Meneja wa Manchester City Roberto Mancini amesema nahodha Carlos Tevez anataka kuendelea kubakia katika klabu hiyo baada ya ushindi wa mabao 3-0 dhidi ya Stoke katika mchezo wa Ligi Kuu ya soka ya England.
Carlos Tevez
Carlos Tevez
Mustakabali wa mchezaji huyo wa kimataifa wa Argentina ulikuwa katika hali ya wasiwasi tangu alipowasilisha barua ya kutaka kuhama klabu hiyo mwezi wa Januari.
"Anao mkataba wa miaka mitano na ametuambia anataka kubakia," amesema Mancini baada ya kumshuhudia Tevez akifunga mabao mawili yaliyoinyanyua timu hiyo hadi nafasi ya tatu katika msimamo wa ligi.
Mancini ameongeza kueleza: "Aliwahi kusema hapo awali. Hana tatizo lolote."
Matamshi ya Mancini yanaonekana kupingana na yale yanayotoka kinywani mwa Tevez mwenyewe.
Mara tu baada ya kunyakua Kombe la FA siku ya Jumamosi kwa kuifunga Stoke bao 1-0, Tevez alisema "kuna jambo linalotakiwa kutafutiwa ufumbuzi na hili ni suala pana kulijadili kati yangu na familia yangu".
Na imekuwa ikifikiriwa kwa mapana kwamba Tevez atachagua kwenda kucheza soka Hispania ama Italia mwishoni mwa msimu.
Lakini kwa mujibu wa Mancini: "Nadhani atabakia hapa mwaka ujao. Hana tatizo lolote.
"Nimezungumza naye mara nyingi katika siku 20 zilizopita. Ni maoni yangu kwamba Carlos atabakia hapa masimu ujao.
"Mwezi wa Desemba alikuwa na tatizo. Lakini mtu yeyote anaweza kubadili mawazo yake.
"Carlos ni mchezaji muhimu hapa. Carlos ameshafunga mabao 20 msimu huu. Kila mara tumekuwa tukisema Carlos ni mchezaji muhimu. Carlos ni Carlos. Ni mshambuliaji mzuri sana na kwetu ni mchezaji murua. Anajisikia vizuri.
Urusi na wajumbe wa Gaddafi wazungumza
Kanali Gaddafi aahidi kupambana hadi mwisho
Wajumbe wa kiongozi wa Libya Kanali Muammar Gaddafi wanatarajiwa kufanya mazungumzo na maafisa wa Urusi mjini Moscow.
Urusi ilisema, mazungumzo tofauti ndani ya Moscow na waasi yalitarajiwa kufanyika, lakini yakafutwa kutokana na "sababu za kiufundi".
Bunge la nchi hiyo Kremlin limekataa kuwakubali waasi kama viongozi halali, na bado wana uhusiano mzuri na Kanali Gaddafi.
Siku ya Jumatatu, mwendesha mashtaka wa mahakama ya kimataifa ya uhalifu wa kivita ICC ameshikilia kutolewe hati ya kukamatwa kwa Kanali Gaddafi.
Mwendesha mashtaka huyo Luis Moreno-Ocampo alisema, mtoto wake wa kiume Seif al-Islam, na mkuu wa idara ya ujasusi Abdullah al-Sanusi wamehusika kwa "mashambulio yaliyopangwa kwa ufanisi na kutapakaa" kwa raia.
Majaji wa ICC bado wanatakiwa kuamua iwapo watoe hati ya kukamatwa kwao au la.
Serikali ya Libya tayari imesema itapuuza hatua hiyo.
Katika tukio tofauti, milipuko ilisikika karibu na makazi ya Kanali Gaddafi mjini Tripoli mapema siku ya Jumanne.
Maafisa wa Libya baadae waliwachukua waandishi wa habari kwenye eneo hilo na kuwaonyesha majengo, yaliyokuwa yakiwaka moto baada ya kushambuliwa kwa kilichoonekana kufanywa na majeshi ya anga ya Nato.
Msemaji wa serikali alisema miongoni mwa majengo hayo ni ofisi ya jeshi la usalama.
Rais wa Shirikisho la Soka la Mali Hammadoun Kolado Cisse
ametaka mabadiliko yafanyike ya mfumo wa upigaji kura kutafuta nchi itakayoandaa Kombe la Dunia.
