Back in June, PRI’s Latin American representative, Carlos Polo, wrote about a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Lima. The OAS, whose purported mission is to “deal with threats, traditional and new, that affect the region,” actually ended up focusing “public attention on fabricated ‘crises,’ while neglecting real emergency economic and social development.”
One of the items on the OAS’s agenda for that meeting was to push a homosexual viewpoint on sexual orientation and make tolerance of that view “binding” through the speedy passage of authoritative resolutions. With the prominent backing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the OAS was able to prioritize LBGT issues and push them to the forefront for a vote.
The end result was typical: pro-homosexual resolutions were strong-armed through the proceedings with no formal debate and no support in the very countries that are purported to need them. Now, homosexual groups are using the passage of these resolutions as a spring-board to launch campaigns and marches in Lima. Their battle flag, as it were, is a statement purportedly released by foreign embassies (and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV / AIDS). This statement has the embassies of Belgium, Australia, Netherlands, the UK, Czech Republic, Sweden, France, and the United States in formal support of the homosexual marches:
On the occasion of the celebration of Gay Pride this year in Peru, we express our support and solidarity with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Peru.
We support the right of these communities to use this traditional occasion to go together peacefully and legally with the aim of expressing their desire to end the silence surrounding those specific issues that affect them . . .
The policies of our governments in this area are consistent with the principles set out in Resolution 2600 of the Organization of American States (OAS) on “Human Rights, sexual orientation and gender identity” approved June 8, 2010.
We congratulate the Peruvian government for adopting this resolution. . . ”
A US embassy source in Lima told PRI that the statement is indeed real, and was reportedly drafted by the British Embassy. As such, it represents an act of bald partisanship and, as Polo said in a recent LifeSiteNews article, a sort of residual colonialism.
“These same countries wouldn’t accept our Peruvian embassy even expressing opinions regarding the laws in the United States, France, or the United Kingdom, let alone proposing to change them or pressuring them through local groups,” Polo said.
The indictment is clear: the role of a foreign embassy is solely to be a “diplomatic mission”—not to meddle in internal affairs or promote partisan activity. To do so is not only to overstep the role of an embassy, but it is, in effect, to practice a form of cultural colonialism.
The obvious short-term goal of this, of course, is to give homosexual activists in Peru some measure of credibility. In a country that is solidly Catholic and has strong pro-family leanings, they are in dire need of it. The Peruvian people have weathered repeated attempts by Westerners to give them abortion, contraception and feminism, but have also been battered by one of the worst population control campaigns in recent history. They have little time or patience for a campaign that flies so hard in the face of their values and priorities.
In light of this, this campaign seems not only out-of-place, it seems desperate. The handful of homosexual activists behind this ill-fated endeavor should pack up shop and go home, and stop embarrassing themselves.