By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, chair, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights – SWEDHR.
For exactly six years ago, Sweden ordered the detention of the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange. According to the Snowden documents, the US government had asked the countries participating in the occupation of Afghanistan under US-military command, to initiate prosecution of Assange.  Only Sweden complied. In a previous analysis I concluded that Sweden most likely would persist in neither undertaking nor recognizing the international criticism for its rejection of the UN conclusion regarding the arbitrary detention of Mr Julian Assange. That is to say, it will not do so at least in the nearest future.
Further, the article hypothesizes that –in the eventuality of a positive intervention by the upcoming Trump administration regarding the case Assange – from the Swedish side the case will be likely used as a tool in a bargain including issues of economic interest, support by the US towards Swedish stances in the Security Council (as publicly anticipated by foreign minister Margot Wallström)  and other items already put forward by the letter of PM Stefan Löfven to President-elect Donald Trump. 
Meanwhile, as the Trump’s team has not yet given a clear indication regarding a possible intervention in the case, –in either direction– the prospect of an indictment and consequently the risk of extradition of Julian Assange to the US remains incumbent. 
Ecuador’s prosecutor, Galo Chiriboga, said recently that the future of the case Assange is now only attributable to Swedish prosecutors. “I do not think there is a quick way out,” he added.  This article analyses the Assange case in these contexts:
i) The case in the context of Sweden’s foreign policy and international trade; ii) The case in the context of Sweden’s national security.
One main thesis put forward by the author has been that the “legal” aspects of the case have been from the beginning, six years ago, a simple make-believe; a baroque superstructure of nonsense in which the real political case has been encrusted. Unfortunately, a fixation on that artificial aspect of the case has driven attention away from the essential elements in the case, namely the political node; this might have resulted in the postponing of a political action in favour of a juridical or legal priority which in concrete has not given Julian Assange the freedom which –arbitrarily– Sweden has taken away from him.
This distinction is of vital importance when considering a possible solution for the case’s stalemate, and obtaining Julian Assange’s freedom (beginning with the recognition by Sweden and the UK of the UNWGAD ruling).  Additionally, one conclusion of this review is that a comprehensive solution leading to the freedom of Assange has to tackle with the UK requests and the US situation regarding the announced investigations against WikiLeaks (and Assange).  In other words, only a political solution seems viable as effective and realistic.
I argue the above, also based on an old Roman juridical principle, freely translated as, “A knot is unknotted in the same fashion it was knotted”. As the case was politically elaborated, it has to be politically dismissed. Others might argue with help of Alexander of Macedonia, for whom –according to the traditions around the Delphi Oracle–a most effective way of untying a knot is parting it with a falling sword. He did that eventually, the story goes. But he was already in political charge of a vast imperium. Politicians in charge obviously are entitled to do that…
The Assange case in the context of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy for international trade gains.
It is necessary to first refer briefly to the history of Sweden’s ‘soft’ trademark designs aimed to access international market for its exports. Historically considered, these trademarks have served also as a presentation of Sweden’s cultural sustainability, a country ‘guided by principles’, and hence a suitable country to do business with. After all, “soft” trademarks are per definition incontrovertible, and devised for all to be in agreement with.
These are emblematic, non-controvertible mantras, aimed to easily find consensus or international sympathy. In reality, nevertheless, they are deprived of a consequent geopolitical behaviour. In modern times, the Swedish trademarks launched by the authorities abroad were, first the “neutrality” vow of the 60’s – 80’s, which was maintained until the Berlin Wall fall. 
Then it was followed by the “human rights” pretence of the 90’s, which ended with the catastrophe vote against Sweden in the UN in 2014, after irrecoverable prestige loses caused by the secret collaboration of the Swedish government with the CIA. 
