President. Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to welcome, on behalf of all of you, on behalf of all of us, the two winners of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize 2005 and the representative of the third winner.

Unfortunately, despite all of the efforts made right up to the last minute, the ‘Women in White’ have not been given permission to leave Cuba to be with us today.

I believe that I can say on behalf of the entire European Parliament that we regret and reject this attitude on the part of the Cuban authorities.

(Loud applause)

On this formal occasion I would like to talk about the ‘Women in White’ and our reasons for awarding them this prize.

This is unfortunately not the first time that this has happened. Neither Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Leyla Zana, nor Wei Jingshen were able to come here to receive their prize. Their representatives came instead of them.

When they we able to – some have not yet been able because they are still being detained – they came to the House and we met especially to hear them. This happened in the case of Nelson Mandela and more recently Leyla Zana.

We shall therefore continue to apply every possible pressure on the Cuban authorities to allow them to come, and when they do we shall organise a formal sitting so that they can address our House, as we have on previous occasions, and we will do everything we can to ensure that this happens as soon as possible.

(Applause)

What all of this year’s winners have in common is their fight for human dignity and freedom. They are worthy successors of the Soviet academic whose name is on the prize that the European Parliament awards.

In their different ways, all three symbolise the fight to consolidate human rights in the world.

The fight against regimes that imprison critics who dare criticise them.

The fight against inhuman laws.

The fight against those who deny the right to information and against the terrorists who want to banish the right to information.

The European Parliament has supported this year’s winners by means of its resolutions and its initiatives. They are well known to us.

We have followed their work, we have followed their fight.

Their presence here is just the end of a process that we have shared by means of our resolutions.

It is a fight for a more democratic and more just world.

Please allow me to point out, here in this esteemed Chamber, that many Europeans believe that the right to have one’s human rights respected is something natural, something inevitable, which is practically free, and that it has always been the case.

No, it has not always been the case, and nor is it yet the case in many parts of the world, unfortunately.

For the great majority of humanity it is still a distant dream. And for this reason, we Europeans have a special duty to defend and promote human rights in the world.

I would like to speak briefly about each of our prize-winners: the ‘Women in White’ are represented by Mrs Blanca Reyes, who has been a ‘Woman in White’ until she fortunately ceased to be one when her husband was set free, whom I had the pleasure to receive on your behalf in this Parliament immediately after he was released from prison.

These women demonstrate peacefully every week in Havana to express their solidarity with relatives and friends in prison since March 2003. To a certain extent they are also continuing the phenomenon that was known at the time as the ‘Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo’, to whom we also awarded a prize.

The only crime of many of these prisoners is to express publicly their opposition to the government as ordinary citizens, as independent journalists or as peaceful dissidents. Many of them have become seriously ill during their imprisonment in conditions which Mrs Reyes will no doubt describe to us.

We called for the release of these prisoners in April 2004 and unfortunately this is still far from being achieved, despite certain individual cases that have arisen.

The experience of many European countries shows us that it is not possible to establish the conditions for a transition to democracy, a peaceful transition to democracy, by imprisoning dissidents, quite the opposite.

Let us hope that the transition to democracy in Cuba takes good note of the experience of certain European countries.

Mrs Hauwa Ibrahim:

You have used your talents as a lawyer to promote the rule of law. Your strength, as you said to me when I received you this morning, lies in respect for the law. We admire your determination.

In this enormous country of Nigeria, you defend people who live with the threat of cruel and inhuman punishments. Punishments which are applied in accordance with Sharia law in twelve States of your country.

You fight for these people’s right to a fair trial, in accordance with the law.

Please believe me that we felt moved and indignant while watching the proceedings against Amina Lawal and Safya Hussaini, accused of adultery. You made sure that the law prevailed, demanding respect for the Constitution and for the international Treaties signed by Nigeria.

It is inconceivable that a woman accused of adultery can still be stoned.

