I found she has yet a novel angle in trying hammering one more nail into Assange's (and Wikileak's credibility) political coffin. However, it would have been fair and enough if Harvey declared her doing solely on ideological grounds. I mean, she would not need to appeal to untrue historical or cultural facts about Sweden, and thus putting the credibility of her anti "Assange" message at serious risk.
Sweden is still a marvelous nation and the absolutely vast majority of Swedes and most of Swedish institutions are not to be held accountable for the wrong-doings of some fanatic lawyers, a bunch of feminist-fascists, or some few corrupted politicians and journalists. Yet, in the context of the accusations against a devil Assange by a purported innocent, modern, democratic and neutral Sweden - as contended in the Daily Telegraph article - these are instead the facts to bear in mind:
a) Sweden was NOT neutral during World War II as contended in the Daily Telegraph article. Far from that. In actual fact, Sweden had a secret agreement with Nazi Germany which permitted all along the transit of German troops through Sweden in their way to occupied Norway. Prominent members of the Swedish establishment were Nazi or pro-Nazi, and Sweden sold to Germany the iron which held the weaponry manufacture in Nazi Germany ongoing. The discussion around a Swedish involvement with the Nazis or their ideology is like never ending. One day could be on the solid racist research conducted by that time in Uppsala University, another on the compulsory sterilization (see "tvångssterilisering") that prevailed in Sweden until recent decades. Today is about Swedish politicians and doctors stand on euthanasia, another on the widespread practice of cultural racism. In these very days the Swedish media has been reporting alleged commercial doings of the current Swedish queen's father, "Walter Sommerlath, a German Nazi Party member"who "made a fortune from a factory seized from Jewish owners in Nazi Germany".
The alleged “pro Nazi-tradition” in Sweden has partly explained the continuously existence of important racist and pro Nazi political organizations. One current far right-wing political party (not a Nazi organization but with a clear anti-immigrant agenda) not only enjoys representation in the Swedish Parliament but their MP's are also in position to ultimately decide whether to grant necessary majority of votes in the legislative process. In sum, Sweden is - unfortunatelly- known in Europe as one of the most cultural-racist countries, and where the integration of immigrants (accepted mainly as political refugees) is rated one of the lowest within the European Union.
One proof of the above is that foreign-born immigrants in Sweden, particularly young men, commit suicide at a dramatic higher significant rate in comparison with Swedes. The overrepresentation of immigrants among the Swedish suicides is not a rumor, it is a fact, a series of epidemiological findings I conducted at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and which I have published among other in the Journal of Traumatic Stress (USA) and Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica.
b) The current foreign policy of Sweden is OPENLY declared as actively pro-NATO. Sweden troops participate in the military occupation of Afghanistan under the command of USA military. During the Iraq invasion of USA troops Sweden assisted with material and strategic aid in the bombing of Iraq shelters.
c) Wikileaks recent disclosures with respect to Sweden presented evidence on secret agreements between Swedish government officials and the CIA and FBI regarding the channeling to USA of political and private information of Swedish subjects. Further, and most aggravating, this was done without the legal-necessary clearance of the Swedish Parliament, to keep the public unaware and avoid risking the pro-USA collaboration of the Swedish authorities.
In this and other regards the Swedish governants are disclosed as serving primarely the interests of USA rather than the interests of their own nation, a subject developed also by Henrik Alexandersson. It is necessary to clarify that this servile collaboration with the USA-military and Intelligence establishment, and also with the right wing of USA politicians flourished already under the previous social democrat government of Goran Persson. This is ONE among the strongest political reasons of Sweden's establishment vendetta against Assange .
d) The judicial and legal system in Sweden is absolutely not deprived of ideological and subjective assessments, as Harvey wishes to believe. She does not mention in her article that a senior prosecutor had disregarded the SAME case against Assange, which was reopened upon the insistence of a social democrat politician Mr. Claes Borgstrom. Neither does Harvey mention that the women did not seek the police seeking charges of rape against Assange. The charges were an after hand elaboration. The women play now along with lawyer Borgstrom, also known in Sweden for extreme feminine-fundamentalist positions.
