Thousands of British women desperate to have a child are going abroad every year to have fertility treatment in order to avoid NHS waiting lists and a shortage of donated eggs.
The numbers are increasing because foreign clinics cost less than British ones, treatment is available within weeks and more older women are seeking to become mothers when their fertility is declining.
The growing international trade in "fertility tourism" has been highlighted by the case of Elizabeth Adeney, the 66-year-old Suffolk woman due to give birth after receiving fertility treatment at a private clinic in Ukraine. She is set to become Britain's oldest mother, succeeding psychiatrist Patricia Rashbrook, who had a son in 2006 when she was 62.
No data is kept on the number of British women who seek fertility treatment in countries such as Spain, Greece, Russia, the US and India.
But Lorraine Culley, professor of social science and health at De Montfort University who is leading a new government-funded study of the subject, said it may be in the thousands. "We've come across one clinic here that sent 90 women abroad inside a few months," she said.
Culley and colleagues from three other universities have recently begun the first academic inquiry into British women seeking transnational reproduction, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. They will be interviewing scores of people with fertility problems to get more detailed information.
Couples here are able to exploit the fact that, in some countries, women who choose to donate eggs can be paid, said Culley, with some donors in America receiving up to $10,000. In Britain, by contrast, tight regulation of fertility means egg donors receive only expenses.
"All the evidence is that cross-border reproductive care is growing. Women here do this for all sorts of reasons," she said. "There is a serious shortage of eggs, donated sperm is in shorter supply than before, the cost can be cheaper abroad and some people want IVF which they can't get on the NHS."
The only previous study, conducted last year by the charity Infertility Network UK, found that 76% of the 339 respondents said they would consider going abroad for treatment.
Professor Valery Zukin, Ukraine's representative at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, said 10% of the patients at the Nadiya clinic he runs in Kiev were from abroad. His clinic treats 10-15 women a year now, compared with five or six in 2006. Most come to receive eggs donated by young Ukrainian women, and the others for IVF. "The oldest British woman we have treated was about 50, but usually they are aged 37 to 49. It's perfectly legal to treat a woman of 66, but I wouldn't treat anyone older than 50 or 51, unless in except circumstances," he said.
Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society of specialist doctors, estimated that thousands of women travelled abroad annually because of frustration with delays of many years to receive a donated egg or a year to receive donated sperm in the UK. "The depressing postcode lottery in NHS fertility treatment means there are people who aren't happy with what the NHS locally feels it can offer," he said.
But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said procedures at some foreign clinics may not be safe, success rates may have been exaggerated and a child born as a result of the treatment may never be able to find out about any half-siblings it has because such information is not routinely available elsewhere. "There are clear risks," said a spokeswoman.
Pacey said some couples were deliberately going abroad in order to get round British law which, in 2005, gave any child born from then on as a result of egg, sperm or embryo donation the right once it turned 18 to find out the name and contact details of the donor.
Isobel O'Neill, a fertility counsellor in Glasgow, said couples seeking a donated egg who visit the Glasgow Royal Infirmary are told there is a six- or seven-year wait for one on the NHS. Even those willing to pay at the private Glasgow Centre for Reproductive Medicine, where she also works, face a delay of up to a year.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Role of British diplomats in Tamil leaders' failed surrender bid
British diplomats were involved in last- minute attempts to secure the surrender of two of the Tamil Tigers' most senior political figures as the war in Sri Lanka reached its climax, one of the UN's top officials revealed.
The plan backfired spectacularly when the two men were shot dead as they tried to give themselves up to the Sri Lankan army. Balasingham Nadesan, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's political leader, and Seevaratnam Pulidevan, head of its peace secretariat, were killed in the early hours of Monday despite the involvement of British officials and the UN secretary general's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, in the delicate negotiations.
Britain insists its involvement was at most indirect. "We made no specific representations on behalf of members of the LTTE but we consistently urged the UN to play an active role in mediating an end to the conflict, including protecting civilian lives," a senior British official said.
While British diplomats were part of a chain of intermediaries between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers, sources rubbished suggestions that they had tried directly to negotiate a deal.
