PEACETALK: Humanitarianism Is Not Enough: We Must Decolonize Disarmament

The recent joint recommendation of the Ministry of Defense of Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Finland and Lithuania on withdrawing from the Mine Ban Treaty should alarm everyone committed to peace and disarmament. But more than just concern, it should compel us to ask deeper questions about the foundation of our collective disarmament efforts: Who sets the terms? Who is heard? Who is protected? And whose fears are legitimized while others are silenced?

Humanitarianism—while necessary—has never been enough. It may offer relief, but it rarely changes the structures that cause and perpetuate harm. Now, as states once seen as committed to humanitarian disarmament retreat under the weight of militarized insecurity, we must confront a truth long felt but rarely spoken aloud: disarmament itself must be decolonized.

The Limits of Humanitarian Framing

The Mine Ban Treaty, adopted in 1997, was a landmark achievement. It was born from the tireless work of civil society, particularly from the global south/global majority, where landmines had ravaged communities long after wars had officially ended. But from the beginning, the humanitarian framing of the treaty—centered on suffering, victim assistance, and moral appeal—carried the risk of becoming ahistorical and apolitical. It made it easier for powerful actors to support the treaty out of compassion, while avoiding deeper responsibility for the systems and policies that made landmines widespread in the first place.

When we speak only of humanitarian impact, we risk reducing survivors to symbols of suffering rather than agents of transformation. We also risk ignoring the historical and geopolitical inequalities that shape why certain countries remain contaminated, underfunded, or unheard—while others feel justified in arming, stockpiling, or withdrawing altogether.

From Assistance to Justice

We must expand from the traditional victim assistance work to inclusion of the pursuit justice of the victims. Victim assistance, as currently practiced, is often grounded in charitable or technical responses—healthcare, prosthetics, psychosocial support—all of which are essential. But justice demands that we ask who allowed these harms to happen, who profited, and what mechanisms exist for accountability and redress.

This is not an abstract concept. In the Philippines, the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines (PCBL) and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to recognize that the presence and use of weapons such as landmines are not just humanitarian issues, but potential violations of human rights. This landmark collaboration affirms that affected communities have the right not just to receive aid—but to demand accountability, transparency, and justice.

Through this MOU, we are helping establish a pathway toward a more holistic response—one that integrates humanitarian care with legal responsibility, and centers the dignity and agency of survivors. This model reflects a deeper shift in disarmament: from pity to rights, from repair to justice.

Colonial Continuities in Disarmament

What we are seeing now from Finland, Poland and the Baltic states is not just a security response—it is a recolonization of disarmament. The logic behind their withdrawal or intent to withdraw—”we are small, we are vulnerable, we must protect ourselves at all costs”—is one that echoes colonial narratives of “civilizing violence,” (Fanon 1961; Mbembe, 2003; Mignolo, 2011) where militarization is framed as defense and any restraint is seen as a luxury of the powerful.

But landmines are not protective. They are weapons of control, of abandonment, of long-term harm. Their use, production, or even threatened use mirrors the colonial strategy of securing territory through fear, not safety. These states, many of which have known the trauma of occupation and domination, are now adopting the very tools once used to subjugate them.

And in doing so, they signal to the world—especially to countries in the Global South—that even treaties grounded in humanitarianism can be abandoned when they no longer serve northern interests.

Reclaiming Disarmament from Below

A decolonial disarmament begins with listening. It centers the voices of survivors, communities, and peacebuilders from the Global South—not as beneficiaries of humanitarian aid, but as authors of political transformation. It acknowledges that the most affected have often done the most to advance disarmament—clearing mines, supporting survivors, rebuilding communities—without the luxury of vast military budgets or global media coverage.

Decolonizing disarmament also requires confronting the geopolitics of fear. The concerns of the countries who share a border with Russia are real—but so are the everyday insecurities of communities in Cambodia, Colombia, Laos, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam. Why is the fear of states taken more seriously than the ongoing risks faced by children walking to school across mined fields? Why are weapons still seen as the measure of strength, when it is communities that have disarmed and rebuilt that demonstrate the truest resilience?

Solidarity, Not Symmetry

Our call is not for symmetry but solidarity. We do not equate the contexts of Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. But we do challenge the idea that some states can assert their security through weapons, while others must forever beg for assistance and compliance.

If disarmament is to survive this moment—and become a genuine force for peace—it must move beyond humanitarian appeals and toward a global, anti-colonial solidarity. One that asks not just what weapons do, but who decides, who profits, and who bears the cost.

A Treaty Is a Promise

The Mine Ban Treaty is not just a legal instrument. It is a promise to the future: that we will not return to weapons that punish long after the battle is over. That we will not legitimize tools of slow death in the name of fast defense. That we will build peace not only through law, but through justice.

To those walking away from that promise: know that the rest of us—survivors, activists, and decolonial campaigners from the margins—will not. Because our peace is not fragile. It is forged in struggle, solidarity, and the certainty that no one is free until we all are.

(Fred Lubang is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, in partnership with Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia, where he is developing a decoloniality framework for humanitarian disarmament. He serves as the Regional Representative of Nonviolence International Southeast Asia and the National Coordinator of the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines, an affiliate of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize laureate International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). In 2022, Fred was awarded the Sean MacBride Peace Prize in recognition of his “unwavering work and commitment toward peace, disarmament, common security, and nonviolence.)

References:

Fanon, F. (1961). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Grove Press.

Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11

Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press.

Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines & Commission on Human Rights. (2021). Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in promoting human rights and international humanitarian law in the context of disarmament and armed violence. [Unpublished internal document].