(Applause)

It is inconceivable that a woman accused of adultery can be stoned as in biblical times; we cannot condone the amputation of young criminals. This Parliament has spoken out vigorously against these inhuman punishments and against the death penalty on many occasions.

Mrs Ibrahim, we stand shoulder to shoulder with you in rejecting this cruelty and our rejection will be total.

We admire your personal commitment. The personal commitment that you express with great conviction: that of the right to education for the poor, in particular women, because poverty harms women especially. You are an example for all Nigerians who want to leave behind poverty and ignorance.

We are also receiving Robert Ménard today, who is well known to this House, Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders, and, through him, all journalists.

These professional people breathe life into freedom of information and open our eyes to a cruel world. There can be no democracy without pluralist information. Information is the raw material, the principal fuel, of the system of democracy. Without it there can be no democracy.

We pay homage to those who fight every day, in every part of the world, to make this principle a reality.

To those who all too frequently fall victim as a result of their passionate pursuit of their duties.

Unfortunately, they all too often fall victim as a result of their passionate pursuit of their duties.

A few weeks ago, Robert Ménard was denied permission to attend the Information Summit taking place in Tunisia. The Tunisian authorities were undoubtedly afraid of what he would say.

It is a great paradox that this should happen precisely when we are talking about the right to access to free information for everybody.

I would like to remind you that in 2005, which is drawing to a close, 58 journalists have lost their lives, one every week of the year, every seven days a journalist dies while carrying out their duty. In 2004 that figure was 53. Unfortunately, it is increasing. I would like to pay tribute to all of them, and to all of their imprisoned or disappeared colleagues.

This Parliament has acted and will always act in support of them.

Because dictatorships do not last forever. Some last a long time, too long, but they do not last forever.

(Applause)

Through their brutal actions, the terrorists will not deny us freedom of information either, the essential basis of our democratic life.

Finally, and before giving the floor to our winners and their representatives I would like to combine the thoughts of Voltaire and Brecht. Two intellectuals separated by many years. One of them opened up the light and the other suffered in the shadows. Both Voltaire and Brecht used a similar expression, and I am not very sure to which of them it should be most attributed. They said it during different eras, in different places and in different circumstances.

I would insist, one of them was opening up the light and the other was enduring the shadows. Both said that freedom of expression is the only right that separates freedom from tyranny. And not to accept this is to condemn the human being to ignominy.

Congratulations to our prize winners on the courage they have shown.

Voltaire and Brecht are watching us.

Thank you very much.

Mrs Blanca Reyes, you have the floor.

  Blanca Reyes, ‘Women in White’. (ES) Mr José Borrell, President of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed participants, Mr Robert Ménard, Doctor Ibrahim, European friends and Cuban brothers and sisters resident in all parts of the world, the honour of being awarded the 2005 Sakharov Prize, shared with Doctor Ibrahim and the hard-working and selfless Reporters Without Borders, has touched the hearts of the Women in White and of the seventy-five prisoners of conscience imprisoned in Cuba during the black spring of 2003 very deeply.

I would like firstly to welcome a supportive delegation of friends of the Women in White in exile ― and I mean exile ― who are here with us in the visitors’ gallery.

(Sustained applause)

I myself am a woman of exile, because, as you are well aware, the real Women in White are not with us today, unfortunately. We never imagined that our spontaneous group, motivated by pain and injustice, which has no political allegiance or party or group organisation, would receive such a prestigious tribute. For us, this prize means an even greater commitment to our cause and to you; an inspiration to carry on defending the innocence of our loved ones with greater courage and to demand their immediate and unconditional release.

Once again, the Cuban Government has demonstrated its systematic violation of the human rights of the population of our country on a daily basis, by denying five peaceful and defenceless women permission to travel and to be with you at this prizing-giving ceremony, despite having completed all of the bureaucratic procedures that it had demanded of them, the majority of which are unnecessary and incomprehensible, including the efforts of this Parliament and of certain European personalities and governments.

This does not prevent the Women in White from being here in Strasbourg today, nor the seventy-five prisoners sentenced since March 2003 and hundreds of Cuban prisoners of conscience and politicians. On the contrary, the entire world will hear your voices today and the response of all of us.

