Mine Action Offers a Model of Pragmatic Global Cooperation on Humanitarian Impacts of Weapons 5 MINE ACTION OFFERS A MODEL OF PRAGMATIC GLOBAL COOPERATION ON HUMANITARIAN IMPACTS OF WEAPONS States in the Western security architecture, with NATO and other US alliances have, to varying degrees, expressed antip­athy toward the TPNW and refused to engage collaboratively, even with victim assistance and environmental remediation. However, practice in other policy settings—even disarma­ment and security matters—demonstrates that these same states are capable of acting very differently. In the field of mine action, many of these states are leaders in international cooperation, providing risk education and victim assistance to communities affected by landmines, cluster munitions, and other explosive remnants of war, as well as remediation of contaminated land through demining. As shown in Box 5, states that are not currently collaborating on nuclear victim assistance and environmental remediation are among the top donors funding mine action programs. Their engagement with the MBT and CCM has shown them to be better at listening to affected communities, collaborating across po­litical divisions, and adopting an action-oriented approach. The success of the mine action sector in reducing harm is an outstanding global achievement, with hundreds of square kilometers of contaminated land being cleared, millions of landmines and cluster munition bomblets being destroyed, and millions of dollars being raised to assist victims. 71 There are skeptics who argue that mine action’s collaborative practice is not relevant for dealing with the much more polit­icized and strategically significant nature of nuclear weapons. However, the positive obligations in the TPNW drew on the precedent set by other humanitarian disarmament treaties, notably the Oslo and Ottawa Conventions, which addressed the harm caused by inhumane conventional weapons. The Vienna Action Plan actually commits TPNW states parties to learning»lessons from implementation measures for positive obligations in other treaty regimes«(Action 26), particularly »humanitarian disarmament instruments«(Actions 49 and 50)(see Box 3). Box 5: Top donors funding mine action 72 Rank Donor state 1 US 2 EU 3 Germany 4 Japan 5 Norway 6 UK 7 Switzerland 8 Denmark 9 Netherlands 10 Canada 11 Sweden 12 New Zealand 13 France 14 Australia 15 Italy 16 Ireland 17 Belgium 18 Finland 19 Austria 20 South Korea Contribution to mine action, 2016–2020 (US$ million) 1,056.9 418.4 257.1 187.1 199.0 213.7 81.3 80.5 92.5 52.6 48.2 44.3 41.6 40.2 20.9 16.5 15.9 13.2 8.4 7.0 Position on MBT Not party N/A Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Not party Position on CCM Not party N/A Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Not party Party Not party Position on TPNW Not party, nuclear-armed state N/A Not party, observer 1MSP Not party Not party, observer 1MSP Not party, nuclear-armed state Not party, observer 1MSP Not party Not party, observer 1MSP Not party Not party, observer 1MSP Party Not party, nuclear-armed state Not party, observer 1MSP Not party Party Not party, observer 1MSP Not party, observer 1MSP Party Not party 11