Sujet Anglais - La Gendarmerie recrute

CONCOURS SUR EPREUVES OUVERT AUX
CANDIDATS TITULAIRES D'UNE LICENCE DE
L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR GENERAL OU
TECHNOLOGIQUE OU TITRE OU DIPLOME
CLASSE AU MOINS AU NIVEAU II
(OCTA DIRECT)
SESSION 2011
EPREUVE DE LANGUE VIVANTE
ANGLAIS
(Durée : 03 heures – Coef : 10)
L'usage d'un dictionnaire bilingue ou monolingue est interdit.
1/4
THEME
Traduire en anglais le texte entre crochets (de son titre jusqu'à « l'ambassade
américaine de Sierra Leone. » )
[
Les Etats-Unis inquiets de l'emprise des "narcos" en Afrique de l'ouest
(Wikileaks)
MADRID, 26 déc 2010 (AFP) - La diplomatie américaine s'inquiète de l'emprise en Afrique
de l'ouest des narco-trafiquants sud-américains qui utilisent cette région comme escale dans le
transport international de cocaïne, selon des notes divulguées par Wikileaks et publiées
dimanche par El Pais.
La lutte des autorités d'Amérique du Sud contre le trafic de drogue a poussé les cartels à
chercher d'autres plateformes "plus pratiques" d'où envoyer leur marchandise en Europe et
aux Etats-Unis, écrit le journal espagnol, se fondant sur les conclusions de l'agence
américaine anti-drogue (DEA), à partir des notes d'ambassades de plusieurs pays africains.
L'Afrique de l'Ouest, où de nombreux pays sont épuisés par des années de guerre civile, la
corruption et le chaos des institutions, est devenue ces dernières années le centre
d'approvisionnement et de distribution de la drogue sud-américaine et, dans une moindre
mesure, asiatique.
Selon les documents révélés par Wikileaks, les Américains estiment que certains pays comme
la Guinée-Bissau "sont aux mains d'organisations criminelles opportunistes et sophistiquées",
tandis que d'autres, comme le Sierra Leone ou le Liberia, se défendent comme ils peuvent.
Au total, "le trafic de narcotiques est en augmentation, et sans une volonté politique forte pour
combattre ce fléau, l'Afrique occidentale sera incapable d'arrêter cette marée dangereuse",
écrivait en avril 2009 l'ambassade américaine de Sierra Leone.]
[fin de la traduction]
Les notes révélées par Wikileaks affirment même que, dans certains cas, le pouvoir local est impliqué dans
le trafic: quand l'ambassadeur américain en Guinée a fait part en mai 2008 au Premier ministre du pays,
Lansana Kouyaté, de ses inquiétudes face à la hausse du trafic de drogue, celui-ci aurait répondu que le
propre fils du président de l'époque Lansana Conté, Ousmane Conté, était "le principal trafiquant".
La Guinée, selon Etats-Unis, se rapproche de plus en plus de son voisin, la Guinée-Bissau, qualifiée de
"premier narco-Etat émergent en Afrique".
Au Ghana, les diplomates américains sont tout autant pessimistes, ayant noté par exemple que les
responsables de l'agence anti-drogue locale ont dans leurs agendas les numéros de téléphone des principaux
trafiquants.
La situation en Sierra Leone est plus encourageante, selon les notes de la diplomaties américaines
consultables sur Wikileaks et qui soulignent "la bonne disposition" du président Ernest Koroma pour lutter
contre ce fléau.
2/4
VERSION
Traduire en français le texte entre crochets (de « The orders are objectionable »
à « a “hard-core” terrorist threat ».)
Last orders?
Unpleasant but of declining use, control orders are not worth a big political fight
In October David Cameron reportedly warned Theresa May, the Conservative home secretary, and Nick
Clegg, the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, that the coalition government was “heading for a
fucking car crash” over control orders for terrorist suspects. His words have, it seems, been heeded. As The
Economist went to press, the finishing touches were being put to a compromise that those on both sides of a
bitter argument over the right balance between security and civil liberties seemed just about prepared to
accept.
When the coalition was being formed, the two parties made much of their common commitment “to reverse
the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government”. High on the list were counterterrorism laws, notably the control orders introduced in 2005 to restrict the liberty of terrorist suspects who
could be neither prosecuted nor deported. The other big target was the previous government’s extension of
the time that suspects could be held without charge.
In July Mrs May announced a rapid review of counter-terrorism laws. At the insistence of Mr Clegg, Lord
Macdonald, a Lib Dem peer, former director of public prosecutions and avowed opponent of both
measures, was appointed to provide “independent oversight” of the review. Scaling back pre-charge
detention from 28 to 14 days is now largely agreed. Control orders have proved much more divisive.
[ The orders are objectionable to many, and with good reason. The home secretary can ask the
high court for an order restricting the liberty of a person who is suspected of posing a terrorist
threat but cannot be prosecuted, either because the evidence is insufficient or inadmissible, or
because using it would imperil national security or sources. Curfews of up to 16 hours a day,
electronic tagging, denial of access to telephones and computers, bans on association and
forced relocation are common restrictions. And the process is murky. Suspects have no direct
access to the secret evidence underpinning the orders; many of the officially vetted “special
advocates” representing them who do see it complain that they are ill-equipped to assess and
challenge it.
Yet some of the harshest features have been worn down by the courts. A judgment by the
European Court of Human Rights in 2009, backed up by the House of Lords, limited
permissible restrictions and insisted the suspect be given sufficient access to the “gist” of the
allegations against him to instruct counsel. The number of control orders in force has fallen
from 20 in March 2009 to just eight. Of those, according to some who have seen the relevant
evidence, only between three and five apply to suspects considered a “hard-core” terrorist
threat.
]
[fin de la traduction]
Given that the security services keep hundreds of people under surveillance, the importance of control
orders is arguably more symbolic than real. But that symbolism has been enough to provoke an almighty
3/4
row at the heart of the coalition, already strained by the unpopular decision to raise university-tuition fees, a
move the Lib Dems had promised on the campaign trail to oppose. For all their harmony after the election,
Mr Clegg’s party had pledged before it to scrap control orders, the Tories merely to review them. As key
Tory figures began to swing behind retaining them, Lib Dems feared another pledge was destined to be
repudiated.
At first, Mrs May seemed inclined to dispense with control orders. But the security establishment, four
former home secretaries and the government’s official counter-terrorism watchdog—another Lib Dem peer,
Lord Carlile—apparently changed her mind. Mr Cameron, fearful like his predecessors that a terrorist
attack might be attributed to his negligence, shuffled uneasily towards supporting her. But coalition
management demands compromise.
If one is within reach, it is partly because control orders have become largely irrelevant in the fight against
terrorism and partly because, unlike tuition-fee hikes, they stir Lib Dem activists but do not especially
excite voters. It is likely that the menu of restrictions will be scaled back; suspects will be allowed internet
access on government-owned computers and some mobile-phone use; forcible relocation will be ended; and
curfews may be largely replaced by elaborate notification of movements and meetings. Critically, all orders
will have to expire within a limited time.
Mr Cameron confirmed on January 5th that he was working with Mr Clegg to replace control orders with
something better. As for the security services, they seem fairly calm. As one source put it: “There is always
a balance to be struck. Control orders are one tool in the box. We’ll get on with whatever we’re given.”
The Economist – January 8, 2011
QUESTIONS
Répondre en anglais aux deux questions suivantes :
1. How would you define the nature and the features of the “control orders ”? Could you think
of any equivalent provisions in France ?
2. Would you say that this issue could trigger an internecine fight within the coalition
government ?
4/4