Ultimately, the Swedish international mantra directed to the international market has been replaced with the ‘feminist’ characterization announced by the authorities. This aimed to be applied in all Swedish official activities and stances, particularly in foreign policy. We could hardly ignore this fact since is the Swedish government itself which have declared this fundamental aim in the leading statement “The feminist foreign policy of the government of Sweden” found in the government’s official web site:
”Jämställdhet mellan kvinnor och män utgör en grundläggande målsättning för svensk utrikespolitik. Uppfyllandet av kvinnors och flickors grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter utgör såväl en skyldighet inom ramen för internationella åtaganden som en förutsättning för att nå Sveriges bredare utrikespolitiska mål om fred, säkerhet och hållbar utveckling.” 
Any governmental initiative advocating societal changes in favour of gender equality and advancing women rights in all countries in the world is of course laudable. However, ethical problems may arise a) when the message is proven to lack consistency against the backdrop of the actual government’s behaviour (see below on current relationships between Sweden and Saudi Arabia); or b) when with the end of making such human-rights message louder in the international community, the government resort to anti human-rights means. As seen further below, this is what is happening with the further misusing of the arbitrarily-detention case of Mr Assange by the part of Sweden; a case that first had to be created, and then make it last for six years. Machiavelli would have been proud.
In a closer examination, the international use by the Swedish government of the feminist parlance shows having a target beyond the declared ideological concerns. It rather intends– through gaining support amid the legitimate and growing feminist movement of a number of developing countries – to influence the decision making in those countries towards the purchasing of Swedish industrial goods and services, and above all, adopting a stance to favour Swedish arms export.
As the feminist movement in those countries, and I say, fortunately, has been able to permeate across diverse sectors in society, this also includes members of the ruling elites intervening in the import decision-making. In the same fashion of the role played by the old Swedish “non alignment” and “neutrality” pseudo-doctrines amidst the constellation of “Third world countries” during the cold war (which, besides of benefiting the arms export industry signified huge contracts for Swedish companies), the new official “feminist” foreign policy serves a similar economic and commercial strategy.
Also, in the same way that the “principled stances” of “neutrality” and “non-alignment” proved in reality to be a deceptive geopolitical manoeuvre of the Swedish government to cover – as revealed by WikiLeaks –  a secret and growing collaboration with NATO, the new official “feminist” stance has rapidly demonstrated its lack of consequence. A concrete proof of this is given by the multiple business initiatives –mainly weapons export– currently initiated by the Swedish government for instance with Saudi Arabia  and other countries  noteworthy for their anti-feminist and gender-discriminating policies.
(Besides the fact that some of those Arab tyrannies are known for an extreme unequal gender panorama, they are also countries actively participating in wars. Nevertheless the outcome is that such weapon exports are illegal, according to Swedish law. Furthermore, as this war activities mean the aerial bombing of populations, such as in Yemen, in which a third of the targets in the raids result being civilian ones,  Sweden’s weapon exports are more than unethical; such behaviour should be ascribed as war-crimes collaboration.)
Impact in the Assange case
Although the ‘Assange case’ has been used from the beginning as symbol of a ‘feminist’ stance in Sweden, mainly by right-wing sections of the movement,  not all active or prominent figures of the Swedish feminism movement have endorsed this campaign. There are notable examples, both internationally and in Sweden, of distinguished feminists that have instead supported the struggle of justice for Julian Assange.   In this “anti-Assange” campaign, there is a consistent tendency, principally in the state-owned  and mainstream media,   to associate the case Assange with the feminist political struggle involved in the campaign to radicalize Swedish law criminalizing acts as offences, exactly of the kind that the Swedish police said (we make the distinction that it was the police and not the complainant) Julian Assange was suspected of having committed. 
It is worth mentioning in this background that the case, which originally has been closed by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné,  was reopened thanks to actions deployed by a constellation of prominent and less-prominent members of the political movement working to broaden the definition of sexual offences, including the former Gender Ombudsman Claes Bodström. 
