By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli
Summary. Mr Assange has never been charged of any crime, neither in Sweden nor in any other country. In the vertiginous development of the ‘affair Assange’, important episodes in the genesis of the case had fallen nearly forgotten. This article presents a brief review on the real geopolitical context of this political case. Needless to say, the case has never been a truly ‘legal case’, but a political case all through. I detail here in which way a variety of political actors and ideological forces have converged to first create the ‘affair Assange’, and then made it stay to serve Sweden’s ‘national’ or financial interests, and the interests of its geopolitical mentor, the U.S.
Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, on behalf of the Swedish state, clearly admitted in her recent press conference of August 7, 2016, that the ‘complainant’ women have not accused Mr Julian Assange of any rape [see transcription of her answer down below]. One woman has already declared that they were “railroaded” by the Swedish police. Already in March 2011 the Washington Post reported that the police officer taking the first statement of the women, Ms Irmeli Krans, “had personal and political links to one of the two women”; namely the woman apparently taking the initiative for the visit to the police station.
Police officer Irmeli Krans (picture at left, standing with Mr Tomas Bodström, then Swedish minister of justice) was a member of the Social Democratic Party, like the woman complainant. The ex minister of justice Thomas Bodström was also at the time of the events senior member of a political group within the Social Democratic Party called “The Brotherhood”, a group linked by religious believes; the political secretary of this association was precisely the complainant woman “A”, who was apparently central in the ‘case Assange’. Further, this ex minister of Justice Bodström was the co-owner of the law firm Bodström & Borgström. The other partner being Mr Claes Borgström, who acted as counselor of the complainant women. Claes Borgström –then also a social democrat– is also the former Swedish ombudsman for gender issues and recognized ‘radical feminist’. He, and his partner (then Justice Tomas Bodström) participated in the formation of the new legislation aimed to radicalize the sexual offenses penal code. After the case was dismissed by prosecutor Eva Finné, Borgström contacted Marianne Ny, a prosecutor already known for her radical stance in the prosecution of suspects of sexual offenses (see below).
For his part, Thomas Bodström –who even described in his blog, from Virginia, U.S.A, how proud he was that his own law firm represented the complainant against Julian Assange– made his entrance in the history of Sweden for his direct participation in the deals between the Swedish government and the CIA in the extraordinary-rendition cases. Namely, persons that had been accepted as refugees in Sweden, and then transported in secret to torture centers elsewhere. For this deeds Sweden was sanctioned by the UN, due to a severe violation of the absolute ban of torture –which Sweden had signed.
Whether Borgström, Bodström and Marianne Ny had or not at the time a political association is not so relevant to this analysis. The most important factor is that they did have a clear-cut ideological association. Namely, they were –in fact paid by the Swedish government– all of them participating in working committees at government or parliament level, and where they put forward similar ideological positions in a radical agenda, for instance, aimed “to punish the suspect” at an early state. Marianne Ny was known for having published a piece in which she advocated for the preventive detention of suspects.
The same aim had manifestly the ‘radical feminism’ movement of Sweden, whose representatives are known feminist-extremists from both the ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ political spectra of Sweden – a country otherwise politically characterized rather for its consensual, chauvinist, and russo-phobic stance. Which lead us to this other actor in the play against WikiLeaks: the Swedish armed forces.
While for the ‘radical feminist’ movement of Sweden the case Assange constituted, as they declared, a “symbolic issue”, for the Swedish armed forces the Assange issue was instrumental for their own geopolitical and financial purposes. By public demonizing Assange they intended to discredit WikiLeaks and presented this organization as an enemy of Sweden; in fact, the Swedish armed forces representative accused Assange of being “blackmailing” Sweden. This accusation was made in the most important news program of the Swedish TV, Rapport. All this happened in a context in which a huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia –a cover operation by the weapons industry together with an institution of the armed forces- and which WikiLeaks exposed.
Being Sweden a principal weapon-export country, the revelations of WikiLeaks are considered highly damaging the economy of Sweden. The establishment will not say that, of course; but it would be enough to examine the amount represented by the Swedish-Saudi deal which was blown by the exposures.
Evidence published in 2014 show that the Swedish case would have been put forward in August 2010, after the US government asked the countries participating in the NATO-led military occupation of Afghanistan to initiate prosecutions against the WikiLeaks founder. There is no legal case whatsoever, but a purely political case intended to silence or obstruct the exposures of WikiLeaks about the corrupted/secret or antidemocratic deeds of governments including the one of Sweden. At that time, WikiLeaks had exposed the secret collaboration – done behind the back of the Swedish Parliament – between the Swedish government and the military and intelligence services of the US for the transferring of personal information of Swedish citizens.
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.”
Needless to say, prosecutor Ny wouldn’t give any guarantee whatsoever on that Julian Assange would not be extradited to the US if he would come to Sweden.
“Question: Can you make any assurances that if he did come here to expedite the process for this question that he would not in fact be extradited to the US?
Marianne Ny: No, this is an issue for the Swedish government if this would happen.”