Each response 250 words Response 1:  I noticed two important themes in this weeks’ readings.  First, the lack of consensus for defining international organizations (IOs) (Duffield 2007, Iriye 2004).  This falls in line with my undergraduate Homeland Security studies and the lack of consencus for defining domestic terrorism. How can we really talk about something if we don’t agree on the basics?  Reprocussions are readily visible thorughout “society”.  Second, though not a recurring theme in our literature but to our current state of national politics is, “the international relations literature remains unnecessarily balkanized as adherents of different conceptions talk past one another, when they attempt to communicate at all” (Duffield 2007).  So, scholars do not agree on definitions nor, as is suggested, will they listen to various points of view (ibid).  I’m not sure which is more disconcerting.   I do like Iriye’s (2004) differentiation of the two types of IOs, one formed by states, such and the UN, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  I see them both as gap-fillers (much like the third theme running through our reading…gaps in literature).  NGO’s such as Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) (BRAC 2020, CHAI 2019) play such a large, global humanitarian role in health care, sexual violence, access to medical care, ect.  The World Bank (1995) clearly stated their importance when defining NGOs stating, “private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services or undertake community development”.  Mondal, Chowdhury and Basu concluded NGOs have faster reponse times due to less bureaucracy (2015).  US disaster response is built on an escalting scale beginning with local response then escalating upward when resources are depleted or overwhelmed (FEMA 2011).  Sometimes communication between agencies is disrupted, procedures unclear or not clearly communicated (Cole and Fellows 2008).  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), synonymous in the western world with relief through pop culture reference in movies (care packages provided to POWs), as well as disaster relief drives, is not an NGO (ICRC n.d).  It functions independently from government based on its mandate and legal status.   I believe NGOs such as the ones previously listed are most crucial international politics for one reason; suffering should have nothing to do with politics.  Whether it is a earthquake in Iran, a Hurricane in Puerto Rico, a cyclone in Bangledash, or famine in multiple African countries (Oxfam 2020), governments have limitations in funding, organization, and training.  Chandra and Acosta note the importance of NGOs in disaster recovery but also note limitations such as lack of coordination with governemnt agencies (2009).  As previously stated, NGOs are gap fillers mean to augment response or fill a.

1. Each response 250 words
Response 1:
I noticed two important themes in this weeks’ readings. First,
the lack of consensus for defining international organizations
(IOs) (Duffield 2007, Iriye 2004). This falls in line with my
undergraduate Homeland Security studies and the lack of
consencus for defining domestic terrorism. How can we really
talk about something if we don’t agree on the basics?
Reprocussions are readily visible thorughout “society”.
Second, though not a recurring theme in our literature but to
our current state of national politics is, “the international
relations literature remains unnecessarily balkanized as
adherents of different conceptions talk past one another, when
they attempt to communicate at all” (Duffield 2007). So,
scholars do not agree on definitions nor, as is suggested, will
they listen to various points of view (ibid). I’m not sure which
is more disconcerting.
I do like Iriye’s (2004) differentiation of the two types of IOs,
one formed by states, such and the UN, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). I see them both as gap-fillers (much like
the third theme running through our reading…gaps in
literature). NGO’s such as Bangladesh Rural Advancement
Committee (BRAC), Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI)
(BRAC 2020, CHAI 2019) play such a large, global
humanitarian role in health care, sexual violence, access to
medical care, ect. The World Bank (1995) clearly stated their
importance when defining NGOs stating, “private organizations
that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests
of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social
services or undertake community development”. Mondal,
Chowdhury and Basu concluded NGOs have faster reponse
times due to less bureaucracy (2015). US disaster response is

2. built on an escalting scale beginning with local response then
escalating upward when resources are depleted or overwhelmed
(FEMA 2011). Sometimes communication between agencies is
disrupted, procedures unclear or not clearly communicated
(Cole and Fellows 2008). The International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC), synonymous in the western world with relief
through pop culture reference in movies (care packages
provided to POWs), as well as disaster relief drives, is not an
NGO (ICRC n.d). It functions independently from government
based on its mandate and legal status.
I believe NGOs such as the ones previously listed are most
crucial international politics for one reason; suffering should
have nothing to do with politics. Whether it is a earthquake in
Iran, a Hurricane in Puerto Rico, a cyclone in Bangledash, or
famine in multiple African countries (Oxfam 2020),
governments have limitations in funding, organization, and
training. Chandra and Acosta note the importance of NGOs in
disaster recovery but also note limitations such as lack of
coordination with governemnt agencies (2009). As previously
stated, NGOs are gap fillers mean to augment response or fill a
critical need not filled by government.
Response 2:
For starters, regarding the article on enhancing professional
performance, I am particularly partial to the section titled
"From Classroom to Workplace." This section refers to the
broad spectrum of knowledge that government, private, and
military organizations find desirable in top candidates. This
concept is exactly what inspired me to pursue my MA. I have
gained significant first and secondhand experience between my
undergraduate education, civilian work and military service.
However, to maximize my effectiveness and value to the
intelligence and diplomatic communities, further formal
education in the field is necessary.