The radical legislation of sexual offences in Sweden is in its turn the only emblematic item that Swedish feminism can present in the international arena as a benchmark of Sweden’s development in this front. Other classical issues, such as equal pay or absolute gender-indiscriminate environments have unfortunately not been achieved in Sweden. In other words, the exporting endeavour of Sweden in this area is more a matter of principles and rhetoric, rather than corresponding to a standard achieved by other countries, for instance Norway.
The implication of the above in future developments in the Assange case is packaged in a paradox. On the one hand, the ’hard line’ demonstrating against Assange is a unique opportunity to show abroad the radical legislation established in Sweden, meaning, to show what the government ponders as the cornerstone of Sweden’s feminism. On the other hand, it is the celebrity of Assange and WikiLeaks that provide the Foreign Ministry of Sweden with a free ride for their boosting. As long as the Swedish government will be able to profit from this ‘arrangement’ – no matter the injustice and the breaches to Assange human rights– they will use it.
At the same time, facts show that a primary interest of the Swedish government is the promotion of exports ‘made in Sweden’, mainly related to the arms industry. The emblematic “neutrality” mantra is now obsolete and absolutely deprived of credibility, on the cause of Sweden’s now open hostility against Russia and its progressive alignment with NATO [see Part II, below]. The replacement of “neutrality” and “non-alignment” by “feminist” represents however a serious shift in Sweden, beyond the rhetoric.
The Assange case in the context of Sweden’s national security
Coinciding with the transient decline of Russia after the Soviet Union downfall, Sweden started to shift from a self-defence system characterizing non-aligned countries during the cold war, towards a belligerent strategic against Russia. This, with the understanding that Sweden would count with NATO support, and speculating that Russia would not recover its military might.
In yet another miscalculation, the Swedish elites embraced the warmongering doctrine of Hillary Clinton and supported her presidential campaign politically and monetarily –via public funds donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Now, after the election of Donald Trump, the Swedish ‘national security’ establishment is in a state of disarray. The Assange card, an Ace prisoner in the Swedish geopolitical gambling since exactly six years ago, once again, will be played in the bargaining game.
Furthermore, representatives of the Swedish military utter openly poisonous judgments on Assange and WikiLeaks on Swedish TV. Assange and WikiLeaks are demonized as enemies of Sweden and the representative of the Armed Forces presented the thesis -with no evidence whatsoever– that WikiLeaks would have a pro-Russia agenda. As the military establishment views Russia as Sweden’s archenemy, ergo, following their equivocal assumption about the true nature of WikiLeaks, they consider its founder and publisher Julian Assange an ally of their ‘enemy’, an enemy by association. Why not ‘a war-prisoner’ in the imagined epic conflict the Swedish military wage vs. Russia. That would fit perfectly with the arbitrary decision of Julian Assange’s arrest.
From the government of Carl Bildt in 1991 and onwards, we saw the participation of Swedish air force under US-lead in the bombing of Qaddafi’s Libya; likewise the Swedish troops in the US occupation of Afghanistan;
Finally, in these days, the Swedish Armed Forces have published a report [see down below] affirming in a straightforward way –for the first time– that Sweden will be involved in a likely military conflict in the Northern Baltic area to be initiated by Russia –according to the “impression” the Swedish Arms Forces said to have gathered (read, Intel) about Russia’s will of “altering the current security order in the region.” 
How it did happen?
Swedish folk have been living in peace and safe from the threat of war for decades and decades, thanks mainly to the balanced policies of the old social democratic governments, best illustrated by the late Olof Palme. But the fall of the Berlin War coincided with the immediate entrance of Carl Bildt in the Swedish government. Bildt became Sweden’s PM in 1991 and again member of the government as FM in the Reinfeldt administrations 2006-2014. The quasi devastation of the Swedish Armed Forces began, first in 2009 with the cessation of the national conscription system, and subsequently with the re-organisation of the Swedish army converting it in battalions for “missions abroad” –which de facto resulted with troops being under US-military command in occupation wars, most notably in Afghanistan.