Kombe la Dunia la soka
Kombe la Dunia la soka
Pia amesema bado hajaamua nani atampigia kura katika uchaguzi unaokuja wa Rais wa Fifa.
Kauli hiyo ameitoa licha ya Shirikisho la Soka barani Afrika kueleza litamuunga mkono Rais wa sasa wa Fifa Sepp Blatter na sio mpinzani wake pekee Mohamed Bin Hammam.
"Kwa wakati huu siwezi kuzungumzia mgombea gani tutakayemuunga mkono," alisema Cisse.
Katika mkutano uliofanyika mjini Cairo siku ya Jumatatu, Shirikisho la Soka barani Afrika, lilisema kamati yake kuu imekuwa na kura ya siri na imepitisha muswda wa kumuunga mkono Blatter katika uchaguzi wa Fifa.
"Kamati kuu inaweza kutoa mapendekezo, lakini chama au shirikisho la soka la nchi huamua kivyake nani wa kumpigia kura," Cisse alifafanua.
"Hawapaswi kufuata mapendekezo ya kamati na baadhi ya nchi zinamuunga mkono Blatter na nyingine bin Hammam.
"Tunataka mabadiliko ya kweli ndani ya Fifa - namna tunavyofanya kazi, jinsi usimamizi wa fedha ulivyo - lakini siwezi kusema iwapo hicho ndio kigezo cha kubadilisha Rais."
Cisse anataka Mkutano Mkuu wa Fifa kuliko wajumbe 24 wa kamati ya utendaji kutoa uamuzi wa mwisho ni nchi gani ya kuandaa Kombe la Dunia.
Mchakato huo umezongwa na tuhuma za rushwa.
"Iwapo kila nchi itaweza kupiga kura kwa nchi itakayoandaa Kombe la Dunia, hiyo itasaidia sana kupunguza tuhuma za rushwa kwa sababu huwezi kuhonga vyama na mashirikisho 203 ya soka."
Cisse ameongeza kundi la nchi za Afrika litashauri mabadiliko haya kabla ya uchaguzi haujafanyika tarehe 1 mwezi wa Juni, lakini akakataa kusema iwapo nchi nyingine zitaunga mkono.
Pia amesema angefurahi mfumo wa wajumbe wa Kamati Kuu ya Fifa nao ungeangaliwa na kuwa na wajumbe zaidi ya wanne wa sasa kutoka nchi za Afrika.
Ferguson aonywa na FA dhidi ya mwamuzi
Tume ya mienendo ya Chama cha England-FA, imemuonya Sir Alex Ferguson kuhusiana na matamshi yake siku zijazo baada ya matamsi yake dhdi ya mwamuzi Howard Webb.
Sir Alex Ferguson
Sir Alex Ferguson
Matamshi hayo yalitolewa na meneja huyo wa Manchester United kabla ya mchezo wao wa Ligi Kuu ya England dhidi ya Chelsea, ambapo Manchester United ilishinda mabao 2-1 tarehe 8 mwezi wa Mei.
Licha ya Ferguson kumzungumzia Webb, amevunja taratibu za FA ambapo meneja yeyote hatakiwi kumzungumzia mwamuzi kabla ya mchezo.
"Alivunja taratibu kwa kiasi kidogo, lakini hata hivyo alikiuka taratibu," taarifa ya FA iliongeza.
Mwenyekiti wa tume hiyo alisema: "Taratibu za uamuzi huu ziliwekwa mwanzoni mwa msimu wa 2009/10 na ukarudiwa tena rasmi kwa vilabu tarehe 21 mwezi wa Oktoba 2010.
"Huku ni kwenda kinyume na taratibu zilizowekwa na ni mara ya kwanza hoja hiyo kusikilizwa na tume.
"Matokeo yake kuhusiana na mashtaka haya, tume ilikuwa ikifahamu juu ya matukio mengine ambapo matamshi kabla ya mechi yalitolewa na mameneja wengine.