Nambiar said he had "direct contact" with British diplomats at the UN in New York and with a British minister, but declined to give further details of the conversations. "There was a ministerial demarche [a formal diplomatic representation] to the secretary general from the UK office in New York," he said.
The initial contact from the LTTE is understood to have been made through a British journalist. "I received a telephone call through the situation centre in New York asking me to convey certain messages to the [Sri Lankan] government," Nambiar said. He said he passed on the information to the Sri Lankan authorities and spoke to the Sri Lankan foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona, about the matter.
But he said the attempts were unsuccessful: "The Sri Lankan government did not say that they would accept the surrender. They said it may be too late."
Sri Lankan officials have previously accused Britain of meddling in the war and of exhibiting pro-Tamil bias. Demonstrations were mounted outside the British high commission in Colombo following a controversial visit by David Miliband, the foreign secretary.
Unlike the Tamil Tigers leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, who was killed by government troops on Monday, many of the so-called "civilian members" of the LTTE wanted to hand themselves in. They are also understood to have contacted the Norwegian environment minister, Erik Solheim, who had led previous attempts to broker a ceasefire. He then contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sri Lankan government.
The Sri Lankan authorities have confirmed that they were aware of the surrender offer and that they had been in contact with an aid organisation which had passed on a number of messages from the LTTE men. A text message from the foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona, to the Red Cross read: "Just walk across to the troops, slowly! With a white flag and comply with instructions carefully. The soldiers are nervous about suicide bombers."
The LTTE's head of international relations, S Pathmanathan, said that the men did so, but were shot by the Sri Lankan soldiers. The Sri Lankan military disputes this, claiming that they had been shot by their own forces.
The Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, said to a crowd of thousands at a victory rally: "They wanted to take [us] to international criminal courts. Some are trying to do this even now. But I am not afraid of walking up to any gallows, having defeated the world's worst terrorists."
The first release of official Sri Lankan casualty figures said 6,260 soldiers, sailors and policemen were killed in the latest round of fighting that began in 2006. Nearly 30,000 were wounded.
The plan backfired spectacularly when the two men were shot dead as they tried to give themselves up to the Sri Lankan army. Balasingham Nadesan, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's political leader, and Seevaratnam Pulidevan, head of its peace secretariat, were killed in the early hours of Monday despite the involvement of British officials and the UN secretary general's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, in the delicate negotiations.
Britain insists its involvement was at most indirect. "We made no specific representations on behalf of members of the LTTE but we consistently urged the UN to play an active role in mediating an end to the conflict, including protecting civilian lives," a senior British official said.
While British diplomats were part of a chain of intermediaries between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers, sources rubbished suggestions that they had tried directly to negotiate a deal.
Nambiar said he had "direct contact" with British diplomats at the UN in New York and with a British minister, but declined to give further details of the conversations. "There was a ministerial demarche [a formal diplomatic representation] to the secretary general from the UK office in New York," he said.
The initial contact from the LTTE is understood to have been made through a British journalist. "I received a telephone call through the situation centre in New York asking me to convey certain messages to the [Sri Lankan] government," Nambiar said. He said he passed on the information to the Sri Lankan authorities and spoke to the Sri Lankan foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona, about the matter.
But he said the attempts were unsuccessful: "The Sri Lankan government did not say that they would accept the surrender. They said it may be too late."
Sri Lankan officials have previously accused Britain of meddling in the war and of exhibiting pro-Tamil bias. Demonstrations were mounted outside the British high commission in Colombo following a controversial visit by David Miliband, the foreign secretary.
Unlike the Tamil Tigers leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, who was killed by government troops on Monday, many of the so-called "civilian members" of the LTTE wanted to hand themselves in. They are also understood to have contacted the Norwegian environment minister, Erik Solheim, who had led previous attempts to broker a ceasefire. He then contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sri Lankan government.
The Sri Lankan authorities have confirmed that they were aware of the surrender offer and that they had been in contact with an aid organisation which had passed on a number of messages from the LTTE men. A text message from the foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona, to the Red Cross read: "Just walk across to the troops, slowly! With a white flag and comply with instructions carefully. The soldiers are nervous about suicide bombers."
