Imagine a country led by conservative forces — elected for their clear stance against gender ideology and in favor of sovereignty — that nevertheless votes for “woke” policies beyond its borders. What mechanisms fail along the way, preventing a state’s policies from being faithfully transmitted from legislative halls to its international diplomacy?

In March, representing the Sovereign People’s Party (Partido Pueblo Soberano), Costa Rica’s delegation to the 70th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women supported a “no-action” motion regarding a resolution that sought to define the term “gender” specifically as “man” and “woman.” This procedural maneuver prevented the text from being considered.

This recent example illustrates what Valerie Huber, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has described as “bridging the gap” in diplomacy.

“A nation can maintain a clear stance from its capital yet still lose ground if its delegation in New York, its mission in Geneva, and its national ministry operate under conflicting instructions,” said the leader of the Institute for Women’s Health. In her view, “establishing a coherent set of positions and instructions for all of a nation’s missions ensures that the country speaks with one voice wherever it is represented.”

In this regard, it appears increasingly important for legislators to monitor their nations’ international diplomacy to ensure that national interests, the constitutional order, and the majority popular vote are respected beyond their borders.

International Politics Entering Citizens’ Homes

According to Argentine political scientist Agustín Laje in his book “Globalism: Social Engineering and Total Control in the 21st Century,” the rise of globalism — as a political and ideological project designed to concentrate power in supranational bodies — weakens the sovereignty of nation-states and local democracy.

Laje argues that globalism employs aggressive “social engineering” to dissolve cultural identities, the traditional family, patriotism, and Western Christian values. The language of this political project is cloaked in well-intentioned terms — such as “inclusion,” “diversity,” or “global challenges” — to legitimize its intervention.

Óscar Mauricio Giraldo, a former Colombian senator, shares this view. He emphasizes that legislative oversight of sovereign policy — policy that reflects national values — is crucial today.

“Because nowadays, international politics ends up entering the homes of all Colombians, almost without us realizing it,” he said for this article. “Often, within multilateral bodies like the U.N. or the OAS, treaties, declarations, or resolutions are signed using highly ambiguous language; incumbent governments then use these to bypass Congress and impose agendas within the country.”

In Giraldo’s view, if legislators do not closely scrutinize what the Foreign Ministry intends to sign or defend abroad, they risk effectively ceding sovereignty.

“Furthermore, a great deal of international cooperation arrives conditional upon specific social programs,” he noted. “Monitoring is key to safeguarding the country’s constitutional framework and ensuring that diplomats represent the true values of the majority of citizens, rather than trendy agendas.”

He issued this warning while serving — until last month — as president of the Colombian Senate’s Second Permanent Constitutional Commission.

Giraldo’s ‘Tetralogue’

Based on his experience, there are concrete, effective actions members of Congress can take — what might be termed “Giraldo’s tetralogue.”

First, direct political oversight. Summoning the Foreign Minister or other ministers to the Foreign Relations Committees is crucial “so they can be held accountable to the country regarding the position they intend to take at international summits — before they travel, not after everything has already been signed.”

Second, motions and reservations. “When a treaty reaches Congress for ratification, senators and representatives have the authority to demand ‘reservations’ or caveats regarding specific articles that infringe upon the right to life or the institution of the family,” Giraldo noted.

Thirdly, utilizing international parliamentary networks. In the former senator’s view, no country fights this battle alone; therefore, “forging alliances with lawmakers from other countries in the region makes it possible to form a united front and pressure governments to maintain a firm stance in global forums.”

And finally, maintaining oversight of international cooperation. “Scrutinizing how funds received from abroad for children, health, or education are being spent, to prevent them from being used to indoctrinate the population,” he stated.

During his time in the Senate, Giraldo held a clear premise: “The Colombian Constitution must be respected, and the right to life is not up for negotiation at any international table.” He believes this must be a constant practice for lawmakers.

In Colombia’s specific case, Giraldo sought to block attempts to use international resolutions to undermine Article 11 of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to life as inviolable. For him, the matter is clear: “International bodies have limits and cannot override national sovereignty.”

Staying Vigilant, Even with an Allied Government

Coordinating efforts among pro-life and pro-family legislative caucuses within countries — which can then connect with similar groups internationally — allows the voice defending the unborn and the family to gain real weight before diplomatic blocs.

David Cote, a representative to the Chamber for Bogotá for the 2026-2030 term (representing the Democratic Center party), believes that the participation of pro-life and pro-family lawmakers is crucial for monitoring the positions Colombia adopts in international bodies, treaties, and multilateral forums.

The current government, led by the right-wing Abelardo de la Espriella, maintains a stance favorable to conservative sectors.

“Given the profile of the designated foreign minister, the tone of the presidential campaign, and the convictions the president has expressed both publicly and privately, I believe the new government’s foreign policy will take a different direction than that of the Juan Manuel Santos and Gustavo Petro administrations regarding issues such as the defense of life, the family, and religious freedom,” Cote assessed.

Even with a government aligned on these issues, Christian groups must remain vigilant, advocating for a foreign policy that defends life from conception to natural death, strengthens the institution of the family, and takes a critical stance against ideological agendas promoted in international arenas that undermine these principles.