3. Moving on, if one considers states from a Realist perspective,
then every action can be interpreted to be in the pursuit of state
security and preservation. With this bias toward self-interest in
mind, the purpose of IOs is to further that end. The existence of
regional intergovernmental organizations like the European
Union (EU), African Union (AU), Gulf Council Cooperation
(GCC), or Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
represents security for their members. Many regional IOs have
non-aggression treaties offering protection for member states
from other member states and potential external threats. In
addition to increased physical security, IOs represent potential
economic security for members by creating trade opportunities
that may not exist for individual states.
NGOs, on the other hand, do not seem to reflect the Realist
state security motivation. This is understandable considering
NGOs are, by definition, unaffiliated with state actors. NGOs,
therefore, are better understood through a liberal or
constructivist lens. The predominant motive of NGOs around
the world revolves around the protection of human rights. They
do this by providing relief during humanitarian crises and by
pressuring IGOs and nation-states to act. NGOs reflect a
movement toward globalization and the responsibility of a
world community.
For their efforts toward globalization and humanitarian relief,
NGOs are most effective and important to international politics
when they interact with large Intergovernmental Organizations
like the United Nations (Steffek, 2013). Humanitarian NGOs
like the International Committee for the Red Cross or the Carter
Center are extremely effective when they can convince powerful
nations to act in times of crisis or conflict (
Cartercenter.org
, 2020). These types of organizations tend to lack the necessary
resources to act solely on their own. However, being non-state

4. actors allows them access to conflict without threatening
anyone’s sovereignty. Once involved, these NGOs typically are
able to influence larger state-sponsored organizations like the
United Nations to commit resources to humanitarian relief
efforts. This relative freedom of movement,
globalist/humanitarian motivation, and international influence
make relief NGOs the most effective type of IO.
Response 3:
Initially, after reading the blog post, I consider the point more
important in my experience as a student is described as “At the
graduate level, conversations need to be professional as well as
have a high degree of scholarly rigor” (Brannum and
Drumhiller, 2016), the greater level of critics of the readings,
and the lessons, the better the learning improvement of the
class. I will follow to discuss this week’s forum.
There are reasons to comment on the functioning and usefulness
of international organizations and their future, for the
similarities detected, and for the criticisms of the different
authors, and the criteria of the deficiencies and poor results
obtained by these organizations. It is enough to analyze the
economic policy during the last fifty years, and the recipes
coming from these organisms to find true power relations that
opened the doors to crises, and processes of unequal
development, increasing more and more the differences between
rich and emerging countries.
Much has been written about the purposes that motivated the
creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World
Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO),
originally GATT (Iriye, 2002). It is very clear that behind the
stability of the international financial system and the solution of
the structural problems of developing countries, there were
objectives linked to economic interests of the United States and

5. other central economies, articulated to internal political and
economic interests of the developing countries, also under the
policy of containment of Soviet expansionism. The United
Nations Organization (UN) and the Organization of American
States (OAS) are no exception to these hegemonic objectives of
the great powers, in the same way as international financing,
and trading organizations. “Little was qualitatively different
about their activities from what they had been in the preceding
decade, but their cumulative and combined importance in the
world increased because of the dramatic turn of events at the
level of interstate affairs” (Iriye 2002, 157).
The iOS original agenda seeks:
*Peaceful dispute resolution: mediating on the occasion of
conflicts to avoid war.
*Joint regulation of scientific-technological development: Set
standards for the protection of humanity or to preserve a certain
ethical talent for a timely discovery.
*Fight against poverty: Economic cooperation and humanitarian
aid carried out jointly to achieve greater results.
*Limit the power of states: Through a unite security program
where the member states commit themselves to follow
humanitarian codes.
*Promote economic agreements: To boost regional joint
development, through a free market between regions or
economic agreements of various kinds.
But in some cases, it shows:
*Pyramidization and concentration of decisions.

6. *Control of organizations by the central economies and
industrial powers.
*Prevalence of the interests of rich countries to the detriment of
poor countries.
*Anti-democratic decision-making processes. *Displacement of
formal objectives by the objectives of the most powerful
countries.
*Lack of foresight and control over the management of
international organizations.
All of which constitute characteristics of a bureaucratic
organization model surpassed away from original purposes that
were the raison d'être of these organizations.
In the same way and after two terrible wars, the United Nations
Organization is created under the sponsorship of the victorious
powers to guarantee world peace, and avoid conflicts of any
nature that may disturb the peaceful coexistence of the
International community (Duffield 2007, 12). The UN becomes
the most influential organization in international politics, and
the United States and the industrialized countries are the great
"managers" of the international economy and politics. However,
global trade interaction grew, and the same expansion of
production and trade demanded another type of cooperative
regulation, the new WTO, according to the Washington
consensus and the shift towards a neoliberal economic system
worldwide.