"Katika shauri hili, ilichukuliwa kama ni kuvunjwa kwa taratibu kwa kiasi kidogo na onyo litolewe kwa mameneja wote kwa siku zijazo kwamba wakienda kinyume na taratibu, hata wakitoa matamshi ya mazuri ambayo pengine yataharibu amani, hatua kali zitachukuliwa dhidi yao."
Siku mbili kabla ya mchezo baina ya Manchester United dhidi ya Chelsea - ambapo Chelsea wangeshinda wangeongoza msimamo wa ligi - Ferguson katika mkutano na waandishi wa habari alimzungumzia Webb.
Wakati huo alisema: "Tumempata mwamuzi mzuri, hakuna shaka yoyote kuhusiana na hilo."
"Lakini wasiwasi wetu mkubwa ni kupata matokeo mabaya."
"Tunao wachezaji wazuri wa kufanya vizuri. Tunatumai ni wakati wetu kupata angalao bahati kidogo."
Ni hivi karibu Ferguson alimaliza adhabu yake ya kufungiwa kukaa katika benchi la ufundi la timu yake kwa michezo mitano na pia alipigwa faini ya paundi 30,000kutokana na kumshutumu mwamuzi Martin Atkinson
baada ya kufungwa mabao 2-1 na Chelsea mwezi wa Machi.
West Ham kupata meneja mpya karibuni
West Ham ina matumaini itamteua meneja mpya katika muda wa wiki mbili au tatu zijazo baada ya kuachana na Avram Grant.
Avram Grant
Klabu ya West Ham ilitangaza kumtimua Grant siku ya Jumapili baada ya kuchapwa mabao 3-2 dhidi ya Wigan, hali iliyosababisha wateremke daraja.
Kocha wa zamani wa timu ya taifa ya England Steve McClaren ni mmoja kati ya makocha wanaopewa nafasi kubwa ya kurithi kazi ya Grant.
Kocha wa kikosi cha kwanza Kevin Keen ndiye atakamata hatamu kwa muda na yeye pamoja na meneja wa zamani wa Newcastle Chris Hughton wanapewa nafasi baada ya McClaren.
Wengine wanaotajwa huenda wakachukua nafasi ya umeneja wa West Ham ni pamoja na Neil Warnock meneja wa sasa QPR, meneja wa zamani wa Bolton, Newcastle na Blackburn Sam Allardyce na mlinzi wa zamani wa West Ham Slaven Bilic.
Grant alichukua nafasi ya Jose Mourinho kuwa meneja wa Chelsea mwezi wa Septemba mwaka 2007, na akatimuliwa baada ya kuifikisha timu hiyo katika fainali ya Ubingwa wa vilabu vya Ulaya, ambapo walifungwa kwa mikwaju ya penalti na Manchester United.
Mwezi wa Novemba mwaka 2009 alichukua nafasi ya kuifundisha Portsmouth, lakini pamoja na mzozo wa kifedha, hakuweza kuisaidia klabu hiyo kushuka daraja.
Wamiliki wa West Ham David Gold na David Sullivan walimchukua Grant mwenye umri wa miaka 56, wakiwa na matumaini angeweza kuijenga West Ham imara katika Ligi Kuu ya Soka ya England.
Waliweza kuwasajili nahodha wa timu ya taifa ya Ujerumani Thomas Hitzlsperger, Frederic Piquionne na Pablo Barrera.
Hali ya kukata tamaa nusu ya kwanza ya msimu, iliibua taarifa huenda Grant nafasi yake ingechukuliwa na Martin O'Neill, lakini Grant aliendelea na kazi yake na akaruhusiwa kuwachukua wachezaji wengine akiwemo Demba Ba, Robbie Keane, Wayne Bridge na Victor Obinna.
Na bahati ya klabu hiyo ilionekana kunawiri pale waliposhinda mechi tatu kati ya tano mwezi wa Februari na Machi, ikiwemo ushindi wa mabao 3-1 dhidi ya Liverpool.
Lakini kufungwa na Wigan ilikuwa ni mara ya sita kwao katika michezo saba ya ligi, na kuwaacha wakiwa pointi sita nyuma chini kabisa ya jedwali na uongozi wa klabu ukaonelea wakati sasa umefika wa kufanya mabadiliko.
