This opinion piece I wrote for the Washington Post lays out many of the findings and recommendations of the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S.-Latin America Relations, for which I served as Director.

The report has gotten some great feedback so far, and I hope will help jumpstart a new conversation within the next Administration and Congress with regard to the region.

The Task Force report co-chairs, Charlene Barshefsky and General James T. Hill, published an editorial yesterday in the Miami Herald. It lays out the main themes of the report, in particular the call to recognize that U.S.-Latin American relations is increasingly about U.S. domestic policy.

After taking a 3 plus month maternity hiatus, I am back and will be posting regularly again.

To kick things off, here is a link to a new Independent Task Force report from the Council on Foreign Relations, titled U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. The Council brought together 19 individuals of various interest and expertise under the chairmanship of Charlene Barshefsky and General James T. Hill. As director of the project, I can attest to the long hours of intense and at times spirited discussion among its members.
The group decided that U.S. policy should focus on four critical areas: poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy integration. The main recommendations are the following:

Poverty and Inequality:

• U.S. should expand targeted assistance for poverty alleviation and institution building by fully funding the Millennium Challenge Account and developing new initiatives to reach the poor regions of the larger middle income countries. These programs should reflect the priorities of Latin American governments and also involve restructuring and integrating the programs of various U.S. government bureaucracies and multilateral institutions.
• Alongside aid, the United States should approve pending free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and extend trade preferences to Bolivia and Ecuador to encourage productive relations with these complex countries.

Public Security:

• The United States should assist Latin American countries in strengthening their law enforcement and judicial systems. Only through strong institutions can criminal networks and drug traffickers be controlled in the long term. The United States should also focus more on the demand side of the drug equation, working closely with other large drug consuming nations, specifically those in the European Union.

Migration:

• Push through a comprehensive reform in 2009. This must deal with border security, employer responsibility, some sort of regularization of the 12 million unauthorized workers here today, and a flexible guest worker program to deal with future labor demands.

Energy Security:

• The United States should provide FDI incentives to help build energy infrastructure i the region. It should also sponsor regional and subregional working groups to forward best practices.

Finally, the task force touches briefly on 4 bilateral relations. It recommends deepening U.S. relations with Brazil to promote global trade negotiations and manage energy demands; strengthening cooperation with Mexico to stop narcotics trafficking, increase U.S. investment in energy production, and reform immigration policies; using multilateral institutions to address foreign and domestic policies of Venezuela; and opening informal and formal channels of communication with Cuba, with the eventual goal of lifting the embargo.

Energy is not just an important domestic policy issue in Brazil, but has also been a key element of its foreign policy. While Brazil has an admirable mix of energy sources - including hydroelectric, natural gas, oil, and ethanol - it has struggled and continues to struggle with potential energy shortages. These limits led to energy rationing in 2001, hitting the Cardoso government hard in the polls and providing Lula with an effective campaign issue in the 2002 Presidential race.

During the 1990s these energy needs spurred an active foreign policy promoting energy integration with South America. In particular, Petrobras invested heavily in Bolivia to increase its supply of natural gas. It also reached out to Argentina and others, increasing both commercial and political ties through energy interdependence.

Yet now in 2007, energy-based integration is dying. Despite rhetoric to the contrary by South American leaders, the time for deepening energy ties has passed. Argentina has shut out Chile in these last few months from its gas sources, encouraging the Chilean government to look abroad. Peru has decided that it will sell any surplus gas to Mexico and the United States, rather than its local neighbors. And for Brazil, recent events in Bolivia have pushed both Petrobras and the government away from diversifying regionally. Instead, the country has turned to developing its own natural gas supplies, as well as bringing in liquid natural gas - LNG - from sources other than Latin America.

This changing energy plan will likely significantly influence Brazil’s foreign policy. Brazil’s stated South-South diplomacy focus is faltering, due in no small part to the limitations in the area of energy security. These domestic economic realities are pushing the government to engage with a broader set of nations - including the United States and European nations. While currently led by Lula himself (and his March agreement with President Bush on ethanol), these economic needs will pressure the famously independent Foreign Ministry as well in the months to come. This trend bodes well for Brazil, which should be able to diversify its energy sources and provide for the future. It bodes poorly for Bolivia, as its largest energy investor and client turns outward. And it means that the studies for a regional gas pipeline spanning South America will remain just that, limiting yet again integration in the region.

I’ve been in Rio de Janeiro these last two days. The police presence in this city is impressive, as the city and state government prepare for the Pan American games in a couple of weeks. Police cars are spread throughout the city on all the major roadways and along the beaches. Nevertheless, just yesterday there was a gun fight between the police and the gangs, centered in the favelas located near the international airport. Let’s hope the city can pull off this international event without any real problems.

Last week Mayor Michael Bloomberg traveled to Mexico City, Tepoztlan, and Toluca to view their premier anti-poverty program, named Oportunidades. Bloomberg is launching a similar conditional cash-transfer system in New York, aimed at keeping lower income kids in school by providing aid to their families.

In Mexico, this program began under the Zedillo administration in the mid 1990s as Progresa, and was continued and expanded under President Fox (renamed Oportunidades in 2002) and continues now under President Calderon. With proof of school attendance and regular doctor’s visits, families (specifically mothers) receive cash benefits – roughly US$18 a month. This program reaches some 5 million households and an estimated 25 million individuals. In fact, it is now the largest anti-poverty program in Mexico. It has achieved some success, as studies attribute a 5% decline in poverty rates to the program. This type of conditional cash transfer program is popular in other parts of Latin America as well. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia are prominent examples with similar formats.

The goal of Oportunidades – and presumably its offshoot in New York – is not just to alleviate immediate poverty but also to increase the education and health of today’s youngsters and tomorrow’s adults. In the words of development economists, it is to increase “human capital,” better enabling these individuals and Mexico in general to compete in a globalizing world.

But this larger goal will depend on broader reforms to the economy and particularly to Mexico’s education system. While kids may stay in school due to Oportunidades, without educational reform their time will not be used effectively. And, these anti-poverty programs can not solve the underlying and severe economic inequality and limited domestic opportunities for the working and lower classes. This type of anti-poverty program is only a first step. The more important and harder step for Mexico will be to overhaul its education system and to open up its economy – providing real skills and greater opportunities to individuals within the working and lower classes.