The LTTE's head of international relations, S Pathmanathan, said that the men did so, but were shot by the Sri Lankan soldiers. The Sri Lankan military disputes this, claiming that they had been shot by their own forces.
The Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, said to a crowd of thousands at a victory rally: "They wanted to take [us] to international criminal courts. Some are trying to do this even now. But I am not afraid of walking up to any gallows, having defeated the world's worst terrorists."
The first release of official Sri Lankan casualty figures said 6,260 soldiers, sailors and policemen were killed in the latest round of fighting that began in 2006. Nearly 30,000 were wounded.
Gordon Brown should call 2009 election, say two-thirds of voters
The political crisis caused by the ongoing revelations of MPs' expenses claims has resulted in two-thirds of voters now saying Gordon Brown should call a general election before Christmas, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today.
More than half of voters believe the prime minister must go to the country before the process of constitutional change can begin, and more than a third of respondents believe that an election should be held as soon as possible.
The poll also finds that more than a quarter of voters are planning to reject the Westminster establishment in next month's European elections in favour of minority parties.
The findings reflect deep-seated public anger over the way politicians have played the allowances system and spent taxpayers' money, and they come as revelations about MPs' expenses claims continued to send shockwaves through Westminster.
Last night former SAS man John Wick publicly admitted that he was the go-between who took a computer disk containing the expenses information from an unnamed source to the Daily Telegraph. He said he hoped his actions would create "a better parliament".
Yesterday the Labour party announced that the Norwich North MP, Ian Gibson, will become the fourth to be referred to its national executive committee after it emerged he had claimed parliamentary expenses on a flat where his daughter was living. Gibson subsequently sold the flat to his daughter at a knockdown price.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, meanwhile slapped down two backbenchers, Nadine Dorries and Anthony Steen, who complained about how details of MPs' expenses are being made public.
Commenting on a blog written by Dorries speculating about MPs killing themselves over the crisis, Cameron said MPs ought to be worried about what their constituents think. And, asked about Steen's radio interview saying "jealousy" explained why voters were so angry, Cameron said: "One more squeak like that and he will have the whip taken away from him so fast his feet won't touch the ground." Cameron yesterday renewed his call for an early poll.
In an interview in the Guardian today, the new archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, attacks "fallible and flawed" MPs, saying they "have fiddled their system" and given in to the "easy temptation to greed". "The challenge is not to hide behind the rules, but to manifest the kind of virtue that we need," said Nichols.
Yesterday in the Times the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, acknowledged the gravity of the scandal, but added: "Many will now be wondering whether the point has not been adequately made: the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy."
The poll found that 36% of respondents believe an election should be held as soon as possible. Another 30% said they wanted an election before Christmas – suggesting that two-thirds of voters want to go to the polls in 2009.
Only 30% said the election should be delayed until 2010 (Gordon Brown cannot leave it later than June 2010). 55% said they believe Brown should go to the country before the process of constitutional reform could begin. Unsurprisingly, Tories were most in favour of an early election, with 48% of those who voted Tory in 2005 favouring an early poll, but one in four Labour voters also said they wanted a poll soon.
Though Brown has unveiled plans to replace parliament's centuries-old system of self-regulation, only 31% of voters believe that these moves will be enough.
ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults aged 18+ by telephone between 20 and 21 May 2009. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
More than half of voters believe the prime minister must go to the country before the process of constitutional change can begin, and more than a third of respondents believe that an election should be held as soon as possible.
The poll also finds that more than a quarter of voters are planning to reject the Westminster establishment in next month's European elections in favour of minority parties.
The findings reflect deep-seated public anger over the way politicians have played the allowances system and spent taxpayers' money, and they come as revelations about MPs' expenses claims continued to send shockwaves through Westminster.
Last night former SAS man John Wick publicly admitted that he was the go-between who took a computer disk containing the expenses information from an unnamed source to the Daily Telegraph. He said he hoped his actions would create "a better parliament".
