Last year's winner of the Sakharov Prize Salih Mahmoud Osman from Sudan's conflict-torn region of Darfur was in Parliament on 15 December to commemorate the work of those who champion human rights. He said what is happening in Darfur is worse than Rwanda and called on China, in particular, to review its policy there.

 

 

We should always be optimistic about the future. Though today it is very frustrating; my region Darfur is torn apart by ethnicity...More than 4 million people have been forcibly displaced, are living in camps, and are not able to go back to their homes. Even in the camps they are targeted by the Janjaweed and Government soldiers – even in broad daylight and in front of the UN and African Union forces.

 

 

The ceasefire is not there. Aerial bombardments continue; the government is indiscriminately bombarding villages, markets, schools, wells and killing people. This is happening in front of everybody in the world. Victims see no action by the international community to protect the innocent.

 

Without the help of the international community, 5 million people would not be alive today. But it's not enough to feed them in the camps; it is also about their hope to go back to their homes. By confining them to camps we are establishing ethnic cleansing. Their depopulated land is now occupied by Janjaweed coming from elsewhere.

 

 

In Darfur we are talking about war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide...The international community said "never again" to Rwanda, but what is happening in Darfur is worse than Rwanda.

 

Sometimes people say to me, don't talk about justice and accountability because it will jeopardise the peace process...On the contrary, it is justice that will stop perpetrators. Without justice we establish the culture of impunity which is already there.

 

Justice can make a difference. Contrary to what was feared, the recent application by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (to bring before it members of the Sudanese government)  made the situation more suitable for peace talks. For the first time the government is talking about peace initiatives and reforms to our judicial system.

 

 

Absolutely; this prize is a great help for us human rights defenders and can actually protect us. Every recipient had the support of the citizens of the 27 countries; it will be a great support also for Hu Jia...and puts pressure on China to review its human rights record. 

 

China has been undermining the lives of millions of people of Darfur for a long time by siding with the Sudanese government and through aerial bombardments caused by Chinese helicopter gunships. In the UN Security Council, China has blocked resolutions on Darfur.

 

China today has the monopoly over our resources and its economic interests are undermining basic human rights and dignity in Darfur. It has moral, legal and ethical responsibilities towards the whole international community. But instead, China turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to gross violations like genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

 

The people of Darfur, the survivors, are very much surprised that China is against their interests. I hope China will review its policy. The humanitarian situation in Darfur is overwhelming to the extent that everybody everywhere in the world is supportive of the case of Darfur, except China.

 

 

Adem Demaçi has spent 28 years in jail for criticising Yugoslavia's treatment of its Albanian minority. For this the Kosovar writer and politician was nominated for the Nobel peace prize and awarded the European Parliament's Sakharov prize in 1991. He remained in Kosovo during the war in 1998-99 as a political representative of the Kosovo Liberation Army. We caught up with him in Strasbourg on 15 December.

 

On his emotions when Kosovo declared its independence: "I have mixed emotions due to the attitude of Russia" (which resisted the declaration of independence).

 

"I would like to see UN Security Council resolution 1244 (which leaves control of Kosovo under a UN special representative) annulled."

 

On the mandate for independence the 72-year-old was emphatic: "People must recognise the democratic will of  95% of the people of Kosovo."

 

On the future of Kosovo and whether it will join the EU one day: "We are trying to join NATO which is a more realistic goal in the short-term...people in Kosovo have always considered themselves as part of Europe so they feel European."

 

Mr Demaçi thanked "our great friend the United States" for helping the country achieve statehood and international recognition.

 

On the Sakharov prize: "I feel the European Parliament has not utilised the human capital that it has with the winners of the prize."

 

"Human rights were not being violated inside the EU - therefore most people had not suffered personally in promoting human rights. So the experiences of those people - past Sakharov laureates - who had risked everything is very valuable."

 

His message to 2008 Sakharov winner Hu Jia: "a political prize from such an institution as the European parliament is important in raising awareness of what he is fighting for."

 

He said rather than just awarding the prize and then forgetting his fate, the West must constantly remind people that Hu Jia is still not free.

 

Weekly reports on "TV, radio and in the newspapers would be the right way to get the message across".

 

Mr Demaçi added that "dictatorships thrive by promoting a culture of forgetting and it is important to counteract that."

 

His favourite Albanian proverb: "Without freedom life has no meaning".

 

 

 

"We do not want to live without freedom," claimed Oswaldo Payá in the name of Cuban people as he received the Sakharov Prize 6 years ago. In December he was denied the freedom to attend the Sakharov Prize 20th anniversary celebrations. We asked him to explain the situation on the phone.

 

 

In Cuba, travelling abroad is not a right. The Cuban government has set a very complicated mechanism to provide a permit to leave or to enter. The government did not give me this permit.

 

 

The Varela Project is a  citizens' petition to the National Assembly making use of a constitutional right that says that if 10,000 citizens propose a draft law it has to be discussed. In 2002 we presented 11,000 signatures, in 2003 - 25,000 signatures.

 

Now the Varela Project is calling for a referendum so that the Cubans themselves can decide. It proposes freedom of expression, freedom of association, the release of the defenders of human rights. The Varela Project is a peaceful alternative among Cubans without foreign intervention. However, we are being persecuted, oppressed, and threatened. The state security agents even enter the houses of the activists to steal the lists and the signatures.

 

 

Yes, there is hope, and I think that everything that the government does - the propaganda, the repression, the persecution - is to kill hope.

 

The greatest hope is that Cubans want changes, they want peaceful changes, and they want changes towards freedom. We call on people to show solidarity with Cuba and recognize that there are 11 million human beings who have never chosen oppression, or a closed regime, or an eternal government, or totalitarianism - it was imposed. We want the rights because we have rights as all human beings do.

 

 

The governments of the EU, the Commission, the citizens, social and religious institutions and NGOs can call for the release of political prisoners in Cuba. They must also morally and politically support peaceful initiatives like the Varela Project as it asks for the voice and the rights for the people.

 

The European Union, especially its Parliament, has given a space, a voice for the people of Cuba. However, there are countries in Europe who seek to silence the dimension of human rights violations so as to have a good relationship with the Cuban government.

 

The respect for our sovereignty and self-determination is only genuine if it respects the rights of Cubans. 

 

 

I believe the future of Cuba in the short and longer term is being decided now. We claim that peaceful change is possible,  that every Cuban has to make a step and that the world has to make a step - not intervening, not putting embargoes or blockades, but openly and publicly claiming the rights for all Cubans.

 

We believe that we can keep the free public health care and free education, but as rights. Our vision is of hope and we trust that our children and all children in the world can live in a healthier, greener, more fraternal and freer world.

 

 

The 1994 Sakharov laureate Taslima Nasreen has paid a high price for her fight against the oppression of women and religious fundamentalism. She was forced to leave her country Bangladesh in 1999. First exiled in India, the 46-year old doctor and author was forced to move on and now lives in exile in Sweden. She spoke to us ahead of the 20th Sakharov award ceremony about the threats that religious extremism pose.

 

 

Religious extremism is a big threat in the world. Especially the Islamic extremists who are threatening society, to make it go backwards into a dark age, when women didn't have any rights or any freedom and were used as slaves, sexual objects and child-bearing machines.

 

Islamic extremists believe that there are two kinds of worlds, one is a land of infidels and one is a land of Islam. They want to make...the whole world Islamic, it is a big threat to plurality of thought. They don't believe in individualism; group loyalties are a particular feature of religious fundamentalists.

 

All cultures are not the same. Some are against human rights, women's rights and freedom of expression. We should not allow torture in the name of culture, because that is not culture. If we see any culture that is anti-women, we should reject it.

 

 

Islamic terrorism is a big threat not only to Islam, but also to western countries, because we are not safe anywhere. If we allow Islamic religious fundamentalists to go unopposed there will be no freedom in this society.

 

Even in Europe, some countries have started talking about introducing Sharia law. It is very dangerous because Europe must be secular and Sharia law is against women's freedom. We should support the people who are fighting for equality and justice and we should fight for women's rights everywhere. We should fight to secularise the Muslim states; we cannot go backwards, we have to go forwards.

 

 

I paid a high price because I had to leave my country and because I had to leave my neighbouring country India too. The Sakharov prize gave me recognition. It gave me the mental strength to continue my fight for women's rights and freedom. Yet it did not only give me happiness; this prize didn't give me the opportunity to live in the city or country where I would like to live.

 

 

Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 1996 for pro-democracy activities dating back to the seventies. He paid a heavy price for the activities, enduring incarceration twice and ultimately being exiled from China.  Like 2008 winner Hu Jia, Wei was in prison at the time of his award and could not receive his prize in person. 

 

Now living in the US, from where he pursues his pro-democracy activism through his Foundation, Wei Jingsheng was finally present at the Parliament to attend the events marking the 20th anniversary of the Sakharov Prize. We spoke to him about China, his hopes for change and the attitude of the West.

 

 

The Chinese people have changed over those 12 years.  Twelve years ago, when I received the award, many Chinese people believed in democracy, yet still had hope in the Chinese Communist party.  Now, most people hold out no hope for reform by the Communist government itself.  That means Chinese society is in great danger.

 

 

If it were a relationship between two normal partners there would be no problem. But China is an abnormal country. In this respect, I am not happy with Western countries who have given up on human rights for trade, especially over the last 10 years.

 

 

I do not know, because I was in jail at the time. But over the last couple of years, the Chinese government has reacted strongly to various voices, not just Hu Jia, but also for example the Dalai Lama. You can see how sensitive they are. They react so strongly and this is precisely because they feel so fragile.  Since the Olympics - which were a failure for them - they lost their self-confidence, which makes them react more irrationally.

 

Unfortunately though Western governments are still trying to please the Chinese government, people in the West have really reacted to the tyranny of the Chinese regime. This pressures the Chinese government to consider political reform and it gives reformers within the communist party an excuse to push for it.

 

 

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) won the Sakharov Prize in 2005 in recognition of the organisation's work in defending the freedom of the press across the world.  Olivier Basille represented RSF at the ceremony marking the twentieth anniversary of the Sakharov Prize in December 2008.  We caught up with him there and asked him about the Prize and the state of press freedom in the world.

 

What is your vision of the Sakharov Prize? What value do you attribute to it?

The fact that one is recognized by a body like the EP, beyond the honour, it also represents the ability to see other European institutions, parliamentarians, but also international actors. In fact it's a way of telling them "it is not only as an NGO that bothers you, but with the legitimacy of the EP which recognizes not only the merits of what we do but also the usefulness."

 

It took an initiative to create the network because after twenty years, twenty ambassadors have great potential. This has emerged as a possible force overtime. This will not always be easy and there are even times we do not all agree. We leave very angry but still shaking hands.

 

This year we celebrate 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but sincerely, there is nothing to celebrate. It has never been in a worse situation in regard to freedom of expression. Not only has it not changed in the countries that we formerly condemned in the past 40 years but more violations fall within the European Union and the United States.

 

 
Today, the internet has the ability to mount communication campaigns four times faster. It sends a file to twenty thousand people and has a potential relay mobilisation, without counting the number of information sources available to us via the Internet.

Moreover, the internet has enabled some to have a forum that they did not, including the Sakharov Prize. Tomorrow, we hope that through the Internet we can push them to ensure that there is less censorship in China, Syria or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere through, for example, software censorship programmes. There are certainly things to do within the network with Sakharov MEPs.

 

 
The hot spots are of course in Iraq and Afghanistan, which remain the most dangerous for the press not only for the Western press. For today, those who pay the heaviest price are the Arab journalists who supply us with images. These are things we should remember from time to time: in Iraq, those who die are not just white.

 

Another thing that worries us a lot is that Eritrea is a country which never speaks but who knows a worse position than that of North Korea and on which we would like to put emphasis. We would like to see more interest in this by the EP.

 

 

 

We do not tell our personal stories because then the stories of those who are more active would be more known. Our children were abducted in the street, in the college, at work. They were beaten and tortured in front of us. It was a very terrible thing that has left a huge void, a hole in the body that will never heal. I lost all my family in 5 years, only my daughter and my mother were left.

 

But we had the strength to continue. We left the tears at home and went on the streets to fight for our children.

 

 

Nobody talked about what was happening, Argentina seemed to be fantastic. The mothers came out to tell the entire world what happened to us. We compiled a file identifying the oppressors; each mother became a private investigator. With this government we achieved the abolishment of forgiving laws, trials were initiated.

 

We also started to engage in political education, opened a university; we have an editorial, a library, a radio station. We are providing housings which people construct themselves - men who lived from stealing and women who ate garbage before. We have opened kindergartens and schools for their children.