In the context of this vassal stance, Sweden was the only complying country among those asked by the US in August 2010 to initiate prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. 
Furthermore, during the times of ‘the Bildt-administration of Sweden’, WikiLeaks had revealed and denounced the secret collaboration between US Intel services and the Swedish government.  The Swedish press did not protest. Likewise it was the behaviour of the Swedish media and the political establishment in general, after investigating journalists exposed the secret collaboration of the Swedish government with the CIA in regarding the rendition of refugees that have been granted asylum in Sweden to end being transported by the CIA to torture centres elsewhere. This bizarre phenomenon deservedly attracted the attention of the international media, which commented accordingly. The Washington Post 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.”
Likewise, no main political or media actor in Sweden reacted scrutinizing the real scope of the Bildt military doctrine, which he masterminded in combination with the shift in Sweden’s foreign policy. No journalist inquired into the strategic implications that a shrinking of the armed forces would signify and not only in terms of diminishing Sweden’s defence capability.
The most important effect of Bildt’s design was that it placed Sweden at a seriously vulnerable position in terms of national security. The then military chief of the Swedish Armed Forces, General Sverker Göranson, declared the following about the combat readiness of the armed forces:
“Sweden would be able to last one week.”
To this ‘problem’, created by the adjustment of the armed forces to Bildt’s new foreign-policy doctrine, Bildt had already a ‘solution’: an increased collaboration with NATO:
An increasing collaboration with NATO, ‘and why not a full NATO-membership’, would fill the gap in the military capability-deficit. And this was, and still is, not a minor deficiency in military capability.
The military and, in most part, the Swedish politicians, that had earlier fallen in Bildt’s trap, also fell for the solution he proposed, despite the fact that the WikiLeaks publications also indicated that Carl Bildt allegedly was an American agent (a “US information agent”).  The Swedish public, as always, was kept outside this debate. No referendum was ever conducted to approve the drastic changes in the new military doctrine – which was disguised as ‘a new foreign policy for Sweden’ -presented by Bildt in Parliament.
With active or tacit approval, the Swedes complied with this new situation which meant the ending of the ‘neutrality’, ‘non-alignment’ and ‘human Rights’ pretences. The period also coincided with the initiation of the psy op front of a fabricated and anti-Russian phobia agitated by the State-owned TV and Radio, followed by the mainstream media. At that time, the author revealed the activities in the Swedish media by journalists trained by the Swedish military intelligence services. WikiLeaks had also revealed in the “Diplomatic Cables” series the secret contacts at the US embassy in Stockholm with other prominent Swedish politicians, e.g. the current social democrat party-member and speaker of the Parliament Urban Ahlin.
Lastly, one necessary clarification: With ‘shift in Sweden’s national security stance’ I refer here primarily to the openness in which the NATO allegiance is now proclaimed and defended by the Swedish military (the call is for “increased collaboration with NATO”), supported by the Swedish government, in particular by the minister of Defence. After a prolonged semi-cover collaboration with NATO, Sweden decided to go forward openly with the defence agreement (‘declaration of intent’) with NATO of June 2016.
When WikiLeaks denounced Sweden’s plans – under secret agreement with Saudi– for the construction of a weapons factory in Saudi Arabia, a top representative of the Swedish military went to State TV to accuse Julian Assange of ‘blackmailing Sweden’.
The Swedish TV –in a wide-announced documentary– put forward the thesis that Julian Assange is the one to blame for “getting the world to question Sweden’s credibility” . This goes well beyond pseudo-accusations of ambiguous formulated ‘suspicions’ (note: not charges. Julian Assange has never been charged with any crime in Sweden). It has to do with the publishing endeavour of Julian Assange. What, instead, Assange represented, for the ruling politico-military elites of Sweden, is a threat in his role as the WikiLeaks publisher. In reality, every revelation by WikiLeaks on Sweden demonstrates the inane and highly risky military doctrine, formulated by Bildt, that can lead to Sweden’s destruction.