Yesterday the Labour party announced that the Norwich North MP, Ian Gibson, will become the fourth to be referred to its national executive committee after it emerged he had claimed parliamentary expenses on a flat where his daughter was living. Gibson subsequently sold the flat to his daughter at a knockdown price.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, meanwhile slapped down two backbenchers, Nadine Dorries and Anthony Steen, who complained about how details of MPs' expenses are being made public.
Commenting on a blog written by Dorries speculating about MPs killing themselves over the crisis, Cameron said MPs ought to be worried about what their constituents think. And, asked about Steen's radio interview saying "jealousy" explained why voters were so angry, Cameron said: "One more squeak like that and he will have the whip taken away from him so fast his feet won't touch the ground." Cameron yesterday renewed his call for an early poll.
In an interview in the Guardian today, the new archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, attacks "fallible and flawed" MPs, saying they "have fiddled their system" and given in to the "easy temptation to greed". "The challenge is not to hide behind the rules, but to manifest the kind of virtue that we need," said Nichols.
Yesterday in the Times the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, acknowledged the gravity of the scandal, but added: "Many will now be wondering whether the point has not been adequately made: the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy."
The poll found that 36% of respondents believe an election should be held as soon as possible. Another 30% said they wanted an election before Christmas – suggesting that two-thirds of voters want to go to the polls in 2009.
Only 30% said the election should be delayed until 2010 (Gordon Brown cannot leave it later than June 2010). 55% said they believe Brown should go to the country before the process of constitutional reform could begin. Unsurprisingly, Tories were most in favour of an early election, with 48% of those who voted Tory in 2005 favouring an early poll, but one in four Labour voters also said they wanted a poll soon.
Though Brown has unveiled plans to replace parliament's centuries-old system of self-regulation, only 31% of voters believe that these moves will be enough.
ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults aged 18+ by telephone between 20 and 21 May 2009. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Cigarette makers lose US appeal
A US appeals court has largely upheld a landmark ruling that cigarette makers lied about the health risks of smoking.
Washington's Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by tobacco firms against a 2006 decision that banned labels such as "low tar" and "light".
Companies including Philip Morris USA were found guilty of racketeering and fraud over the issue.
Judges upheld the previous ruling, but excluded one firm and two trade groups from their judgement.
They ruled that the trade bodies - Council for Tobacco Research-USA and Tobacco Institute - had not made or sold products, so could be excluded.
And the firm Liggett was excused because it had co-operated with the authorities and acknowledged health risks.
But the judges rejected an argument from the other tobacco firms that they had never claimed that "light" cigarettes were less harmful.
"Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive," Friday's ruling said.
Denials
The 2006 ruling said firms had set up a "gentlemen's agreement" not to compete over whose cigarettes were the least damaging to health.
Lawyers for the tobacco companies denied that they had conspired to avoid public discussion of health risks.
The original ruling also required firms to issue "corrective statements" about health effects and addiction.
It has not been applied while the case has been under appeal.
Murray Garnick, lawyer for tobacco firm Altria - the parent company of Philip Morris - said the court's ruling was "not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial".
"We believe the exceptional importance of these issues justifies further review," he said.
Other companies that were contesting the 2006 ruling included British American Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, and Brown & Williamson Tobacco.
The companies are now likely to take their appeal before the US Supreme Court, although commentators say that their chances of success are slim.
In a decision last December on an unrelated case, the Supreme Court ruled that smokers can sue tobacco firms over the misleading marketing of "light" or "low tar" cigarettes
Washington's Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by tobacco firms against a 2006 decision that banned labels such as "low tar" and "light".
Companies including Philip Morris USA were found guilty of racketeering and fraud over the issue.
Judges upheld the previous ruling, but excluded one firm and two trade groups from their judgement.
They ruled that the trade bodies - Council for Tobacco Research-USA and Tobacco Institute - had not made or sold products, so could be excluded.
And the firm Liggett was excused because it had co-operated with the authorities and acknowledged health risks.
But the judges rejected an argument from the other tobacco firms that they had never claimed that "light" cigarettes were less harmful.
"Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive," Friday's ruling said.
Denials
The 2006 ruling said firms had set up a "gentlemen's agreement" not to compete over whose cigarettes were the least damaging to health.
