He said it's important for everyone to work as a team to make the most of the political and economic advantages of geographic proximity.

"It's not easy to remove some of the obstacles," he said. "We have security issues to think about and issues of borders and customs procedures."

That's good news, but it's hard to avoid a smidgen of skepticism. What exactly is happening? Integration with Central America hasn't exactly been dominating the headlines lately.

Still, we know Mexico has trade agreements with Central America, and when last heard from the Puebla to Panama Plan was still alive.

A cursory look at Central America suggests that its seven tiny nations should logically be a single entity. History shows that integration is bound to be fraught with difficulty.

During the 19th century there were no fewer than five attempts to unite the region, if you count its 18-month stint as part of the Mexican Empire of Augustín Iturbide in 1822-23.

Other attempts were made in 1823, 1842, 1852, and 1896, but only the first one came close to success. Called the United Provinces of Central America, it lasted 15 years.

Anyone who visits the region, as this columnist did a few years ago, soon finds out why any kind of joint effort among the countries is difficult.

Each country, small though it is, is a culture onto itself. There are important differences in customs, food and music; even the history of each nation is unique.

Combine that with the physical challenges of transport and communication in a rugged mountainous region and it's hard to imagine how these entities could have held together, given the technology of the 19th century.

Now there's a powerful incentive for unity, at least at the economic level, and modern transport and communication systems make it feasible.

As the world's regions consolidate into major trading blocs ? Europe, Asia and North America ? it's imperative for Central American nations to work together if they want to have a chance to compete, grow and prosper.

With Mexico's access to the North American market through the North American Free Trade Association, it's logical for Central Americans to link up with their neighbor to the north.

That's the opportunity the Puebla to Panama Plan is supposed to be developing, though there are few visible results so far.

Participants in this project include all seven Central American nations ? Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama ? and Mexico's nine southernmost states.

Together this area comprises more than one million square kilometers, half of it in Central America. It has a population of 64 million ? twice that of Canada.

Its stated goals are to develop the region's infrastructure, promote tourism, develop educational facilities, protect the environment, and establish grids for electricity, telephone and gas services. Most of the $20 billion dollars in financing is to come from the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).

Most criticisms of the project relate to anti-globalization themes, with dire predictions that local indigenous populations will not participate, and that it will compromise the environment and widen income disparities between rich and poor.

These are legitimate issues that must be respected and addressed, but the critics offer no alternative. Is the status quo a better option for Central America's poor? In the absence of examples of countries that achieved prosperity by rejecting capital and infrastructure development, the onus is on the critics to come up with something better.

Every nation that has achieved prosperity since the 19th century has welcomed foreign capital - starting with the United States, whose industrialization was largely financed by Britain, and most recently the startling rise of China, India, and European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, where capital is pouring in at unprecedented rates.

There are concerns, serious ones, about the Puebla to Panama plan, but criticisms of investors making money should not be among them. If an investor gets a high return for placing his money in a high-risk environment he shouldn't be criticized. If a few get rich while many move up to the middle class, who loses?

The main worry is the plan's execution. If the poor fail to benefit the most likely reason will be actions of unethical elites and the political class ? in a word, corruption.

Mexico hasn't controlled its corruption, but it's still ahead of most Central American nations. If the project is to succeed, it must be structured with adequate safeguards to ensure that the money goes where it's supposed to go.

That's a tall order but not an impossible one. Infrastructure aid provided by the European Union to its new members was made with strict conditions and monitoring. The Puebla to Panama Plan managers need to study and emulate the European system.

Though he first proposed the plan in 2001, President Fox won't be around when it finally gets underway. However, if it's done right, Mexico's integration with Central America can create winners on all sides.

Kenneth Emmond is a freelance journalist and economist who has lived in Mexico since 1995. Kemmond00@yahoo.com