Our countries intend to retreat from the Ottawa Convention, which concerns the ban on the usage of anti-personnel mines, announced the defence ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia a fewer days ago. The decision was criticised, among others, by the head of Norwegian diplomacy, the media in Germany and... Russia. The problem is that the convention itself, no substance how noble the ideas of its creators were, present means no more than the paper on which it was written. She's not the only one.
Anti-personnel mines are a terrible weapon. They are comparatively inexpensive and easy to deploy, so they can be utilized on a large scale. They kill, maim, and worse, they could pose a real threat to civilians, many years after the end of the war. Just look at Vietnam, Cambodia, and even the countries of the erstwhile Yugoslavia, where specified ammunition – a souvenir of armed conflicts of the second half of the 20th century – is inactive found today. All the more reason to appreciate the run launched in the 1990s, which aimed at eliminating anti-personnel mines completely from use. The efforts of the global ICBL (International run to Ban Landmines) led to the signing of the aforementioned Ottawa Convention, for which the originators themselves were honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately, it could already be assumed that the agreement would stay dead. due to the fact that although the paper decided to first 163 countries, the world's top powers dispelled it with a decision of arms. Not even China, Russia, the USA, or India have signed under the convention. Similarly, Israel and both Koreas, or states that have been carrying out military activities for decades, have been on their doorstep. no of them intended to tie hands. Regardless of the fact that even a possible breach of the provisions of the agreement would only consequence in condemnation in global forums. At the same time, 1 may uncertainty whether the voices of outrage would be common.
Similar examples could be multiplied. Similarly, the Dublin Convention on the ban on cluster weapons was adopted in 2008. It has been signed by over a 100 countries, but among the signatories it is vain to search for Russia, China or the USA. Their governments want to guarantee freedom, including the usage of specified weapons... For large players (and surely for any of them) even circumventing the records they erstwhile agreed to is not a major problem. Just look at the destiny of the Convention on atomic Weapons. The INF treaty, signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, was to lead to the complete elimination of short, intermediate and average scope missiles, specified as those that are capable of damaging targets from 500 to 55,000 km away. Today his records no longer apply. After Vladimir Putin's power was strengthened, Russia began secretly expanding its arsenal. The attempts by Barack Obama's administration to methulate the Kremlin have yet been of small use. That's why in 2019 the Americans declared the treaty.
He's gone to past besides New START Treatyintended to reduce the number of carriers of strategical atomic weapons – both missiles and bombers. Here, the first decision was made by Americans. Donald Trump's erstwhile administration requested China's inclusion in the deal. The right decision – the Chinese who stay the largest rival of the United States defend very dynamically and... stay out of control. Trump's proposition was answered by the Kremlin: "OK, but in addition to China, let's include France and the United Kingdom." specified a position is hard to consider as more than a game of appearances, for Moscow has long been incapable to get Chinese to do anything. Anyway, the talk of the fresh START extension is stuck. The paper decided to first only the Joe Biden administration. but it didn't last besides long. Shortly after a full-scale invasion of Ukraine Putin suspended Russia's participation in fresh START. Similarly, he did a fewer months later with a treaty limiting the amount of conventional armed forces in Europe...
So, nevertheless brutal that sounds, announced by Poland the intention to retreat from the Ottawa Convention It's nothing special. Moreover, in the context of events in fresh years, this movement should be considered rational. The Russian army in Ukraine reaches for anti-personnel mines without any restraint. So why should Poland not leave specified a gate and make it an component of the Shield of the East? That's the rule of reciprocity. Of course, it can be lamented that, in the face of an ever-increasing global situation, treaties to reduce arms weigh little and less, but... with facts it is hard to discuss. The mechanisms of large politics, the more armed action, prove ruthless. Of course, the message of this fact should not lead to ethical indifference, which is reflected in the common position of defence ministers of Poland and the Baltic States. They besides stressed that their countries would proceed to follow humanitarian law, which includes civilian protection during armed conflicts.
Furthermore, it remains to be hoped that the classical balance of fear will work in the era of the erosion of disarmament conventions. The same which held the cold war planet in check for decades, allowing powers to balance on the border of global conflict, but never exceeding it. due to the fact that if the usage of X-guns against a possible opponent could origin equally severe retaliation, it might be better to avoid escalation...
