Debunking the “Swedish consensus” amidst the political and media elites on the case Assange, we have found a correlation between Sweden’s foreign policy and the Swedish legal system’s stance on the case, being an important factor.[1a]

Parallel, when assessing the characteristics and performances of this foreign policy – whether it is correct, in terms of representing or not the genuine interests of Sweden, i.e. the sovereignty of the nation and the security of its people, ­ we find other collateral phenomena: on the one hand the particularity represented by the consensus that the Swedish political parties profess towards the government on matters of foreign policy; and on the other hand an extreme lack of criticism from the media, although with honourable exceptions.[1b] This refers not only the state-owned media but also the MSM as a whole, including “media professors” at Swedish state-owned universities, that either remain completely silent on these shameful endeavours, or constantly try to minimize, or even negate facts, on behalf of the political powers supporting them with  privileges. However, this silent Swedish block-consensus profited by Bildt for being able to unmolested continue his excessive Russian-phobic campaign, has increasingly been broken.

Latest, emerged the voice of a formerly Swedish ambassador to Russia, Mr Sven Hirdman,which in a DN op-ed arguments for a change in the stance maintained by the Swedish Foreign Ministry on Ukraine/Russia and on geopolitics in general. A criticism in similar terms has been previously raised in Professors blogg. Ambassador Hirdman criticism adds to a growing condemnation done in Sweden by prominent figures to the foreign policy led by Carl Bildt. Previously, on the 5 of March, another Swedish ambassador, Mr Rolf Ekéus publicly criticized Bildt for “clearly choosing a propaganda way [opinionsbildande väg] instead of a diplomatic way.”[1c] Even at his own office, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sources affirm:

“(Carl Bildt) performs in Sweden’s name as in one-man show”.[1d]

 By Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Image above, headlines in SvD 5 of March 2014,”Sharp Swedish formulations criticizes”. Marked text: “Ekéus says that Carl Bildt clearly has chosen an advocacy way instead of a diplomatic one” (referred to declarations by Carl Bildt on the Ukraine situation).

Below, headlines in DN-debate 4 of April 2014 “Bonds between Ukraine and Russia are stronger than others”. Sven Hidman, former Swedish ambassador to Russia states that “the West lacks insight” on the Ukraine situation.

________

A twitter directed to me on the 6 of April 2014, characterized Sweden in hard unkindly terms, as country in general. I twittered in reply:

“No, Sweden is a wonderful country! The problem is the wrong Carl Bildt’s foreign policy and an inadequate “integration” policy”:

But it came this rebuttal:

I felt necessary to clarify my stance on these endeavours of the foreign policy of Sweden.

I

The shift is ideological

I presume that everybody in the informed international forum know about the dignified foreign policy maintained by Sweden during the times of the social democratic governments of Tage Erlander and, principally, of Olof Palme and team-mates. Foreign-policy architects close to Olof Palme were, among others: Sten Anderson, a foreign minister in the Palme government who was posthumously awarded in 2010 the highest distinction (medal Star of Jerusalem) by the Palestinian government for his support to the independence of Palestine; and Pierre Schori, praised for his democratic and anti-imperialism stance, and for his support to the Third World countries.

However, and noteworthy, the shift of Sweden’s foreign policy – that ended in the current geopolitical subordination to US interests – occurred after the assassination of Olof Palme, and under the social democratic government of Göran Person (PM) and Thomas Bodström (Justice minister), while the Foreign minister at the time Anna Lindh played along. Thomas Bodström is the son of a formerly Swedish foreign minister, and during his time-out after the late discussion on the Egyptians scandal and other events, changed his residence to Virginia, USA. Further, the current spokesperson for foreign affairs of the Social Democratic Party, Urban Ahlin, has been signalled by the WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables of maintaining secret contacts with the US Embassy in Stockholm.

