By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 5 2025 – As a string of European states announce withdrawals from a global treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, campaigners are warning countless lives could be put at risk as decades of progress fighting the weapons come under threat.

On April 16, Latvia’s parliament approved the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. This came just weeks after Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland all announced their intention to pull out of the treaty.

The countries have argued the move is a necessary security measure in light of growing Russian aggression.

But campaign groups have said that pulling out of the treaty is undermining the agreement itself with serious humanitarian implications.

“While far from the end of the treaty, this is a very big setback for the treaty and a very depressing development. Antipersonnel landmines are objectionable because they are inherently indiscriminate weapons and because of their long-lasting humanitarian impact,” Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, which is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told IPS.

“The supposed military benefits of landmines are far outweighed by the devastating humanitarian implications of them,” she added.

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. It has been ratified or accepted by 165 countries—Russia, the United States, China, North Korea, Iran, and Israel are among those that are not signatories.

HALO demining in action. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

Campaign groups supporting the ban highlight the devastation landmines cause not just from direct casualties but also from driving massive displacement, hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid and impeding socio-economic recovery from conflict.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of those killed by landmines—80%—are civilians, with children particularly vulnerable.

“The presence of mines and other explosive ordnance continues to cause high levels of fatalities and serious injury, often resulting in life-long disabilities, with disproportionate impacts on children, persons with disabilities, and those forced to return under desperate conditions,” Shabia Mantoo, UNHCR spokesperson, told IPS.

“In addition to the high death toll, injuries and their aftereffects, including psychological damage, the presence of explosive devices hinders access to local livelihoods such as pastures, fields, farms, and firewood, as well as community infrastructure. They also affect the delivery of humanitarian aid and development activities. For humanitarian actors, their ability to safely reach communities with high levels of humanitarian needs and vulnerabilities and deliver life-saving assistance and protection  are often seriously constrained due to risks posed by explosive devices,” Mantoo added.

Humanitarian groups say the treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine casualties from approximately 25,000 per year in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 in 2023. The number of contaminated states and regions has also declined significantly, from 99 in 1999 to 58 in 2024.

The treaty also includes measures requiring member countries to clear and destroy them as well as to provide assistance to victims, and as of the end of last year, 33 states had completed clearing all antipersonnel mines from their territory since 1999.

But in recent years, landmine casualties have grown amid new and worsening conflicts.

Data from the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor (2024) showed that in 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines in 2023—a rise of 22 percent compared with 2022—in 53 countries.

The highest number of casualties—1,003—was recorded in Myanmar. This was three times the number in 2022. This was followed by Syria (933), Afghanistan (651), Ukraine (580), and Yemen (499).

In a special report on the continuing risks posed by mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), the presence of which is known as ‘weapon contamination,’ released earlier in April, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)  warned that in 2025, the humanitarian impact of weapon contamination would likely continue to rise.

“The increased use of improvised explosive devices, shifting frontlines, and worsening security conditions will make survey and clearance efforts even more complex and therefore leave communities exposed to greater danger,” the report stated.

In two of the world’s most landmine-contaminated countries, Myanmar and Ukraine, the severe humanitarian impact of massive landmine use is being made horrifyingly clear.

In Myanmar, local aid groups say the ruling military junta’s use of landmines has escalated to unprecedented levels, while rebel groups are also deploying them. Roads and villages have been mined—ostensibly for military purposes, although many observers say they are just as often used to terrorize local populations—leading to not just civilian deaths and horrific injuries but also hindering vital medical care and aid efforts. Mines have been used in all 14 Myanmar states and regions, affecting about 60 percent of the country’s townships.

The mines have been an extra problem in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake at the end of March. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said just days after the disaster, which killed more than 3,000 people, that as people relocated to areas less impacted by the earthquake and local and international organizations planned their response, ERWs were threatening not just the lives of those moving but also the safe delivery of humanitarian relief.

A group of HALO deminers with their equipment prepare for work. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

In Ukraine there has been extensive landmine use since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Russian forces have mined vast swathes of land, while there have been reports that Ukrainian forces have also used anti-personnel mines. It is estimated approximately 174,000 square kilometers, almost 30 percent of Ukraine’s territory, are affected by landmines and ERWs.

