[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-324694-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-324694-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","hansons-latin-american-letter-id-80-21-good-cause-for-mexican-optimism","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - ID-80-21 - Good Cause for Mexican Optimism","","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER dated 18 October 1980, Number 1857, addresses U.S. international energy policy formulation as an ad hoc process and the need for periodic review. It focuses on Mexican gas imports, tracing policy friction from 1977 Memorandum of Intentions to 1978 interagency study efforts. The letter summarizes a sequence of trade-offs, study assignments, and delayed negotiation tactics, culminating in planning for high-level talks with Mexico on natural gas imports.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hansons-latin-american-letter-id-80-21-good-cause-for-mexican-optimism/324694/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hansons-latin-american-letter-id-80-21-good-cause-for-mexican-optimism/324694.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ezra","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What criticism did the Comptroller-General make about U.S. energy policy formulation?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Comptroller-General reported that international energy policy formulation was an ad hoc process and recommended periodic examination to verify consistency, adequate analysis, and alignment with stated goals.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the 1977 Memorandum of Intentions regarding Mexican gas expire?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"U.S. officials indicated the discussed price was unacceptable and likely would not be approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, and Mexican officials were unwilling to change, creating an impasse that ended with the memorandum expiring on December 31, 1977.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How was the 1978 U.S. review of Mexico-related policy organized?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"A Presidential Review Memorandum assigned a Policy Review Committee chaired by the Secretary of State, with an inter-agency group at the Assistant-Secretary level. Agencies were tasked with issue papers, and the energy paper was prepared by the Department of Energy, the State Department, and the CIA.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},324694,1790156190,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099514068035,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER  \nWASHINGTON  \n18 October 1980  \nNumber 1857  \nDear Sir:  \n# ID-80-21:Good Cause for Mexican Optimism.\n\nOn September 30 the Comptroller-General of the United States reported toID-80-21:the Congress that \"our international energy policy formulation 1s essen-COMPTROLLER-tially an ad hoc process\"and that perlodic examination of major policiesGENERALshould be instituted \"to determine whether they are consistent,based onREPORTSadequate analysis,and 1ikely to achieve broadly stated goals.\"  \nThe National Security Council,as is its practice,immedlately repliedNATIONALthat the problem is already solved,presumably just as it has solved al1SECURITYother foreign policy problems so as to leave the country's foreign policyCOUNCILin total disarray.It offered as illustrative of its solution to the needREPORTSfor a comprehensive international energy strategy \"the comprehensive net-work of bilateral relationships with key producing countries through whichwe have stressed common interests in a smooth evolution of the world ener-gy system away from fossil fuels.\"  \nThe National Security Council specifically criticized the Comptroller-General's findings on gas imports as lacking in perspective.  \nFor the purposes of this newsletter,we take from the 115 page reporta summary of the section dealing with Mexican gas.The punch-line on this story comesat the end of the summary:  \n(1)Gas imports from Mexico became a significant policy issue in 1977.MEXICANU.S.companies signed a Memorandum of Intentions concerning a future con-GAS:tract with Petroleos Mexicanos on August 3,1977.Before that,the Secre-THE INITIALtary of Energy had informed Mexico that the proposed price being discussedMISTAKE($2.60)would \"prove embarrassing in the Canadian context.\"U.S.viewswere expressed \"as early as the latter part of June 1977 if not before.\"Nevertheless,the Memorandum of Intentions incorporated an agreement for  \n$2.60.  \n(2)U.S.officials indicated to Mexico that the price is unacceptable andprobably would not be approved by U.S.regulatory agencies.  \n\"Mexican officials were unwilling to budge on the issue,an impasse de-veloped,and the Memorandum expired on December 31,1977.\"  \n(3)Efforts to resolve the price issue during the first half of 1978CONCERN REfailed.The issue increased in importance because Mexico was threaten-MEXICANing to shift its industries from petroleum to natural gas.Over the longPOSITIONrun this might affect the overall rate of Mexican crude production andexports because Mexican crude comes to the surface mixed with large quan-tities of natural gas.If Mexico decided to use all this gas domesti-  \ncally,it might limit crude oil production because of 1imits on its ab1lity to absorbgas.  \n(4)In August 1978 the National Security Council issued Presidential Re-STUDYreview Memorandum 41,calling for a review of al1 policies of the UnitedASSIGNED TOStates toward Mexico.It instructed that the study be made by a PolicyEVALUATEReview Committee,chaired by the Secretary of State and executed by anTRADE-OFFSinter-agency group at the Assistant-Secretary level.  \nA weekly leter for basiwesmen pablisbod privsdy iWaybington,D.C.  \nThe central objective was to develop a coordinated,wel1-integrated  \napproach to U.S.relations with Mexico.The study was to be used for a committee meet-  \ning on November 1,1978 and was to concentrate on the long-term prospects for coopera-  \ntion on central issues in U.S.-Mexican relations,including immigration,energy,trade,  \nand their impact on over-all U.S.-Mexican relations.  \nThe study was to identify potential trade-offs between issues,and to  \nsuggest options among comprehensive strategies for approaching U.S.-Mexican relations.  \nIn August 1978 the Department of State invited the Department of EnergyDOE ISto participate in the Review.  An organizing meeting was held at which theINVITED TOState Department suggested that issue papers be prepared on(a)trade byPARTITIPATEthe Special Trade Representative,(","cbCaicnb0Cz9wHuh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicnb0Cz9wHuh","pdf",1139485,"English","# ID-80-21: Good Cause for Mexican Optimism.\n## U.S. international energy policy review\n## Background: 1977 gas import issue and price impasse\n## 1978 policy review study and assigned agency papers\n## Negotiation strategy and scheduled talks","[{\"question\":\"What criticism did the Comptroller-General make about U.S. energy policy formulation?\",\"answer\":\"The Comptroller-General reported that international energy policy formulation was an ad hoc process and recommended periodic examination to verify consistency, adequate analysis, and alignment with stated goals.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the 1977 Memorandum of Intentions regarding Mexican gas expire?\",\"answer\":\"U.S. officials indicated the discussed price was unacceptable and likely would not be approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, and Mexican officials were unwilling to change, creating an impasse that ended with the memorandum expiring on December 31, 1977.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the 1978 U.S. review of Mexico-related policy organized?\",\"answer\":\"A Presidential Review Memorandum assigned a Policy Review Committee chaired by the Secretary of State, with an inter-agency group at the Assistant-Secretary level. Agencies were tasked with issue papers, and the energy paper was prepared by the Department of Energy, the State Department, and the CIA.\"}]","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - ID-80-21 - Good Cause for Mexican Optimism | PDF",1789968627,13]