It is unthinkable that the foreign-policy scandal “Egyptian-refugees renditions to the CIA” referred in the Twitter-rebuttal above would have taken place during the government of Olof Palme. But it is also unthinkable that Olof Palme would have played along with the radical disassembly of the Welfare-state model, a deed that was performed by Goran Person.

A first clarification is thus, that unequivocally, the shift in the foreign policy of Sweden corresponds to a shift in the ideology of the social democratic leadership, more and more towards positions in the past a monopoly if the right-wing parties such as the Moderates – the main political party in the  coalition leading the current government of Sweden..

II

 The foreign-policy stance of Carll Bildt corresponds to an extreme right-wing ideological position

A second necessary clarification is that the “Alliance government”, whose strong man is Carl Bildt, the “Moderate” politician, previously PM and currently minister of the Foreign Affairs, has taken this US collaboration to an extreme stance. Most important, in my opinion, is that this position really endangers or put in risk Sweden’s national security [See my recent post “How the Carl Bildt government converted a proud nation into a subservient US-puppet, and put Swedish national security at risk”].[2] Bildt’s provocations against Russia are not only rhetorical, as implied recently in a DN-debate article by Sven Hirdman, a formerly a Swedish ambassador in Moscow.[3] The Swedish foreign minister has taken the lead in making the sanctions against Russia and Russian leaders as severe as possible, fact that has been commented in the international news.

It is rewarding to notice that the above-referred op-ed by Sven Hirdman reproduced several of the rationale given in my series about the foreign policy of Minister Carl Bildt on Ukraine. And this is a solid rebuttal to trolls trying to confound any position criticizing Bildt’s political interventions, with an anti-Swedish stance. For in reference to the ethical purpose of correcting things for the betterment of Sweden, there is no difference between the opinions of a Swedish ambassador or any other Swedish citizen. The trolls fabrication in trying to label any criticism to Swedish authorities as anti-Sweden behaviour is purely fascist argumentation.

My reply to these fascists is that, regardless if they like it or not, I own the right to support, agree, or criticize, any authority of this country and as much as any other Swedish citizen own the same rights. And in the same terms, and up to the same level such as the criticism raised by Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and all his Moderates Party colleagues against the government of Olof Palme. The difference being that my criticism is not  personal, a feature included in their criticism – or hate – against the afterwards assassinated Olof Palme.

Although the scope of Hirdman’s criticism includes “all parties involved” (the West, Russia, the Ukraine government), he concluded in his op-ed with a reflection that has been many times published in Professors blogg, nearly in Hidman’s exact terms:

Sweden should, by own interest, comeback to its old foreign-policy stance to act for diminishing instead for increasing the conflicts between the superpowers.” [4]

WikiLeaks had provided time ago a proof of this extreme shift in foreign policy under Bildt’s conduction, in the Diplomatic Cables.

While the Swedish government still maintained in their website that the such Swedish “cooperation” is “based in Sweden’s policy of military non-alignment”, according to the Wikileaks diplomatic-cable mentioned below the US Ambassador in Stockholm informed to Washington that the Swedes have “left neutrality in the garbage-trash”.

NATO medals to the Swedish occupation troops. These images are from the Swedish Armed Forces blog https://blogg.forsvarsmakten.se/

According to a Wikileaks cable, the US Ambassador communicated to Washington that Swedish Minister of Defence Sten Tolgfors have explained in a meeting at the Stockholm Embassy how “easy has been for him to gather political support for (increasing) Swedish troops in the Afghanistan-war under NATO command”, and that the Swedish Defence minister even explained that “he loves the USA”.

I referred to the above in a RT-interview.[5]

“We love America”, and they really do, which is totally OK. But they are putting in jeopardy the interests of the Swedish nation by taking Sweden, for instance, to a war, which is not Sweden’s war — it is NATO’s war; by abandoning the Neutrality policy which was cherished not only by the Swedish nationals, but also by vast contingents of the people in the world. And that is the role that Sweden still could play in the international arena; and that is the thing that many of us would like to have re-established.”

