ultimatum to and
|It was certainly appropriate for the
Austro-Hungarian government to expect
official Serbian collaboration in the
dismantling of anti-Habsburg terrorist
networks inside Serbia.
|Austria-Hungary did not provide clear and undisputed evidence which implicated the Serbian government in the Sarajevo
|It was adequate to be very forceful in the
expectation of that collaboration since there
was reason to believe that anti-Austrian
terrorists had clandestine support from some
members of the Serbian security apparatus
(See.: Christopher Clarke: The Sleepwalkers, Sept.
|War was waged despite the fact that Serbia did accept a large part of the ultimatum demands that Austria imposed on Serbia
|Serbia’s track record, particularly in the pre-
1914 Balkan wars had demonstrated that its
respect for human rights and international law
was at times quite wanting
|The illegal annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1909 by Austria had unduly raised tensions not only in the Balkans
|Serbian nationalism had a tendency to
occasionally not express itself in the cool,
calm and collected way that the British sense
of fairness imposes.
|It was simply irresponsible to start a war in Europe given the very antagonistic bipolar tensions that existed between the two major
military alliances in
|The particular demands of Austria’s
ultimatum to Serbia were far less stringent
than the demands of NATO’s 1999
Rambouillet ultimatum to Serbia
(See again: Christopher Clarke: The Sleepwalkers)
|The Austro-Hungarian empire was in varying degrees discriminating against the rights of the Slavic nationalities.
|Austria’s aggression as originally intended to
be a fast, punishing slap in the face to
Serbia. There was no planning for prolonged
|The casualty numbers in the Austro-Serbian war were significantly higher that those in the Veracruz occupation
||There was no democratic backing for the decision to go to war.
||The real implications of such a war against Serbia were dramatically miscalculated by the Austrian leadership The Austrian military
severely underestimated the strength of the Serbian forces and they did not adequately foresee the reaction of Serbia’s allies.
|US occupation of
|Mexico was in a state of civil war at the time of
the occupation. It was hence somewhat
justified to see to it that no additional
weapons be introduced into an already
unwieldy battle zone
|US citizens were actively participating in the delivery of arms to Mexico
|The US is legitimately concerned about the
political instability on its Southern border
|The US arms embargo against Mexico was unilaterally imposed
|In the end the occupation was only
minimally invasive and the number of
casualties was limited
|The fact that several Latin American countries firmly protested against the occupation of Veracruz demonstrates the degree in which
this intervention was perceived as being a violation of international law.
|There was democratic backing for the
decision to wage military action
|The Tampico incident is clearly a ridiculous and disproportionate justification for military action
|The US leadership had by and large an
adequate assessment of the military and
political realities both on the ground and in
the wider international spectrum
|The US was actively involved in the Mexican civil war by backing first the Huerta party then his opposition.
||There can be no doubt that Mexico’s sovereignty was violated by the US’s occupation of Veracruz