formula The French General André Beaufre to determine strategic thrust (E) of States in the pursuit of political objectives has always been in effect.
E = KFYT
This formula depends on a national strategy to address direct or indirect conflict.
A direct method involves the use or threat of use of national power, with a preponderance of the military expression and an indirect method to use any other expression than the military to achieve political objectives.
Before explaining the formula, see the following table shows a chronology of events taken from an article published in elPeriódico of June 27, 2010 , entitled:
"Belize is ours ... neighbor?" combined with some historical data, trying to group them with some convenience or inconvenience to evaluate the method that has used the State of Guatemala, and figure out which method could be used for this particular case in the future.
The basic premise of the publication is an "International Court" on the case could be close.
| Positive / for / advantage | Negative / en against / disadvantaged |
| · | · 150 years of negotiation · 1783 Spain grants permission to England to cut logwood (Versailles) · 1786 re-issue, complete 6 000 square kilometers. |
| | · respects no boundaries England granted and is assembled in the occupied region. · 1789 Spain tries to recover the territory but is defeated by the English |
| · 1802, Treaty of Amiens, Britain offers return the territory. · 1821, Independence of Guatemala | |
| · | · 1840 U.S. Inspired Polk President Monroe Doctrine , began its expansion into Texas. War with Mexico, France and Britain protested. · In this year in Guatemala declared a "state of the Highlands", we wanted to separate from Guatemala. Who would have time to think about Belize? |
| · | · reactive powers: · 1861 , Spain reconquered Dominican Republic. · 1862, France intervened in Mexico and Algeria. · The British deep into Australian territory. · Russia launched against Central Asia. |
| 1856, this year in Guatemala participated in the National War Central. powers available to them. (President Rafael Carrera) | · 1850, Clayton-Bulwer, USA and England are committed to leave Central. · England fails. · 1856, Dallas-Clarendon, USA and England agree that Belize is an exception to Clayton-Bulwer. (Do not care about the sovereignty of Guatemala). |
| · England oceanic build a road. | · England return is in the territory. Almost here ceded Guatemala. |
| · | · 1859, engineers Fernando Cruz and Frederick Brunton Sarstún set limits from Rio to Rio Hondo (all) |
| | · 1863, Guatemala claimed that England has failed. |
| | · 1871, Revolution in Guatemala, Justo Rufino Barrios knew that "alone" is not against the powers. So start promoting the Central American union. 14 years later seeks to impose by force or die trying. |
| Guatemala: the letters are not ratified. | · 1931, Guatemalan Foreign Minister Alfredo Skinner Klee exchanged letters with their English counterpart, which accepts the limits set in 1931. · The English letters inscribed in the league of nations. |
| | · 1991, President Serrano Elias of Guatemala recognized Belize's independence |
| is argued that if Guatemala does not yield in this way, Belize had never agreed to go to an international court. | · 1999, Foreign Minister Eduardo Stein Barillas tells Belize do not want all the territory, but only from the Sibun River to the north. |
| · 2008, Belize agrees to go to an international court | · each country's congress must approve the request. · The consultation should be simultaneously · If both countries say YES to the query, it must go to court. · A country that says NO and should not be go to court. · The constitution prohibits a SI Belize in the query. (Roberto Bermudez). |
| · | · current commission Belize (Guatemala), comprised of internationalists unable (Enrique Cabrera). |
| · | · judge was agreed as a "right" and not subject to "good faith." This is a disadvantage (Roberto Bermudez). |
| Three factors favor (Edgar Gutiérrez), if we have: · legal Technical · Preparation · Experienced Lawyers · favorable international environment · Political Support · Support of the population (the query). | |
| | · Presence of Mexico and British interests in Belize (Edwin Palenque) disfavor a court decision to Guatemala. |
should read the reader comments at the end of the article. As in other publications, people refer to the inability or lack of courage of the army to go to war and to regain the territory.
This of Of course, through ignorance that a state of "war" implies the involvement of all people, the orientation of all national and private industry to support the war, all the political, economic, finally, the whole country falls at war. With the resulting debt.
Either way the army is "actor" no "decision maker." This sentence sums up the meaning of "apolitical" army.
The decision to make war is politics and conduct of same for the army.
Returning to the formula:
E = KFYT
K ... is the freedom of action enjoyed by a State to implement a strategic approach in resolving conflict. This freedom is given by the possible reaction of the rest of neutral or allies, international opinion and public opinion of the State itself.
F ... available resources. Not just military equipment but the ability to "national mobilization, human resource, power economic, infrastructure, industry etc.
And ... the support of the population, what the people think, their willingness to support a cause or ability to do so. It is the moral force of the nation and his "political expression" (executive, legislative and judicial).
T ... time that is expected objectives or the right moment to launch the strategy.
formula factors are complex and complement each other. Corresponds to the term state policy analysis and decide whether or not if the whole state goes to war, in which case the army to lead.
The "political expression" of governments since the signing of peace in 1996, has been implementing a "military policy" in strengthening the army done, has been leading his main priority - to 2010 - important limitations on equipment capabilities, communications and mobility, there are even proposals (informal and isolated as some comments of the article) where there is the abolition of the army. Both trends either because there are other priorities, commitments or that the army has not capabilities to address threats or mere ideological revenge.
As the conclusion of the article, the only solution lies in court, and there will be reflected the strategy the government has maintained its policy in relation to the case.
When Belize signed the agreements in the mid-nineteenth century (other powers) Guatemala was immersed in other political arenas that prevented it from - maybe - to give due attention to the issue of Belize.
For example in American politics "America for Americans" of President Polk (1840), the United Provinces of Central America were at war for various reasons, the "state of high" is up in arms for independence and it all ended with the disintegration of the federation.
to the signing of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and Dallas Clarendon between the U.S. and England, Guatemala was lost in the national war against the filibusters in Central America (William Walker, English). Note that in this time and despite that Guatemala was the greatest military power in the region, could not cope with the U.S. or England (Freedom of action no to them)
So, Justo Rufino Barrios, President of Guatemala realized around 1880 that no could develop an appropriate defense strategy (Lost Belize?) against the powers. So proposed Central American Union, but failed and died in his attempt to force other Central Americans.
Would he have driven the British? never know, but in the national war of 1856 when Central America was able to drive the English Nicaragua.
Among some final considerations include, at present, although the army has installed along the entire border of the country, military detachments with an average of 10 soldiers, without mobility or communication, these patrol their area of \u200b\u200boperational responsibility. Logically, the scope and desired results will never be the lack of adequate equipment.
The case of Belize is a "territorial dispute" so there is an "adjacency zone" and not a "border." The strategy is to provoke Belize to Guatemala says: "Gentlemen do not go here ... because this is Guatemala and Belize there is" establishing a "cap" that only the international court should be defined.
Why not conquer Belize invading agricultural products, industry, commerce? Why not create jobs and development that needs to be part Belizean to Guatemalan territory? Belizean attract capital Would a way to recover?.
Conclusions
· The strategy applied by the State of Guatemala on the case of Belize has been guided by the "indirect method."
· The decision to make war is for political expression (civil) and driving would correspond to the military.
· The army is responsible for maintaining presence and thus to exercise "sovereignty" in the border areas, however, for this you need equipment.
· The current equipment is not sufficient to address threats from illegal armed groups (drug trafficking), except to exercise sovereignty in the border areas, territorial waters, airspace and the adjacency zone with Belize.
Final Reflections: As an exercise, let us apply the formula of Beaufré today, living in 2010, both for the case of territorial dispute with Belize, and for internal security.
