The Three seas Initiative is a step toward more connectivity across Europe and will likely strengthen the continent as a whole. Here’s why: While Western Europe continues to be closely connected through transportation and energy, nations of the three seas initiative have lacked that same interconnectivity. For decades, the three seas initiative countries were disconnected from other parts of Europe by the ‘Iron Curtain’ (a term coined by Winston Churchill) from which we can still see some of those effects today (particularly in politics). Priorities for the Initiative are energy, transportation, and digital projects. These priorities are in line with priorities of the rest of Europe. In particular, I want to draw attention to the digital priorities. I’ll list the digital priorities listed in the document here for reference: · The Three Seas Digital Highway, a series of projects to improve data transfer and enhance communications infrastructure, including 5G technology and fiber optics · 3SI Marketplace, seeking to boost trade and investment in the region by connecting small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to investment capital · The SmartCity Forum, seeking to accelerate innovation and foster investment in innovation in regional cities Source: Three Seas Initiative Summit Bucharest, September 17-18, 2018, Three Seas Initiative Priority Interconnection Projects. Notes: The table includes proposed projects as well as in-progress projects. As the EU still strives to be the world’s leader in climate change policy across several sectors, they know that a lot of work still needs to be done. The energy transition will be on a scale unseen since the Victorian Era when a lot of new technologies began to emerge, and the world began to look like what we see today. In order to make this happen, investments in technology and innovation must be scaled exponentially, and Europe (particularly Western Europe) knows this. After outlining a slew of ambitious climate change policies and goals for the EU by 2050, the next step is going to be investing in the technology and innovation to reach these goals. Especially since a lot of renewable energy is going to be dependent on certain regions (just because it’s cost effective in one place doesn’t mean it will be in another place), and technology and innovation will have to catch up to account for this. If the Three Seas Initiative countries can make strides in digital innovation, energy, and transportation, this would not only connect the countries part of the initiative, but would also be likely to connect this part of Europe to Western European countries and be beneficial for all parties involved making the continent even stronger.

“The right-wing scene is described as extremely heterogeneous both from a structural and ideological perspective (pg. 5).” At first glance, this may seem somewhat assuring given that there would be no clear message or real structure to the right-wing extremist groups and demonstrate an inability to carry out any violent attacks consolidated by some widely supported or common goal and ideology. However, what’s more concerning from the right-wing terrorism article as opposed to Juhadist terrorism are these public networking events that have been cited in the article that can help make it easier for different groups under right-wing extremism to meet and perhaps coordinate a more unified message that I believe would lead to more attacks. What’s even more concerning is that in the EU, some of these violent attacks by right-wing extremism aren’t classified as terrorism under national legislation. Specifying violent right-wing extremist attacks under national legislation as terrorism in Europe may deter certain right-wing extremist groups from carrying out attacks. If Europe and the rest of the world truly wish to tackle terrorism and pass comprehensive counterterrorism legislation, that should begin with defining terrorism as terrorism despite what groups this may or may not affect.

The Europol Jihadist Terrorism article was very enlightening. A few things I thought the article did well: 1. Defined what Jihadist terrorism is and gave a little bit of background and context. 2. Discussed the link between terrorism and mental health. 3. Discussed the number of foiled terrorist plots by law enforcement in 2019. Areas for expansion: While I think the article did a good job introducing or discussing the link between mental health and terrorism (something we haven’t really read or considered until this point), I would like to see more studies/cases/research done on that don’t necessarily give a timeline, but a more defined analysis of how mental health can lead to terrorism or “violent acts” considered to be terrorism specifically. However, I think this article does open up a broader discussion of how mental illness is treated in certain societies or countries. For instance, are the perpetrators that carry out these violent attacks that are linked to mental illness getting treatment for it before they carry out these attacks? Do their disorders go unnoticed until they carry out an attack? Although this article does directly relate to terrorism, I think one major takeaway from it could also be how mental illness is diagnosed/treated. The article only gives a few examples of instances that untreated disorders (perhaps) can not only put the individual at risk, but in the case of the Hague stabbings in the Netherlands in 2018, put others at risk as well. We can’t allow an illness to get to that point especially when extremists may target people who are more susceptible to radicalization or simply target those that could be acting out as a symptom of their disorder.