For an overview of what a No-Fly Zone
While the NATO and EU meet to discuss the possibility of a No-Fly Zone over Libya to help the protesters who have asked for help to break the stalemate against Gaddafi's massacre campaign, it is increasingly becoming evident that various powers of the world are making this issue into an agenda to serve their own interests. The interests of the people of Libya don't seem to matter in this critical juncture when they need this help the most and have expressedly asked for it.
We are yet to know what Obama thinks about a No-Fly Zone over Libya, eventhough he demanded Gaddafi's exit echoing French Premier's remarks.
China and Russia are playing their old game and have signalled the possibility of exercising their veto on the UN Security Council Resolution for a No-Fly Zone over Libya. This means that a No-Fly Zone can't be enforced with a full UNSC consensus. The aim of China and Russia is not to resolve the issue of Libya conflict and help the people's revolution there, but to oppose the US and EU, as they are wont to do in every case. The argument of non-intervention in another country's affairs is a lame excuse in this case since the Libyan people have called for an international help.
India, Brazil and South Africa
seem to go along with China and Russia by issuing a communique over-ridden with bureaucratic cliched language about "hoping for a peaceful resolution of the Libyan conflict," as if a dictator who has decided to massacre his own people is going to sit and calmly reflect about a peaceful resolution. The communique issued by the three countries seems to legitimise the stand of China and Russia by insisting upon a No-Fly Zone only if there is full UN support for it. Although these three countries are not permanent members of the UNSC, they are rallying for that position, India being in the forefront. Quite obviously, the desire here is to blindly go along with whatever China and Russia say rather than to help the victims of Gaddafi.
24. In the context of mass protests in countries of the Middle East and North Africa, as an expression of the aspirations of the peoples of these countries for reform, the Ministers expressed the hope that the situation will be resolved in a peaceful manner, in the best interests of the respective peoples. The Ministers expressed their deep concern with the present situation in Libya and manifested hope that a peaceful solution for the crisis may be found, in the best interests of the Libyan people. They underscored that a no-fly zone on the Libyan air space or any coercive measures additional to those foreseen in Resolution 1970 can only be legitimately contemplated in full compliance with the UN Charter and within the Security Council of the United Nations.] Read here...
On a latent level, this stand of these 5 countries also poses a danger to their own people - if they indirectly support a dictator's massacre of his own people in this manner, quite obviously they wouldn't want the international community to interfere whenever they themselves open fire on their own people - even if the people of these countries ask for international help.
This blatant non-recognition of the contingency of the Libyan people then, has a statement about how they want the people of a country to suffer under oppression of its rulers. There is also a tendency to slavishly follow Russia and China, never mind that China doesn't want India to get a permanent UNSC seat.
In issuing this communique and by opposing the Libyan people, these five countries also go against the UN instrument of the responsibility to protect civilians against mass killing
Many kinds of reservations have been expressed about the No-Fly Zone and of course it means that the allied forces would have to incapacitate the air-bases of Gaddafi, which may involve the loss of some civilian lives. But if this measure is to be taken out, the civilians can be cleared out of the area before operation begins. Besides, leaving these people to their dreadful fate is even worse than implementing a No-Fly Zone, especially when they have asked for help.
I am usually against war and violence and would always welcome a non-violent measure to end a conflict, rather than a violent one. But in this situation it appears that the Libyan people are going to be decimated while the global leaders are deliberating over their own gains and losses. By the time this decision is taken, it may be too late and after that an intervention will only be a waste of military resources and not very useful.
In the process, a violent dictator is going to gain a stronghold and the people's revolution will be finished. The democratic revolution in the region is being wiped out systematically by the two non-democratic veto-power holding members of the UN and their followers by shrewdly manipulating the institution of the UN. The "complete UN consensus" in this case is an eyewash to stop the democratic forces from gaining ground in the region.
UPDATE -
Many people are asking why China and Russia won't support a no-fly zone over Libya
- some of the traffic to this post was driven with that question in mind. In brief, there are 3 reasons - 1) Russia and China, the two non-democracies, want to crush the democratic revolutions and want to maintain dictatorships 2) They are opposed to the US and EU and will always oppose any major stand taken by the US and EU 3) Gaddafi has leaned towards them in past while the democratic government if it comes to power will lean more towards the US and EU. Russia and China want to weaken US and EU and don't want their support in the world to grow. Besides, Russia is selling arms worth billions of dollars to Gaddafi. China may well be trying to stay in the good books of Gaddafi by opposing an intervention in Libya, so that it can gain from the oil wells of Gaddafi. He has already invited those who opposed a Libyan intervention to invest in the Libyan oil wells.
