Similarly, this was also what stuck out to me most from their key points as it's something the U.S. is often guilty of.

The note not to make it about China also caught my attention and I liked your comment about how the U.S. is repeating history in this situation as they have tended to do in the past.

Throughout this document I kept going back to what was said in the introduction about the principles of U.S. response. Especially the point saying, "Maintaining the largely democratic nature of the region and focusing on improving the quality of governance and political institutions can reduce the number of openings for rival influence. Do not make it all about China. There is no question that U.S. interest in Latin America and the Caribbean rises when perceptions of extra-hemispheric threats become more acute. But it is a mistake to convey the impression that Washington cares about the Western Hemisphere only because of the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian threats." I really liked this point and feel like it rings very true in many different aspects of U.S. policy not just in connection with the LAC region. The competition, especially with China, has grown significantly in recent years. In many instances the focus that U.S. in their policy puts on what they views as their main competitors can leave the impression that they don't care as much about other regions political actors nearly as much. Therefore, this acknowledgement I think was a good move on their part to at least recognizing that it isn't supposed to be all about one or two competing countries.

I think sometimes having the narrative of issues in the U.S. coming from the LAC creates a lot of blame and negative relations. It's a little bit more useful to not really focus on the fault because it isn't always as simple as their problems coming into our country.

I agree that it would be in the interest of the U.S. to collaborate with LAC governments instead of working against them, especially in the long-term.

It's common to see increased interest between countries that are close to each other or share boarders, so it makes sense that the U.S. has such a keen interest in issues with Latin America and the Caribbean. When it comes to the U.S. approach to LAC, however, it's had a lot of changes between administrations with the differing partisan beliefs. Recently the LAC has had more challenges, as the policy overview points out, with eroding democracy, social unrest, Covid-19 and low vaccination rates, and more. I think the U.S. should take a more well-rounded consistent approach that isn't so aggressive. Sanctions and restrictive immigration policies are only going to worsen the situation which in the end isn't truly beneficial for those involved in the long-term.

Finland being a moderator of sorts is very intriguing to me, primarily because of their land placement, and I am also interested to see how the situation plays out. I personally agree with you in that Finland will act as moderator and I would most likely predict they could be good at it.

I agree that Finland serves as a good moderator for the region and I appreciated their approach being more focused on the impact for everyone rather than what it will cost them personally.

Throughout these articles there's been very similar themes displayed, some of which are based around climate change and others focusing on the protection of people. Finland follows this example in their own report, and they definitely have the authority within the Arctic to make these claims. However, I've found it interesting that despite these reports all emphasizing how climate change will be damaging to the Arctic there's been nowhere near enough done to combat it. Considering these reports and goals concerning the climate and biodiversity of the Arctic started a long time ago there should have been more progress made at this point. At the very least countries in the Arctic should be doing more to mitigate and adapt to the changes that are currently happening and will likely keep worsening.

The U.S. has definitely had issues with transparency in the past and maybe this is part of a way that they are starting to acknowledge that issue in a way, so I think it's a good step to make.

I agree that cooperation and transparency is beneficial when it comes to cooperation with other states. This is definitely an issue between the U.S. and Russia making it quite difficult to maintain any cooperation currently and in the future.

I thought that Goal 3 outlined in the DHS report was interesting and it definitely caught my eye the most. This goal's objective is to "advance Arctic governance and a rules-based order through targeted national and international engagement and cooperation". I think this is extremely important and I didn't expect it to be acknowledged as a goal so clearly. However, upon reading further I wasn't as in agreement as I thought I would be as this "national and international engagement and cooperation" was to apply only to like-minded allies with shared values. In many ways I understand this stipulation and why it would be included, but I also think that it could be a harmful narrative to include in other ways. These like-minded partners are mainly referenced as Canada and European Allies, and I think more could be done to maintain cooperation with countries in a wider range of regions throughout the world. Not all countries or regions have a stake in the Arctic but there are countries like Japan and South Korea that maintain interest in things like the Arctic Council as secondary members. As I said, I understand maintaining the connection with those closest to the Arctic and with the most historical involvement, but more could be done to expand this cooperation.

There is definitely a balance to be had with U.S. interference on a global scale. They can be useful to a point but can become over involved with unwanted consequences on both the end of the U.S. and other international organizations and states.

I felt like the document from yesterday did well to give background for this DHS document, many of the same issues are in both and growth is shown between the two very well. Especially within the realm of environmental and security issues.

I liked the contrast of the Strategic Approach for Arctic Homeland Security in comparison to the previous article because it really gave some insight into how the situation in the Arctic has evolved over the past 25 years. While the report brought up national security threats, it also brought emphasis to natural disaster hazards. This was talked about in the previous Ottawa Declaration and now is continued to be mentioned but in even greater urgency. However, I thought it was interesting that part of the reason why the DHS is paying attention to the environment issues is because the "utility" the Arctic has traditionally had as a "geo-strategic buffer is eroding" and "as the changing physical environment and subsequent economic development have brought more access and interest to the region". I feel like this is really showing how the issues brought about by climate change can be far reaching outside of realms typically highlighted.

The document wasn't really an article but a mission statement establishing the Arctic Council which is an intergovernmental organization. Therefore, this is their declaration which is telling you what exactly their purpose is. Many times these types of documents will be formatted in this way to tell the audience in the most direct way what their goals are. Having individual statements creates emphasis and cuts out extra unnecessary technical language. The goals are centered around indigenous peoples and environmental concerns, so as the environment worsens and ice melts there will be more traffic with the increased ocean routes. This document is about 25 years old so it may have been less high-risk in the past, however, environmental concerns are now considered to be so and will increase issues globally.

I agree that the focus on the Arctic environment stood out as important, especially considering it was 25 years ago. I'd question if their attention paid to the environment paid off in any noticeable way or not seeing as the environment globally is worse now.

Prior to reading this I've had little experience with the Arctic but I thought the Ottawa Declaration was quite interesting to look at since it was in 1996. Especially when considering the timeline of when this agreement was made and their inclusion of Indigenous natives and sustainability. There's not often the inclusion of indigenous peoples within these types of meetings and groups so I thought it was most likely a good step, however, it did make me wonder how involved they were actually allowed to be over time. The concerns over sustainability and protection of the Arctic environment also have a big presence in the Declaration. This I thought was fitting for the mid-1990s as this is around the time other climate conventions and agreements had been starting to gain more traction. It's clear now that these goals weren't actually taken seriously enough, especially as three of these Arctic States that signed this Declaration are major contributors of greenhouse gases and aren't doing much to combat environmental damage in adaptive or mitigative methods. Then again, the document seemed to feature language that wasn't very binding like "should" which is very different than if they had used "must". It doesn't seem like much has changed in the level of commitment to agreements and declarations like these.

I agree, the election in 2020 was primarily spread over those concerned one candidate would win over the others rather than from actual fears of legitimate voter fraud. In 2016 the concern was much more serious as you said and should have been considered more than they were.

Election integrity has been a rising topic and concern for many, especially with how close the elections have been and the increasing levels of polarization in U.S. politics. I agree that it's necessary in democracies for leaders to find support from their people but this has become more and more difficult over time. I'd be curious to learn more about South Korea's issues with voter fraud if there are any.