China has always had an interest in the LAC, especially in the Caribbean islands. Many Chinese corporations have invested heavily in both real estate and development. Going around Nassau (the capital of the Bahamas), you will notice many Chinese hotels and corporations that have set up shops. How did this happen? In looking at the documents, a lot of it has to do with international cooperation. The Bahamas suffered from weak economic development, relying heavily on tourism. To promote Bahama's development, China began making deals in developing lands to help stimulate their economic growth. What we have seen in recent years is how the Bahamas has become indebted to Chinese developers now. Since China helped build up the Bahamian economy, China has begun making more demands on how the government should create its policies. In turn, this has changed the outlook of the Bahamas and how the future looks for them. With further Chinese development in the region, it is concerning to see how they might shape the LAC.

It is important that the goal is not to just stop Chinese influence. While that may be a priority, it is not the sole purpose. I agree that it is key to keep the messaging clear. With a clear communication of intentions, it creates a more favorable outlook on the country.

The conflict is far from over in the Middle East. With the growing tensions over there, it is important to remain in that region. Turning military involvement away in one region can create a cascade of vulnerability in a whole system.

It feels that with each new article, the US keeps expanding its influence farther across the globe. As this article covers Latin America and the Caribbean, it is the most directly influential with the proximity to the US. The Caribbean provides the US with a chance to getaway. As Tourism is their primary income, it becomes fascinating how the shift in dynamic is reflected. Reflecting on South Korea, many external relations deal with security around them. South Korea must fend off both North Korean and Chinese aggression; their focus is solely on associations that deal with those countries. The US has stretched far to cover East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, the Arctic, Latin America, and the Caribbean. With how much involvement the US is in, it remains to see how a withdrawal from one region will impact the tensions. I am concerned that if there is less priority in the Middle East, there will be consequences of an attack in the future.

I agree that the Department of Homeland Security is making the right moves. Rather than just the military action, it's great that you point out there are other motives, such as fishermen's protection. With how important the region is to America's economy, it makes sense that the US would want to get involved.

It is encouraging to see the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security in the Arctic. With how many big players are in the region, the US must create a stance in that area. My biggest concern is the continuance of staying in that region. With the US acting as the world's police officer, it can be challenging to be in every situation at once. By being in too many places, it can lead to a whole collapse of the military. By spreading out too thin, protecting the nation becomes less of a priority, and an invasion could happen. However, as stated earlier, it is good to see the involvement of the DHS. The DHS has helped many causes, including the restructuring of South Korea after the Korean war. Without the US military aide, South Korea may be controlled by North Korea now. There is still a desire to help those in need, and the Arctic is no exception. Furthermore, protecting US interests abroad helps build a better image of the American people.

The Council has helped mitigate the issues with the melting ice caps. While it is important to stop the change in temperature, I find it imperative to preserve the culture as well. With nations expanding their influence rapidly, it is easy to lose the unique culture and identity that the Artic brings.

It is interesting how China has some involvement with the Artic Council. With how much pollution China creates, it would seem that China will not help with the agreement. With preserving the natural landscape of the Artic being a high priority, China seems like an odd observer.

It is interesting to learn about the Artic, considering I know nothing about it. In terms of the agreement, it looks pretty standard in cooperation with the other states. One of the main topics that stand out is the preservation of the Arctic environment. With increasing global warming concerns, the agreement of preserving flora and fauna of the Arctic rise to importance. Though the preservation makes the Ottawa Declaration unique, the rest of the agreement seems standard across the board. With so many contracts being made, it makes traversing alliances that much more complicated. Angering one nation can have a severe chain reaction with every other. South Korea has a complex array of partnerships that angering one of those could send South Korea into action. The same could be true with any of the Arctic states as well. While the Ottawa Declaration looks to provide an alliance on preserving nature and promoting information of the region, it proves many additional binding agreements out there.

There has been many questions to the American democratic system. With every election there is always constant debate to get rid of or change the electoral college. Tampering results adds too that argument for change in regulations.

I believe 2016 alerted the government to be more vigilant to possible tampering. With the amount of rumors being made surrounding that election, the government wanted to make sure that there would not be any fraudulent behavior. We may never know what happened in 2016, yet the government can still be ready for the future now.

