With this document of the European Union on counterterrorism made me wonder if South American or Latin American countries had a union. In fact, they do! It’s called the Union of South American Nations. I was researching to see if the UNASUR had a counterterrorism agenda. I couldn’t find it however “Unasur has become the preferred scenario for political dialogue and consensus in South America. In the process of strengthening the bilateral relations of Colombia with the region, the strategy to increase the nation’s proactive participation in this forum has fostered the creation of a new way in which our country relates to the others”.

Wow! I did not know Russia had a white supremacist group! I just learned something!

@Nadeen Ghazy I agree with you that the first amendment is fragile and confusing. That class that you mentioned seems interesting!

Unfortunately, I couldn’t tie this article with my field of specialization. However, I wanted to still express my thoughts while reading this piece. I think it’s pretty crazy how now, radical groups can use social media to get their point across to millions. In the past, the government didn’t have to deal with social media. I can’t imagine what the future holds and how extreme groups like this one will get through to people.

In the United States, many believe race is an issue due to groups like white supremacy groups. However, reading this article, it made me wonder if Latin American countries have “white supremacy” groups or race issues. With research, I notice that in Latin American countries, most self-identity by the color of their skin rather than their actually ethnicity. I found my research interesting and encourage many to research race in Latin American cultures.

On page 23, this statement stuck out to me the most, “The United States will, therefore, partner with governments and organizations, including allied nations, the technology sector, financial institutions, and civil society. We will use diplomatic engagement with partner governments and further mobilize existing coalitions and multilateral and international fora to increase the will of capable partners to act against threats while encouraging the implementation of international counterterrorism standards and the coordination of international burden-sharing efforts”. With my specialization on international affairs in South America, this statement made me hopeful that the Latin American countries that are struggling with terrorist organizations, partner with the United States. This can help all countries because if we show global unity, it will be hard for terrorist organizations to go against all countries.

On page 13 this statement stood out to me the most, "Overseas, they thrive in countries with weak governments and where disenfranchised populations are vulnerable to terrorists' destructive and misinformed narratives, and they are adaptive in the face of pressure from countries with strong governments". In South America, there are three main terrorist organizations: "Two Colombian guerrilla groups—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)—and one Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path (SL)". In Columbia, these two terrorist organizations have been doing unexplainable acts since the 1940's due to the communism that occurred in the past. Columbia has had a history of not having a strong government and it being very corrupt. Around 2016, the Colombian government has tried to get these terrorist organizations under control and are still trying to till this day. In Peru, the Shining Path terrorist organization began in the 1970's due to the split of the communist party. Again, the government wasn't strong and in Peru the government is very corrupt. Not much is sad about what the Peruvian government is doing about this terrorist organization. However, I do agree with Former President Trump's statement up above because these Latin American countries show that terrorist organizations do "thrive on weak governments".

Very well written! I agree with you that China needs to come up with any comprehensive strategy to go against terrorism in their country.

While reading pages 1-11 of the NSCT document, three sentences stuck out to me regarding my field of international affairs with a South American Specialization. The first was "Our borders and all ports of entry into the United States are secure against terrorist threats”. This is rather good for the United States but bad for South American illegal trading. Due to the United States past of not being secure in our ports, many Latin American gangs would send illegal drugs through ports. Now that port entries are going to be more secure against terrorist threats it's also possible that there will be a shortage of drugs which is good for American citizens. The second sentence that stuck out to me was “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”. This is great because this creates a global unity against any terrorist organizations. However, with many Latin American countries, the governments are corrupt and a lot of the time gangs and or terrorist groups run the countries internally. People in Latin American countries may want to go against terrorist groups but can't due to government circumstances. Lastly, “Public sector partners, private sector partners, and foreign partners take a greater role in preventing and countering terrorism". This stuck out to me because its stating that leaders in other countries need to be leaders and go against terrorist organizations. Historically, Latin American countries are known to have corrupt leaders because they are influenced by money from gangs or terrorist organizations. This states that leaders need to take a stand and fight for their countries.

@Reid Parker I love this question that you asked! I am going to add a little context to my answer because I am on the fence with my agreement on the PATRIOT ACT. The PATRIOT ACT was passed October 26, 2001 after over 3,000 Americans lost their lives during 9/11. At the time it was passed, many Americans were angry and would pass any piece of legislation that would make sure this sad day would never happen again. Now if I was an adult during 9/11, would I have voted on the PATRIOT ACT? I would say yes because emotions were very high at that time and there wasn't much thought on our "freedom" being "taken away". People just wanted to feel safe and make sure that 9/11 never happened again. However, now would I vote for the PATRIOT ACT? I honestly don't know. I would have to research more questions like, how often does the government find people wanting to perform terrorist attacks? My overall point of this is yes, I agree during 9/11 the PATRIOT ACT was a little far fetched when it came to Americans giving up their "freedom" but I understand why it was okay for people to give them up during the circumstances they were going through.