Lawyers for the tobacco companies denied that they had conspired to avoid public discussion of health risks.
The original ruling also required firms to issue "corrective statements" about health effects and addiction.
It has not been applied while the case has been under appeal.
Murray Garnick, lawyer for tobacco firm Altria - the parent company of Philip Morris - said the court's ruling was "not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial".
"We believe the exceptional importance of these issues justifies further review," he said.
Other companies that were contesting the 2006 ruling included British American Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, and Brown & Williamson Tobacco.
The companies are now likely to take their appeal before the US Supreme Court, although commentators say that their chances of success are slim.
In a decision last December on an unrelated case, the Supreme Court ruled that smokers can sue tobacco firms over the misleading marketing of "light" or "low tar" cigarettes
Burma's Suu Kyi claims innocence
Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, on trial for breaking the terms of her house arrest, has told a court she committed no crime, her lawyer says.
She spoke after five days of evidence from prosecution witnesses.
The UN Security Council has renewed demands for all political prisoners to be freed and called on Burma's military rulers to open talks with Ms Suu Kyi.
She had been due for release on 27 May, but the charges she faces carry a maximum of five years in jail.
The authorities say she breached the conditions of her latest period of house arrest by allowing US national John Yettaw to stay in her home.
Observers say Burma's military rulers are using the charges as a pretext to keep her in jail during a general election scheduled for next year.
Rapid prosecution
In a press statement, the Security Council called for all political prisoners to be freed and to "create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue" with Ms Suu Kyi and other political groups.
"The members of the Security Council express their concern about the political impact of recent developments related to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi," the statement said.
Ms Suu Kyi's lawyer, Nyan Win, said the presiding judge officially accepted the charges against her at the end of the prosecution case - which came much more rapidly than people had thought it would.
Prosecutors had been expected to call 22 witnesses, but the lawyer told the BBC's Burmese service that in the event far fewer had actually taken the stand.
He said the judge asked Ms Suu Kyi whether she was guilty, and she replied: "I have no guilt as I didn't commit any crime."
The trial, which is being held behind closed doors at Rangoon's Insein jail, is expected resume on Monday when her defence will present its case.
'Assassination dream'
Mr Yettaw, who swam across a lake to reach her house, is also on trial in Insein jail.
He is reported to have testified that he made the visit because he had dreamt that she was going to be assassinated.
Ms Suu Kyi's lawyers say she tried to send the man away but he refused to go.
He was then allowed to stay only because he said he was exhausted.
The ruling generals say the incident was a stunt designed to embarrass the government.
Foreign Minister Nyan Win was quoted as saying the incident had been fabricated by "internal and external anti-government elements" to "intensify international pressure" on the regime.
International condemnation
Ms Suu Kyi's trial opened on Monday behind closed doors.
Burma's ruling junta allowed some diplomats and journalists into the proceedings on Wednesday, only to bar them again the following day.
Governments and rights groups have condemned the trial - and diplomats have said they expect Ms Suu Kyi to be found guilty.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years.
The party she leads, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won the country's last general election in 1990 - but she was never allowed to take power.
The ruling generals have scheduled an election for next year - but have written a new constitution which carves out a major role for the military in any new government.
She spoke after five days of evidence from prosecution witnesses.
The UN Security Council has renewed demands for all political prisoners to be freed and called on Burma's military rulers to open talks with Ms Suu Kyi.
She had been due for release on 27 May, but the charges she faces carry a maximum of five years in jail.
The authorities say she breached the conditions of her latest period of house arrest by allowing US national John Yettaw to stay in her home.
Observers say Burma's military rulers are using the charges as a pretext to keep her in jail during a general election scheduled for next year.
Rapid prosecution
In a press statement, the Security Council called for all political prisoners to be freed and to "create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue" with Ms Suu Kyi and other political groups.
"The members of the Security Council express their concern about the political impact of recent developments related to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi," the statement said.
Ms Suu Kyi's lawyer, Nyan Win, said the presiding judge officially accepted the charges against her at the end of the prosecution case - which came much more rapidly than people had thought it would.
