Uproarious pro-life applause and opposing leftist outcries marked the beginning of the 52 nd
General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Lima, Peru. On October 5th ,
the assembly commenced proceedings with myriad presentations by Civil Society organizations.
No middling opinion was represented: coalitions composed of various NGO representatives
either represented Christian and conservative ideals or embodied atheistic progressive agendas.
Each coalition was allowed one representative to speak for 3 minutes to present their cause to the
countries of the OAS.
On my first trip to Lima, I was the representative of C-Fam’s international youth program,
participating in the Coalition for Human Development, a pro-life and pro-family group directed by
Human Life International. With our blue bandanas in hand (with the pro-life slogan, “Save them both!”)
and many with scapulars on their hearts, we entered the San Borja room full of hope.
After opening addresses replete with vague platitudes and progressive sentiments on “diversity”
by the Peruvian president and Secretary-General, tensions quickly rose. Each coalition passionately
presented its appeals to the delegates with accompanied shouts and applause by either
the left or the right. Never in unison.
I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of pro-life youth and coalitions present at the OAS. We
seemingly outnumbered progressive activists and had more pro-life coalitions present to the
member states. The following day on October 6th, I was sitting in on a plenary session while
thousands of Peruvians mobilized outside of the OAS Lima Convention Center and protested the
pro-abortion and radical gender policy introduced and supported by delegates in the OAS.
Latin-American people have had enough of the play-acting in the OAS: the delegates of the OAS
member states ought to represent the people, their laws, constitutions, and religious freedoms,
and yet many delegates blatantly disregard the true views of their own countries.
They pander to their progressive donors, eager to push ideological agendas
with an intentional abandonment of conscience.
On the final day of the General Assembly, I was quite anxious. I attended the final plenary
sessions, aware that each delegate avoided the topic of the new “human rights” resolution that
was to be under revision that evening; instead, delegates raised their voices—one even recited
poetry—against the ambiguous horrors of climate change and the necessity to create “resilient”
communities and economies.
I am forever amazed at politicians’ ability to present long-winded speeches that amount
to nothing but a laundry list of accomplishments and condemnations of actions by other countries,
with statements of vague values including “digital democracy,” human rights,” “security,”
“reducing asymmetries,” and “resilience.”
With attractive and inane words in the manner of politicians, one delegate firmly pronounced,
“We have no option but to combat these challenges on the battlefield of life as we pursue the
common objectives of humanity.”
The most contentious draft resolution, the “Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,”
was riddled with pro-LGBTQ and abortion policy without any resolve to fix true challenges in the Americas.
In the resolution, the word “poverty” was included once. “Gender” was included over thirty times.
To exacerbate these imbalances further, the resolution was the final consideration of the Assembly, only given 30 minutes of discussion for the majority of its text. Conservative delegates ceded their positions out of fatigue or pressure since the progressive delegates chose to allot the least amount of time to the most critical resolution, taking advantage of the jaded delegates and their eagerness to finish proceedings.
The official copy of the adopted resolution will be released in the following weeks. Despite the failure of delegates to protect life and strive for true democracy, thousands of Peruvians and Latino-Americans mobilized in Lima and other countries to express their commitment to life, family, and religious freedom.
About The Contributor
