Tamar Gabelnick – Mines Don’t Choose Their Victims

In this installment of the Expert Take series, Tamar Gabelnick, Director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), discusses the troubling trend of countries withdrawing from the Landmine Ban Treaty amid rising regional insecurity. She warns of the grave humanitarian, economic, and environmental consequences of reintroducing anti-personnel mines and reflects on the critical role of civil society and all states in shaping global disarmament efforts.

Question: As an expert with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which played a leading role in the Ottawa process and the adoption of the Landmine Ban Treaty, how do you see recent steps by some Member states to withdraw from the Convention? Do you view them as reversible?

Tamar Gabelnick: Antipersonnel landmines are abhorrent, inherently indiscriminate weapons that should never be used again. The decision of five European governments to leave the Mine Ban Treaty and possibly begin producing and using anti-personnel mines is a devastating step backwards in global efforts to protect civilians during and after armed conflicts. Norms of international humanitarian law are not just theoretical goals to be supported in times of peace. They must also be applied when it matters: in times of war. It sets a dangerous precedent for countries to set aside laws governing armed conflict the day they may actually need to apply them.

Leaving this treaty would also be a catastrophic mistake for their people, who risk paying for the error with their lives and limbs. The countries decided to leave under the pretext of improving their citizens’ safety in light of increased regional insecurity. But anti-personnel landmines do not make nations safer because of their indiscriminate nature. They simply lie blindly under the ground, waiting for the first person to come along. More often than not, that person is not the intended target at all, but an innocent civilian that happens to put their foot down in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our research shows that 85% of landmine victims are civilians and 40% are children.

Mines contaminate playgrounds, farmlands, forests, and paths, and it takes many long years and huge sums of money to clear them. Knowing this, the presence or feared presence of mines paralyzes communities. They have been proven to have limited military utility, if any, as they limit one’s forces tactical mobility and can easily harm one’s own soldiers. Nor are they “cheap and easy” to use, as clearing the deadly legacy is a long and costly process, and all victims will need lifelong medical care and psychosocial support. We understand people are afraid of the threat from their neighbor. But they should also be aware of the massive risks they will face if their country uses anti-personnel landmines. We therefore hope these countries will reconsider their decisions to leave the convention, and we will work with them to discourage any eventual use, acquisition, or production.

Question: How would you describe the collaboration between a civil society organization like the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and disarmament bodies, as well as other international organizations?

Tamar Gabelnick: The ICBL represents a unique model of civil society engagement in multilateral disarmament. Since our founding in 1992, we've built an exceptional partnership with Member States, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), UN agencies, and other stakeholders that goes far beyond traditional advocacy. We're embedded in the daily work of universalizing and implementing these treaties - from monitoring respect for the conventions through our annual reports to providing technical expertise and political input during formal meetings. Our Geneva-based presence allows us to maintain ongoing dialogue with diplomats, the UN, the ICRC, and the Convention secretariats, ensuring that civil society’s perspectives inform policy decisions in real-time. We regularly bring the voices of survivors of landmines and cluster munitions, as well as others directly impacted by these weapons, to bear on the work of the conventions. In this way, decision-makers hear directly about the long-term challenges created by the weapons and the specific ways their actions can ameliorate the situation on the ground. This collaborative approach has proven that effective disarmament requires not just government commitments, but sustained civil society oversight and expertise to ensure treaties remain living, breathing instruments.

Question: If signatories of the Landmine Ban Convention go ahead with withdrawal and potential reintroduction and production of anti-personnel mines, what would be the likely humanitarian, economic and environmental consequences, both domestically and in other conflict-prone border regions?

Tamar Gabelnick: The consequences would be catastrophic and long-lasting. Any country using anti-personnel mines on its own territory would face decades of contamination, with civilians at risk of horrific injury or death until all areas are cleared. The evidence clearly shows that most landmine casualties will be civilians, meaning women, men, and children who are simply trying to return home, go to work or walk in a forest, or play in a grassy field. For years and years, people will live in fear of carrying out such day-to-day activities, worried that one wrong step could blow off their leg. Or their child’s. It is not a bright future for a country to knowingly and willingly create. It does not make people safer.

