Great job Jacob, excellent narration. I know you said you felt all over the place, bu there was one phrase I latched onto that seemed to unite all of your sources. and sounds pretty argumentative. Here it is: "This strikes me as another situation in which the United States put their nose in another countries business only to create enemies and animosity in the world." You have specific audiences and real examples to make this argument, should you choose ( after some rephrasing of course). Excellent.

John (claims)

1.) Since you began with a focus on the general subject of US Foreign Policy, and now have decided to focus on Guatemala specifically, I think you would do well to find a healthy medium between the two. You could establish the effect of resources and cultural exchange on the relationships betweeen the nations.

2.) The other possible angle to view the topic from would be an analysis of the specific leaders themselves, their affiliations and possible motives for the events that took place.

My final post is focused on a resource I'm very excited about.  I found it at University of Denver's library and had it shipped here.  I've decided to focus on Latin America and I mentioned I'll be traveling through Guatemala.  I found a book entitled, Guatemala, Human Rights, and U.S. foreign policy.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to find enough information on this topic to make an argumentative essay, but I'm very excited to read it and include some of the info and also have the base knowledge before my trip.  In looking through it, the United State's has not had a very friendly relationship with Guatemala.  The book begins by highlighting a very historic moment on Guatemala that has developed great animosity towards the United States.  In 1944 after years of dictator rule, civilians staged a revolt to liberate themselves.  They were successful and developed a democratic regime only to be toppled by a CIA-assisted coup in 1954.  This strikes me as another situation in which the United States put their nose in another countries business only to create enemies and animosity in the world.  After the coup Guatemala returned to a dictatorship and suffered horrible economic and social conditions in the late 1900s.  How have the U.S.'s policies changed and what does the future hold?  Would Guatemala have been better off if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved.  These topics really interest me as I intend to work in Latin America after I graduate.  I know this exploratory essay has been a bit all over the place, but it has allowed me to gain a base understanding of a topic I am excited to dive into. 


Fox, Annette Baker. Guatemala, Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Distributed by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, 1988. Print.

Lots of resources

I returned to the Auraria website and searched , '"United States" and "foreign policy" and Latin America" and found some great sources that really excite me.  There are a lot of books about the evolution of policies towards Latin America.  One book mentioned how the United States has promoted dictators, like Salvador Allende in Chile, and how the United State's policies against drugs have angered President Evo Morales of Bolivia.  One book further said that the United State's anti-drug policies have actually led to the empowerment of drug lords in Columbia and Mexico.  All this is really interesting to me how our laws and beliefs within our country can have such a large affect on others.  I Checked out 3 books that I found very interesting and will proceed to read them before the proposal.  There is so much information on this topic that it encourages me to look at how the U.S.'s has treated it's close, but distant neighbors to the South. Does Latin America have grudges against the U.S. or do they feel luckyto be so close to an economic heavyweight?  Does the emergence of Brazil as a world player change the U.S.'s relationship with Latin America?  I know I need to focus my research, but all these topics really excite me and could make very intriguing argumentative essays.

Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.s. Policy Toward Latin America. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1998. Print.

Marcy, William L. The Politics of Cocaine: How U.s. Foreign Policy Has Created a Thriving Drug Industry in Central and South America. Chicago, Ill: Lawrence Hill Books, 2010. Print.  

Newfarmer, Richard S. From Gunboats to Diplomacy: New U.s. Policies for Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984. Print. 

( this last one I'm skeptical on because of it's date of print)

Keep exploring WHA

I continued to explore WHA's website and found it very dense with information.  They cite 4 important topics that include promoting free trade, clean energy, safety, and spreading democracy.  Focusing even more there is a section focused specifically on the safety of Central America that I decided to look into since I'll be traveling in Guatemala this summer.  The United State's established a regional security program for Central America to battle gangs and the smuggling of drugs.  The program is called Central American Regional Security Initiative and the U.S. has contributed $361 million to it since 2008.  This seems like a great deal of money.  I'm interested in what the outcomes have been.  Do citizens actually feel safer or invaded?

"The Central America Regional Security Initiative: A Shared Partnership." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, 06 Feb. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2012/183455.htm>.

Keeping the ball rolling....

I'm a little bit all over the place.  I'm interested what the impact our president have on our policies.  I'm interested what the United State's effect on developing countries has been since World War II and I'm interested in our future policies.  To continue my research I decided to focus on Latin America because that's the region I've grown the most interested in after classes and travel.  I found a website devoted to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA).  This is a regional focus of the United States policies, but referring to the U.S's geographic position ones that should be very important.  According to their website the WHA's mission is to promote economic growth through free trade (coughCubacough), spread democracy, and improve the well-being of people.  On paper this seems like an incredible mission, but I'm slightly skeptical.  Do we promote free trade to generate economic growth in other countries or only our own?  It seems the focus is economic, political, and one that focuses on human rights.  This bureau has given me a focus.  Obviously the Western Hemisphere is large. This bureau deals with Canada, Peru, and Brazil, all very different countries with different economic capacity.  I'm interested how the policies differ between countries and how similar the U.S.'s actions are compared to their published missions, hence my sarcasm towards Cuba which hasn't experienced free trade with the U.S. in over 30 years. 

 "About Us." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.state.gov/p/wha/about/>.

 I began to search the Auraria database again and found two sources that were dissatisfied with the U.S.'s foreign policy.  They cited things issues like immigration, arms control, democratization, and global warming as issues that American citizens aren't satisfied with the U.S.'s current policies.  What I found interesting about both was they seemed to blame the president for their discontent.  This was slightly contrary to my previous research where I found that the secretary of State was in charge of our nation's foreign policy.  This got me wondering if the our foreign policy changed drastically with the election of Obama and whether it would change if there is a change of presidency in the upcoming election.  How much of our foreign policy is based off our president's views?  As a democratic country are we satisfied to elect an official every 4 years or should we have say in day to day issues that arise?

Page, Benjamin I, Marshall M. Bouton, and Rueter. "United States - Foreign Policy and National Security - the Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders and Don't Get." Perspectives on Political Science. 36.3 (2007): 175. Print.

"World View Defense, Foreign Policy and Trade - Foreign Policy: Democrats on the Offense - Top Democrats Have Orchestrated a Political Assault on Bush's Foreign Policy, Especially Areas Such As Arms Control and Global Warming Where the United States Has Resisted International Agreements. but the Strategy Is Not Without Risks: Several Surveys Have Shown That Voters Trust Bush on International Issues More Than They Do Congressional Democrats." Cq Weekly Report. 59.34 (2001): 2077. Print.