Prosecutors had been expected to call 22 witnesses, but the lawyer told the BBC's Burmese service that in the event far fewer had actually taken the stand.
He said the judge asked Ms Suu Kyi whether she was guilty, and she replied: "I have no guilt as I didn't commit any crime."
The trial, which is being held behind closed doors at Rangoon's Insein jail, is expected resume on Monday when her defence will present its case.
'Assassination dream'
Mr Yettaw, who swam across a lake to reach her house, is also on trial in Insein jail.
He is reported to have testified that he made the visit because he had dreamt that she was going to be assassinated.
Ms Suu Kyi's lawyers say she tried to send the man away but he refused to go.
He was then allowed to stay only because he said he was exhausted.
The ruling generals say the incident was a stunt designed to embarrass the government.
Foreign Minister Nyan Win was quoted as saying the incident had been fabricated by "internal and external anti-government elements" to "intensify international pressure" on the regime.
International condemnation
Ms Suu Kyi's trial opened on Monday behind closed doors.
Burma's ruling junta allowed some diplomats and journalists into the proceedings on Wednesday, only to bar them again the following day.
Governments and rights groups have condemned the trial - and diplomats have said they expect Ms Suu Kyi to be found guilty.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years.
The party she leads, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won the country's last general election in 1990 - but she was never allowed to take power.
The ruling generals have scheduled an election for next year - but have written a new constitution which carves out a major role for the military in any new government.
How Sri Lanka's military won
Few believed him when Sri Lanka's powerful defence secretary said he required three years to defeat the once invincible Tamil Tiger rebels.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa made the assertion, the Tamil Tigers, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE], controlled nearly one third of the country, had a well-organised, ruthless fighting unit, sufficient stocks of heavy weapons, a small navy and a rudimentary air force.
They had no problems of fresh supplies as they had enough resources pouring in from their supporters abroad and through their commercial ventures.
Only a handful of military analysts believed that the rebels could be wiped out completely.
Today, Sri Lanka is among the few nations that can say it has successfully quelled a nearly three-decade insurgency by military means.
The entire rebel-held territory has been captured, huge caches of weapons have been recovered and destroyed, and the entire Tamil Tiger leadership is thought to have been wiped out.
So what led to the military success of a force that had been at the receiving end for many years?
'No ambiguity'
"So many factors have contributed to the success of the Sri Lankan forces. There was a clear aim and mandate from the political level to the official level and to the military level to destroy the LTTE at any cost. There was no ambiguity in that," Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the BBC.
When the current president, his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, came to power in 2005, he made it clear that he would go all out against the rebels if they were not sincere in peace talks.
Once the peace process failed, he gave the go ahead for the war to his brother and the hard line army commander Gen Sarath Fonseka.
A massive recruitment drive for the armed forces was launched (it increased from about 80,000 to more than 160,000). New weapons, including fighter jets, artillery guns and multi-barrel rocket launchers were bought from countries like China, Pakistan and Russia and new military strategies and tactics were evolved.
"That was the time when the international community was totally disappointed with the rebels because of their insincerity in peace talks. So countries like India and the US gave their tacit support for the all-out offensive against the LTTE," says Sri Lankan analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
Hostilities between the two sides broke out first in Eastern Province in August 2006. After months of intense battles, the government declared it had completely dislodged the rebels from the east.
One of the main reasons for the rebels' eastern debacle was the split in 2004 - when the Tigers' influential eastern commander, Col Karuna, broke away because of differences with the leadership.
"The LTTE could never recover from that. Thousands of fighters went away with Karuna and the LTTE could not recruit fresh cadres from the east, dealing a severe blow to their manpower. They struggled hard to replace fallen cadres in the subsequent northern battle," says Col R Hariharan, former chief of military intelligence of the Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1990.
It was only a matter of time before the Sri Lankan military launched the second phase of its offensive to recapture the rebel strongholds in the north.
In the meantime, the Sri Lankan navy had also hunted and destroyed many Tamil Tiger supply ships in deep seas, dealing a crucial blow to the rebels.
Battlefield plans
The army also changed its tactics and became better able to cope with the kind of warfare waged by the guerrillas.