Elections can shape an outcome of a country. With both the US and South Korea being democracies, their leaders have support from their nation. To find if that support is falsified can lead to huge retaliation from the people. The report presented does conclude that outside actors are interested in tampering with elections. While the integrity of the votes was kept intact, it becomes scarier when that interference makes an actual difference. In 2006, Mexico underwent one of the most controversial elections to date. With such a close election, it became difficult to account who had won—the official votes tallied up labeled Felipe Calderon as the winner by 0.58% of votes. There were immediate rechallenges, and riots burst out for the possibility of falsified votes. Many have provided facts about the fraudulent nature of the voting, with irregularities forming at over 60 different polling places. Who would have won is still uncertain, but Mexico provides an important lesson. When voting becomes neck and neck, there will be outrage no matter the victor. For an outside country to possibly tamper with election results, they would need to make a close victory of their preferred candidate. That is how dissidence is formed. The report presented does clear up normal misinformation, but election integrity is still a rising concern.

It is quick to assume that terrorism exists through force and extortion. However, as shown in this case, terrorism can exceed the sharing of knowledge. With such high technical expertise in South Korea and the US, it is imperative to guard some of it at hand. While getting the information out to the rest of the world can benefit, certain secrets should remain that way. National security and plans of building it are vital to a nation's wellbeing. As shown in the case, if those documents were given to China, there would have been $3.6 million in losses. While education trade is prevalent in East Asia, it also provides vulnerability to a nation's security. Many South Korean students travel to the US to get their majors and PhDs. Joint education has helped improve life around the globe. If this continues, there may be restrictions and security checks for incoming students and long-time visa workers.

I believe a lot of these strategies may seem basic but have evolved with terrorism efforts. While the world has changed drastically, government forces don't want to expose all of their efforts to the world. In the US, law enforcement revealing their hand, then terrorist groups gain the upper hand. This becomes drastically different than climate change as everyone works together to solve the problem.

Terrorism thrives on its public image. When ISIS was heavily in the news, it created more fear in public without doing anything. After the recent administration, though, ISIS became obsolete in the report by a suffocating of resources. Putting terrorism groups outside of the spotlight is vital for maintaining domestic security.

Radical group activity is a concern for the globe. In South Korea, these problems are left to the rest of the world. As the US has outlined in its main pillars of dissuading terrorist activity, the rest of the world has no concern for the US policies. In terms of trade, the main concern becomes whether the military can still protect US corporations in international territories. Marriott ran into terrorism problems with their expansion into different regions. It was not because of the company itself, but the image of the US tied to Marriott. What helped dissuade further aggression was the hiring of locals and promoting domestic wellbeing for the country. The US's strategies deal with their territory, which is key to expansion. However, International protection is essential when dealing with the rest of the world.

Interestingly, you bring up how law enforcement has to evolve and change. It is often overlooked, but the same law practices that officers used ten years ago don't work the same today with new trends and technologies. Law enforcement has constantly been evolving and developing into new areas to prevent any forms of violence.

I agree that overreaction creates more considerable panic. Terrorism is made to inflict terror on the nation's population. It is essential how a country bounces back from those attacks as the government will punish different groups. The US is taking the proper steps to address these groups neutrally.

Domestic violence and terrorism have been on the rise in the US. While the US has addressed its resurgent beliefs in combating, South Korea has not had to deal with terrorism. Terrorism in South Korea is basically obsolete. One of the major factors that have helped to combat terrorism has been a diligent security force. In South Korea, every male is conscripted to join military service. Their requirement and diligence provide a more patriotic look on the country. Many citizens have a positive outlook for their country. In the US, a lot has been lacking in patriotism. With terror attacks on the rise, many people have lost faith in the security that the US provides. With such a wide variety of people, it is hard to police it all. The US is taking the right steps in evolving its security measures. However, the US should consider how its internal national image affects its domestic violence.

The IPCC provides the reports and guidelines, but it is up to the country's leaders to take action. It is more imperative that certain country's like those in Eastern Europe, consider all factors when ruling their nation. A change in the environment has great ripple effects for any population.