Japan Prime Minister Naoto Kan resists resignation call

Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan has brushed off calls for his resignation, after the foreign minister stepped down over a funding scandal at the weekend.

Mr Kan told parliament that he intended to fulfil his duties until elections, which must be held by late 2013.


The opposition, which controls the upper house, wants an early poll and is threatening to block budget bills.


The resignation of Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara has added to the impression of a government in disarray.


Some political commentators in Japan are predicting that Naoto Kan's government will collapse sooner rather than later - but it seems he is determined to resist. 


"Carrying out the administration's duties for a four-year term and then letting the people decide at the ballot box is best for the people themselves," Mr Kan told a parliamentary session.

Political deadlock


Even before the funding scandal, Mr Kan was battling to stave off opposition calls for an early general election, says the BBC's Roland Buerk in Tokyo.


He wants to implement tax reform to cover the costs of Japan's rapidly ageing society and rein in its massive public debt. 


But deadlock in parliament means Mr Kan is struggling to pass bills to implement the trillion-dollar budget for the new financial year which begins next month.


Mr Kan is Japan's fifth Prime Minister since 2006. Mr Maehara had been seen as a potential successor to Mr Kan.


But he stepped down on Sunday after just six months in the job.


He had acknowledged accepting political donations from a foreign national - illegal in Japan if done intentionally. 


Mr Maehara admitted taking a 50,000 yen ($610) political donation from a South Korean national resident in Japan. 


The sum is small but Japanese law bars politicians from accepting money from outsiders to prevent foreign powers having influence on domestic politics

Football Stadiums And Naming Rights

Is football the new religion?  Are football stadiums the cathedrals for the new common man? Two questions that people have asked for years.  But what truth is there in an answer of “Yes”?  Based on the explosion of commercialisation of the game I would suggest that some football clubs have a cult-like approach to fan engagement.  Get them in as young as possible, ram our product down their throats as often as we can and then brainwash them to come and spend ridiculous sums of money on things like branded toasters, branded bottles of water and even branded vodka.  There is certainly no end to what a football club will slap an advert on these days for cash.  Apart from renaming the actual club as you can find all through the Austrian Bundelisga (Red Bull Salzburg anyone? or are you simply looking for a Cashpoint in Altach), the biggest billboard a club has to offer is their ground.  Stadium naming rights are big business these days.  In Germany it is the norm to sell the naming rights on a regular basis but elsewhere in Europe where many grounds are not owned by the clubs, but by local authorities it is not common

The situation in England is confused to say the least. If you look at the twenty biggest stadiums in England, only three are sponsored.  The Emirates, The Ricoh Arena and The Walkers Stadium in Leicester.  Interestingly there are a couple of other stadiums in the list that used to be “named” but have now dropped the convention.  Middlesborough’s The Riverside started off life as the Cellnet and then the BT Cellnet stadium before reverting back to its proper name in 2003.  Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium was originally known as the Friends Provident St Mary’s Stadium, quite a mouthful before they withdrew their support in 2006. Oh, and who can forget the ridiculous situation at Newcastle United when St James’ Park was renamed the SportsDirect@St.James’ Park or something else ridiculous for a period of time.

Stadium rebranding his hardly the religious approach akin to the “cathedrals for the common man” is it?  For whose purpose is the naming of a stadium?  The players?  Will the team be more likely to turn performances up by 10% if they have a new name above their heads. The fans? Look at the situation in Dortmund.  Do the Borussia fans bedecked in their yellow and black say, obviously translated from our German cousins “Are you going down the Westfalonstadion today” or “Shall we head off to the Signal Iduna Park”?

Last month I was at the KT Stadium.  No, not the KC Stadium, formerly the Kingston Communication Stadium in Hull, but the Keith Tuckey Stadium, Croydon.  A grand name for essentially a single small stand and a fence around the pitch.  And then of course you have the new Globe Arena.  Now experts of all European sports may think I am here referring to the largest hemispherical building in the world, located in Stockholm which is home to the national Ice Hockey team.  Oh no, I am talking about the Globe Arena in Morecambe opened in the summer of 2010, along with the B2Net Stadium in Chesterfield, which has absolutely no link back to the history of the club and its long history at Saltergate.  How about Sheffield FC? Not United or Wednesday, but Sheffield FC, the world’s oldest club.  Their traditional ground is now called the BT Local Business Stadium…hardly rolls oof the tongue and suggests heritage does it?

I have no issues with stadium naming rights as long as they are done for the right reasons.  A long term commercial partnership for instance.  You cannot have a better example than the Reebok.  It has never had a different name, and as long as Reebok are in business I doubt it ever will.  A local company who saw the synergy in their brand and Bolton Wanderers.  A perfect match.  The Walkers Stadium certainly fits into the Bolton mould of a local company and a football club working together, with Gary Lineker the glue that binds them together.  But there are few other examples.  I will hold judgement on The Emirates for a few years yet as I still cannot see the emotional value in the brands of Arsenal and a Middle Eastern airline apart from cash.  I still struggle to refer to Huddersfield Town’s ground by any other name that the McAlpine, despite the fact the naming rights passed to Galpharm in 2004.  But some clubs just see it as a chance to cash in, another part of their “inventory” to be sold off to the highest bidder.

