Connect with us

News

PREVIEW: Man City v Liverpool the big game, while Arsenal host Leeds in Premier League

FI

Published

on

LONDON, March 31 (Xinhua) — Arguably the biggest game of the weekend in the Premier League is the first to be played on Saturday, as Manchester City host Liverpool in a match that is vital for City’s title hopes and Liverpool’s chances of playing in next season’s Champions League.

Top scorer Erling Haaland could miss the game for Pep Guardiola’s side with a muscle problem and if he isn’t fit, Julian Alvarez will take his place. Meanwhile, Darwin Nunez is a doubt for Liverpool, while young midfielder Stefan Bajcetic, who played a part in Liverpool’s upturn in form, will miss the rest of the season.

City go into the match eight points behind leaders Arsenal, but with a game in hand, while Liverpool are sixth, five points behind Newcastle United and seven behind fourth-placed Tottenham.

Arsenal are at home to Leeds United, who have improved since the arrival of Javi Gracia as first-team coach and Patrick Bamford’s return to fitness.

Arsenal will be without striker Eddie Nketiah, but Gabriel Jesus should be able to lead the attack after making a couple of cameo appearances before the international break, as he looks to put the ankle injury he suffered in the World Cup behind him.

There is an intriguing game at Stamford Bridge as Chelsea entertain Aston Villa. Both sides looked to be coming into form before the break, with Chelsea finally beginning to show why they hired Graham Potter as head coach, with two wins and a draw from their last three games. Aston Villa have three wins and a draw from their last four matches to give themselves an outside chance at European football next season.

Both Brighton and Brentford can claim to be the surprise package of this season and seventh-placed Brighton take on the southwest London side in what promises to be an entertaining 90 minutes on the south coast.

95 miles west of Brighton, there will also be tension on the south coast when Bournemouth take on Fulham in a vital match for Bournemouth’s survival hopes. Fulham suffered a bad couple of weeks before the break, with two league defeats and a painful FA Cup exit to Manchester United, which saw forwards Willian and Aleksandar Mitrovic sent off along with coach Marco Silva. All three are suspended for Saturday and that could give Bournemouth the chance of three vital points.

75-year-old Roy Hodgson returns to the Crystal Palace dugout with the task of halting the slide that saw Patrick Vieira sacked a fortnight ago. Palace entertain Leicester City, who could drop into the bottom three if they lose at Selhurst Park on Saturday, with coach Brendan Rodgers another man in danger of losing his job.

Wolves coach Julen Lopetegui told his players this week to “embrace the pressure” of their battle against relegation, and there won’t be much more pressure than Saturday’s trip to Nottingham Forest, who have slipped back into danger after taking just one point from four games. Forest will hope to have striker Brennan Johnson fit as both they and Wolves struggle to score goals – each side has just 22 for the season.

Third-from-bottom West Ham entertain bottom side Southampton on Sunday, with home fans again asking coach David Moyes to play a more adventurous style of football and give more freedom to England midfielder Declan Rice.

Newcastle United take on Manchester United in Sunday’s other game, with Scott McTominay set to replace the suspended Casemiro for United, after having scored four goals in two games for Scotland during the break.

Meanwhile, Alexander Isak’s return to full fitness could be vital as Newcastle aim to build on wins against Nottingham Forest and Wolves.

The last game of the weekend is on Monday as Everton take on Tottenham, with all eyes on the visitors following Antonio Conte’s exit from the club last Sunday. Will his departure free up the Tottenham players, or will the lack of discipline the Italian complained about come back to haunt them?

Source(s): Xinhua

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World

How U.S. “de-risking” trick will jeopardize global economy

FI

Published

on

By

The so-called “de-risking” is, in essence, “de-sinicization” and “reversing globalization.”

The international community has issued stern warnings over the global risks caused by the “de-risking” rhetoric.

BEIJING, June 3 (Xinhua) — Despite its much hyped rhetoric of the so-called “looking to de-risk and diversify,” the United States has in deed hastened its scheme to “decouple from China.”

Now by roping in more allies, Washington seeks to forge a parallel system to shut China out from such fields as global economy and trade, as well as advanced technology.

Designed to hoodwink the world into the ostensible purpose of “de-risking,” Washington’s scheme may well incur enormous risks to the deeply-integrated global economy and supply chains, spurring further division and untended losses across the world.

Following the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima, Japan, the United States convened a so-called “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)” ministerial meeting on May 27, calling on trade ministers of 14 countries to form a council to coordinate supply chain activities and a so-called “Crisis Response Network” to give early warnings to “IPEF” countries of potential supply disruptions.

Four days later, the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) held its fourth ministerial meeting, in which America and the EU agreed to enhance collaboration “to address non-market policies, practices, and economic coercion.”

The United States, through these multilateral meetings, attempted to frame China as posing the alleged “potential risks,” so as to “de-risk” and in actuality contain China.