We've seen this pattern repeatedly in dozens of countries worldwide still contaminated by landmines, sometimes over 40 years after a conflict has ended. We also see the harm in Ukraine from massive use, where anti-personnel mines have rendered vast agricultural lands useless. Economically, clearance costs are enormous, and demining remains a time consuming and dangerous task even with technological improvements. The explosive materials in mines harm the environment, and humanitarian demining can also be disruptive to local ecosystems.

Regionally, withdrawal would signal that humanitarian commitments are negotiable, potentially triggering a domino effect where other threatened countries abandon their obligations. Most concerning, it would normalize weapons that kill and maim civilians for generations, undoing years of progress in establishing humanitarian norms.

Question: The geopolitical context at the close of the Cold War facilitated state cooperation and led to the Landmine Convention’s adoption. Today’s resurgence of the argument of the military utility of mines suggests a stark shift. Is the pro-military viewpoint gaining traction again, and how might this trend impact the broader disarmament agenda?

Tamar Gabelnick: Our organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines is deeply concerned about the reemergence of the idea that anti-personnel mines have significant military utility, despite decades of proof to the contrary. We do not question states’ right to the best possible self-defense, and there are contexts where the security situation has indeed deteriorated sharply. But what has not changed is the nature of anti-personnel mines. They remain inherently indiscriminate, inhumane, and largely ineffective against a determined enemy, especially one with equipment to quickly breach a minefield. Indeed, the Mine Ban Treaty was adopted based on the premise that there was actually very limited military utility of anti-personnel mines, and any usefulness they might have was far outweighed by their clear and massive humanitarian impact. Alternative modern technologies are available for border protection and area-denial today that render Cold War-era anti-personal mines obsolete. But ultimately, decisions on using particular weapons should take into account the full scope of human security, including the heavy and long-term humanitarian impact of landmines on civilians.

The questioning of this long-held understanding about landmines because of changing geopolitical factors is alarming and does have possible ramifications for other disarmament initiatives. The global community drew clear red lines in front of certain antipersonnel mines, cluster munitions, biological and chemical weapons – establishing that they should never be used again. If today the line is being shifted by some countries for landmines and cluster munitions, what is to stop the shift from occurring on other weapons next? This is a dangerous slippery slope, leading to greatly reduced protection for civilians.

Question: Based on your personal experience with the ICBL and the public mobilization that helped catalyze the Landmine Convention: Can you share a moment or campaign strategy from those early years that you believe still holds lessons for confronting today’s threats to the Treaty?

Tamar Gabelnick: I only started with the ICBL in 2005, so I wasn’t involved in the early days of public mobilization, but I worked with many people who were. Rather than one particular action, I think our success was due to a series of innovative approaches and a set of auspicious political circumstances, bolstered by incredibly hard work and dedication. There were ban buses, shoe pyramids, protests, and leafletting. It was a time when people took action outside, not online. It was also a time of promise in the world, and people were motivated by the prospect of ending the suffering stemming from long years of Cold War conflicts. The passion of committed campaigners was matched by the commitment of a small number of governments, who – in close partnership with civil society, the UN, and the ICRC - enthusiastically championed the idea of creating a norm outside the normal channels.

Today tactics will need to be changed, but the principles remain the same. We need to remind the world why these weapons were banned in the first place. We need to capture public interest in creative ways so there is sufficient pressure on states to take action. And we need to reenergize the partnership between civil society, states, the UN, and the ICRC that has been at the heart of progress since the 1990s.

Question: Is there any message you wish to convey to the international community and the public at large?

Tamar Gabelnick: At this critical moment, we must remember that humanitarian disarmament treaties aren't just legal documents - they're promises we've made to protect future generations from indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. Long ago Member States decided that – for the sake of humanity – there must be limits to the means and methods of warfare. In other words, states cannot do “anything and everything” to protect their people. There are limits, and those limits will help safeguard the well-being of their own populations, as well as civilians in other conflicts. The international community must recognize that allowing these withdrawals sets a dangerous precedent that could unravel the entire framework of international humanitarian law. We call on all states to recommit to these treaties, not despite current security challenges, but because of them. When times are tough, what separates some countries from others is their unwavering dedication to certain principles, including the protection of civilians, the laws of war, and the rule of law.