“According to NATO, Ukraine is now the world’s most mine-affected country and has seen the most mine laying since World War II.  The humanitarian impact of this contamination has been multifaceted—as well as vast swathes of prime farming land being contaminated, adversely affecting food security, civilian areas are also badly affected, including schools, residential zones, roads, and key infrastructure, leading to widespread displacement,” a spokesperson for the HALO Trust, a major humanitarian NGO carrying out demining operations around the world, including Ukraine, told IPS.

The spokesperson added that the effects of extensive landmine laying in the country may be felt for decades to come.

“HALO deminers are working in liberated areas, but it will take many years—if not decades— to clear Ukraine of landmines. Areas closest to the frontlines, such as Kharkiv and Sumy, are the areas where most people have been displaced, and some parts of these regions may remain uninhabitable until made completely safe. Any additional minelaying will extend the risk to civilian populations, agricultural production, and global trade for decades to come,” they said.

Anti-landmine campaigners also warn that if countries pull out of the Ottawa Convention, there is a risk that the use of landmines will become normalized.

“Increased acceptance [of landmines] could lead to wider proliferation and use, recreating the extensive contamination seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, and other conflict zones. In addition, withdrawal risks normalizing the rejection of humanitarian standards during times of insecurity, potentially undermining other crucial international norms. The ICBL has warned of a dangerous slippery slope where rejecting established norms during tense periods could lead to reconsideration of other banned weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons),” Charles Bechara, Communications Manager at ICBL, told IPS.

“Landmine survivors worldwide are shocked and horrified that European countries are about to undermine such progress and make the same mistake that dozens of other countries now regret. When European nations withdraw [from the Ottawa Convention], this sends a problematic message to countries facing internal or external security threats that such weapons are now acceptable,” he added.

However, it is not just withdrawals from the Ottawa Convention that are worrying anti-landmine groups.

Funding for demining efforts as well as services to help victims are under threat.

While the United States is not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, it has been the largest contributor to humanitarian demining and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors over the past 30 years. In 2023, it provided 39 percent of total international support to the tune of USD 310 million.

But the current halt to US foreign aid funding means that critical programs are now at risk, according to the ICBL.

“The US funding suspension threatens progress in heavily contaminated countries where casualty rates had been significantly reduced through consistent mine action work,” said Bechara.

He added the stop on funding would have “severe consequences for treaty implementation goals,” including the disruption or cessation of mine clearance operations in over 30 countries, a pause on victim assistance programs providing prosthetics and rehabilitation services, curtailment of risk education initiatives that help communities avoid mines, job losses at demining organizations, and problems implementing other humanitarian and development work because agencies depend on mine clearance to safely access areas.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Ottawa Convention are urging the countries currently intending to leave the landmine treaty to rethink their decisions.

“For Latvia and other countries considering withdrawal from the Mine Ban Convention, the ICBL is clear that weapons that predominantly kill and injure civilians cannot safeguard any nation’s security. Military experts, including Latvia’s own National Armed Forces commander, have concluded that modern weapon systems offer more effective defensive capabilities without the indiscriminate harm to civilians,” said Bechara.

“Despite the threats against the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL’s message is for countries to immediately cease their withdrawals and stand behind the treaty. Long-term security and safety cannot be ensured by a weakened international humanitarian law, which was conceived specifically to protect civilians in dire security situations,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Janet Ngombalu
NAIROBI, Kenya, May 5 2025 – Reflecting on this year’s IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, one word lingers in my mind: uncertainty. The shifting global geopolitical landscape loomed large—none more so than the US administration’s initial threat to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions.

Although that threat was later withdrawn, it’s clear the US wants sweeping reforms. What exactly those changes will look like remains unknown, but it’s clear that the US wants the IMF and World Bank to focus more on its biggest shareholders rather than people and the planet. For countries in the Global South, like my own—Kenya—that could be disastrous.

As the world knows, the people of Kenya made their frustrations against the IMF known last year, with protests against IMF fiscal and austerity policies. And this unrest led to President William Ruto withdrawing a finance bill aiming to raise more than $2 billion in taxes.

Then, just last month, a four-year $3.6 billion IMF deal was terminated by mutual agreement. A new deal is now being negotiated—but finding balance will be difficult. The IMF is demanding fiscal consolidation, while the government is under immense pressure to ease the burden on a struggling population.