We will not collect that prize today, but, like Andrei Sakharov, the eminent scientist and selfless fighter for freedom of thought, the exemplary Aung San Suu Kyi, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and all the other winners from previous years, we shall continue our tireless efforts to ensure that social justice, democracy and reconciliation prevail. In particular, we could bring you together with our compatriot Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, the Cuban awarded in the prize in 2002.

We would like you to visit us in our homeland, Cuba, for an award ceremony for the Prize for Freedom of Thought in the near future.

(Applause)

We shall receive you in our modest homes and not just we five women, but many many more, will be able to show you personally the harsh conditions, the arbitrary treatment, the intimidation and repression suffered by our prisoners and our families.

Before I finish, in view of their particular significance amongst the very many acknowledgements and congratulations that we have received, I would like to quote the words of former Czech President Vaclav Havel: ‘Dear Women in White, I would like to congratulate you most warmly on the prize that you have been awarded by the European Parliament. Your strength makes you worthy of this recognition. I am convinced that it will serve as an inspiration to your courageous husbands, just as the interest of the free world was an inspiration for me during the darkest times of my imprisonment. Vaclav Havel’.

Finally, and I hope you will not take this as impertinent, rude or discourteous, I would like to inform you that the Women in White have asked me not to take part in the official lunch that you have arranged following this ceremony. This ‘empty chair’ policy is only intended to be a symbolic gesture, of protest against the Cuban dictatorship and of condemnation in the eyes of the world, at the absence of the true recipients of this prize.

I hope that you can understand and forgive such a blatant absence. We would like once again to thank you for acknowledging us — wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and aunts, representatives of the Cuban people — and we would like to reiterate our conviction that no cause is impossible if it is inspired by justice, reconciliation and love. Every voice, united in diversity, for the right to freedom of thought.

Signed: Laura Poyán, wife of Héctor Maceda; Miriam Leyva, wife of Óscar Espinosa Chepe; Berta Soler, wife of Ángel Moya; Loida Valdés, wife of Alfredo Felipe Fuentes; Julia Núñez, wife of Adolfo Fernández Saíz.

Havana, 14 December 2005.

(The House stood and applauded the speaker)

  Hauwa Ibrahim. Mr President, political group chairmen, honourable Members of this beautiful Parliament, my friends from Lawyers Without Borders in France, staff of the Parliament – especially the Protocol Service, who have provided me with guidance since I arrived; I would like to mention Ursula Bausch and my guide; members of the press, ladies and gentlemen: ever since our arrival on Monday we have been warmly welcomed by all of you.

We started with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which afforded us the opportunity of being heard by all the political groups. We are very grateful for this opportunity. We were able to explain our work and answer questions about what the European Union and European Parliament can do for us. We want to assure you that, following this ceremony, we will be willing to discuss any specific issues you wish to bring up with us, at any time, regarding the projects or programmes in our regions or constituencies with the appropriate committees and think-tanks.

In some of the committees and groups, I mentioned the strategies we used in the defence of the woman sentenced to death under the Islamic religious law of Sharia in Nigeria, and I will continue on that subject now. I shall then try to read my three-minute speech, as I have been advised.

Let me turn now to our strategy. Our strategy was to understand the dynamics of the Islamic law of Sharia. We tried to understand the dynamics of the mullahs, the religious leaders. We tried to understand the dynamics of the culture and the values of our people and, above all, we tried to understand the dynamics of the society in which we operate. We were focused and we stayed focused. The press asked us questions such as, ‘Is it Islam versus the West, or perhaps a clash of civilisations?’. We do not know. We knew, however, that a woman had been sentenced to death by stoning and that we were using the instrument of the law to ensure her freedom. That is what we knew.

We paid attention to the detail around us, but were flexible with regard to society’s perception of what we were doing. We acted locally, but we thought globally.

