The 54th General Assembly of the Organization of American States began this Thursday in Asuncion, Paraguay, with a diplomatic embarrassment by libertarian management, which includes: a retrograde rotation of Argentine foreign policy, the “rags in the sun” of a internal affairs of the Chancellery that was exposed to the international community and a such a stubborn anti-rights position which could end up ruining the work of the entire Assembly over the last year.
The OAS General Assembly is the organ of this international organization in which over the course of two days – this Thursday, June 27 and Friday, June 28 – the delegations of all member states meet to set out their resolutions. basic agreements on human rights issues. In this context, the Argentine delegation has been holding a crusade against the rights of almost all communities (sexual diversity, women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, etc.).
This is a directive that was expressed in recent weeks in the objections that the Argentine committee has been raising to a joint text. What Argentina is asking for in this draft, in contradiction with its own national legislation and international consensus, is to sweep away all reference to the ““lgbti population” and “gender”, among other concepts declared unpalatable to libertarian ideology. This draft is the resolutions that should be approved this Friday in the General Assembly.
Last week, as Page12 announced, the draft in which these proposals for changes to the original text from the Foreign Ministry can be read began to circulate. “Climate change”, “criminalization and persecution of social protest”, “gender perspective”, “lgbti population”, “racism” are some of the words that the Argentine Government does not even want to hear mentioned.
Within the framework of the Assembly, Ursula Bassetpointed out as the lawyer behind this deepening of the reactionary turn in Argentina’s foreign policy that carries out these positions contrary to the UN’s Agenda 2030, was present in Asunción to “explain these positions” to the international community.
Basset is known for publicly holding extremely retrograde positions against comprehensive sexual education (CSE) in schools, the IVE Law, the reforms of the Civil Code approved in 2016 and, in 2010, she was also an active activist against the Equal Marriage Law. .
In the days leading up to the Assembly, The United States ambassador to the OAS, Frank Mora, referred to the modifications that the Argentine delegation raised in the references to gender issues and human rights in the text of the resolution. She said that her country respected Argentina’s position but asked that the approval of the documents not become a “Show“.
After that, the White House would have contacted the Minister of Foreign Affairs Diana Mondino to discuss the “pressures“that Argentina has been exercising to make changes to the document. As a consequence, Mondino had to travel urgently to Paraguay. With both libertarian figures (Mondino and Basset) in Guaraní land, The great debate within the Foreign Ministry became who would be in charge of the negotiations with the OAS: Yes Basset or Sonia Cavallo (appointed by Mondino), who is the current Argentine representative before the Organization of American States, as well as the daughter of the former Menemist minister.
The one who finally sat down to negotiate was Ursula Bassetwhich, according to diplomatic sources, unleashed internal fury, because She is not an official with a position that qualifies her for that task.nor does it have the experience required to play that role. The Argentine delegation had previously had to ask permission for a “human rights expert to explain Argentina’s position.”
This was a move that made the rest of the States uncomfortable, and they were unable to oppose the request. Ambassador Cavallo, after claiming that she was “not capable of explaining these positions”, gave her seat to Basset.
In the General Commission of the Assembly (the space in which resolutions are negotiated), one of the most problematic issues of the day on Thursday was the discussion around What to do with these Argentine proposals. The member countries recommended to the mileist delegation that, if it planned to maintain the (anti-rights) positions that emerge from the comments on the draft document, then it limit itself to maintaining them in the form of “Footnotes”.
The request was the same as that made by the United States ambassador to the OAS, Frank Mora: that the progress of the resolutions not be hindered further, especially by questioning discussions that have already been closed in the international arena for years.
In parallel, a meeting of the Caribbean countries took place in which alarms were raised due to These attitudes of the Argentine delegation. On the other hand, the governments of Canada, United States, Mexico and Brazil They held a very firm position against the Argentine proposals. The position of these four countries was homogeneous: not to give rise to negotiations on these points.
Paraguay was the only country that did not completely let go of Argentina’s hand within the framework of its international role. He expressed lukewarm support, but with the clarification that he would still He was not going to allow the discussions to continue to be hindered.
The response of most states to Basset could be summarized as follows: “if that is going to continue to be your position, put a footnote”, which is the diplomatic way of absorbing dissent in documents that must be closed by consensus.
“The footer is the formal way of doing it, The issue is that since Argentina made so many comments, it is very cumbersome that at every moment there is an explanation or objection.. This created an uncomfortable situation for all States. Many representatives complained about the loss of time. ‘If after two days of the General Assembly we cannot reach an agreement, we are going to commit the offense of leaving Paraguay without a resolution,’ they said. Mexico at one point complained saying that Argentina intended to make them die of boredom: ‘We can’t be discussing these things.“’”.
The delegation that represents our country caused the review of the text on which the countries have been working for months to become an endless debate, paragraph by paragraph.
The anti-feminist, anti-diversity and anti-Human Rights obstinacy in general of the Mileísta committee would be on the verge of ruining the work of an entire year of the General Assembly of the OAS. One of the objections (which in some cases were made in very aggressive terms) was the opposition to the use of the expression “women in all their diversity”. With Guatemala as the only ally, Argentina requested that that concept be changed to simply “women.”
Another example: Argentina opposed the use of the word “intolerance” (which is the one that is usually used in conventions against discrimination) with the argument that “it is not defined.” In response to this and in relation to Basset’s inexperience in diplomatic matters, the representative of Costa Rica retorted: “We can be flexible, but coming here with ignorance of international treaties and conventions is not acceptable.” To which Paraguay added (almost in a humorous tone): “Please: “stop bullying Argentina”.