@Amanda Knox I agree about terrorism being a global problem and requiring a global solution. This relates to a previous article about good pathways to combatting terrorism and one of the pathways requiring some sort of global consensus on how to treat terrorists and those suspected of terrorism. The tricky thing about a global solution, I believe, would be a country’s individual history, public opinion/attitudes toward terrorism that would figure into how they deal with terrorism. For instance, a country who has seldom had threats of terrorism may respond differently or feel differently than a country who has had a countless number of terrorist attacks? For example, ‘Italian Exceptionalism’ has drawn increased attention in terms of terrorism due to its relatively low number of terrorist threats. Italy has taken proactive action in preventing threats but some are thinking Italy may be one of the next targets in Europe. Here’s an article about it: https://globalriskinsights.com/2021/01/jihadist-terrorism-italy-the-next-target/

@Brea Purdie You’ve raised some good questions. As I alluded to in my post, privacy concerns are definitely going to be one of the trickiest parts of monitoring online activity in terms of terrorism. I also think question 3 is interesting. Since another big topic the article touched on was security and critical infrastructure in important cities combatting terrorism. I think it would be interesting and useful to see the connection between IT improvements and critical infrastructure in important cities.

In part ll of the EU’s Counterterrorism Agenda, while it looks like the EU is taking good steps towards counterterrorism, two particular points stood out to me. 1. The Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP)- on page 19 of the document, it discusses the financial aspects of terrorist organizations and investigations into terrorist financing. It noted that the TFTP has “already generated significant intelligence that has helped investigate and detect terrorist plots and trace those behind them.” At the base of terrorism, financing is probably one of the single most important ways to prevent terrorist organizations from carrying out attacks. If their financing is cut off and made very difficult to get, then things like recruiting, resources needed to carry out attacks, etc. will be nearly impossible to do. 2. Equally important- Digital Services Act (pg. 10), and Evidence Digital Exchange System (eEDES). Any sort of digital monitoring in terms of currency/exchange, social media, and encrypted information are only going to grow in importance as more of our daily lives, work, currency, etc. moves more and more to digital platforms. For terrorist groups, the internet and social media is going to be a big tool to help these groups spread their messages and make it easier to recruit members. If digital services were more closely monitored in terms of this kind of activity, I think it would be very useful. However, I think it would get tricky while monitoring certain messages/ideologies/etc. that would be flagged or classified as potential terrorist activity, not to mention privacy rights. This doesn’t make combating terrorism any easier but if executed right, I think it could be very effective in shrinking the size of terrorist threats (cutting off financing and halting the means to spread info and recruit members).

I found this article to be very insightful and brought to my attention aspects of white supremacy I haven’t previously considered. Particularly, the infiltration of law enforcement by individuals on behalf of white supremist groups. Specifically, once these individuals infiltrate law enforcement, the information sharing is one I find to be the most concerning. Either by individuals who infiltrate law enforcement or already established law enforcement members who have ties to these organizations. Knowledge is power, and as we’ve seen, information sharing can be one of the most useful methods to counterterrorism or the most detrimental (information sharing amongst nations as one of the good practices in a previous article). I would definitely like to see an expansion on the intelligence gaps in the last section and to know the answers to some of the questions the FBI is trying to answer. Specifically, these two: “Are white supremacist groups engaging in systematic efforts to infiltrate law enforcement communities?” and “To what extent are law enforcement communities operating in environments sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs that could potentially hinder investigations into criminal white supremacist activities?” I don’t know much about the interviewing process to work in law enforcement but perhaps it would be useful to know any ties to political organizations etc. that might be viewed as a conflict of interest? I could see the hesitation with establishing and enforcing that, but with law enforcement being a government entity/extension of the government, would it not be relevant? Maybe, maybe not? I know the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits political activity by certain federal employees at the workplace (except for the president and vice president), but I wonder if something similar could be applied on the local levels or in some variation?? I wonder what steps have been taken in the last 14/15 years to prevent or combat this?