Two days ago, The Swedish Armed Forces released a report where they affirm, “Sweden will be inevitably affected upon if an armed conflict arise in the Baltic area” (author’s cursive).  But elsewhere the report states, “Russia gives the impression of wanting to change the current security order in the region. This refers to both globally and to the North-Baltic region” (author’s cursive).  Taken both statements together, what the Swedish Armed Forces are saying is that: “As our military Intel analysis indicates, Russia’s intention of changing the current security order in the North-Baltic region, Sweden will be inevitably affected upon” (author’s interpretation). In other words, all indicate that Sweden is preparing for war with Russia.
Sweden’s defence minister Peter Hultqvist commented that he agrees with most of the Armed Forces report. 
Now, the political authorities of Sweden have found themselves “painted themselves into a corner”. In accordance with the shift in the new military doctrine, they naturally opted for supporting Hillary Clinton. This was not only illustrated by making public declarations, but also Swedish governmental institutions were (and are) donors to the Clinton Foundation.
However, the miscalculation of Sweden’s elites was multiple. Despite the enormous support that Swedish authorities, all political parties of the establishment (including the former euro communists, Vänster partiet), and the state-owned and stream media gave to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the warmongering doctrine she represented, the US elections produced Donald Trump as the President Elect. A candidate despised by the actors mentioned above.
The same above-mentioned recent report of the Swedish Armed Forces, recognizes that there is yet no clarity on Trump’s stance regarding NATO. It is not clear whether Ukraine, Sweden’s ultimate protégé, will be a main issue for Trump’s strategy in Europe. It is more likely that he will consider Crimea a Russian territory, and with it, weakening on this basis the EU sanctions against Russia that Sweden led vigorously. The Swedish military, and the minister of defence, are unsure even on whether Trump will honour the agreements of June 2016 between Sweden and NATO.
In this context, the only thing clear and on the record, in video format, is the declarations of Donald Trump concerning WikiLeaks. In it he declares: “I love WikiLeaks”. Click on the image below for the video:
Unfortunately, the impact in the Assange case will be that he will continue being a prisoner in the geopolitical bargaining of Sweden.
We, at Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR), demand instead that Sweden respect the human rights of Julian Assange, and that the Swedish authorities immediately abide with the UNWGAD decision on his arbitrary detention.
SWEDHR also wishes that Sweden would return being a sovereign country, politically, militarily, and thus geopolitically non-aligned.
For several years I have supported the reinstalling of national conscription, and opposed Bildt’s decimation of Sweden’s own military capability, and selfrespect. Sweden is capable of having a strong defence of its own, by its own. For instance, already in 2008 the author put forward that in Sweden, conscription combined with instruction for guerrilla-warfare resistance should be one of the primary options. It is highly effective also because it is self reliable.
On the other hand, what Sweden definitely does not need is to participate at “cannon-fodder” level in an offensive strategy dictated by geopolitical interests alien to the survival of Sweden. And in this period, an appropriate defense strategy should start by stopping the provocation-spiral initiated by Bildt. With or without NATO, a war in the current technological era would bring about a massive retaliation whose lethal effects are still unpredictable. A retaliation that nevertheless, for sure, would adversely affect –beyond the few warmongers authoring or serving foreign-power interests in political and media circles– nearly ten millions peace-loving people of Sweden.
Notes and References
 M Ferrada de Noli, Political facts behind the Swedish case VS. Assange. The Indicter magazine, 15 December 2015.
 Wallströms oro för Trumps kvinnosyn. Expressen, 10 November 2016.,
 PM Stefan Löfven’s letter to Donald Trump was censored by the government. However, the newspaper Expressen obtained this copy:
 M Ferrada de Noli, Analysis: Trump, WikiLeaks, Assange and Sweden. The Indicter magazine, 21 November 2016.
 Andrew Blake, U.N. panel upholds decision on Julian Assange’s arbitrary detainment. The Washington Times, 30 November 2016.