Neither did she mention that Mr. Claes Börgstrom was one main actor devising the new - and notorious - legislation regarding sexual crimes in Sweden, and also a main promoter of a further radicalization of this legislation.
e) These expected radical modifications of the law - proposed by Borgström or the feminist-fundamentalists he is ideologically associated with - are based on IDEOLOGICAL and POLITICAL positions also promoted by a Swedish political party named “Feminist initiative” and shared by the radical and feminist-fundamentalist network also pejorative known as "Taliban-feminists". Ensuing the case against Assange made its debut the well organized, well promoted, and well publicized orchestration (so called twittering) of alleged similar cases than that attributed by the Swedish politician-feminist Claes Börgstrom to Julian Assange.
The lobbying exercised by concrete political parties and political-minded feminist journalist, the actual moving-forward of positions in the Swedish political arena - using Assange / Wikileaks notoriety - for a further radicalization in the Parliament of what would be considered sexual harassment, etc. in Sweden is the third clear-cut political motive in Sweden’s case against Assange. Discussing the Assange-case, the chairman of "Feminist Initiative" Gudrun Schyman declared recently in Newsmill (15/12-2010) that the commented law "den kan bli bättre" ("it can be better")
Yet, the above (Sweden acting “alone”) do not at all negate the detailed reports from the Cuban official newspaper Granma 7/12-2010, transmitted by Prensa Latina on that one of the woman “accusing” now Assange is in fact a Cuban-born émigré to Sweden and which have deployed political activities in conjunction with CIA financed organizations. The above specific and concrete information has not been denied by Mr. Borgstrom, and it cannot possibly be discarded as merely “rumors” or "incredible stories".
Sweden’s phony prosecution against Assange is POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL
For some of us at the liberal left standing up for the truth and transparence in the Assange affair our doings are also a POLITICAL act, as it is the defense of the Wikileaks initiative and the personal integrity of Swedes raped by the secret and anticonstitutional agreements (see Piratpartiet's stand) between the Swedish state and their CIA counterparts - precisely as recently disclosed by Assange's Wikileaks! The difference is that we say it as it is and do not hide our political convictions behind manipulated law-paragraphs, revengeful bimbos, instigations of phony trials or flirts with feminist-fascism. What is really at stake in this affair is a POLITICAL issue. It is about freedom of expression, it is about the fight of persons with integrity defending their rights against the assaults of a fascist Inquisition crusade led by these middle-aged intellectual lackays of and old aged imperialism. It is also about the fight for truly gender equality and therefore a fight against dogmatism, obscurantism, and a false moral which can hardly hide an agenda of feminist gender-supremacists.
Carl Bildt should be criticized because of his pro-NATO stand, for advocating the military intervention in Afghanistan, for had neglected, and then in fact contributed to discard, the foreign policy of Swedish neutrality and non-alignment. But not because he happened to communicate to his public - before Reindfeldt - that a terrorist act had been essayed in Stockholm.
Needles is to say that, being positioned deeply faraway towards the left-liberal bitter end, and being a warm supporter of an immediately pull-out of Swedish troops from Afhganistan, and of a neutral Sweden, I am not at all adherent of Carl Bildt's political stands. I feel however obliged in contributing to set some record straight in condemning some media-procedures I dislike, independent of their target's political colour.
Photo SvD - Scanpix
First we are informed by the Swedish media – around the Wikileaks disclosures - that among USA rulers it would exist consensus in estimating Carl Bildt as a political profile hard to deal with. Reasons? When it comes to international political doings he is for instance considered “too independent”. Another “wrong” thing with him is that he ostensibly favored dialogue instead of direct military intervention and somehow opposed initiatives of isolating Iran. “On top of everything” Bildt is criticized for having “such extensive network” among the decision-makers community, internationally that is.
Any individual with a normal political common sense, and independent of being left-wing or right-wing or whatever wing, would indeed consider those “wrong” features ascribed to the politicians of their choice as valuable ones. But apparently not in Sweden. And this is not explained solely on the base of the Swedish “jämte-lagen”.
Obviously, Carl Bildt does not everything what USA expects him to do, he perhaps has “a Swedish agenda” it is said, or a “Bildt agenda”, in dealing with conflicts or volatile situations for instance in the Middle East or in the Arab scenario specifically. So?