III

The Swedish per-default consensus among political parties on issues of foreign-policy results in the apparent backing of Carl Bildt

A third necessary clarification about Sweden’s foreign policy is that this subservient US-stance it is generally supported by all the political parties [See also “If the Sweden Democrats’ foreign policy is ‘not according to Sweden’s traditions (osvensk)’ Swedish style’, what is then the Social Democratic Party’s? The struggle for Assange and Manning continues”].[6]

Some exceptions to this phenomenon have been the some times oppositional stance of the Sweden Democrats (SD), and some times by the so-called Left Party (Vänster). But in general, Sweden’s foreign policy it is a matter of uncritical consensus from all the political parties.

The main propaganda resource towards the Swedish people, implemented by both the government and the opposition political parties, is that Sweden is bound to follow the United Nations resolutions and if the UN requires to its member-states to intervene in a conflict area, e.g. with military forces, Sweden “has to” comply. Hence, the law-abiding Swedes accept this argument without discussion. However, the truth is that these “requests” by the UN organization which Sweden follows:

a)    On the one hand generally correspond to initiatives by the USA or NATO countries, or even put forward at the international organization by NATO proxy countries or US client-states, as it was in the Libya-case illustrated below. In this case it was Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the US, that nominally presented the resolution-proposition at the UN. ;

b)    On the other hand, this “requests” or “mandates” from the part of “the United Nations” are absolutely NOT compulsory; the “mandates” are in fact not “mandatory”. And being this one reason why most of UN countries do not follow “UN instructions” of, for instance, participating with military forces in the operations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

For instance, in the deliberations of the Swedish Parliament on the 1 April 2011 followed Carl Bildt’s proposition that Sweden should send the Air Force to sustain military operations in Libya under NATO command, the main argument among the political parties was “to comply with the UN mandate”. All parties, with only one exception, subscribed Bildt’s proposition. And this included the Vänster Party (the “Left Party”). The only party that opposed the proposition was the Sweden Democrats, and for which it was accused by the social-democrats (Urban Ahlin) of being “osvensk” (“not in accordance with Swedish traditions”). Further, one clear illustration that these “mandates” are not mandatory us provided by the stance taken by the German government, which refused to participate in the Libya operations in spite of its commitments both in NATO and as a conspicuous UN state-member.

IV

Swedish criticism on Carl Bildt’s foreign policy

The now increasingly  criticism against Cal Bildt extreme statements, utterances that in  my opinion correspond to an extreme right-wing ideological position,  begun some years ago under the so-called Soviet-submarine crisis. Supported by never proved “technical” allegations from the Swedish Armed Forces, Bildt accused the former Soviet Union of freely transiting the under-waters of the Stockholm archipelago. This provoked a crisis which was only rescued thanks to the intervention of Olof Palme and team. At the end, it was indicated that the intruders could have well been NATO submarines instead.

Later he was criticized for arrogating to himself the right of informing the international community on events that in fact would correspond the government of Sweden, or the corresponding authorities, to stand for. That was for instance the events around the bomb explosion in Stockholm. At that opportunity, however, I defended Carl Bildt’s personal right to twitter, but the central question here is, as professor of political sciences at Goteborg university Ulf Bjerel put forward:

“Are Carl Bildt’s statements on Twitter to be regarded as official Swedish foreign policy?” [7]

The answer of Prof Bjerel to this question is, “Yes” ( Svaret på den frågan bör besvaras med ja.)

Here below a sample of Swedish reports on highly criticized statement by Carl Bildt.