تركيا: اعتقال 17 متسللا في طريقهم إلى الدول الأوروبية

اعتقلت قوات الأمن التركية، ما يقارب من 17 مهاجرا دخلوا تركيا بطريقة غير شرعية كانوا يحاولون التسلل إلى الدول الأوروبية انطلاقا من الأراضي التركية

اعتقلت قوات الأمن التركية، ما يقارب من 17 مهاجرا دخلوا تركيا بطريقة غير شرعية كانوا يحاولون التسلل إلى الدول الأوروبية انطلاقا من الأراضي التركية.

وتمت هذه الاعتقالات في محافظة "أدرنه" شرقي تركيا، مشيرة إلى السلطات الأمنية اعترضت المهاجرين لدى محاولتهم الركوب في إحدى الشاحنات المتوجهة إلى الحدود للهروب من خارج تركيا.

وأضافت، إنه سيتم ترحيل المهاجرين وهم من فلسطين وميانمار، إلى بلادهم فور إتمام الإجراءات القانونية المتعلقة بالموضوع.

وتعتبر تركيا أحد المعابر الرئيسية للهجرة غير الشرعية من آسيا إلى أوروبا، وغالبا ما تعتقل السلطات فيها مهاجرين غير شرعيين قادمين من إفريقيا ودول أخرى.

ومن جانب آخر، قالت منظمة "هيومان رايتس ووتش" الحقوقية، أن اعتقال الصحفيين الذي وقع مؤخرا في تركيا سيكون له أثر قاس على حرية التعبير، وطالبت المنظمة تركيا بإظهار التزامها بحرية الصحافة.

وتقول السلطات، أن الاعتقالات تأتي في إطار التحقيقات في مؤامرة مزعومة للإطاحة بحكومة حزب العدالة والتنمية، الذي يتزعمه رئيس الوزراء التركي، رجب طيب أردوغان، لكن منتقدين يقولون أن القضية استغلت للقبض على هؤلاء الصحفيين فيما أعرب كل من الولايات المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي عن قلقهما بشأن حرية الرأي والديمقراطية في تركيا.

وقالت إيما سنكلير ويب، الباحثة في الشأن التركي في منظمة "هيومان رايتس ووتش" في غياب الدليل على أن الشرطة لديها سبب تتوفر له المصداقية للاعتقاد بأن أحمد سيك ونديم سينير مسئولان عن ارتكاب مخالفات فان القبض عليهما تطور مزعج

ويثير القلق من أن موضوع التحقيق في الوقت الحالي هو الصحافة المنتقدة لا مؤامرات الانقلاب.

وألقي القبض على عشرة من الكتاب والصحفيين من بينهم سيك وسينير، بعد أن داهمت الشرطة منازلهم عند الفجر.

وتأتي هذه القضية في وقت حساس حيث من المتوقع أن يفوز حزب العدالة والتنمية الحاكم بسهولة بفترة ثالثة على التوالي في الانتخابات البرلمانية التي تجرى في يونيو، وكان أردوغان، قد قال أن اعتقال الصحفيين أمر لا شأن له بالحكومة لكن الأمر ينذر بأنه قد يتحول إلى شأن انتحاري. نسيج

Cover-up?

Cover-up?

They believe him, without any doubt, when he says that the trouble in Libya is being caused by al-Qaeda and its dupes, and by foreigners who want the country's oil.

But as the morning went, a different version of events began to emerge. BBC journalists in Ras Lanuf reported that Col Gaddafi's forces had not captured the town. 


As I write, there are still doubts about Zawiya, which is only 30 miles (48km) or so west of Tripoli. The government says that its men have crushed the rebels who have been in control of the town centre. 


But officials here in Tripoli stalled when they were asked by journalists for permission to visit Zawiya. 


Many reporters here have found out to their cost that attempts to visit places in the news without a government minder can lead to arrest and hours of detention by the military and the security services. 


And there are questions being asked in Tripoli about the thousands of rounds that have been fired today.


Now, in daylight, it is clear that it is coming from Gaddafi supporters. I can hear cheering and chanting, and women ululating in celebration, all mixed in with the gunfire. 


But before dawn it sounded different, more like a fight. I cannot confirm that happening, but that is how it sounded. Different sorts of guns appeared to be exchanging fire. 


And later on, a Libyan man came up to me to say that there had been some sort of shoot-out going on, and the mass firing in the air and the celebrations had been started to cover it up. 
Gaddafi's way


Tripoli is full of rumours, and versions of the truth. Some are closer to reality than the others. 


