Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship With France
That a book as shoddy and biased as this one should be published by a reputable press is eminently regrettable. Penned jointly by a National Review writer and a Harvard lecturer, this romp through the history of Franco-American relations purports to show that the French have been eager to annoy, oppose, or cheat the United States at every turn. It is clear that the French have often opposed U.S. policy (sometimes foolishly, sometimes wisely), but instead of providing an honest account of the facts and attempting to discern reasons behind them, the authors offer only vituperation and contempt. They make no effort, for instance, to understand why the French (along with the British) wanted to impose heavy reparations on Germany after World War I, or to explain how a country so wracked by moral decadence after the Franco-Prussian War fought so bravely in 1914. They dismiss the French resistance as a joke and Charles de Gaulle as a disaster. They distort the last three years of French policy in order better to denounce it. They substitute the silly idea of a French nation obsessed with fears of decline and "fantasies of greatness" for any awareness of complexity. Ultimately, this book is a contribution to our understanding only of U.S. neoconservatism, not of Franco-American relations.
Related
The crisis over Cuba and the Chinese invasion of India have had their salutary lessons for many nations and many political leaders-for none perhaps more than the neutralists. They have spoken up positively, as before, for peace and negotiation, against blocs and power politics. But what they have seen has attested to their relative inability to influence the course of events, or even to maintain solidarity in their own ranks, when the big powers are taking crucial decisions and the global strategic balance is at stake. A more pertinent question is whether, and how, the neutrals can safeguard their own vital interests.
Charles Kupchan ("Independence for Kosovo," November/December 2005) is correct when he asserts that countries such as Russia have no real interest in Kosovo as a territory; Kosovo as a precedent, however, is another matter. Governments from Baku to Beijing and separatist regimes from Trans-Dniestria to the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus are taking a keen interest in how questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity are handled in the determination of Kosovo's final status.
Given the atrocities they have suffered in the past and the autonomy they are enjoying now, Kosovo's Albanians will never accept continued Serbian sovereignty. The time has come to give them what they want -- independence.