Swedish Radio reports that Foreign Minister Bildt has been highly criticized for his uttered praising of Ariel Sharon. But the State-owned outlet refrains from commenting on it themselves

Kerstin Lundgren, the foreing affairs spokes person of the Center Party (member of the government coalition), criticized Bildt for his public praise of Sharon. She referred concretely to violations of human rights and international law, and the nasacres of Sabra and Shatila. [8]

Hellen Klein, in Dagens Arena, referred to a “documentary” done by the state-owned Swedish TV dedicated to praise Carl Bildt. The documentary’s header was “Excellency” (His Excellency Carl Bildt). Klein reminded in her article that the SvT documentary did not care to report on important criticsm to Carl Bildt’s deeds on foreign policy. One was his opposition to the sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa [See also “A nigger is a nigger and a Swede is a Swede”. Top leaders of Sweden’s main gov party stating position on Mandela’s struggle against apartheid“]; another one was his lobbying on behalf of US for starting the Iraq war (see below).

V

What is Neutrality on geopolitics, and what can it does for world peace?

I also would like to make clear that my stance for Sweden’s geopolitical neutrality has nothing to do with the opportunistic position of keeping Sweden “out of international trouble”, under the false premise that this would guarantee the securing of the interests of the Swedish population. Not al all.

The “Neutrality” of Sweden that I advocate has to do instead with and active role of Sweden in finding solutions for the international conflicts, for instance through mediation. Again, the restitution of a diplomatic praxis as it was during the times of Olof Palme.

It is only that for this endeavour Sweden needs to enjoy an international credit as a “neutral” country. It has to be clear that Sweden is not a “NATO country”, “partner” or the like.

Also in the factor geopolitical or international “credit”, it is included the real military capacity behind. Which lead us to discuss the current organization (or disorganization) of the Swedish armed forces in reference to the defense of Sweden (beyond the accomplishment of NATO missions in operations abroad under US command).

And this is the issue, which I have been advocating for since the beginning of these columns, ten years ago, of the re-institution in Sweden of the military conscription system. This system was abolished during the process of accommodating the foreign policy of Sweden to the NATO needs. In terms of troops, what does exist at present in Sweden is a relatively small, seriously reduced, professional army. These are small units called devised to participate in operations abroad. In real terms the Swedish Army has been converted in a tiny auxiliary force to US/NATO. The efficacy of this Swedish collaboration is of course not measured in military-efficacy terms, for the Swedish forces are in fact tiny. The use that NATO is doing of the Sweden military participation is of a political nature,  by exploiting the notion that “a neutral country” also endorses NATO operations.

But this has been done at expenses of a military organization devised primarily to attend the sovereignty of Sweden as a nation and its territory. As previously commented in Professors blogg, the Chief-Commander of the Swedish armed forces has declared that Sweden is not capable to stand a fight for over a week, in case of an invasion.

Yet, there is another strategic aim that a national conscription would help to achieve. And this is regarding the national-cultural integration of the increased immigrant population. In practical terms, a compulsory conscription system serves also as a natural acculturation machine between the native-Swedish conscripts and those Swedes with diverse ethnicity. This would benefit also a social or civil peace aim, in terms that it would help to prevent or diminish cultural or even racist-like confrontations. It is obvious, really beyond discussion, that the military service (conscription) increases the national integration of individuals with immigrant ascendency. And this in its turn increases the national cohesion of a country. In a country like Sweden, with a “cultural-immigrant” population (first and second generation immigrants of one or both immigrant parents) reaching 24 per cent, this national cohesion would be highly needed if the case Swede would be obliged to enter a conflagration. In my opinion it is absurd that the Swedish authorities have not considered this important factor.

VI

The Swedish ideological shift and the Assange case

What concretely this shift has to do with the Assange case? As noted previously, it emerges clearer and clearer that the “Assange prosecution-case” might have simply been a request from the US government. Sweden was the only government that pursued a legal case against Assange, after that such demand was put forward by the US to the countries participating with forces in the occupation of Afghanistan, under US lead. This would have never occur without the shift in the geopolitical stance of Sweden, towards a subservient collaboration with US and NATO. There are many examples on the eagerness of the Swedish government trying to show its extreme allegiance with the US in geopolitical and military affairs. Several of these episodes has been commented in these columns, such as the advocacy Sweden imposed to it self in promoting an increase in the military expenditure of European countries to help NATO; this, even considering that Sweden “is not a NATO member”.