The regime does appear to feel much more secure than it did 10 days ago when I arrived, even though it is more isolated. More of day-to-day life in Tripoli has resumed. 


It is clear that this is not going to be a re-run of Tunisia or Egypt. Col Gaddafi is benefiting from the unique system of government he introduced into Libya in 1977. Notionally, it devolves all power to the people. That is why he says he has no official position from which to resign but it also deprives potential rivals of a power base. 


In Egypt the intervention of the armed forces was crucial. Early on, they said they would protect the demonstrators, which they did, after a few false starts. 


In the end President Hosni Mubarak was told to resign by his own generals. But in Libya, Col Gaddafi's system has hollowed out, or dismantled, any national institution that could become a rival to the leader. 


As the fighting gets worse, there is a real risk of prolonged civil war. As long as Col Gaddafi can keep his own forces loyal, it does not look as if this crisis will end quickly or cleanly.

Gaddafi troops' 'gains' disputed

As I write I can hear volleys of gunfire hammering around Tripoli. It is around 1430 on Sunday and since early morning supporters of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi have been out in the streets celebrating.

They have been told - and seem to believe without question - that his forces have scored important victories. One of the government spokesmen said Zawiya, Misrata and Ras Lanuf had been recaptured from rebels, and that Col Gaddafi's forces were advancing on Benghazi, the epicentre of the rebellion.


Not long after first light, I went to Green Square, right in the middle of Tripoli and the place where true believers in the regime congregate to celebrate its triumphs. 


A couple of thousand people were there - the numbers have grown since then - and the atmosphere was crackling with feverish celebration. 


Young men had climbed on to speakers and were dancing to music that praised their leader. Women, many with small children, swayed and sang along. 


Guns were everywhere, pistols as well as Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles. Every so often their owners fired into the air. Someone was letting off fireworks as well. 


There were green flags, green bandanas and green fringed posters of the colonel which kept getting kissed. 


"Libya is united again," one man said. "We all love Gaddafi. He is our father and our brother. He is our leader."

Yemen: US state department upgrades travel warning

The US has warned its citizens to avoid travelling to the Middle Eastern state of Yemen and says those already there should consider leaving.

There have been many anti-government demonstrations across several cities in recent weeks, with reports of fatal clashes between police and protesters.


Demonstrators want the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has ruled since 1978. 


The protesters want more job opportunities, an end to corruption, and a more even distribution of wealth.


The president has said he will not seek another term in office in 2013 but has vowed to defend his regime "with every drop of blood".


Yemen has also been hit by a separatist movement in the south, attacks by a branch of al-Qaeda, and a periodic conflict with Shia tribes in the north.
Evacuation options 'limited'


The US Department of State said it had authorised the voluntary departure from Yemen of family members of US Embassy staff and non-essential personnel.


The upgraded travel warning follows an attack on Sunday by suspected al-Qaeda militants east of the capital Sanaa, in which four soldiers were reportedly killed.


Unidentified men opened fire on the soldiers as they passed in a truck near Marib, about 170km (110 miles) from the capital, a Yemeni official said.


Earlier this week, rebels say the army fired rockets at an anti-government protest in northern Yemen, killing two people.


"Should a crisis occur, evacuation options from Yemen would be extremely limited due to the lack of infrastructure, geographic constraints, and other security concerns," the state department said. 


It also said the US Embassy's ability to assist US citizens in the event of a crisis would be "very limited".

Players to be banned from wearing neck-warming snoods

Players to be banned from wearing neck-warming snoods

Snoods - the beloved neck warmers of precious and pampered footballers - have been banned by the International FA Board.

Initially made famous by a contingent of Manchester City players, including forward Carlos Tevez, snoods have become popular across the country and in all forms of the game.

But Tevez and company will now have do without the popular fashion accessory.

"The IFAB agreed that in relation to Law 4 - Players' Equipment, the wearing of snoods should not be permitted," said football's law makers.

In February, former England captain and current Notts County manager Paul Ince condemned Premier League footballers who wear snoods.

"I'm sick and tired of seeing players, even when it's mild weather, wearing tights and these things [snoods] around their necks. It's not right," Ince told BBC Sport.

"Back in my time, and I sound old now, it was black and white boots and that was it.

"Now you've got snoods, people wearing headphones when they are doing interviews, which I find disrespectful, pink boots, green boots, you name it they've got it, tights - they'll be wearing skirts next."

In December, Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson added: "Real men don't wear snoods."

And writing on Twitter, United defender Rio Ferdinand said: "U won't see a Man Utd player wearing a snood."

Former Old Trafford midfielder Roy Keane is also not a fan.

He said of players wearing the snood: "They've all gone soft. I don't know how they do it and focus on the game, it's weird. That's the way the game's gone."

But Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, who has a number of players in his squad that wear the neck warmer - including midfielder Samir Nasri - defended his players.

"I get advice from the medical team - that's why we let them wear them," the Arsenal boss told the club's website.