By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Finnish Parliament overwhelmingly approved (157-18) the withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, enabling Finland to resume their use. Opposition came primarily from the Left Alliance (10 MPs), Greens (7 MPs), and one member of the ruling coalition. This decision follows similar actions by Baltic states and reflects Finland’s reassessment of its defense capabilities in a changing security environment. The next steps involve presidential confirmation and notification to the UN.
Read the original article here
Finland’s Parliament recently voted to withdraw from the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty, a decision that has sparked considerable debate. The vote, with a significant majority of 157 MPs in favor and only 18 against, allows the Finnish Defence Forces to legally deploy anti-personnel landmines. The absence of 24 MPs during this crucial vote is a noteworthy detail, however, suggesting perhaps a level of internal division on the matter.
This decision follows similar moves by Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, all countries bordering Russia. This geographical commonality suggests a shared strategic rationale underpinning their actions, especially given Russia’s known use of landmines. The effectiveness of treaties like the Ottawa Treaty hinges on widespread participation; when major players withdraw, the treaty’s intended impact diminishes significantly.
Finland’s justification for withdrawal centers on the need to secure its border with an aggressive neighbor that utilizes landmines extensively. The argument rests on the premise that facing such a threat necessitates reciprocal defensive capabilities. This perspective views landmines not as an ideal weapon, but as a necessary evil in the context of a specific geopolitical reality.
This situation echoes similar debates surrounding other international treaties, such as the one on cluster munitions. These treaties often lack the universal support needed for true effectiveness, as countries that don’t rely on such weapons for their defense are more likely to sign. It’s a scenario likened to non-smokers agreeing to a smoking ban—a proposition that carries less weight when those who are most reliant on smoking aren’t involved.
The ethical implications of landmines are undeniable; their indiscriminate nature causes immense suffering, as highlighted by the ongoing problems of active mines in regions like the former Yugoslavia. The long-term humanitarian consequences are significant. But there’s a counterargument that in specific situations, landmines become a necessary deterrent against invasion, and Finland’s situation is presented as precisely such a scenario. The focus is on self-defense and border security in the face of a perceived existential threat.
The Finnish decision also raises questions about the reliability of international treaties in times of heightened geopolitical tension. Many observers note a pattern of countries adhering to treaties only as long as it suits their immediate interests. This perspective casts a critical eye on the practical efficacy of international legal frameworks when confronted with national security concerns.
The argument for Finland’s withdrawal rests on the premise that maintaining peace often requires preparedness for war. Careful mapping and recording of mine locations are crucial elements to ensure future removal and to limit civilian casualties. The hope is that with modern technology, the precise locations of mines can be documented and readily available for safe removal once the threat subsides.
Furthermore, the debate highlights the complexities of international relations. The decision is viewed by some as a calculated geopolitical move rather than a moral one. The argument that Finland is prioritizing its national security over the humanitarian aims of the treaty underlines the ongoing conflict between national interests and international cooperation.
The Finnish parliament’s vote represents a significant shift in policy, moving away from the international consensus on landmine restrictions. The high number of votes in favour demonstrates a strong national consensus. While the absence of some MPs could indicate internal disagreements, it doesn’t invalidate the prevailing view. The long-term consequences of this decision remain to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a substantial change in the regional security landscape and the global discussion on landmine bans. The decision raises the fundamental question of whether the humanitarian goals of such treaties can be prioritized when facing serious existential threats. And, ultimately, whether the world of international treaties is truly capable of bridging vast chasms of national security concerns and humanitarian objectives.