Without raising taxes, Kenya faces drastic cuts to public spending. But the people have had enough—and they shouldn’t be forced to endure more.

Dead livestock in Bubisa, Marsabit County due to prolonged drought: Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

This is happening at a critical moment. The IMF is undergoing two major reviews this year that will shape its lending and surveillance approach for the next five years. If the Trump administration gains more sway over IMF leadership, civil society fears a regression to the 1990s era of even harsher austerity.

The reality on the ground in Kenya makes this unacceptable. We already face high taxes, and cuts to essential services are tearing the social fabric apart. Our health system is stretched beyond its limits.

Last year, doctors were driven to suicide under the weight of low pay, impossible hours, and the heartbreak of losing patients due to inadequate care.

School feeding programmes – lifelines for many children – have been cut. For some, that was the only meal of the day. Businesses are closing, jobs are vanishing, and those of us still employed are helping family members who are struggling.

A resident of Makueni fetches water from a community booth made possible through Christian Aid Kenya’s sand dam project, offering a reliable water source amid prolonged drought. Credit: Fauzia Hussein/Christian Aid Kenya

Meanwhile, the US is calling on the IMF and World Bank to scale back focus on gender equality and climate change. This is deeply alarming. As Kenya’s country director for Christian Aid, I am currently seeking emergency funds to respond to severe flooding in Marsabit and Wajir in the northeast of the country, which have also been heavily affected by drought.

Kenya loses up to KSh870 billion every year, around 3–5% of GDP, due to climate impacts. Yet we’ve done almost nothing to cause this crisis.

Women in particular continue to bear the brunt of IMF-imposed austerity. They face rising food prices head-on, as the ones more responsible for food shopping. They dominate the informal and public sectors – precisely the sectors most affected by spending cuts.

We had started to make scant progress in getting the IMF to consider these gendered impacts. Now, that progress is under threat.

There’s also growing unease about the politicisation of global financial governance. If the US gains even more influence over the IMF, will there be favouritism in lending decisions? The recent cancellation of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s trip to Kenya, following President Ruto’s visit to China, raises eyebrows.

The rise of this selfish, unilateral approach is troubling—and it’s already hurting us. Massive aid cuts are hitting hard. In addition to the proposed $60 billion USAID budget reduction, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands have announced cuts totalling over $11 billion combined.

It feels as though the Global South is being abandoned in a power struggle we didn’t start. The IMF and World Bank, created in the colonial era, have always tilted toward northern interests. The US holds 16% of IMF voting power and therefore a veto over most important decisions which require 85% agreement. Meanwhile, the entire African continent holds just 4.7%. That imbalance is not only unjust; it’s unsustainable.

And now, it could get worse. But there is hope.

The upcoming Financing for Development Conference in Seville this June offers a rare and crucial opportunity. It is the only global forum where all countries negotiate economic governance on equal terms.

We must seize this moment to push for meaningful reform—debt relief, fairer international tax rules, and real climate finance. These are the changes we need to unlock a future where all countries have the tools and autonomy to shape their own development.

We cannot afford more uncertainty. We need control over our economic destiny, not to be tossed around by the shifting whims of the Global North.

Bring on Seville. It’s time for change.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

Janet Ngombalu is Kenya Country Director, Christian Aid

By Jesselina Rana and Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, May 5 2025 – Climate change is threatening to engulf small island states such as Maldives and the Marshall Islands. Gender apartheid is still practiced in theocratic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. War crimes and genocide are taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan.

Hunger looms large in the Congo and Yemen. People continue to be arbitrarily imprisoned in places as far apart as El-Salvador and Eritrea. Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while China and the United States look the other way despite being permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Even a casual observer can concede that the UN’s mission to maintain peace and security, protect human rights and promote social progress along-with respect for international law is in crisis.

As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary this October, a pivotal question looms: Who should lead it into its next era? Surely, in a world impacted by multiple intersecting crises, the answer cannot be business as usual. After nearly eight decades, nine Secretary-Generals, and zero leaders from civil society—let alone a woman—the time for a transformative shift is now.

