OAS General Assembly: What Happens There and Why Is It So Influential?
The General Assembly is the supreme body of the Organization of American States (OAS), composed of delegations made up of representatives, advisors, and other members accredited by the governments of the Member States. It holds regular sessions in which it analyzes different issues and makes recommendations to countries based on a preliminary report. During these sessions, the various delegations make recommendations on the document, which is then put to a vote.
Both the debates and the final documents are significant as they are recommendations with authoritative arguments, though they are not legally binding. That is, the General Assembly’s decisions carry particular weight due to the authority that the States have delegated to this body. However, it often covers issues beyond its authority, using its power to impose ideologies. In fact, the very core of the OAS is permeated with feminist and gender ideologies.
This is particularly relevant because it has generated noisy controversies during the recent Assembly and, as expressed by conservative sectors, some attacks.
Attacks on Conservative Sectors
First, during the General Assembly, the OAS logo on its social media was accompanied by the colorful LGBT flag, publicly demonstrating the OAS’ commitment to promoting the LGBT agenda.
Secondly, all pro-life groups voiced complaints after the OAS bureaucracy silenced three out of the five pro-life coalitions that could participate, making the LGBT voice predominant. OAS based its action on an opinion issued by the University of Virginia, which stated that the pro-life stance is an anti-rights position. Thus, an academic institution, with no authority within the OAS, provided the grounds that the Assembly deemed sufficient to silence coalitions that had met all participation requirements.
It is also worth noting there were violations of the coalitions’ freedom of expression, as they are required to submit their presentations in advance and face sanctions if they make modifications.
Additionally, Luis Almagro canceled his attendance at a pre-Assembly meeting with pro-life organizations led by Paraguayan government officials, but he did attend a session with groups representing “sexual diversity.”
Thirdly, Paraguay, a conservative country and the host of the assembly, received recommendations to ease its laws on the penalization of abortion.
However, the pro-life stance was forcefully presented in the closing speech by Paraguay’s Deputy Minister, Victor Verdún, who even rebutted other ambassadors, such as those from Canada, Mexico, and Chile, who sought to justify a supposed empowerment of gender ideology.
A Cultural Battle Unfolding
In his closing speech, amidst clear signs of discontent from LGBT groups who raised their voices, Verdún stated that:
[Paraguay’s position] on fundamental issues, addressed in this dialogue and the General Assembly, is solidly based on our constitutional law and the American Convention. In this regard, concerning the right to life, as we have reiterated in various local and international forums, we reaffirm the principle enshrined in our National Constitution, which establishes that the right to life is inherent to the human person, guaranteeing the protection of human life from conception.
Furthermore, Deputy Minister Verdún was resolute in denouncing those who use the term “hate speech” to cover other issues: “We reject any attempt to use the argument of hate speech to silence the voices of some sectors.” He added, “We adopt an interpretation of the term gender based on the biological sex of individuals, recognizing only two categories, male and female. My delegation will promote the use of clear and precise terms in documents, avoiding ambiguities in their interpretation and ensuring coherence with our legal framework.”
Certainly, despite significant pressure and “favoritism” from the Assembly authorities towards liberal stances, the conservative sector truly waged a cultural battle. Paraguay was not alone in this struggle, as El Salvador and Argentina played important roles in the objections raised to the official documents.
For instance, the Argentine delegation requested the addition of the term “child trafficking” alongside “exploitation” in the resolution on children’s rights to combat this scourge. There should have been no opposition to something as straightforward as condemning this heinous crime, which all member countries of the organization should collectively condemn. However, the discussion lasted for an hour, with countries like Mexico and Colombia opposing the Argentine proposal. Argentina also objected to the use of words like “tolerance,” “women in all their diversity,” preferring simply “women.” It also opposed the use of the plural “families,” initially requesting the use of the singular “family,” and when unable to impose any of its proposals, settled for the term “family units.”
Argentina ultimately presented objections to the 2030 Agenda. The struggle over concepts was reflected in the “footnotes,” a sort of interpretive comments where each country states its position.
This year, there were twice as many footnotes as last year, and although OAS passed resolutions, for instance, on “feminist foreign policy,” the lack of consensus was explicitly evident.
In parallel to the official events, private organizations also positioned themselves against the OAS. The Global Center for Human Rights (GCHR) presented a report to the Paraguayan Senate, denouncing that several NGOs and countries outside the region are influencing the agenda of the OAS bodies to impose laws and policies that promote censorship, abortion, and child transgenderism.
Senator Lizarella Valiente highlighted that the report supports a proposed law to increase transparency in NGO funding in the country and urged OAS authorities to “regain trust” by becoming “objective, fair, and impartial” again.
Winds of Change in the OAS?
After Luis Almagro’s ten-year tenure as Secretary General of the Assembly, two consecutive terms, and his inability to be re-elected for a third term, changes are on the horizon for the OAS. A possible candidate is Rubén Ramírez Lezcano, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Paraguay, who has a clear protective stance on life and family issues and has the support of several countries and Caribbean islands.
It is also important to recognize that, starting in 2025, two of the seven judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will be distinguished jurists from Paraguay and Peru, allies in the fight for life, family, and religious freedom.
Read the Spanish version of this article here.