The Swedish public has been educated by the establishment’s media – or alienated, it would be a more proper concept – all along during the post-Palme era to accept and repeat, and go after uncritically, nearly everything coming from America. In politics, in culture, in fashion, in innovative health-enterprises (including fake diagnoses as “burn-out”, copycat utbrändhet). Not to mention political values and international stands. From time to time the media revives some painful and quasi-innocuous debates on the “Swedish culture”. The conclusions are invariable. It is not possible any longer to characterize, in the main, a “Swedish” culture as such.
The situation of ideological-cultural dependency has reached such extremes, that the Swedish media and blogosphere, for the absolutely most part right-wing, are ready to pick on and criticize any one criticized by America’s right-wing, without reflecting about the true national interests of their own, or the reality behind the scenario.
To this can be argued by right-wingers that there is not such a thing as divergent or opposed interests between USA and Sweden, or specifically between Swedish and American right-wingers. But form the Nation's perspective surely there are - objectively - unique interests which collide with the interests of USA or other foreign powers.
And above all it is so that basic interests of the world populations as a whole do contradict the interests of the world rulers and of their international alliances of power. And that "state-interests", all over the world, often have little to do with the personal integrity and interests of the individuals within the boundaries of such nations.
Further I believe, that Bildt have figured out (from his conservative perspective), as Palme strongly believed (from his socialist-liberal perspective), that beyond contingent peace-keepings scenarios there is a mankind-interest in the construction of lasting worldwide inter-national understanding beyond the "easy" militarily achieved and short lived peace-treaties, armistices and so on. I base my assumption in Bildt’s diplomatic intervention during and in the aftermath of the Balkan wars.
No one - either from the left or the right wings - have said publicly that perhaps Sweden has not been target of terrorists actions before December 11 because of the relative good stand Sweden was enjoying in the diplomatic arena of Third World and in the conflicting areas in which Sweden is not directly participating as hostile factor. In other words the believe that Sweden was some how still neutral "by heart and tradition" and trying to solve conflicts politically.
And instead of picking on Bildt for bagatelles, what about to recognize that perhaps things would have been even worse without Sweden's “independent” voice trying to get some political agreement instead of further deep military interventions. Or at least "pretending" a Swedish neutral or pro-pacific stand.
It might be so, unfortunatelly, that the recent Wikileaks disclosures have definetely push down the balance to the wrong end. The world can not any longer ignore the true and deep colaboration of Sweden towards USA neo-imperialistic military doings. In this regard, there is very little room for doubt concerning the motivation for possible hostile activities or even terrorist raids against Sweden. The bomber in central Stockholm of December 11 put it very clear by his own message (assuming it was his). Ergo, the trigger factors in the recent Stockholm bombings were – as manifestly stated by the perpetrator – a) the military presence of Sweden in Afghanistan and b) the help that Vilks has got all along by the establishment’s media to insult and humiliate Moslems sacred icons. Sill the panorama could have been far more devastating, and the acts of terror against Sweden of a much earlier debut.
In the last developments around the pro-America / anti-Bildt paradox, everybody in Sweden seems infuriated because Carl Bildt would have said from very early that a certain terrorist act was essayed in Stockholm, Saturday 11/12. To criticize this is simply ridiculous. In the first place what he stated it was true, in the second place the foreign public is expecting just the foreign minister of the target country to quickly explain what is behind the breaking news.
In the third place, Carl Bildt's saying-the-truth-as-it-was contrasts with the extraordinary play put up by nearly all the Swedish top establishment during that day of December 11 , as well as government officials and National Security people, with the exception of Anders Thornborg (head of Security Dept at SÄPO). See my comments in Afghanistan, Lars Vilks, bomb, Sweden .
In the context, Carl Bildt should be criticized because of his pro-NATO stand, for advocating the military intervention in Afghanistan, for had neglected, and then in fact discarded, the foreign policy of Swedish neutrality and non-alignment. But not because he happened to communicate to his Twetter public - before Reindfeldt - that terrorist act had been committed in Stockholm.
Further, those obsessed with "petitteser", should in the first place criticize Prime Minister Reindfelt because he waited an incomprehensible time before to address his nation on the same issue.
