Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....
Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers 
Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?
Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...
|
Wow. Calling a critique about Gaullism "sour grapes" is very poignant, and very ironic. Their withdrawl from NATO in 1966 is a perfect example. Their paranoia to other cultures influencing French culture, without blinking an eye over French colonialism is just par for the course with France. French tolerance of genocidal regimes (a nice mention in Hotel Rwanda) never seems to end, and yet they have the balls to present themselves as a moral alternative to anything?
De Gaulle and Chirac both represent the unending bitterness of French irrelevance and duplicity.