Small teams of commandoes were sent behind enemy lines to carry out attacks against rebel leaders and key defence lines.
The military also started to stretch them thin by opening up a number of fronts in the north.
The Tamil Tigers had no answer to the bombing missions by air force jets.
"The rebels never knew about the battlefield plans. We surprised them in many areas. For example, they didn't expect me to capture the strategically important town of Paranthan, near Kilinochchi, by outflanking them," Brig Shavendra Silva, commander of the Sri Lankan army's 58th division, told the BBC in a recent interview from the frontline.
The capture of Paranthan forced the rebels to withdraw from the strategically important Elephant Pass, a small land bridge that connects northern Jaffna peninsula with the rest of the country.
From Paranthan, Sri Lankan security forces battled their way into the Tamil Tiger de-facto capital of Kilinochchi.
The 58th division, which is credited with a series of military successes against the rebels, battled hard to forge ahead from Mannar up to Matalan beach on the eastern coast in Mullaitivu district.
"It was not an easy walk. But we went ahead with a huge momentum and kept our pace and there were clear-cut instructions and leadership from our superiors," Brig Silva said.
But many argue that the military's success has come at an enormous humanitarian cost.
The UN believes that nearly 7,000 civilians may have been killed and 13,000 injured in the conflict since January.
Aid agencies say around 275,000 people have been displaced.
A number of villages and towns have either been damaged or destroyed.
Both the military and the rebels are being accused of gross violations of international humanitarian law. The two sides deny the charges.
"The Sri Lankan military juggernaut cruised ahead despite mounting civilian casualties. The rebels thought the international community, especially neighbouring India, would intervene looking at the civilian suffering and bring about a ceasefire in the final stages. When that did not happen, they ran out of options," says Mr Jeyaraj.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa made the assertion, the Tamil Tigers, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE], controlled nearly one third of the country, had a well-organised, ruthless fighting unit, sufficient stocks of heavy weapons, a small navy and a rudimentary air force.
They had no problems of fresh supplies as they had enough resources pouring in from their supporters abroad and through their commercial ventures.
Only a handful of military analysts believed that the rebels could be wiped out completely.
Today, Sri Lanka is among the few nations that can say it has successfully quelled a nearly three-decade insurgency by military means.
The entire rebel-held territory has been captured, huge caches of weapons have been recovered and destroyed, and the entire Tamil Tiger leadership is thought to have been wiped out.
So what led to the military success of a force that had been at the receiving end for many years?
'No ambiguity'
"So many factors have contributed to the success of the Sri Lankan forces. There was a clear aim and mandate from the political level to the official level and to the military level to destroy the LTTE at any cost. There was no ambiguity in that," Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the BBC.
When the current president, his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, came to power in 2005, he made it clear that he would go all out against the rebels if they were not sincere in peace talks.
Once the peace process failed, he gave the go ahead for the war to his brother and the hard line army commander Gen Sarath Fonseka.
A massive recruitment drive for the armed forces was launched (it increased from about 80,000 to more than 160,000). New weapons, including fighter jets, artillery guns and multi-barrel rocket launchers were bought from countries like China, Pakistan and Russia and new military strategies and tactics were evolved.
"That was the time when the international community was totally disappointed with the rebels because of their insincerity in peace talks. So countries like India and the US gave their tacit support for the all-out offensive against the LTTE," says Sri Lankan analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
Hostilities between the two sides broke out first in Eastern Province in August 2006. After months of intense battles, the government declared it had completely dislodged the rebels from the east.
One of the main reasons for the rebels' eastern debacle was the split in 2004 - when the Tigers' influential eastern commander, Col Karuna, broke away because of differences with the leadership.
"The LTTE could never recover from that. Thousands of fighters went away with Karuna and the LTTE could not recruit fresh cadres from the east, dealing a severe blow to their manpower. They struggled hard to replace fallen cadres in the subsequent northern battle," says Col R Hariharan, former chief of military intelligence of the Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1990.
It was only a matter of time before the Sri Lankan military launched the second phase of its offensive to recapture the rebel strongholds in the north.