The following facts, easy verifiable, are a formidable and pristine-clear illustration of double behaviour from the part of the Swedish ruling establishment towards its Swedish citizens. It is also about the information VS. desinformation war.
The International TV broadcastings of Sunday 12/12 shown invariably the Swedish Intelligence (SÄPO) Security Head Anders Thornborg, manifesting directly and in clear English during a press conference that the explosions in Stockholm were done by a person “because” of his disapproval of the military commitments of Sweden in Afghanistan and the affair Vilks-caricatures. He was telling the simple truth and this truth was broadcasted – simply and deprived o euphemisms – to the international public.
In astonishing contrast, the domestic, nation-wide TV broadcastings, exhibited invariably this remarkably attitude (evening of the 12/12 2010):
In every occasion that the anchors or programe-host asked on the possible causes or motives of the bombing (news-programs Aktuell, Rapport, and the in-deph news program Agenda, of the Swedish National television, SVT) to politicians representing the government, or from the opposition, or “terrorism experts”, or political commentators from the main establishment’s newspapers, (Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet), invariably no one of those asked alluded in their answer either the Swedish presence in Afghanistan or the Wilks offensive-caricatures episode.
Further, SVT journalist Marianne Rundström - program leader in “Agenda” - gets the most incredible eluding answers, as if the interviewers are playing “dumb” or plainly do not understand the direct question, or simply they conceal a truth they perfectly know.
Is there anything that you could think it could have triggered the bombing-act (kan du se någonting som kan vara utläsande?).
“This is horrible. One cannot understand that the all thing has happened” (Detta är förskräckligt. Man kan inte förstå att detta har hänt). And then some words in absolute general terms like “what would happen happens”, etc., but not a word on the recent public revelations about Swedish involvements in the war against Iraq, the recent disclosures on the Afghanistan war and the deep collaboration between USA and Sweden, etc.
In another occasion during the SVT program Agenda 12/12 the program leader asked directly Karin Pettersson (Aftonbladet's editor in chief) whether the Afghan issue could have a relevancy or connection to the commented bombing. The eluding answer came directly. Karin Pettersson replied in essence that “Sweden’s role in the Afghan war is a thing for the Sweden’s democratic institution to decide, and the discussion not be influenced in this or that direction by acts of this kind or as a response to those”. This is absolutely not what the journalist is asking her. She also said that Aftonbladet have been critic to that involvment and she also mention the note send by the terrorsit/bomber but NOT relating this fact as the clear-cut motive in her interpretation (or abscence of interpretation).
Nevertheless, the world would say, jokingly, "that is Sweden in a nutshell, to play not understanding" (“hacerse el sueco”, to play the Swede, as the saying here abroad). But the issues at stake are far much serious to record the above only as another anecdotic entry.
a) the military intervention of Sweden in Afghanistan, b) the affair Vilks
The facts and rationale that Sweden – and even SÄPO officials - admit for the public abroad, why trying to consequently deny to their own Swedish public?
1.Because that would immediately trigger an anew discussion not only of the Swedish political and military involvement in Afghanistan. In the aftermath of the Wikileaks disclosures on the secret agreements Sweden-USA, a new debate will certainly review the issue on the degree of dependency the Swedish foreign policy have secretly incurred towards USA interests.
2.Because a discussion anew on the affair Vilks would put in evidence that the position of the Swedish establishment towards freedom of expression and publishing is ideologically conditioned. It will depend if serves or not the primary interests the establishment is due to serve, domestically and internationally.
In the case of bringing help to Lars Wilks in his vulgar provocative anti-Islam discourse all the doors of freedom of expressions were open and encouraged in Sweden. In the case of trying to neutralize denounces against Sweden's secret agreements with USA disclosed by Julian Assage's Wikileaks, and its participation in the Afghanistan dirty war, doors will be closed, accusations in-personae will be fabricated, and “freedom of expression” put in jeopardy without a blink of hesitation.
Wikileaks framtid tystar man ej, bara för makthavarna lyckas avstänga dagens servrar. Wikileaks budskap skall överleva, även om bestyrda osanningar skulle lyckas deformera bilden av sitt främsta flaggskepps Piratkapten. Även med det ultimata syftet att undanröja denne fysiskt. Detta är inte bara krig mot yttrandefrihet. Detta är politisk terrorism mot oss alla.Och det är vi som skall segra!
