. It contradicts the spirit of the Ottawa Treaty and sets a dangerous precedent, potentially triggering a domino effect where other countries abandon similar disarmament treaties. The use of landmines causes widespread suffering and violates international humanitarian law.