The Intercept exposures [See Was the reopening of the Sweden case, part of the US request to prosecute Assange by any means?] which were given on the context of this military cooperation of Sweden towards the US, also explain the incongruousness of the case itself; the absurdities and extemporaneities of the accusations and the disproportional legal procedures such as the European Arrest Warrant issued by a Swedish prosecutor against Julian Assange. On the other hand it explains why the Swedish prosecutor cannot afford to finish the interrogation, as the public would realize that there has never been a legal base for re-initiating such prosecution.It would be fair to conclude that the above constitutes a genuine reason (behind the excuse-finding series produced) for the “juridical” protracting of the case.

Conclusion

The profound dichotomy between the population of Sweden and their ruling classes – the political and cultural elites serving the interests of a recalcitrant upper class (nowadays of international corporate character) – emerges in itself as an explanation for the apathy of the average Swedes in general, and Swedish journalists in particular, concerning critical analyses of the political authorities’ actions.

The above is a result of the fact that deeds originating in political decisions by the Swedish rulers, no matter how bizarre, are in general not accountable and, in the end ignored, by vast segments of the public. The rulers and their operative proxies get away unpunished.

Corroborating this view, the Washington Post did not hide its perplexity when describing this Swedish phenomenon, and wrote:

”Although the parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved ‘extremely grave criticism’ for losing control of the operation and for being ‘remarkably submissive to the American officials,’ no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.” [10]

References

[1a] M Ferrada de Noli, ”Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 1- 342.

[1c] “Rolf Ekéus säger att Carl Bildt helt klart har valt en opinionsbildande väg i stället för en diplomatisk.”. In “Skärpt svenskt tonläge får kritik“, SvD, 5 March 2014.

[1d] ”Han företräder Sverige som en enmansshow”. In “Carl Bildt kör sitt eget race“, ETC, 13 March 2014.

[2] M Ferrada de Noli, ”How the Carl Bildt government converted a proud nation into a subservient US-puppet, and put Swedish national security at risk”, Professorsblogg, 26 March 2014.

[3] Sven Hirdman, “Ryslands och Ukrainas band är starkare än andras”. DN, 4 April 2014.

[4] Ibidem

[5] RT Interview. “MSM blacks Assange as US seeks Manning link”. Published 27 March 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYuJyqYO20A/. Published also by Rixstep, “A Lifeboat to Democracy”. http://rixstep.com/2/1/20120328,00.shtml

[6] M Ferrada de Noli, ”Om Sverigedemokraternas utrikes politik är ”osvensk” vad är då Socialdemokraternas? Och kampen för Assange och Mannings frihet fortsätter.” Professorsblogg, 10 Apr 2011.

[7] “Är Carl Bildts uttalanden på Twitter att betrakta som officiell svensk utrikespolitik? Svaret på den frågan bör besvaras med ja.” Ulf Bjereld, “Carl Bildt och Twitter. Utrikespolitik i en digitaliserad tid“, 29 Jul 2013.

[8] Kerstin Lundgren: “– Jag vill inte recensera utrikesministern, men personligen har jag en helt annan bild av Ariel Sharon som politisk aktör. Han har ju varit en central person under lång tid och som sådan haft en avgörande betydelse för hur fel utvecklingen blivit och de övergrepp som ägt rum inom folkrätten och inom internationell rätt. Det måste naturligtvis finnas med i allas vår bedömning. Vilka händelser? – Exempelvis invasionen i Libanon och vad som hände i flyktinglägren, massakern i Sabra och Shatila.” In “Bildt hyllar Sharon – och får kritik“. Sveriges radio,  11 Jan 2014.

[9] Helle Klein, in “Utrikespolitiken finns i Bildts huvud“, Dagens Arena, 7 April 2013.

[10] Craig Whitlock, “New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action”. Washington Post, 21 May 2005