[Uppdatering 14 Dec. Professors blogg är på resande fot medan väntar med stort intresse utvecklingen i London avseende Assange-fallet. En kommentar om det publiceras här 15/12. Här nedanför min senaste publicerade kommentar i ämnet]
Det mest uppenbarliga i det intressanta inlägget ”Sverige bör fördöma USA:s övertramp” (yttrandefrihet och Wikileaks informationsflöde) författat av moderat skribenterna Karl Sigfrid och Mary X Jensen (Svenska dagbladet 11/12) är det som inte skrevs. Nämligen, det övertrampet åstadkommits mot Wikileaks av Sverige självt.
Författarna har förvisso rätt när de tolkar attacker mot Wikileaks existens som ett angrepp mot yttrandefrihet. Emellertid, det går definitivt inte - som den svenska tesen har i övrigt försökt att framföra till offentligheten - att skilda å ena sidan Sveriges rättsliga åtgärdermot Assange och åt andra sidan positionerna gentemot Wikileaks.
Detta är lätt att iakttaga när man exempelviss följer tidtabellen (tidpunkterna) till turerna omkring anklagelserna mot Assange. Att till exempelvis dröja med den ”slutliga” kallelsen för Assange tills Wikileaks dokument skulle internationellt lanseras.
Dock man kan förstå det svenska etablissemangets indignation gentemot Assange, och som skulle förklara hämnden därtill, bilden som framkommer internationellt – inte bara i Italienska media - är delvis det underställda beteendet av Sveriges regering i samband med USA:s intressen (exempelvis det som Assange har exponerats om det hemliga samarbetet med USA) men framförallt det ohederliga agerandet av vissa svenska officiella institutioner och kända socialdemokrat politiker i samband med de fabricerade anklagelserna mot Assange.
Enligt de allra flesta bedömningar som internationellt publicerades framstår Sverige som en uppenbarlig exekutor av USA:s design gentemot Assange, särskilt genom att förbereda - genom de till synes överdrivna anklagelser och den följaktigen arrestering i London - det juridiska spelet för en utlämning till USA. Där i USA är Assange terrorist eller/och spion anklagad av politiker i partiet motsvarande den seriösa svenska högern – med moderaterna i spetsen.
Till ovan läggs den högt publicerade lanseringen i det svenska etablissemangets media av de alternativa initiativen till Wikileaks som nu annonseras. I nästan samtliga av dessa media rapporter som påstås avser att ”granska Wikileaks”,det som istället framförs i prima grad är en öppen smutskastning gentemot Assange själv, hans påstådda arbetsmetoder, personliga negativa attribut, etc.
Således, det framstår som inexakt, och ”orrättvis”, att endast tillskriva USA genomförandet av hela manövern för att tysta ner Wikileaks. Sverige är istället som i konkret mest driver den kamp som avser att skada Wikileaks och hellre ser att dess grundare försvinner.
Om denna principiella aspekt – att kriget mot Wikileaks är en ren massaker mot yttrandefriheten - har författarna helt rätt. Däremot, en tillika graverande åtgärd som borde också har nämns, är det desinformations korståg som de svenska media för i etablissemangets krig mot Wikileaks. Detta aventyras att tolkas också som en del av psykologiska kriget mot frihetsinformation.
Wikileaks framtid tystar man ej, bara för makthavarna lyckas avstänga dagens servrar. Wikileaks budskap skall överleva, även om bestyrda osanningar lyckas deformera karaktären av sitt främsta flaggskepps Piratkapten. Även med det ultimata syftet att undanröja denne fysiskt. Detta är inte bara krig mot yttrandefrihet. Detta är politisk terrorism mot oss alla. Och det är vi som skall segra.
Ytterligare, jamför man officiellt Assange med terroristen Bin Laden – just på grund av det arbete Assange med sin Wikileaks har effektivt och hjältemodigt åstadkommit - spikar man också offentligt Wikileaks dödsdöm. Den ”rättsliga” processen initierades ju där i Sverige.
Is there a CIA connection in the Swedish Assange-plot?
By Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Bergamo, Italy
The only certain matter in the Swedish Assange-affair is that the interests of USA rulers, the interests of the Swedish political establishment menaced and already hurt by Wikileaks, and the agenda of the Swedish radical feminists, indeed converge perfectly in this nasty campaign pursuing the political killing, or just the killing, of Assange.
Updated 10 Dec 2010
Breaking news from the Italian News Agency RAI News-24 and the Cuban Prensa Latina - and that, needles to say, will not beaccounted by the Swedish media - provide now extensive details on the reported CIA connection of a "Cuban woman" of name "Anna Ardin", and of her activities in Cuba and Sweden. She is also signaled in those news reports as one of the two women behind the accusations against Julian Assange. The RAI article has the headline "Anna, accusatrice di Assange, 'spia della Cia'"
It is not likely that the Swedish media will investigate or at least comment in deep on these new aggravating informations. The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny have already denied any foreign initiative around the case and the radical-feminist lawyer Claes Bogström, self-confess instigator of the "rape" reopening case, have declared to the journalists that is just about two normal, average Swedish women and that nothing of it has to do with the WikiLeaks thing. Swedish journalists have accepted that uncontested, and the news reports on the Cia-connection immediately discarded as "incredible stories".
The fresh reports - implying the CIA with the legal actions of Sweden against Assange - were recently published in dispatches from respectively Rome, Italy (RAI-24 News) and Havana, Cuba (Gramma, Prensa Latina) and the U.S.A. (The Miami Herald, USA). Here is reported that "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's accuser has ties to Cuban dissidents".The possible Cia connection of Ana ardin has been reported before (as I have previously quoted in my articleAssange buried the Swedish neutrality mythpublished in Second Opinion 8/12). These new reports are more specific, bring further details and also include primary sources from Cuba. They are News-agency dispatches and main newspaper articles. They are not "rumors in the net", as equivocally referred in a Swedish newspaper's editorial (Sanna Rayman "Absurditetsnivå gredelin är passerad för länge sen", SvD 10/12).
Strictly, even considering that the connection of the mentioned woman and the CIA would have indeed existed - directly or indirectly (read the information attached in the links below and have your own conclusions) - still that per se would not necessarily entail that a very special operation was set in motion by the CIA in Sweden, to get Assange.
However, the reports given on this "collaboration" with CIA published by solid News agencies as RAI or ANSA are so detailed and emphatic, and the possible impact at the base of the case of the Swedish establishment against Assange so aggravating, that in any other Western country it would most certain lead to an investigation from the part of serious and professional journalists. But not in Sweden; and the reason being quite simple: Swedish journalists ARE parts of that establishment. Further, many among them are also adherents - with different degrees of involvement - of the political ideology of feminist fundamentalism. Itsnotorious front liner, lawyer Claes Borgström, is the one who actually took the initiative in labelling the case as "rape" and then pressed the reopening of the "rape" case against Assange).
Whether that small Swedish fascist clique of self professed Christian fundamentalist-feminists has or not been instrumented by CIA in their case against Assange it will for sure remain as investigation stuff, world-wide. Nevertheless, the Swedish political-financial establishment has enough strong reasons of their own for fearing WikiLeaks, or revenge against Assange, or wish to neutralize him (and the Swedish Pirates, copy-right abolitionists, WikiLeaks activists, independent liberals and all creative intellectuals who are beyond their control).
Hence, it would be fair to assume that this establishment in power would very eagerly pavement the judicial way for the fundamentalist-feminists in moving forward their campaign for enhancing the rape criminal-concept (Borgström and companions), using Assange. It is here where the Assange pilot-case fits in, a case devised to have a free ride in the celebrity locomotive of the recent, highly publicized Wikileaks episodes.
In this case, the Assange accusations would not need such a thing as “perfidy-minded” CIA inventiveness. Christian fundamentalist-feminists have a deceit manual of their own. In other words, Sweden is doing such an excellent job in the smearing-campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange that, in my opinion, CIA would think there is no need at this stage for giving the Swedes an extra hand.