 

I think we have accomplished many things, especially to let the whole world know that life always defeats death. They threw our children into the river alive, burned them, shot them... and they could not destroy (vanquish) us. Because there are other young people who are struggling, reporting. Our children gave birth to us. Now we are leaving everything in the hands of the young people.

 

 

Sakharov Prize helped us to protect ourselves, to save our lives, to raise awareness. The money helped us to open the first library; we used it for education, training, promoting literacy and basic knowledge.

 

 

No deaths are needed to confirm the testimonies. We do not accept the exhumation of the corpses because not everyone will appear. Many were thrown into the river, many burned. We do not accept financial compensation - what needs to be repaired by justice can not be repaired by money. And we do not accept posthumous tributes like name plates. Our children continue to live as before. We socialized motherhood and now we are the mothers of all - also of the anonymous.

 

 

 

 

We've been living in peace for 6 years and that allows us to analyse all the bad consequences of the war. We are looking for an effective reconciliation, because those who fought against each other in the past are now trying to work together, and those who considered themselves enemies in the past are now trying to get together. The effects of peace are visible and we know that we're all working for that peace.

 

 

The Sakharov Prize helped a lot, as I have been saying. I was the second African, after Nelson Mandela, to get the Sakharov Prize, and this had an impact. I was the second laureate speaking Portuguese, after Xanana Gusmão, and this also had an impact. Last but not the least I was the first ecclesiastic to get the Sakharov Prize. This impact has often been used to help people to understand that the freedom of thought is a value that shall be preserved. The Sakharov Prize is a reference that helps people understanding that there are values that we all shall preserve.

 

 

I am the President of the Ecumenical Committee for Peace in Angola, aimed at promoting peace and helping society to live in peace, and I have been working with my colleagues on it all over Angola. We promote conferences and meetings and we're always promoting an effective reconciliation. Our Committee for Economic Justice has been working well and the government is grateful for our researches, which are aimed at establishing an effective social justice, as we all know that social justice is the best way to consolidate peace.

 

 

I do think so. When Jonas Savimbi died, some people wanted to get rid of all Savimbi's supporters, but the President of Angola said "no, if we have a victory, that victory belongs to all Angolans and we shall not persecute anyone". There were no more persecutions to the supporters of UNITA and today everybody is making efforts in the name of peace. Angola is an example that shall be used by other countries living in war, like the ones in the Big Lakes. That war is similar to ours regarding the conditions we had to go through, but we managed to overpass it. The example of Angola in terms of dialogue, understanding and vision of the future should help other countries.

 

Burma's democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been now for 12 years under house arrest banned from seeing family or friends, her phone line cut and post intercepted. The Sakharov Prize winner from 1990 was not able to come to the 20th anniversary ceremony but is still safer with the prize than without it, said Zoya Phan, her representative in the ceremony, international coordinator at Burma Campaign UK.

 

 

The Sakharov prize that she was given was just not recognizing her and her activities and her work for democracy and human rights but it also kept her safe and gave her higher international profile and kept Burma in an international agenda.

 

This year the Sakharov prize was awarded to Chinese dissident who is under arrest. How do you compare the situation between Aung San Suu Kyi and Hu Jia?

 

I think that the Sakharov Prize will raise the international profile of the Chinese dissident and it will also keep him safer like Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in Burma.

 

 

Yes, because the regime cares about what outside sees about Burma. They are so afraid of international action and that's why every single little thing that we have here in outside world in exile it affects their position.  

 

 

The situation in Burma is now very bad. The human rights situation is getting worse and worse. Since the last September when the Buddhist monks took up to the streets demanding for change and for democracy and human rights and freedom the regime opened fire on protestors and as a result hundreds were arrested and many killed. And again in May this year when the cyclone Nargis hit Burma thousands and thousands people were killed and they died and the regime first deliberately blocked humanitarian aid to go into this area to help the survivors.

 

 

When I was just 14 years old my village was attacked by the Burmese army and then we were hiding in the underground bomb shelter the ground would shake. We could not survive there and we have to flee for our life and we ended up in refugee camp in Thailand. And this regime is the same regime that ordered their troops to kill Buddhist monks and to block humanitarian aid to Nargis survivors. And this regime is the same regime that survived by trade and investments from European companies. What we need to see is stronger action from the European Union. First they have to cut off the economic lifeline of the regime because the regime is survived by trade and investment.