A movement is underway to demand a visionary Secretary-General who embodies feminist, principled, and courageous leadership. We need a world leader who will boldly stand up for human rights and ensure the inclusion of voices that have for too long been pushed to the margins, even as the UN faces questions about its financial sustainability.

Members of the Sub-commission on the Status of Women, from Lebanon, Poland, Denmark, Dominican Republic and India, prepare for a press conference at Hunter College in New York on 14 May 1946. Credit: UN Photo

Notably, since its inception the UN has been presided over by men, which is less than representative of the global community that the UN serves. Appointing a woman as Secretary-General would not only break this historical pattern but signal a commitment to gender equality and inspire women and girls worldwide, demonstrating that the highest levels of international leadership are accessible to all, regardless of gender. 92 states have already expressed support for a woman Secretary General.

The current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres is due to step down at end of December 2026 upon completion of his second term. The UN Charter mandates the appointment of the head of the UN by the General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council. Essentially, 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council must agree on the final recommendation to the General Assembly which then makes a decision on the final candidate through a majority vote.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any candidate before a recommendation is made to the UN General Assembly. A lot of behind the scenes political wrangling takes place at this stage to select a candidate who will be acceptable to powerful states that seek to exert control over the UN, which is why the 1 for 8 billion campaign are demanding a process that is fair, transparent, inclusive, feminist and rigorous.

It’s no secret that the UN’s overly bureaucratic approaches and the inclination of its leadership to play safe in the face of multiple intersecting crises, including glaring violations of the UN Charter by powerful states are pushing the institution from being ineffective to becoming irrelevant.

Although many within the UN lay the blame on powerful states for co-opting the institution to assert narrow national interests and for not paying their financial dues, the problems run much deeper.

Ironically, civil society actors who work with the UN to fulfill its mission are being sidelined. In last year’s negotiations on the UN’s Pact for the Future and in current Financing for Development conversations, civil society delegates have struggled to find space to have their voices adequately included.

Many of us in civil society who have supported the UN through decades in the common quest to create more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies are deeply concerned about the current state of affairs.

Civil society actors have been instrumental in shaping some of the UN’s signature achievements such as the Paris Agreement on climate, the universal Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark Treaty on Enforced Disappearances. But diplomats representing repressive regimes are increasingly seeking to limit civil society participation.

These tactics are not isolated acts. They represent a coordinated, global assault on civic space and democratic norms. They are also contributory factors to the erosion of public trust in multilateral bodies which is threatening the legitimacy of the UN itself.

Tellingly, the long-standing demand for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to streamline civil society participation across the UN system and to drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond major UN hubs has gone unheeded by the UN’s leadership.

Over the last decade and a half, civil society organisations and activists have faced a relentless assault from authoritarian-populist governments. The situation is alarming: latest findings of the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory research collaboration, affirm that over 70% of the global population now live under repressive civic space conditions.

Across continents, activists are being illegally surveilled, arbitrarily imprisoned, and physically attacked. The right to peaceful protest is being quashed even in democracies. In far too many countries, independent civil society organisations are being dismantled and prevented from accessing funding. Just in the last two months, countries as diverse as Peru and Slovakia have introduced repressive anti-NGO laws.

As civic space closes, major financial supporters —from the US and UK to several EU states—are slashing official development assistance, thereby depriving civil society of crucial resources to resist these restrictions. A recent CIVICUS survey confirms that frontline efforts in health, civic engagement, and human rights are among the hardest hit.

The next Secretary-General must meet the crisis head-on. They must make the defence of civic space a strategic imperative. That means speaking out against governments that silence dissent and ensuring safe and meaningful participation for civil society at all levels. An effective way to do this would be to report on the implementation of the 2020 UN guidance note on civic space and accelerate its mainstreaming across the UN’s agencies and offices around the world.

Civil society remains a resilient engine for global progress. From climate justice and anti-corruption work to feminist organising, civil society groups often lead where governments and multilateral institutions falter. The UN would be well served by a Secretary General who sees civil society less as an after-thought and more as a co-creator of global policy who embodies feminist leadership principles and who understands that multilateralism cannot function without grassroots engagement—that justice, sustainability, and peace are not top-down aspirations, but bottom-up imperatives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

Jesselina Rana is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’s New York office. Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.