- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Guardian UK said:ith a line-up that includes Drew Barrymore, David Beckham, Orlando Bloom, and Ricky Martin, the UN's choice of ambassadors has been known to cause raised eyebrows or the odd smirk.Seldom, however, has there been such anger, or questioning of the organisation's credibility, as that greeting the appointment of a new international envoy for tourism: Robert Mugabe.
Improbable as it seems, the Zimbabwean president, who is widely accused of ethnic cleansing, rigging elections, terrorising opposition, controlling media and presiding over a collapsed economy, has been endorsed as a champion of efforts to boost global holidaymaking.
Despite that fact Mugabe, 88, is under a travel ban, he has been honoured as a "leader for tourism" by the UN's World Tourism Organisation, along with his political ally, Zambian president Michael Sata, 75. The pair signed an agreement with UNWTO secretary general Taleb Rifai at their shared border at Victoria Falls on Tuesday.
Robert Mugabe asked to be UN 'leader for tourism' | World news | The Guardian
Apparently the UN's first choice, Idi Amin and their second choice, Pol Pot are both deceased, so Mugabe gets the job. This begs the question: Does the U.N. not see how immensely bad Mugabe is as a choice for "leader of tourism", ironically, as one of the reasons is he's banned from traveling to some EU countries and continues to have international sanctions levied against him. He's been charged and implicated in the deaths of thousands, displacement of near hundreds of thousands .... Does the U.N. know why they're seen as a laughing stock or do they just not care?