In the meantime, the Sri Lankan navy had also hunted and destroyed many Tamil Tiger supply ships in deep seas, dealing a crucial blow to the rebels.
Battlefield plans
The army also changed its tactics and became better able to cope with the kind of warfare waged by the guerrillas.
Small teams of commandoes were sent behind enemy lines to carry out attacks against rebel leaders and key defence lines.
The military also started to stretch them thin by opening up a number of fronts in the north.
The Tamil Tigers had no answer to the bombing missions by air force jets.
"The rebels never knew about the battlefield plans. We surprised them in many areas. For example, they didn't expect me to capture the strategically important town of Paranthan, near Kilinochchi, by outflanking them," Brig Shavendra Silva, commander of the Sri Lankan army's 58th division, told the BBC in a recent interview from the frontline.
The capture of Paranthan forced the rebels to withdraw from the strategically important Elephant Pass, a small land bridge that connects northern Jaffna peninsula with the rest of the country.
From Paranthan, Sri Lankan security forces battled their way into the Tamil Tiger de-facto capital of Kilinochchi.
The 58th division, which is credited with a series of military successes against the rebels, battled hard to forge ahead from Mannar up to Matalan beach on the eastern coast in Mullaitivu district.
"It was not an easy walk. But we went ahead with a huge momentum and kept our pace and there were clear-cut instructions and leadership from our superiors," Brig Silva said.
But many argue that the military's success has come at an enormous humanitarian cost.
The UN believes that nearly 7,000 civilians may have been killed and 13,000 injured in the conflict since January.
Aid agencies say around 275,000 people have been displaced.
A number of villages and towns have either been damaged or destroyed.
Both the military and the rebels are being accused of gross violations of international humanitarian law. The two sides deny the charges.
"The Sri Lankan military juggernaut cruised ahead despite mounting civilian casualties. The rebels thought the international community, especially neighbouring India, would intervene looking at the civilian suffering and bring about a ceasefire in the final stages. When that did not happen, they ran out of options," says Mr Jeyaraj.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Varun Gandhi 'misbehaves' with journalists
Controversy is not leaving the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) poster boy Varun Gandhi. Hogging the limelight for sometime for his alleged anti-Muslim speeches, the young Lok Sabha MP is now caught in a row with journalists.
A group of Uttar Pradesh scribes Thursday accused Varun Gandhi, the BJP MP from Pilibhit of "misbehaviour" and sought security from the Pilibhit district administration while covering his programmes.
About 30 journalists from different media houses submitted a memorandum at the district magistrate's office.
"We have asked the district administration to provide security to media persons during programmes of Varun Gandhi," president of Pilibhit Journalist Association Mohan Kumar told IANS.
Kumar alleged that Varun Gandhi misbehaved with some reporters May 19 when they approached him for his comments over the BJP's poor performance in the state.
"Varun got angry and he along with his security personnel even attacked journalists of some TV news channels. Varun also damaged the camera of a TV journalist," Kumar said.
District magistrate Ajay Chauhan said he was yet to receive the memorandum. "From local newspapers I have come to know that Varun Gandhi allegedly manhandled some journalists," Chauhan told IANS.
"We will take steps accordingly after going through the memorandum," he added.
A group of Uttar Pradesh scribes Thursday accused Varun Gandhi, the BJP MP from Pilibhit of "misbehaviour" and sought security from the Pilibhit district administration while covering his programmes.
About 30 journalists from different media houses submitted a memorandum at the district magistrate's office.
"We have asked the district administration to provide security to media persons during programmes of Varun Gandhi," president of Pilibhit Journalist Association Mohan Kumar told IANS.
Kumar alleged that Varun Gandhi misbehaved with some reporters May 19 when they approached him for his comments over the BJP's poor performance in the state.
"Varun got angry and he along with his security personnel even attacked journalists of some TV news channels. Varun also damaged the camera of a TV journalist," Kumar said.
District magistrate Ajay Chauhan said he was yet to receive the memorandum. "From local newspapers I have come to know that Varun Gandhi allegedly manhandled some journalists," Chauhan told IANS.
"We will take steps accordingly after going through the memorandum," he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)