China and Russia's aim is to oppose whatever stand the US and Europe take - regardless of whether it is legitimate or not. They look upon the free-market based industrialised economies of US and Europe as powerful capitalist forces which they aim to destabilise - of course they can be hypocritical enough to open their own markets when their economy falls in trouble and also to align with the US to serve their selfish needs. Further, Gaddafi has often leaned towards Russia and China in the past and has also had his anti-US and Europe bouts from time to time, which suits Russia and China.
So, they want to maintain his oppressive dictatorship and want to finish a democratic revolution, which will lean more towards the US and Europe - if only these powers have the sense to see that they are falling into the trap set by China and Russia aimed at diminishing the powers of US and EU, and if only they have the presence of mind to act immediately rather than engage in endless talks and conferences. Hence, this talk of a complete UN Consensus is actually a shrewd instrument to destabilise the attempt of the US and the EU to help the Libyan people, who will not be in favour of the non-democratic regimes if they come to power.
But the additional trouble is that the US has always preached democracy,
but it has always supported the dictators of the world. So one doesn't know whether the US too is not interested in maintaining Gaddafi and to finish off the democratic revolution in the Arab world. The current US leadership doesn't have the foresight to see that if it helps the Arab revolution now, the new democratic governments will be loyal to the US. Of course the demand for this help has to come from the people of those countries and Libyan people have made those demands.
This approach of going by a complete UN Consensus, which really means the Americans seeking permission from Russia and China before they can engage in their own foreign policy, completely ignores the wish of the Libyan people and gives a primacy to the non-democratic forces in the UN who want to suppress this democratic uprising.
This tendency to seek permissions from one's rivals when immediate action is needed has only served to fulfill the agenda of Russia and China, who have managed to create dissensions amongst the NATO and EU members - which is their aim as a step to weaken the democratic world.
One wonders why the US has to worry so much about seeking permission from Russia and China.
Of course they have received criticism in the past for Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is a significant difference in all these cases which is being ignored. Afghanistan and Southern Iraq had not asked for help, hence intervention there was interference. The Kurds had asked for help and the US intervention there was both legitimate and successful (please see the Galbraith's opinion link in this post). Again, in this case the Libyans have asked for a no-fly zone. As supporters of democracy, we should honour the wish of the Libyan people. A US and EU intervention here will be perfectly legitimate and humanitarian.
Essentially, the litmus test for whether an intervention is legitimate or not is whether the people of the region have asked for it. If the people of Libya have asked the US-EU for a no-fly zone, then imposing a no-fly zone over Libya should be purely a matter between the Libyans and the US-EU alliance. Russia, China or anyone else shouldn't interfere with this matter by passing value judgments over it. In effect, Russia and China are interfering here with the attempt of the Libyans to manage their problems with international help. The US and EU have been ill-advised to wait for a permission from Russia and China rather than to deal directly with the Libyans and help them in the matter of no-fly zone.
If the people of a region don't ask for help, then the intervention in the region should be made following a complete UN approval. But this is not the case in Libya. If the people of Libya want a no-fly zone, even the UN shouldn't be interfering in this matter by blocking their efforts in this direction.
Russia and China have never been much of democracies,
but India likes to project itself as a very stable democracy.
If it indirectly helps a dictator to remain in power and finishes a democratic revolution, India should abandon its claim to a democratic commitment.
The former US President Bill Clinton has supported the idea of a no-fly zone because he feels it's unjust that the Libyan protesters have to fight with a disadvantage and they have asked for help (see link).
If only he was still President!
Peter Galbraith, a former US Diplomat who has seen no-fly zones in operation explains in this link how it can be a good idea
without causing too many casualties and also the difference between Iraq-Afghanistan and Libya's cases, thus the need to see these cases as different from each other (see link).