 M Ferrada de Noli, Mainstream media in US and Sweden admit now Assange risks to be extradited to the US by the Swedish government. The Indicter magazine, 11 August 2016.
 The neutrality slogan has been found in clear contradiction by the covert behaviour of Swedish authorities partly in domestic matters, but above all in concrete activities pertaining national security. For instance, it has been revealed that Sweden, historically, was never “neutral” –not regarding Nazi Germany, nor afterwards regarding NATO– or referring to any geopolitical interest opposed to Russia.
 The Swedish security police was eventually acting under CIA command in Swedish territory, during the extraordinary renditions that transported political refugees in Sweden from Stockholm airports to torture centres elsewhere. For these deeds, Sweden was sanctioned by the United Nations for serious violations on the Absolute Ban on Torture – See: Human Rights Watch, “Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition“. 10 November 2006.
 The government of Sweden, statements, The feminist foreign policy of the government of Sweden [Swedish] “En feministisk utrikespolitik”. Regeringskansliet, retrieved 4 December 2016.
 From The Daily Telegraph, 15 Dec 2010:
 M Ferrada de Noli, Sweden’s unethical – and unlawful – arms deals with ISIS-backing Saudis. The Indicter magazine, 22 October 2016.
 M Ferrada de Noli, How Sweden will help bombing Yemen exporting weapons to UAE. The Indicter magazine, 1 November 2016.
 Ewen MacAskill & Paul Torpey, “One in three Saudi air raids on Yemen hit civilian sites, data shows“. The Guardian, 16 September 2016.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Assange case, a symbol for Swedish right-wing “radical-feminism”. The Professors’ Blog, 30 September 2011.
 Naomi Wolf, “Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian”, 15 April 2011.
 Helene Bergman, A Swedish Feminist’s Perspective On Swedish State “Feminism”. The Professors’ Blog, 14 June 2014.
 Particularly programs aired by the Swedish Radio.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “The Trial by The Media“. In: “Sweden vs. Assange. Human Rights Issues & Political Background”. Libertarian Books, 2nd ed., 2016. Pags. 110 – 165.
 Also published in the Professors’ Blog:
M. Ferrada de Noli, a) “Swedish government using media to interfere in the legal process against Julian Assange“. The Professors’ Blog, 27 January 2012; b) Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange? The Professors’ Blog, 20 February 2011; c) Trial by Media fortsätter. The Professors’ Blog, 4 February 2013;Journalister till tjänst i krigföringen mot Assange, och mot hederlig journalistik”; d) The Professors’ Blog, 17 February 2012; “Om de upprepade anklagelserna mot Assange av svenska journalister”. The Professors’ Blog, 17 February 2012; e) “The ‘Duck Pond’ Theses. Explaining Swedish journalism and the anti-Assange smear campaign”. The Professors’ Blog, 1 December 2011; f) “Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda”. The Professors’ Blog, 15 April 2011; g) Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Contents & Links to Parts I – V. The Professors’ Blog, 14 April 2011.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Mr. Julian Assange has never been charged of any crime. The powers behind the hunt of WikiLeaks. The Indicter, 17 September 2016. Excerpt:
“It has been reported that the the characterization on “rape” – as was presented in the arresting warrant against Julian Assange– was not made by the women but instead it was a creation from the part of the police. Now, according the transcription of the press conference of prosecutor Marianne Ny, she herself confirmed that so was the case, meaning: it is the Swedish state which is after to prosecute Julian Assange, regardless that ‘women complainants’ had never reported to have experienced the perpetration of a crime in those terms as it comes from purely from the prosecutor’s will. This is the transcription in regards to that item:
“Question: Who actually has made this accusation? Because the alleged victim said the police had railroaded her, didn’t sign the police statement and in fact the first prosecutor on the case dropped it saying that no crime had been committed? That was the prosecutor of Stockholm, and then you took it up again.