Pages 13-18 of the NSCT offer some crucial points in not only U.S. strategy for counterterrorism, but how it relates to our allies. For instance, pg 13 states U.S. strategic objectives for counterterrorism along with the lines of effort in which they’re carried out. I think this is one of the most helpful pieces of information to include with an article like this when a president is articulating a national strategy—specifically one for counterterrorism. In terms of how it relates to our allies, I don’t think a lot of people would be opposed to helping our allies either preemptively or in the case of a terrorist attack, especially if it was a matter of national security and was in our own interests to ‘nip it in the bud’ in order to protect American lives. More specifically, I want to note what was said on pg 16-17. “There is also a broad range of revolutionary, nationalist, and separatist movements overseas whose use of violence and intent to destabilize societies often puts American lives at risk. For example, the Nordic Resistance Movement is a prominent transnational, self-described nationalist-socialist organization with anti-Western views that has conducted violent attacks against Muslims, left-wing groups, and others. The group has demonstrated against United States Government actions it perceives are supportive of Israel and has the potential to extend its targeting to United States interests. Similarly, the neo-Nazi National Action Group, a terrorist organization that was banned by the United Kingdom in 2016 for its promotion of violence against politicians and minorities, operates mainly in the United Kingdom but has engaged with like-minded groups in the United States, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, and Poland—expanding the potential influence of its violent ideology. Such groups may avoid or deprioritize targeting United States interests for now to avoid detracting from their core goals but frequently conduct assassinations and bombings against major economic, political, and social targets, heightening the risk to United States personnel and interests overseas.” There is no question this is problematic, but I think this also only highlights the importance of taking action against domestic terrorism or terrorism abroad facing our allies. The Trump administration adopted a hard approach to terrorism and I think it will be interesting to see what approach the Biden administration adopts, specifically in terms of Iran-U.S. relations (given that Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism).

Agreed. I too believe the priority of any U.S. President or country's leader should be the safety and security of its own citizens first and foremost. I also like what you said about 'gradually' spreading to other parts of the world that needs assistance. Both you and the president seem to agree, dealing with terrorism as a multilateral approach seems to be one of incrementalism at least from what Trump says in the article and in the context of your post, as opposed to a more preventative and aggressive approach to terrorism domestically.

This was a very fascinating read. I have to say, much like Eric—I too had difficulty trying to relate terrorism to my specialty (European environmental/climate change policy). However, the nexus between climate change and terrorism might not necessarily be so far apart. As climate and weather patterns shift, the resulting environmental crisis could arguably be leveraged as a tool for terror and political violence. Globally, environmental stress due to unpredictable weather catalyzes political violence which further undermines already weak governments. In the United States specifically, environmental crisis could be considered a “threat multiplier” that could enable terrorism, overwhelm response capabilities, and threaten populations and critical infrastructure. The emerging threat is not about eco-terrorism (a term used to describe acts of violence in support of ecological or environmental causes). Rather, there is a growing potential for vulnerable ecosystems to be exploited or destroyed as a means to intimidate or provoke a state of terror in the general public for a political, ideological, or philosophical agenda. Severe drought as a result of climatic weather shifts raises vulnerability of water systems as reservoirs continue to dry up. As global fresh water supplies become increasingly scarce, extremist groups are stepping up attacks and manipulating supply as a strategic tactic of coercion. This could also be applied to the wildfires specifically here in the U.S. The exposure of U.S. communities to wildfire makes wildfire a potentially potent weapon for economic warfare and mass destruction. One military officer wrote in his 2005 thesis titled “PYRO-TERRORISM—THE THREAT OF ARSON INDUCED FOREST FIRES AS A FUTURE TERRORIST WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION”: “An opportunistic terrorist can unleash multiple fires creating a conflagration potentially equal to a multi-megaton nuclear weapon.” Wildfires can have a profoundly negative effect on a region’s economy: the damage from California’s 2018 conflagrations is estimated at $400 billion.