The visitors to this post are urged to find time to read this entire article. Some excerpts -
(Obama's) electoral pitch made much of America’s “moral obligation” to intervene to prevent atrocities against civilians. Atrocities is a strong word:
it does not describe the familiar travails of the subjects of unjust and corrupt rulers. But atrocities are happening in Libya...Wounded civilians have been barred from hospitals, or murdered inside them, or dragged bleeding from beds; soldiers, guns blazing, have spewed out of ambulances. Thousands have been abducted and tortured, even in the presence of a BBC team that was itself detained and badly beaten. Unarmed civilians—not only protesters but anyone seen upright—are hunted down and murdered...This is no civil war; that is another lie concocted by Gaddafi, whose brutality forced unarmed citizens to defend themselves. In Benghazi, people assert passionately that his overthrow is a cause that unites all Libyans. If Gaddafi is left, unimpeded, to pound an entire people into submission, the consequences will be devastating—for Libyans obviously, but also for Iranians, Syrians, and others whose rulers will conclude that it pays to be pitiless. The U.S. will command scant respect, come the next crisis, and the West will again be accused of not giving a damn about Muslim lives,
which will hardly assist the containment of Islamist terrorism...The issue is not the narrow one of the legality or military effectiveness of a no-fly zone. It is what to do about an outlaw. Gaddafi is in breach of the U.N.’s demand, issued under Chapter VII of its charter, to end violence against his people and meet their “legitimate demands.” Compliance is obligatory. Words must be seen to mean what they say. Read more...
The visitors are also urged to read this op-ed by a Princeton University Professor in the New York Times, which weighs all five arguments that have been made in regards to a no-fly zone over Libya - click here.
Here is an analysis from a Libya expert in the NYT of the Gaddafi regime, explaining how its support-bases have been undermined, making it illegitimate - click here.
One doesn't expect the US leadership to be so unaware of the reality that China and Russia will never support the US in any of its major ventures because they aim to undermine the power of the US. If this is so, the insistence upon taking this move to the UNSC where it will be vetoed by China and Russia only shows the lack of leadership of the current US authorities and their intention to support dictatorships rather than democratic movements. In the current situation, France, UK and the Arab League seem to have a greater democratic and humanitarian commitment than the US.
Precisely because Obama didn't intervene in Libya, now Saudi Arabia feels emboldened to send its troops inside Bahrain against protesters today.
What UNSC approval does Saudi Arabia have for this action? Why don't Russia and China speak now against Saudi Arabia? Isn't Saudi Arabia blackmailing the world using its oil power? Where are Obama administration's lofty ideals in relation to Saudi Arabia now? Is Saudi Arabia's interference justified?
Now, Iran has issued a warning that Saudi intervention in Bahrain is unacceptable.
I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, but if Iran decides to contest with the Saudi troops in Bahrain, then I would like to see Obama keeping true to his so-called lofty ideals of non-intervention and staying out of Bahrain politics. By not intervening in Libya, he has now forsaken his legitimacy to intervene in Bahrain. If he feels that the US should counter Iran in Bahrain, then he can still save the Libyans first by ousting Gaddafi and his forces. Otherwise, he should let the Arabs and Persians sort it out amongst themselves, rather than breaking his high ideal of non-intervention and meddling with Bahrain. I would like to see China and Russia too keeping out of Bahrain, because they are the so-called "non-warriors" after all.
The visitors are urged to read this analysis of the US inaction in Libya and the Saudi-Bahrain dynamics as supported by the US - The House of Saud "liberates" Bahrain.
I must add here that just like Saudi Arabia, Iran too has taken its cue precisely from Obama's lofty ideals.
UPDATE -
By now, much has happened. The US changed its stand dramatically to support a full range of military options in Libya excluding an occupation of the country. The UNSC passed the resolution 10-0 (Please see the link below).
Well, the US deserves a gold medal for staging the greatest political theatre of all times. But perhaps the world missed its cues. Obama did say he had all options on table. When he said a no-fly zone was inadequate, did he have full air strikes and other measures in mind? I wish he had said it two weeks ago. But better late than never.
Though in a dramatic manner, the US has demonstrated why it intervenes and what happens when it doesn't intervene.
One must give credit to Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the United Nations and Samantha Power
, a senior aide at the National Security Council, who have continuously pressed for a military action in Libya. Faced by this tough brigade, Obama agreed for the proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment