Biden Administration Faces Scrutiny Over Anti-Personnel Landmine Policy in Ukraine

The Biden administration is under increased scrutiny for its policy on anti-personnel landmines, particularly concerning their use in Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia. Critics and human rights advocates are raising concerns about the continued deployment and stockpiling of these weapons, which have long-term humanitarian consequences.

Policy Background

Anti-personnel landmines are controversial for their indiscriminate nature, often injuring civilians long after conflicts have ended. While the U.S. has made strides in limiting their use globally, the Biden administration has opted for a more nuanced approach in Ukraine, allowing the continued use of landmines in specific circumstances to support Ukrainian defense efforts against Russian aggression.

The White House’s policy marks a deviation from earlier commitments to align more closely with the 1997 Ottawa Convention, an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines. The U.S. remains one of the few nations not to sign the treaty, citing national security concerns.

Human Rights Advocacy

Human rights organizations and disarmament advocates argue that landmines disproportionately harm civilians and hinder post-conflict recovery. Mary Wareham, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch's arms division, stated, Landmines create a legacy of suffering, especially for children and communities rebuilding after war. The U.S. should be leading efforts to eliminate their use, not perpetuating them.

Critics also question the ethical implications of U.S. support for their use in Ukraine, even in a defensive capacity, highlighting the long-term risks posed to Ukrainian civilians.

U.S. Position on Ukraine

The Biden administration defends its policy as a necessary measure in the context of Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression. Officials argue that landmines provide a strategic advantage in slowing advancing forces and protecting key areas. They also emphasize that modern landmine technologies are designed to self-deactivate after a set period, reducing the risk of harm to civilians.

A senior administration official noted, We remain committed to reducing the impact of these weapons on civilians, but we must also ensure Ukraine has the tools needed to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Global Perspective

The U.S. policy contrasts sharply with that of most Western allies, who have fully embraced the Ottawa Convention and eliminated landmine use from their arsenals. This divergence raises questions about international cooperation and U.S. leadership in arms control efforts.

The issue is particularly pressing as Ukraine continues to recover from widespread destruction caused by the war. Rebuilding efforts are complicated by unexploded ordnance and landmines left behind in liberated areas, posing ongoing threats to civilians.

Calls for Change

Advocates urge the administration to reconsider its stance, pushing for a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines and greater alignment with international norms. They argue that U.S. leadership in disarmament is critical to setting a global standard and reducing the humanitarian toll of landmines in conflict zones.

In Congress, bipartisan lawmakers have also expressed concerns, calling for a review of current policies and increased oversight of U.S. military support to Ukraine.

Looking Ahead

As the war in Ukraine continues, the Biden administration faces growing pressure to balance military strategy with humanitarian considerations. The debate over anti-personnel landmines underscores the broader challenge of maintaining global leadership while addressing immediate security needs.

For Ukraine, the presence of landmines adds another layer of complexity to its recovery efforts, highlighting the urgent need for demining initiatives and international cooperation to protect civilians.