(Applause)

Lawyers Without Borders from Canada and France gave us support, and every time we went to court we had a plan. We also had a back-up plan, just in case. We did not tell the media, which had given us huge coverage, what they wanted to hear. We told them what we wanted them to know. We were aware of the views around us and the accusations, verbal attacks and threats, but we stayed focused.

I will share with you today our safety strategy. Of course we had many threats and we had to take care of ourselves so that we did not get killed. We did not travel to court in the same car. At times, we would take our public car then switch to our personal car and we sometimes took public transport. We never travelled in the same car twice, because we knew we were being monitored. We never dress the same way twice. We never take the same route twice, if we can avoid it. More importantly, however, it was necessary to engage with the fundamentalists. We engaged with the extremists, and I will try to illustrate that with a brief story.

I was interviewed by a BBC reporter, who came from London but interviewed me in the local language, Hausa. He asked me whether stoning to death was in the Koran. My response was simply that I did not think so. It was played repeatedly over the radio, and the mullahs decided to answer me via the radio. They said I was anti-Sharia and anti-Islam. That meant that I had committed blasphemy and could be stoned to death. I was afraid, of course. I then called the reporter and told him I wanted to meet the mullahs. He said, ‘That is a very dangerous thing to do. You heard what they said on the radio’. The radio programme was not only broadcast to the more than 70 million people in Nigeria who understand Hausa, but also across the western coast of Africa, where Hausa is spoken in several countries. Hausa is the second largest language in Africa, after Swahili. He said that it was really dangerous to do that, but I told him I wanted to go. He said that he would not be responsible for me, but would introduce me. He was kind enough to do so and the mullahs decided to see me in the mosque.

It was a huge mosque, bigger than this hall, though not as beautiful. There were eight mullahs. They were sitting at the end of the hall and in the middle of the hall was a chair. When I went in, they beckoned me to sit on the chair. I did not sit on the chair. I walked towards them. On approaching them, I decided to kneel down and to sit on the floor and they said to me as I went to sit, ‘You cannot sit on the floor. Sit on that chair’. And I said to them, ‘How can I, your daughter, sit on a chair when you, my fathers, are sitting on a chair?’

They asked me, ‘Are you Hauwa Ibrahim?’ And I said, ‘I am’, never looking at their faces because that culture forbids me to do that. And they said to me: ‘Are you the lawyer?’ And I said: ‘I am. But I am a foolish lawyer. I am a stupid lawyer. I did not know what I was doing. I came to you, because I want your wisdom. I came to you because I want some knowledge. I want to do what is right for society, but I do not know how to do it and I want you to guide me’.

It is important to understand that this was my strategy. I caught their attention. They listened to what I was saying, but they did more than that. They said, ‘We will not publicly support you, but neither will we publicly oppose you’.

And that was all I needed. Nothing more. We needed safety. We needed them to listen to us. We needed to carry them along with us. We needed to engage them.

This is part of the strategy. In all the 90 cases in which I have been involved, the strategies have not been the same. As you know, I do not take money for the cases. This is because I have enjoyed a huge privilege – that of education. And that is my passion. Whatever my share of this prize, all of it is going towards education. As a result of this Sakharov Prize, I have started a trust fund to invest in education, because I think that is the way forward.

(Applause)

Now I shall read my three-minute speech!

(Laughter)

I am humbled to receive this prestigious 2005 Sakharov Prize alongside this distinguished group of people. I am saddened that the Ladies in White are not here. I share Parliament’s sentiment, and agree with what the President said.

I am proud to be associated with the Reporters Without Borders. This is a gift and an empowering message to the voiceless, to the powerless, to the illiterate and to women. It acknowledges not just the women and children of northern Nigeria, for whom I have worked, but everyone who remains unrepresented in society.

This award tells those millions that the European Parliament does not just hear them but that it supports, encourages and celebrates them. It is humbling to realise that most of us strive for the common good, for universal respect for human dignity, for basic human rights and civil rights. Unfortunately, some of the provisions of the new Sharia legal system in my country, Nigeria, violate some basic human rights, especially equal treatment under the law. In spite of scientific progress, a woman in 2005 can be stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock.

It raises the issue of respect for the certainty and supremacy of law, respect for fundamental rights, the separation of state and religion and strict standards for evidence. This law has resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives. The 90 victims of the Sharia legal system, in whose defence I have been involved, are powerless and voiceless. They are illiterate and poor. The new Sharia legal system in Nigeria needs to be reformed. We need you to help us with your voice. It has to be reformed.

(Applause)

Our goal for the reform is a bottom-top approach. We have a long-term plan, a medium-term plan and a short-term plan. Our methodology will be flexible. It will be responsive to a cultural system of values. It demands organisational and analytical skills, as well as creative intelligence. We must think strategically, coordinating and cooperating with donors, working with political leaders, building coalitions and encouraging alternative ways of resolving disputes. We will give people the tools to ask questions and encourage greater measures of political freedom and activism.

We will let people realise the essence of the rule of law, not the essence of being ruled by the law or by man. To encourage this idea and vision we will build, without letting up, on the struggle and labours of our women heroes, such as the one this building is named after: Louise Weiss. We cannot afford to be infatuated by the progress we have made. We must continue to build on this modern approach, through advocacy and beyond.

I will walk out of this beautiful and magnificent building feeling a greater sense of self esteem, having a greater voice. The European Parliament, one of the world’s most important bodies, is behind me. Most importantly, the plight of the poor and the voiceless, with whom I have walked free today, is gaining attention and their cause is known and supported. Today, you have made the voice for humanity louder. I will return to Nigeria with a deep sense of mission and will help redefine the future of the vulnerable and powerless.

I will return to share skills within my country, and across the globe, with humility and passion for freedom and justice, irrespective of race, colour, sex, political beliefs and privileges.

My ultimate hope is that, through the effective application of the rule of law, those who argue for truth and justice and those who work effectively to achieve a better community will change people’s hearts and the attitude that governs society and bring about the type of world envisaged by all of us.

I have chosen a path, a path of equal protection under the law, a path to pursue justice, encourage and engage, a path to do good. I have found in all of you in the European Parliament, and all lovers of humanity, the passion to go on.

What a great day, what a great honour and what great people!

Thank you so much.

(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

  Robert Ménard, ‘Reporters without Borders’. (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin, of course, by thanking you for having awarded us, the entire team – some of whom are present - this Sakharov Prize, and by letting you know just how important this is to us.

(Applause)

Allow me just to mention one name, that of Mr Jean-Marie Cavada, who is a friend of mine; I know how much he campaigned for Reporters without Borders to be awarded this prize. Thank you, Jean-Marie.

(Applause)

I should just like randomly to share some positive and more negative observations with you. I shall begin with the positive ones and leave the negative ones until the end.

I should like to begin by congratulating you, the men and women of Parliament, on having recognised the qualities of - and, above all, on having awarded a prize such as this to - journalists who are, all the same, a constant thorn in your side and towards whom you often do not hold back your criticism – for good reason. You are, in fact, right: journalists do not do their jobs very well - far from it – but to award this Sakharov Prize to Reporters without Borders also goes to show that, in spite of everything, there is an awareness of just how vital journalists are for democracy, in the same way as elected representatives are.

It also goes to show – allow me to make this point here, even if you are already aware of it – that, notwithstanding the gossip columns, there also exists the kind of journalism that involves taking risks on a daily basis. Such daily risk-taking is represented by our 74 colleagues killed in Iraq - a figure twice that recorded in 20 years of war in Vietnam - and the five Iraqi journalists being held today among the 120 journalists detained in Iraq by the US army, with no information at all available on why they are being held, what they are accused of or how exactly they can be defended. It is to them, through us, that you are paying tribute. I believe, once again, that they deserve such tribute, even though there is good reason to be irritated by the behaviour of the press.