The only crystal clear thing in this affair is that the interests of USA (with or without CIA involvement), the interests of the Swedish political establishment menaced and already hurt by Wikileaks, and the agenda of the Swedish fundamentalist-feminists, indeed converge perfectly in this nasty campaign pursuing the political killing, or just the killing, of Assange.
Find the links to the mentioned articles, in full text, here below the RAI- clip
No more profit among Third World countries thanks to the neutrality stand. No more international political prestige or respect for an "independent" and proud Sweden. Wikileaks buried for ever Sweden neutrality myth and its front figure Julian Assange is now due to a filthy, vulgar vendetta.
As the detention of Julian Assange is now implemented on behalf of Sweden, it would be necessary to clarify some issues for non-Swedish speaking audiences. Possible equivoques of terms based in direct translations of Swedish dispatches may refer not only to the Swedish case against Assange, but also on the responsibility of Swedish authorities in the production of the aggravating secret agreements with American Intelligence services and that were exposed in the diplomatic documents leaked by Assange’s organization.
Compromising leaks (for the Swedes)
In the main, Assange´s organization Wikileaks has documented diplomatic traces of several agreements between Swedish government officials and envoys from American Intelligence services which occurred relatively recently, among other 2008. The content of these agreements were reported by the program Dokument inifrån of the Swedish Television 5/12 2010 .
Officials of the Swedish government would have themselves presented a formula to the Americans consisting in a disinformation system towards the Swedish Parliament and by extension also betraying the Swedish public as a whole. The system, euphemistically called “the informal” channel or procedure, consists in to secretly keep the nature of the contacts (and the agreements on gathering and/or transference of intelligence that ensued), letting them unknown by the constitutional and legislative powers (the Parliament).
In practice, the ultimate rationale of the “informal” procedures proposed by the Swedes is that it could guarantee a vast more extensive using of the Swedish information data, a more enhanced penetration in the integrity of Swedish citizens, etc. than the agreement on Intelligence cooperation that could eventually be accepted by the Swedish Parliament, even considered by the standards of its right-wing majority.
Apparently trying to save both the prestige of the country and the stability of the government (and the survival of the Intelligence agreements) the Swedish conservative media have tried to present the facts above as an opposition of the Swedes against the American pressures. Swedish officials are subtlety presented in these media like “heroes”. Svenska dagbladet, SvD, run for instance this thesis in an article reporting a presumably opposition of the Swedish government against the use of Sweden for CIA’s prisoner-transport . In fact, the alluded Wikileak telegram referred to initiatives taken by some Swedish integrity-minded SÄPO and military intelligence officers (which stopped one of the rendition CIA flights in Swedish soil). The newspaper instead attributed - unfairly, in my opinion - this act to government politicians.
It is not so that USA exercises against Sweden that kind of excessive pressure that the Swedes have to heroically oppose, as it is contended. In true, it was not the USA government and its envoys which wanted to deceive the Swedish Parliament. The Americans whished instead a formal and correct agreement. However, the even more pro American-benefit proposition (than the one from the American themselves) was all on the part of the Swedish government officials, inspired perhaps by the now public own affective allegations of the very Minister of Defence Sten Tolgfors such as the celebre “I love USA”. Further, it is extremely unlike that agreements of that calibre have not been initiated or sanctioned by the Swedish ministers of Defence, Justice and Foreign Affairs.
In fact, those “informal” agreements have placed the Swedish security and military intelligence so heavily under the control and command of the Americans, that, as reported by the newspaper Expressen 7/12 2010 referring to the years ensuing 2003, Sweden Intelligence officers got the impression that they were working under direct orders of the CIA ( “Under de kommande åren förändrades svensk underrättelse-och säkerhetstjänst på ett sådant sätt att enskilda tjänstemän uppfattade det som att de arbetade på direkt beställning av CIA”) .
"Cultural" factors fail in explaining betrayal
In many countries, public disclosures of this kind (agreements made by government officials in benefit of a foreign power and in detriment of national citizens) - particularly if were intentionally devised to keep the all thing secret not only for the public but also the country’s highest legislative institution - would lead to trials for nothing less than treason. In other countries would lead to constitutional processes and imminent change of government, besides of the legal consequences for the individuals involved.
