Veronika Honkasalo is visibly shaken.
She has just emerged from a 3 ½-hour meeting that left the veteran member of Parliament reeling. The Foreign Affairs Committee has decided to back a bill that will take Finland out of the international treaty banning antipersonnel land mines. And during those 3 ½ hours, she was completely alone.
She grabs a banana to tide her over as she heads to a hastily called press conference, and she is alone there, too. The other members of the committee talk about the need to reexamine Finland’s security needs amid a new Russian threat.
Why We Wrote This
Finns have always been proud of their reputation as good global citizens. But now, feeling threatened on their long border with Russia, they are pulling out of a treaty long seen as a cornerstone of humanitarian law.
But sitting on the far left of the panel – both physically and ideologically – Ms. Honkasalo offers a different vision of security, often in strident tones. Finland’s commitment to international treaties like the land mine ban strengthens its security and its moral standing, she argues. By leaving, Finland is only hurting itself.
On June 19, several days after the Foreign Affairs Committee vote, the full Finnish Parliament passed the bill, overwhelmingly, 157 to 18. The president is expected to sign the bill early this month. But the scenes leading up to that final vote speak to the emotions surrounding the issue – on both sides – and the difficulty of a decision that seems to pit defending freedom against defending human rights.
Mark Sappenfield/The Christian Science Monitor
Lady Di’s legacy
The United Nations treaty banning antipersonnel land mines is considered one of the great triumphs of both humanitarian law and the international rules-based order. Currently, 164 nations are signatories, and the treaty takes much of the credit for a decline in land mine casualties from 25,000 a year in 1999 to around 5,000 today.
It was a cause famously championed by Lady Diana Spencer, who participated in de-mining operations in Angola and Bosnia-Herzegovina to bring attention to the fact that 80% of land mine casualties are civilians. The U.N. treaty was signed a few months after her death.
But the war in Ukraine has shifted the ground. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – all sharing borders with Russia – have announced that they, too, are leaving the treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention. Norway, which has a relatively short border with Russia above the Arctic Circle, is remaining.
For Norway, the decision to remain is unambiguously clear. The country was a driving force behind the creation of the 1997 treaty. “Antipersonnel mines strike indiscriminately and cause great suffering, even decades after a conflict ends,” says Eivind Vad Petersson, state secretary for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. “That’s why it’s so important to uphold obligations under international law, even when a security situation deteriorates.”
For Poland, the opposite decision – to leave – is similarly clear. For Poland, shaped by a history of repeated invasions and unjust foreign regimes, the need to defend itself comes first. “This is about our right to live, because if Russia ever invades Poland again, we will become the new Bucha,” says Michał Piekarski, a security expert at the University of Wrocław, referring to the Ukrainian site of Russian wartime atrocities.
Finland occupies a middle space between the two.
On a highway north of Helsinki stands a road sign that reads: Saint Petersburg 380 kilometers (220 miles). The border with Russia runs for 800 miles through some of the wildest countryside in Europe. Moreover, Finland’s narrow escape from Russian conquest in World War II remains a fundamental marker of its national identity.
“Voters are concerned,” says Matti Pesu, a security analyst at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in Helsinki.
The emphatic parliamentary vote reflects this.
But for Ms. Honkasalo, the vote was a repudiation of the new Finland that had been emerging from Russia’s shadow – a standard-bearer for human rights and the rule of law. “Human rights is seen here as against security when in fact they are complementary,” she says. “Especially in difficult times, we need to defend the system built up after World War II.”
Finns reluctant, but resigned
Most Finns would not argue this point. “It is not ideal to withdraw from a convention,” says Outi Hyvärinen, director of the Unit for Arms Control at Finland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs. “If Finland withdraws, it will be easier for others to do the same.”
But the strong support for leaving the Ottawa Convention suggests that many Finns feel the country must do the best it can in a difficult situation. “We recognize the world has changed,” adds Ms. Hyvärninen. “We accept that this is a necessary step in our security policy environment.”
Critics question whether antipersonnel mines are needed at all. Professor Piekarski says Poland would be better served spending its money on other technologies. Norway agrees. There are “alternatives that are more effective and discriminating,” says Mr. Petersson.
Finland’s National Defence Forces say they have analyzed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and concluded that antipersonnel mines are effective in specific scenarios. They “are used to make it more difficult to clear anti-tank mines, to protect flanks, and blind spots,” says Col. Riku Mikkonen, inspector of military engineers of the Finnish army, in an email. They are also “especially suited for defending the challenging Finnish terrain.”
Finland’s solution is to try to prove to the world that it will be as responsible as possible. That will admittedly be a tough sell. “Many states and nongovernmental organizations tried to influence Finland not to take this step,” says Ms. Hyvärinen.
But some worried nations were not even aware that Finland shared such a long border with Russia. Others with a better knowledge of the situation have been less severe.
“NATO allies understand Russia is a long-term threat,” she adds. “They understand our geopolitical situation.”
Still, Finland is taking steps to underline its commitment to minimizing possible civilian casualties. Mines will be deployed only in wartime, only in clearly marked areas, and with digital maps to make their clearance after war easier. Finland is also remaining in conventions that govern the ethical deployment of antipersonnel mines, and is not advocating for anyone else to leave the Ottawa Convention.
Ms. Hyvärinen expects to need to do a lot of explaining to international colleagues and allies. But she says she embraces that role. “I try to be as constructive as possible. Finland wants to be a responsible player in the future.”