The so-called strategy of “de-risking,” as the Foreign Affairs magazine pointed out, aims to achieve three broad goals to contain China — limiting China’s abilities in strategic sectors that have national security implications, such as cutting-edge semiconductors and other advanced technologies; reducing Beijing’s leverage over the West by eroding Chinese dominance of the market for certain essential inputs, including critical minerals; and restricting the influence of the Chinese market in the world. The essence of “de-risking” is to create “a small yard with high fences” targeting China and make a more refined attempt to “decouple economies or sever supply chains,” with the aim of excluding and suppressing China.

The international community has issued stern warnings over the global risks caused by the “de-risking” rhetoric. Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has pointed out that “de-risking” instead of “decoupling” from China will also lead to a more fragmented and “decoupled” world economy, arguing that a fragmented global economy would split the world into mutually competing regional blocs, and there would be less trade, investment and the spread of ideas, all of which are key to the world’s economic progress.

So, is it actually feasible for the United States to promote “de-sinicization” in the name of “de-risking”? The answer is definitely no. There are at least three hurdles that the United States can hardly overcome.

First, it’s hard to change the mutually beneficial market structure for Chinese and U.S. companies. After all, it’s their nature for companies to pursue profits, and they will not blindly follow government orders that run against market rules. Second, for consumers, the absence of “Made in China” products would mean higher prices and more severe inflation. Finally, while Washington schemes to instigate allies to contain China together, it is not in the interest of most countries, including European nations, to do so and the costs would be extremely high.

The so-called “de-risking” is, in essence, “de-sinicization” and “reversing globalization.”

China is the world’s second-largest economy, a major trading partner of more than 140 countries and regions, and the largest manufacturing country. The world cannot do without China. Ignoring such reality, the United States has been coercing other countries into taking sides, which not only seriously disrupts the global market, but also threatens the stability of the global production and supply chain.

Besides, as China has developed ever-closer economic ties with the rest of the world, the cost of “de-risking” or “decoupling” from China is actually far greater than some countries can expect and afford. More importantly, for much of the world, China is not a risk but a source of opportunities.

Over the past four decades of reform and opening-up, China has accumulated huge advantages in infrastructure, market size, talent pool and industrial clusters. China has been a magnet for global commercial forces.

During his China visit in late May, Tesla’s founder Elon Musk praised the country’s vitality and potential, voiced confidence in the Chinese market, and expressed his willingness to deepen cooperation.

Echoing Musk, other international business tycoons like Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, and Laxman Narasimhan, new global CEO of the U.S. coffee giant Starbucks, have also expressed their hopes of expanding business in the world’s second-largest economy.

Under no circumstances could crafty word games, employed by Washington’s China hawks, serve to break market rules, cut industrial links, or block exchanges between China and other countries, let alone impede China’s peaceful development. Any attempt to alienate China from the rest of the world is fated to come to naught.

Source(s): Xinhua

Continue Reading

News

Nasheed touts parliamentary system as fix for delay in ministers’ response

FI

Published

on

By

Speaker Mohamed Nasheed stated during the parliamentary sitting Tuesday that switching to a parliamentary system is the solution to delays in response from government ministers to queries by MPs.

During Tuesday’s sitting, Thimarafushi MP Abdulla Riyaz expressed concern over the delay in getting a response from government ministers.

He said that while parliamentary regulations require ministers to respond to question from MPs within 14 days, ministers usually take two-three months to send a response.

Riyaz asked the Speaker to solve the issue.

“I called the Secretariat of the Parliament even yesterday, because of the lack of response to some of the questions I have sent. I was told the ministers hadn’t had time to send a response because they are so busy. I don’t believe the regulations states that ministers must send answers when they have the time,” he said.

Nasheed responded that he doesn’t believe the delay in response is from ministers alone, and said it would continue to be a recurrent problem so long as the Parliament doesn’t switch to a parliamentary system.

“All of you would agree that expediting this requires changing the entire system of the Parliament. This will continue to happen as long as the Parliament does not switch to a parliamentary system,” he said.

MPs are waiting for answers to 45 questions from ministers, 22 of them in writing.

Nasheed said the Parliament will not be able to clear the backlog even if 10 ministers are summoned for questioning in a single day.

Nasheed has long advocated for a parliamentary system in Maldives, something which he often finds himself at odds with other political leaders over.

Source(s): sun.mv

Continue Reading

World

Sri Lanka to require heavy metals report for fruit imports

FI

Published

on

By

COLOMBO, May 30 (Xinhua) — Importers of fruit into Sri Lanka will be required to obtain a report on heavy metals starting from June 1 as part of the country’s efforts to improve food safety, the Health Ministry said on Tuesday.

The new requirement came after a recent survey by the Sri Lankan Ministry of Health, which found that many imported fruit samples were contaminated with lead, the ministry said in a statement.

The heavy metals report must come from an accredited and independent laboratory from the exporting country and will be a mandatory requirement for the release of fruit consignments into the country.

Importers are advised not to import any fruit with heavy metals above the Codex levels, as they will be rejected at the port of entry, said the ministry.

The country has been working to strengthen its food safety regulations in recent years, in response to concerns about the safety of imported food.

Source(s): Xinhua

Continue Reading

Trending