(Applause)

Allow me to mention another name in this House, one that I believe is in the news: that of the most recent journalist to have been killed. You will know to whom I am referring: Gebran Tueni. I am not the only one in this House who knew of Gebran Tueni; he was a leading political figure in Lebanon. He was the fourteenth victim of targeted attacks that have been taking place in the country for some months. We must support the Lebanese people and we must support the Lebanese democrats. You are aware that, through Gebran Tueni, it was, again, democracy and genuine Lebanese independence that were being targeted. I wanted to pay tribute with you to the memory of Gebran Tueni.

(Applause)

I shall now present at random some perhaps rather more critical points, and the prize awarded to the Ladies in White enables me to address them.

There still continues to exist a ‘variable geometry’ capacity for indignation that shocks me to the core. How can one fail to understand that, on the one hand, the detention of 24 journalists in Cuba and, on the other hand, the situation I described to you a moment ago, whereby the US army is holding journalists in Iraq without ever having justified its actions, might be deemed equally scandalous? A choice should not have to be made between the one and the other. An equally hard line should be taken in both cases.

(Applause)

In the case of Cuba, I am completely astounded by the attitude displayed by a number of people. As I was saying to some friends yesterday, if a journalist from Reporters without Borders denounces the dictatorships in Burma, North Korea or Laos, there is no one to come and tell us that we are overstepping the mark, that what we are saying is bad or that the situation is more complicated than that. We only need, however, to say that there is a dictatorship in Cuba too, and we receive tons of insulting letters from people finding excuses for that dictatorship.

(Applause)

I am not going to give my opinion in this House on whether or not it is necessary to keep the US embargo. That is not my problem. My problem is the fact that there are 300 prisoners of conscience in Cuba, whose only crime is to have called for democracy and to have challenged Mr Castro’s authority. That is all! It is unacceptable that they should be treated in that way, regardless of the political positions one upholds.

(Applause)

I am astounded to see people here who are ready to take to the streets if their freedoms are interfered with in the slightest way, but who are also ready to applaud scoundrels from far off places just because they are ‘exotic’!

(Applause)

Another person I should like to mention, Mr President, is Mrs Florence Aubenas, because you have been exemplary in the way you have rallied people. You, in Parliament, have been extraordinary – and I am not one to mince my words, as you will see – you have been extraordinary where Florence Aubenas is concerned. I have come to this House several times to defend her. The French, Belgians, Italians and Germans – everybody joined forces. How unfair for the others, though. There are others like Florence Aubenas, but they do not belong to great Western media organisations and they do not come from the West. In their cases, it is a job and a half mobilising you, the press and even, at times, ourselves, as though double standards were being applied, as though some lives were worth more than others and as though there were some freedoms that affect us and others that do not. It is imperative that we put a stop to this way of thinking.

One cannot be credible and one cannot say to people ‘we, in this House, are democrats who fight for democracy’ if we fight a thousand times harder for such democracy when our own people are involved than when others are involved. Doing so strips us of any credibility, including where our position on human rights is concerned. I wanted to say this to you because I see this happening every day.

(Applause)

I also wanted to tell you to stop feeling guilty about the developing world, to stop thinking that you are defending Western values in this House and to stop chastising yourselves all the time and trying to find excuses for people who have none at all. The democratic values that you defend in this House are universal values; they carry the same weight whether in this House, in Cuba or in Nigeria. Let us stop thinking that we have this kind of inexorable duty to remember, with these anniversaries and never-ending commemorations. We have had just about enough of all that; let us focus on the present. I do not have a guilty conscience with regard to what took place in the past. I have a guilty conscience with regard to what is happening today and to what I am not doing.

(Applause)

I should like, if I may, to address another point in relation to our own intolerance. It is so easy to defend the ideas of people who think like us. It is so easy to fight for people who are like us. That is not democracy, however. Democracy means fighting for the freedom of expression of others, including those who will pose a threat to our democracies in the future. This is the paradox and the problem faced by you and me. As I often tell friends – I can see Dany opposite me – at Reporters without Borders we sometimes go to countries in which we defend people, and I say to myself that these people are scoundrels. I say to myself that on the day when that character comes to power, my God, I will return in a hurry. At the same time, I say to myself that my place is here. The difference between those who merely talk about democracy and those who live it – and you live it in this House – is being able to say what I have just said and to defend people on the grounds that they do not benefit from a certain number of legal rules, even though those people will pose a threat to us in the future. This paradox is our weakness at the same time as our strength.

(Applause)

I should like to make two or three further small points. No, not all the attacks on the freedom of the press are the same. Let us stop making remarks such as: ‘Hang on, I do not know how things were done in the past, but the arrest of a conscientious objector in Switzerland (when conscientious objection existed) and the 30 years of gulags in the USSR are the same thing’. No, they are not the same thing. We have to fight in these two different cases.

Let us stop making others think, or ending up making them think, that we do not live in democracies. We do in fact live in democracies. Democracies exist. Half the countries in the world are not democratic in their dealings. To equate the problem of media concentration in our own countries with that of the arrest of journalists in China or Burma is terrible for the people who are imprisoned in China.

(Applause)

It is a despicable thing to do to them. I can say what I like in this House, and that includes expressing my opinions about you. Such freedom of expression is impossible in half the countries in the world, so let us stop blurring the distinctions. Yes, there are things that do not work in our countries. Yes, there are things that do not work in the field of information. Yes, we need to reflect. Yes, like you, I am scandalised from time to time by the attitudes of my colleagues and by what I do as a journalist. We must be careful, though, not to say that it all boils down to the same thing and not to confuse countries in which, generally speaking, attacks on the freedom of the press are the exception with countries in which they are the rule. It is not the same thing, for heaven’s sake!

(Applause)

We are not asking you to agree with everything we say. I do not believe that you are in a position to do so. We, for our part, are irresponsible to a certain extent because the only thing we defend is freedom of expression. As for you, you are required to take into account other things, such as the economic interests of your countries and of Europe and diplomatic and military interests. I hope – indeed, I am sure – that you are aware of this. That is why I am not calling on you to say that the policy of Europe and of this Parliament is guided only by human rights. That is happily not the case. I call on you, when you say something to us and when you make a commitment, to abide by it and to abide by your own words, which is something that you do not always do.

A short while ago, Mr President, you were speaking to us about Tunisia. Yet, for heaven’s sake, an association agreement exists with Tunisia!

(Applause)

You will tell me that what we are concerned with here is not Parliament but the European institutions as a whole. What is delaying this association agreement from being implemented? Clauses exist; you make sure they are voted in favour of. You are the ones losing face in cases like these.

In this case, it is not human rights that are being talked about. When they are, however, being talked about, it is a question of abiding by one’s word and one’s commitments. We need you, you know. You are magnificent – I said the same thing to you yesterday, Mr President – when you vote in favour of reports and resolutions. Do not think for a moment that it is pointless to do so. We rely on your doing so. It is useful for people, so continue to do it, but follow it through to the end. Speak the truth. That is the only thing we ask of you. We have had enough of people waxing lyrical. We have heard enough quivering voices. We want to hear people telling us: ‘There you are, I can do that. I cannot do any more than that, but that at least is something you can count on us to do.

I wanted to make yet another final point. I, along with others, believed that it was possible radically to change the world. I am now less certain about that, as are others. Knowing that the world cannot be radically changed can be reassuring, you are right, but in other respects it can also cause anguish. At the same time, we cannot be content with the world as it is, Mr President. Each time I open the newspaper, the world makes me sick. I have a small daughter aged four who is going to grow up and who will have a thousand times more opportunities than a young girl of the same age in 90 countries that I can list for you in this House. This injustice is unacceptable. Do you know what is good about human rights? The fact that it works. I am not saving my soul. I believe in neither the dear Lord nor the devil. In simple terms, I believe that we can get up and do something and improve, day after day, the lives of each and every individual. To do that, we need you.

(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

(The President awarded the Sakharov Prize to the recipients)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President