If this “natural” course of events is not likely to happen in Sweden, to a great extent would be explained by the conscious manipulation of the cultural trick “Swedish consensus”. In other words, journalists and researchers, or politicians supposed to criticize or condemn the awful doings of their authorities will instead “understand” them because “this is the Swedish culture”, “we are not for conflicting”, and ergo all wrongdoings might be justified by a natural conflicting-avoiding character and the strive to be regarded by the world as “peaceful”. And modern.
But this is not completely true. In fact Swedes are NOT naive, as some few sometimes conveniently may play they are. Swedish officials and journalists are instead highly educated, well informed, and well politically aware of what they are doing. One alternative explanation may be that by trying to keep things secretly, the Swedish officials had estimated the possible damage for Sweden’s prospective political gains and economic trade with countries of other latitudes. These have in the past in many cases been possible just thanks to the Swedish declared neutrality-stand. The journalists would not like to agitate research articles against that balance. The truth is then buried. This is what we are now witnessing.
In an outstanding piece of intellectual rescuing – using the above mentioned cultural trick “Swedish consensus”, professor colleague Wilhelm Agrell (called in for damage control by Dagens Nyheter, the main Swedish newspaper) publish today a debate article on the issue of the secret agreements commented above .
In the main, Wilhelm Agrell excuses the current government with the notion that the same “double” attitude has been practised by other governments since about six decades ago! He will not get into concrete propositions about ending such praxis, neither would he care to analyze the negative consequences of the last agreements for the integrity of the Swedish citizens (and for our national security!), or the catastrophic effects that these revelations would have for the Swedish stand elsewhere in the international scenario. Because one thing is that, judging from their political preferences, most of Swedes feel rather happy with their American strategic-minded leadership. Another thing is, however, that every single Swedish institution, not only the government but universities, foundations, etc, have profit their international prestige and positive affection from their counterparts all over world based precisely in the notion of a neutral and pacifist Sweden.
And there is yet another issue which could not go missed by Professor Wilhem Agren. Namely, the genuine risk for the national security of Sweden posed exactly by these secret agreements. The interpretation by the USA Ambassador, according to the telegrams, was that there is strong reason to believe that Sweden would not become a direct target for terrorists (SvD 6/12 2010) . I genuinely hope that the Ambassador is still right, and he shall remain right in this point. But there is also strong reason to believe that terrorists had not then perceived – as neither the absolutely main part of the world – how engaged Sweden was and is, and eagerly wishes to be, an active part in that war. Not only regarding intelligence gathering, but above that the active Swedish military intervention in Afghanistan. It is absurd to blame Assange for the consequences (for Sweden) of those unnecessarily subservient decisions on spying their own or getting into other's belligerent operations, amid decisions taken by Swedish government individuals in their “love” for America – but risking Sweden as a whole.
As for Julian Assange, he is not convicted by any crime in Sweden; neither is he formally prosecuted for the crime “rape” in the sense as it is commonly conceived in the world outside Sweden, namely a violent act without partner consent and which is not here the case. Normally translations (for instance into English, Italian, or Spanish) exercised by the foreign press of texts in Swedish give often a false meaning of those “juridical” concepts with regard to the juridical culture or common sense prevailing in countries with normal, democratic, non gender-alienated judicial systems. You may observe that the Swedish newspapers still persist in their headlines on “Assange is sought for rape” without caring of give to the public details or actual categorization of the crime for which Assange is suspected on the base of a coordinating accusation of two adult Swedish women, one of the woman – according to a report from Israel Shamir and Paul Bennet in Counterpunch – would likely be linked to a CIA financed organization .
As to the “rape” suspicions (not charges) issue - as preposterous or even ridiculous as it may sound to the foreign reader (the world is actually laughing at this) - according to different lawyers’ reports the all thing would in true refer to the use of a malfunctioning condom! For reasons of space, I shall develop in more detail some whereabouts of the “legal” case against Assange in a separate post.
Finally, I would like, warmly and genuinely, to invite my readers to subscribe to this statement by Åsa Linderborg in Aftonbladet 6/12 2010:
”Anyone who have claimed stand in defence of freedom of expression must declare that they fully shall support Assange, if USA or other attacks him or the distribution of Wikileaks’ information. The one who scoff at this demand shall never again pretend being a democrat” .