When Security Prevails: Lithuania Votes to Withdraw from the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Lithuania has recently voted to withdraw from the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). On July 18, 2024 the State’s Parliament adopted a “denunciation law,” which means that Lithuania will cease to be a party to the CCM six months after submission of the denunciation instrument.

Lithuania has never had cluster munitions in its military arsenal and has never used cluster munitions. It has been a party to the CCM since 2010. Lithuania was also a signatory to the 2007 Oslo Declaration, which started the preparation process of the CCM. Lithuania signed and ratified the CCM alongside other European countries and NATO allies. At that time, the State’s ratification of the Convention aligned with the general trend of international efforts to ban weapons that are considered too dangerous for civilians. These arguments in favour of the CCM are listed in the explanatory report attached to the ratification law.

However, Lithuania’s position changed with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and more so after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. On July 15, 2024, the newly appointed Lithuanian Minister of Defence, Laurynas Kasčiūnas, who led the initiative to withdraw from the CCM, described his achievements in office for the first hundred days. He stated,

Denunciation of the Cluster Munitions Convention. A project of ten years. We realized as early as 2016 that we made a mistake by ratifying the Convention. . . . Now, in a short time, we have completed the preparatory work, gained support in Parliament, we informed our allies about our intentions, and we achieved a quick and very necessary decision. We cannot tell our enemy in advance that we will not use one or another capability for our country‘s defence.

This statement effectively summarizes the rationale for Lithuania’s decision to withdraw from the CCM.

Fears and Projections

Lithuania’s decision to denounce the CCM cannot be understood without considering its geopolitical situation. Although Lithuania is a NATO country, geographically it is in a very vulnerable position because of the so-called “Suwałki Gap.” This gap is a short strip of land (approximately 100 kilometres long) that connects Lithuania with Poland. It is the only land link to Poland from the three Baltic States. On either side of this gap is Russia’s Kaliningrad region (formerly Eastern Prussia) and Belarus, led by Aliaksandr Lukashenko, a close ally of Vladimir Putin. Notably, Lukashenko already provided his country’s territory for use during Russia’s invasion into Ukraine.

Were an enemy to capture and take control of the Suwałki Gap, Baltic States would be cut off from their other NATO allies by land. Moreover, Latvia and Estonia also have long borders with Belarus and Russia in other locations. Following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Lithuania is concerned that the Suwałki Gap might be the next Russian target in its quest for expansion and its war against the West. Based on these projections, Lithuania is quickly developing its defence capabilities. The possible acquisition of cluster munitions is one part of that increase in defence capabilities.

Russia, the main potential threat, is not a party to the CCM, and never has been. Russia has also used cluster munitions extensively in its war against Ukraine since the beginning of the invasion. Therefore, Lithuania is concerned that there could be a significant imbalance between its defence capabilities and Russia’s attack capabilities. In that regard, the freedom to use cluster munitions is considered a vital matter of national security and military capability.

Lack of Real Public or Expert Debate

There was some public debate in Lithuania regarding the potential withdrawal from the CCM. When this was debated in parliament, and the law was passed, Lithuanian mainstream media reported the critical remarks of Amnesty International, the Cluster Munitions Coalition, and the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, these reports were not supplemented with more extensive coverage or additional content.

A variety of opinions was expressed on social media, but it was never a trending topic that left specific social network bubbles. Some internet commentators, known for conspiracy theories and pro-Russian views, claimed that this was a Western attempt to get rid of their old cluster munitions and transfer them to Lithuania. More generally, the Lithuanian withdrawal from the CCM was just one item in the news, and in most cases, it was described positively, as another step to strengthen Lithuanian national security, with only a few voices raising concerns.

National non-governmental organizations (NGO) also did not initiate any debate, perhaps because there are no active NGOs in Lithuania dealing with weapons issues. Human rights organizations also stayed silent, most likely because of their lack of expertise on this issue, or because they assessed that they were dealing with other, more pressing matters. For instance, local NGOs are under constant pressure regarding Belarus’s orchestrated migrant crisis. All branches of the government took a very clear stance that security was the primary goal.

Lithuania has an International Humanitarian Law Implementation Commission within its Ministry of Defence, which consists of specialists from different ministries and academia. However, the Commission was neither called upon, nor consulted, on the issue of denouncing the CCM. National media organizations always invite local experts to comment on the issues of international obligations and treaties, but the matter of cluster munitions was not debated.

Within Lithuania, there appears to be an official and public consensus that denunciation of the CCM is a positive step towards growing defence capabilities, and the dangers of using cluster munitions should be regarded as less important when weighed against other threats. Moreover, officials have made assurances that cluster munitions will never be used against civilian targets and that Western produced cluster munitions are much safer in quality regarding unexploded remnants. It was also noted that the Baltic States’ militaries can organize joint purchases of cluster munitions. In the scarce discussions that have taken place, some argued that so long as Lithuania is a party to the CCM, it could not even acquire cluster munitions to study how to disarm, de-mine, and clear them although this is false claim, as Article 3 part 6 clearly foresees exceptions for such activity.

Concluding Thoughts

Lithuania’s denunciation of the CCM was swift and lacked any substantial public or expert debate, either among NGOs or academia. The debate that did occur was first and foremost driven by security concerns. What is more worrying is that after a successful vote to withdraw from the CCM, there is now also talk of the need to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Landmines (Ottawa) Convention.

***

Justinas Žilinskas is a Professor of Public International Law at the Mykolas Romeris University.

Photo credit: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade