Washington's policy of isolating Cuba succeeded only in alienating most of Latin America. Obama's new course has been welcomed, though other irritants, such as US immigration policy, remain.

Just as Mexico has shown signs of an upswing, Brazil seems to be facing mounting difficulties.

Brazil's rise, coupled with the diminished influence of the United States and the increasingly salient global role of China, has reshuffled the kaleidoscope of regional organizations.…

The end of political, armed conflict 15 years ago has not been accompanied by higher levels of social peace. On the contrary, fear and lawlessness today are rampant in the region.

Signs of frustration are unmistakable in Washington and in many Latin American capitals, despite Obama's immense personal appeal and the continued promise of a more productive partnership.

As Brazil's mega-summit in December made clear, nations in a transformed region are demanding treatment befitting serious countries with global interests and ambitions.

With violence mounting in Mexico and Brazil, and a real risk of deterioration spreading across much of the region, dealing with the drug crisis clearly requires a sharper focus and more imaginative approaches.

While economic and technological ties may be bringing the Americas closer, at a national level there has been a marked breakdown of consensus, along with deepening disintegration.

Latin America's political landscape, highly complex and variegated, defies easy categorization and raises fundamental questions—including whether it might be better to jettison the term ‘left’ altogether.

An unvarnished sense of superiority, displayed proudly on the regional and global stage, has revived the resentment and distrust of Latin Americans toward the United States that had recently shown signs of receding.

Today's underlying political currents in Latin America are less about ideology and more about a public desire to find leaders who can effectively address everyday problems, and who do so honestly. The formulas of the past—whether ‘socialism’ in the 1970s or ‘neoliberalism’ in the 1990s#x2014;have been widely questioned, and largely dismissed. With traditional ideas and structures breaking apart, new leaders are being called on to produce results.

Perennial questions in inter-American relations emerged more sharply than ever after September 11: Would the United States turn its attention away from Latin America and consign the region to irrelevance? Would the United States … attempt to impose a broad strategic design, in accord with its global antiterrorist campaign? Or would the United States take advantage of this moment and engage more proactively and constructively with its Latin American partners in pursuit of a shared agenda?

George W. Bush has expressed a special interest in invigorating Americaís relationship with Latin America. But his campaign rhetoric also called for a return to America's “traditional” national interests, which could mean an even stronger tendency toward the unilateralism that crept into the relationship during the second Clinton administration and has evoked growing displeasure within Latin America.

The Clinton administration and Congress will likely reach an agreement to increase aid to Colombia. Yet whether the agreement reflects a serious commitment with a clear strategic purpose to support Colombia and the Colombian government—or whether it merely seeks to satisfy the myriad domestic political interests and agendas involved in United States policy toward Colombia—is a critical question. It is a question, however, that can probably not abide much ambiguity.