The International Campaign to Ban Anti-Personnel mines (ICBL) network, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, calls on Ukraine to give up anti-personnel mines proposed by the United States, its director saeid on Friday.
“We sincerely hope that the mines offered by the United States will be firmly rejected by Ukraine,” said Tamar Gabelnick, from Siem Reap, cambodia, where an international conference on the progress of the ’Ottawa Convention on the ban on landmines worldwide.
Kiev ratified the treaty, which includes 164 countries and territories, but not Washington and Moscow, whose army is accused by ukraine of having scattered these large-scale explosive devices on its territory.According to the United Nations, about 25% of the country is affected.
The United States announced last week that it would supply mines to Kiev to slow the advance of Russian troops in the east of the country. These weapons are “very important,” Ukrainian President volodymyr Zelensky said, much to the dismay of NGOs.
The American offer triggered a ”crisis”, Gabelnick warned, which could lead to a “clear and notable violation of the mine treaty” if Ukraine accepted it and used the mines.
The US transfer of mines to Ukraine represents a “challenge” not seen since the Convention came into force in 1999, member parties warned on wednesday.
Finland, another member state, announced on Thursday that it is considering reintroducing stockpiles of anti-personnel mines. Helsinki abandoned decades of military non-alignment and joined NATO following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
How does the Ottawa convention influence international policies regarding anti-personnel mines?
Interview: The Implications of Anti-Personnel Mines in the Ukraine Conflict
Editor, Time.news: Thank you for joining us today, Tamar Gabelnick, Director of the International Campaign to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines (ICBL). Let’s jump right into the pressing issue.The United States recently announced it’s intention to supply anti-personnel mines to Ukraine. What is your stance on this decision?
Tamar gabelnick: Thank you for having me. Our position is clear: we sincerely hope that Ukraine firmly rejects the offer from the United States. Supplying and using anti-personnel mines would not only violate the principles of the Ottawa Convention, which bans these perilous weapons, but also exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
Editor: You mentioned the Ottawa Convention. Can you explain its meaning in the context of this issue?
Tamar Gabelnick: Absolutely.The Ottawa Convention was established to eliminate anti-personnel mines due to their indiscriminate nature and long-lasting dangers to civilians.Currently, 164 countries and territories have ratified this treaty, including Ukraine. However, both the U.S. and Russia are not parties to it, highlighting a meaningful divide in international norms surrounding these weapons. If Ukraine were to accept the mines, it would create a crisis that could lead to a clear and notable violation of the treaty.
Editor: The Ukrainian government, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, insists that these mines are crucial for defense against the Russian military. How do you reconcile this need for security wiht the potential humanitarian fallout?
Tamar Gabelnick: That’s a challenging situation. While the need for national defense is critical, we must consider the implications of using anti-personnel mines, which can remain active long after conflicts have ended. This not only affects combatants but ultimately endangers civilians and complicates post-conflict recovery efforts. The decision to use such weapons is not just about immediate military strategy; it has lasting effects on communities.
Editor: The United Nations reports that approximately 25% of Ukraine is affected by landmines as a result of the conflict. What is the long-term impact of these explosives on civilian populations?
Tamar Gabelnick: The long-term impact is devastating.Landmines kill and injure thousands of innocent civilians, disrupt economic activities, hinder development, and lead to psychological trauma. Countries that have dealt with landmine issues typically face years,if not decades,of struggle to clear affected lands and support victims. It’s a societal issue that transcends the battlefield and enters the realm of human rights and development.
Editor: Finland recently announced they are considering reintroducing stockpiles of anti-personnel mines.What does this indicate about the international landscape regarding landmine use?
Tamar Gabelnick: Finland’s decision reflects a troubling trend where nations may reassess their stance on anti-personnel mines under pressure from security concerns. Such actions undermine years of progress made under the Ottawa Convention and pose a fundamental challenge to international disarmament efforts. It highlights the complexities of balancing national security with humanitarian obligations.
Editor: For our readers who are concerned about this issue, what practical advice can you provide to advocate against the use of anti-personnel mines?
Tamar Gabelnick: I encourage concerned individuals to engage with their local communities and elected representatives to raise awareness about the humanitarian consequences of anti-personnel mines. Support organizations that promote the ban on landmines, and consider participating in or organizing educational campaigns. Advocacy can take many forms,from online petitions to direct dialog with policymakers,working toward a global norm that respects human life above military strategy.
Editor: Thank you, Tamar, for sharing your insights on such a critical matter. Your expertise sheds light on the importance of maintaining a commitment to humanitarian principles amid ongoing conflicts.
Tamar Gabelnick: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to continue this conversation and advocate for a world free of the threat of anti-personnel mines.