Latin America objectively needs to focus on regional integration and unity, both because its countries need to face similar social, political, economic, and financial challenges, and because of the rapid geopolitical changes that pose problems, challenges, and unknowns that call for grouping in international relations.

The global capitalist system has failed to emerge from a new cycle of economic and (geo)political decline (phase B of the Kondratieff cycle), manifested in the recession of the world's economic centers, the crisis of neoliberal globalization, the return of enormous economic forces, the dismantling of the unipolar order experiment promoted by the United States, and the intensification of the overexploitation and dispossession of the economic peripheries. Between the late 20th and early 21st centuries, in the absence of a driving force from the Western centers of global capitalist development, the search for some answers has begun to emerge from the Global South, the Asia-Pacific region, China, and the BRICS nations.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, a progressive growth cycle has been observed that combined positive changes in political and social priorities with an attempt by governments to seek cohabitation with the global market, along with a greater sizing of domestic markets and social priorities.

The expansionary economic cycle ended at the close of the first decade, although progressive governments predominated until 2015-2016. Since then, a period of regression and paralysis of the regional integration process has begun, driven by conservative-neoliberal governments, which has not been overcome by the return of progressive governments in the region since 2020-21.

Strikingly, the drive for independent Latin American unification seen in other periods has not been repeated with the same intensity. On the contrary, societies have deteriorated, with a marked increase in economic disparities and greater social and political polarization and tension, in parallel with a process of paralysis and regression in regional integration.

The experience gained through the regional integration process, with its advances and setbacks, the competition between different projects, and the disparate results, offers valuable lessons that must be considered when proposing a new impetus. To these must be added the more complex and uncertain framework that the persistence of global crises and tensions poses for international relations, following the disruptive period caused by the pandemic and, more recently, the increase in international tensions and confrontations.

This is a historical period with enormous changes affecting intra- and extra-regional relations, among which the following stand out:

+ Political processes that have led to the emergence of governments that, even with substantial ideological differences, recognize the need to resume a regional integration agenda.

+ The preeminence of a broad liberalizing bias that has given continuity to a strategy of prioritizing closer ties with core countries through treaties, trade and economic agreements.

+ The weakness of new independent regional linkage instances (UNASUR, CELAC, ALBA, Pacific Alliance, Mesoamerican Integration Project and the Bank of the South initiative) that were added to the existing ones (ALADI, MERCOSUR, CAN, SICA and CARICOM) and the loss of gravity of organizations and instances with extra-Latin American presences (OAS; Summits of the Americas, Ibero-American Summits).

The very significant changes introduced by the international crisis since 2008 and, in the last period, unexpectedly due to its development, the war in Ukraine and the growth of the confrontation between China and the US.

A new global economic landscape has emerged, and a new world order must address it. This is a context of global crisis that particularly affects the Latin American and Caribbean region, as it is shaped by the geoeconomic and geopolitical dynamics of the declining North American superpower, on the one hand, and the emerging Asia-Pacific power, on the other.

In this situation, understanding the process of regional integration independent of this region, a hallmark of Pan-Americanism and/or an unconditional adaptation to a globalized openness, must be of central importance. Failing to address these issues could lead to the rise of divided societies mired in conflict and destructive polarization. It is essential to strive realistically and with sound reasoning for the unity and complementarity of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Regional and subregional integration mechanisms must remain the most important points of reference for connection, cooperation, and complementarity in Latin America. It is foreseeable that internal regional disputes and the international crisis will continue to hinder broader multilateral negotiations and solutions. Hence the need to analyze the conditions and alternatives, both to strengthen intraregional relations and to help address the common challenges posed by a world with many uncertainties and systemic restructuring.

Latin America and the Caribbean addressed its process of economic integration from the 1960s onwards, going through stages with little progress and, above all, significant frustrations: the "closed" developmental regionalism, the "open" commercial regionalism and the "alternative" neo-developmentalist regionalism.

- The derivatives of a new systemic framework call for analysis from a theoretical perspective, among others, to:

- The impact of a new global geopolitical scenario that is leading to structural repositionings, changes in roles, interhegemonic disputes and a redefinition of priorities of States both in the region and in the world.

- A new profile of regional foreign trade due to the relative displacement of the significance of traditional markets in crisis and the greater importance that new emerging markets are gaining, particularly in Asia, which have initially driven a favorable change in the terms of trade for exports of raw materials (e.g., food, energy, minerals), for which Latin America has international competitiveness.

-The essential return to the center of academic attention of the problems of international debt, the behavior of capital markets and the evolution of the balance of payments of peripheral countries.

-The need to recognize that the new global scenario has called into question, with greater or lesser intensity in previous decades, the analytical paradigm of "letting the markets decide".

The numerous precedents for attempts at regional integration have generated different and even divergent views. On the one hand, voices are raised against such ties and cooperation, prioritizing the individual strengths of each country. On the other hand, skeptical opinions are expressed by those who point out that the severity and highly uncertain dynamics of the current crisis, whose immediate manifestation is the high level of dependency and conditions imposed by the high levels of indebtedness of their economies, would not provide room for joint initiatives, and that any concerted regional action by governments could even be detrimental to reversing the uncertainty.

Latin America and the Caribbean face a crossroads. Overlapping and conflicting international visions and structural changes affect the region. There is a clear need to analyze and debate alternatives that strategically guide development models for its peripheral economies, expand productive matrices, generate social inclusion, and complement economies, emphasizing active policies to compensate for intra- and extra-regional asymmetries.

As has been observed, in recent decades these vital and unavoidable issues have been addressed primarily through market mechanisms. And of course, this is only the case if we consider the economic and social dimensions. Regarding the political dimension, the problem of the lack of continuity and sustainability of the hopes placed in new governments has become evident when faced with the shock of failing to deliver expected results.

Understanding the necessary political-institutional framework and governance in the economy and politics must necessarily lead to a discussion of the general model of development and integration that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean commonly require.

We have not yet emerged from the regression in the academic debate on the regional integration process. With new progressive governments, it is hoped that we can resume the path toward a realistic evaluation of the limitations, challenges, and potential for developing a positive course for regional integration.

For now, it is essential to consider the persistence of differentiated positions in the academic field between those who are inclined to the continuity of open strategies and aspiration for open linkage with central countries, with respect to those who weigh the need for a perspective of renewal of the architecture of political, economic and financial integration.

The priority task of developing an academic platform for studying and analyzing the conditions and alternatives for promoting regional integration has once again been set. Simply generating critical analyses of the underlying conditions will not suffice; rather, numerous opportunities for analyzing and debating diagnoses, and above all, for developing alternative proposals, must be created.

The challenge is to realistically find a consistent and effective path forward. To this end, it is essential to analyze the path already traveled and evaluate the progress and limitations of past experiences and initiatives for regional integration. Learning from history is crucial to prevent the enormous gaps between dreams and concrete progress from being repeated in Latin America. The debate has regained relevance. This Working Group can play a positive role in advancing it.