Marianne Ny: But I am her superior, in fact, I am the Senior Prosecutor. I can in fact reverse the decision of one of my subordinates. I came to the conclusion that her decision in fact was erroneous. When it comes to the question of who made the accusation, I have already said this, rape is subject to obligatory prosecution in Sweden. You don’t need a complainant to sign a complaint or make a charge. If rape comes to the knowledge of the police authorities in Sweden, they are obliged to prosecute, that means they are obliged to refer the case to a prosecutor, a prosecutor has to look into it, and then it follows the normal course of law.”
 Dick Sundevall, Assange has already been interrogated. SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 2., N° 49, 17 August 2016.
 M Ferrada de Noli, UN Covenant on Civil & Political Rights says that the arresting of Mr Julian Assange can & should be put to an end. The Indicter magazine, 15 December 2015.
 M Ferrada de Noli, Sweden’s business with Clinton Foundation in a geopolitical context, The Indicter magazine, 3 November 2016.
 “Julian Assange made ‘public enemy number one’ by Swedish PM, court told as mother demands help from Australian ministers”. Daily Mail, 11 February 2011.
In M Ferrada de Noli, “Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden” of 4 February 2014. Published in Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 106-108. Excerpts:
“On 11 February 2011, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in the DN and Aftonbladet newspapers, that Julian Assange had been indicted. He then went on to take a position that was biased in favour of the complainants in the case. Not only was this political interference in an ongoing case, but also it was based on untruths; Julian Assange has not been charged. The statement by the Prime Minister was:
“We have an independent judiciary which also in this case acted according to Swedish law. One has even public-indicted Julian Assange on allegations of rape”. And, “I can only regret that the rights and position of women weigh so lightly when it comes to this type of questions compared to other types of theories brought forward.”
 On 15 August 2012, Göran Haglund, Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, told the Expressen newspaper: “Assange is a very coward person that does not dare to confront the charges against him”. And he added, “If he did the things he is accused of, I think one can call him a lowlife. He seems to be a miserable wretch.”
(Source, “Hägglund om asyl för Assange: “Fegis“. Expressen, 15 August 2012.)
 M Ferrada de Noli, SWEDHR, How involved is Sweden in helping U.S. military drone-killings?. SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 2., N° 38, 28 November 2015
 “The deal includes joint exercises and adaptation of technologies and practices to a joint NATO-standard”, reported Reuters: “Sweden seek assurances from Trump regarding defense agreement”. Reuters, 11 November 2016.
 In Jonas Gummesson: ”Krävs mer pen gar för att inte tappa mot rysk militär” . SvD, 2 December 2016. Excerpt: “Ryssland ger, enligt studien, intryck av att vilja förändra ”rådande säkerhetspolitisk ordning”. Det gäller både globalt och regionalt i det nordisk-baltiska området.”
 M ferrada de Noli, Who are behind the “Swedish prosecution” of Assange, and Why? The Professors’ Blog, 5 November 2014.
 Craig Whitlock, “New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action“, The Washington Post, 21 May 2005.
 M ferrada de Noli, Carl Bildt, US secret information-officer, according to document released by WikiLeaks. The Professors’ Blog, 15 June 2014.
 ““How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world to question Sweden’s credibility”? Leading line in a program announce by State-owned TV. See: M Ferrada de Noli, Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda. The Professors’ Blog, 15 April 2011.
 Framtidens utmaningar kräver ökad försvarsförmåga . Swedish Armed Forces, 2 December 2016.
 Försvaret varnar för ryskt agerande. TT News Agency, 2 December 2016.
Professor Dr med Marcello Ferrada de Noli is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights and editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.” His op-ed articles have been published in Dagens Nyheter (DN), Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), Aftonbladet, Västerbotten Kuriren, Dagens Medicin, Läkartidningen and other Swedish media. He also has had exclusive interviews in DN, Expressen, SvD and Aftonbladet, and in Swedish TV channels (Svt 2, TV4, TV5) as well as international TV and media.
Follow the professor on Twitter at @Professorsblogg