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 .
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.
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.
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 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 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” .
Bergamo, Italy, 7 December 2010
 ”De hemliga telegrammen”, SVT, Channel 2, 5/12 2010 http://svt.se/2.123489/1.2258465/de_hemliga_telegrammen?lid=puff_2254045&lpos=lasMer
 Mikael Hollström. ”Sverige satte sig i respekt hos USA”. SvD 5/12 2010 http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-satte-sig-i-respekt-hos-usa_5778235.svd
Mike Ölander. ”CIA krävde att Sverige skulle utöka samarbetet” Expressen 6/12 2010
 Wilhem Agrell. ” ”Det är samma gamla lik som trillar ur garderoberna”. Dagens Nyheter 7/12 2010
 Mikaela Åkerman, Sebastian Chaaban. ”Samarbete med USA skulle inte visas upp”. SvD 6/12 2010
 Israel Shamir and Paul Bennet. ”Assange besieged. Making a mockery of the real crime of rape. Counterpunch.
 Åsa Linderborg. “Varför är Assange skurken?” Aftonbladet 5/12 2010