Country Report on Terrorism 2006

Country Report on terrorism 2006 - Rapport sur le terrorisme 2006Le dernier rapport du Département Américain (US Department of State) sur le Terrorisme vient d’être publié. Pour une présentation succinte donnée lors de la présentation du rapport, vous pouvez aller ici. Sinon sur cette page pour consulter en ligne les différents chapitres. Le rapport est téléchargeable (pdf) en cliquant sur l’image et les rapports précédents se trouvent ici!

Grosso Modo, on y souligne les progrès effectués dans le domaine de la sécurité et de la collaboration entre pays à ce sujet, en insistant sur le fait que les conditions ont été rendues plus difficiles pour les terroristes. Mais, cela dit, le nombre d’incidents a augmenté en 2006, notamment à cause de la situation en Irak et en Afghanistan. Le rapport rappelle aussi la « barbarie » de la majorité des attaques pendant lesquelles des victimes innocentes sont tuées (par exemple, une hausse de 80% du nombre d’attaques sur les enfants à été observée – soit 1800 enfants victimes du terrorisme en 2006) et cible une fois de plus Al Qaeda comme l’ennemi n°1:

« On al-Qaida, although we have captured or killed numerous senior al-Qaida operatives, al-Qaida’s core elements are resilient and they remain the most immediate national security threat to the United States. They are a significant security challenge to the entire international community as well and they are so recognized. Al-Qaida is highly adaptive. It quickly evolves new methods in response to our countermeasures, and we have to develop countermeasures to those countermeasures. » (Mr. Frank Urbancic)

Le rapport souligne également le rôle des Etats-Sponsors du terrorisme tels que l’Iran ou la Syrie, ainsi que les zones de protection des terroristes (« safe havens »):

« This year’s Report also includes a discussion of terrorist safe havens. Safe havens allow terrorists to organize and operate with relative impunity because of challenging geography, because of limited governance capacity, limited political will or other reasons. Whatever the reason, physical safe havens provides security for terrorist leaders and they allow them to plan acts of terrorism around the world. Areas of concern include the Trans-Sahara, Somalia, the Sulawesi/ Sulu Seas, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This unfortunately isn’t an exhaustive list, but it’s illustrative. » (Mr. Frank Urbancic)

Enfin, les positions américaines en Irak sont défendues et le rôle de la coopération réaffirmé une nouvelle fois, avec une attention particulière sur les efforts de long terme:

« We must measure counterterrorism success in the broadest perspective. While killing and capturing key terrorist actors is fundamental in combating terrorism, these actions do not eliminate the threat. We must also seek to build trusted networks of governments, private citizens and organizations, multilateral institutions, and business groups that will work collaboratively to defeat the threat from violent extremism and its radical ideology. Such networks, over time, help wean at-risk populations away from subversive manipulation by terrorists and they create mechanisms to address people’s needs and grievances, thus marginalizing the terrorists. » (Mr. Frank Urbancic)

Je n’ai pas encore eu le temps de le lire dans son intégralité, mais certains points ont été souligné avec insistance lors de la présentation du rapport:

La question de la définition du terrorisme aurait été modifiée, si bien que le décompte des incidents est plus large, même s’il ne faut pas s’attacher de trop près au nombre total d’indicents. 80% de la hausse du nombre d’attentats est en effet expliquée par les attentats au proche orient et en Asie du Sud.

« There are over a hundred definitions of terrorism according to political scientists. To avoid any controversy, we focused on the statutory definitions. Up through 2004, we used the definition there of international terrorism and that specifically emphasizes citizens or territory of more than one country. What we found was that there were some very important incidents that didn’t get counted so that in 2005, we made a switch and we’re now using a much broader definition of terrorism.

If you think about the key parameters, it’s attacks against noncombatants for political reasons. And so it’s an extraordinarily broad definition and as a result, what we’ve seen is that the incident totals have grown from a few hundred to well over 10,000. »

(…) « the incidents have grown from about 11,000 in ’05 to something — or 14,000 in ’06. Fatalities up from about 14.5 thousand to about 20.5 thousand. Total victims actually in ’05 and ’06; that is, killed, wounded and kidnapped, about 74,000 in both years.

Two very important points: There is absolutely no question that cataloguing incidents over time can help give you some significant trends with relationship to what’s going on in the terrorism problem. However, we are very convinced that trying to combine global totals on a year-by-year basis doesn’t tell you very much. Why? Because embedded in a global total would be, for instance, the FARC in Colombia, ETA in Spain, the Maoists in Nepal, Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa, and al-Qaida and all the Sunni affiliates. Simply adding all of those categories together just doesn’t tell you very much and as Frank said, numbers can never be the total metric for terrorism. »(Russ Travers, Deputy Director, NCTC)

Concernant les attentats, il n’y a pas eu d’attaques majeure contre les Etats-Unis:

« There were, according to Consular Affairs, 28 American citizens that were killed overseas. In the Western Hemisphere, Colombia was the — certainly had the most terrorist incidents, about 750. That’s very close to what we saw in 2005. » (Russ Travers, Deputy Director, NCTC)

Et en ce qui concerne les autres pays:

« In the Middle East, Israel was up dramatically in terms of increased rocket attacks in Israel, although suicide bombings was down in Israel to very small numbers last year. There were no major attacks in either Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

Europe and Russia, nothing to compare to the July 7th bombings in the UK and Europe, and similarly nothing like what we’ve seen in previous years for the bombings in Chechnya and Russia over the last several years.

In Africa, the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, GSPC, merged with al-Qaida in the fall and we saw the first attacks against Western and U.S. interests, and that presaged also what we’ve seen here over the last several months.

In South Africa, a number of locations in Sub-Saharan Africa, there were additional numbers of attacks. I will tell you that the data for that part of the world is the most suspect of anyplace in the world.

In South Asia, Afghan attacks were up by about 60 percent. Pakistan and India both had fewer attacks. And in the Far East, Indonesia for the first time in several years had no major attack. We’ve seen attacks there every fall over the last several years until last year. In Philippines, attacks were up somewhat. In Thailand, attacks were down somewhat. » (Russ Travers, Deputy Director, NCTC)

Concernant le type d’attaques:

« Roughly half of all incidents were armed attacks and roughly a quarter were bombings and then the other quarter broken out in the various categories. For suicide bombings, (…) Afghanistan went up dramatically, by about a factor of five or six. And again, this is only attacks against noncombatants. We don’t track military attacks in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And finally, with respect to victims, as I mentioned at the outset, about 74,000 victims — that’s killed, wounded and kidnapped. In terms of fatalities themselves, a couple of key data points. As I mentioned, 28 Americans killed. Like last year, Muslims bore a disproportionate share of the attacks. Of the 20,000 fatalities, certainly something over half of all fatalities worldwide were Muslims, largely at the hands of other Islamic extremists.

Other categories: (…) several thousand police officers — many hundreds of children and teachers and press and so forth. So many categories. These are undoubtedly low. They were only the indications we get from reporting. The numbers are undoubtedly higher. » (Russ Travers, Deputy Director, NCTC)

Le plus intéressant dans la présentation orale du rapport sont les questions posées par la salle. Je vous recommande leur lecture, car il est évident que certaines d’entre elles gênent fortement les deux représentants pré-cités. Notamment sur les chiffres avancés, tant on se souvient du scandale soulevé en 2003 par Alan Krueger et David Laitin

Publicités

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :