BOOK REVIEW

Yinan He, ed. The Search for Reconciliation:Sino-Japanese and German-Polish Relations SinceWorld War IINew York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 357 p.$85 hardback

James Reilly

Published online: 2 September 2010# Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies 2010

Yinan He begins this important and insightful book with two intriguing questions:“In the aftermath of traumatic conflicts, why have some former countries managed toestablish durable peace whereas others remain mired in animosity? Does historicalmemory play an important role in shaping postconflict interstate relationships?” Heranswer, supported through a paired comparison of China-Japan and German-Polishrelations since World War II, is that “harmonization of national memories” is the keyto realizing deep reconciliation between former enemies (1).

He argues that ruling elites construct historical myths to narrate traumatic histories inorder to advance their political and ideological objectives. These myths risk glorifyingor whitewashing the actions of their own nation while blaming others for causing thetragedy, causing a rift between former enemy states on the interpretation of their pastconflict. By embracing these myths, both elites and the general public tend to harbordistrust and animosity toward the other country. The resulting emotions andmisperceptions exacerbate security, diplomatic, and economic tensions, increase thepolitical costs of conciliatory policies, and obstruct progress toward reconciliation.Alternatively, if former combatant states can agree on their past history and takemeasures of redress, they are more likely to remove the pernicious roots of populardistrust and diplomatic tension, rendering deep reconciliation more likely.

The great strength of He’s work lies in combining this innovative theoreticalargument with careful empirical inquiry. Her attention to questions of case selectionand design, clarity of definitions, high standards for evidence collection, and honestyin reporting her findings bolster the credibility of her claims. She begins bydistinguishing four categories within a spectrum of reconciliation, ranging from non-

J OF CHIN POLIT SCI (2010) 15:437–438DOI 10.1007/s11366-010-9121-3

J. Reilly (*)Department of Government and International Relations, Merewether Building, Level 2,University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australiae-mail: james.reilly@sydney.edu.au

reconciliation through deep reconciliation. She then lays out a Realist explanationfor reconciliation, and contrasts it to her own ‘national mythmaking’ theory. Theremainder of the book is structured around a test of these two competing approachesto explain patterns of reconciliation in German-Polish and Chinese-Japaneserelations in the postwar era. She assesses each decade as a separate sub-case,carefully weighing the evidence in each instance. The final outcome, neatly reportedin a final chart (p. 290), is that Realism explains the outcome in only half of thecases, while her mythmaking approach closely matches all but one of the sub-cases.

One of the payoffs of He’s careful methodological approach is that she unearths atreasure trove of empirical riches. While the German-Polish dyad is explored in onlyone chapter, largely through secondary sources, she lingers over the postwar China-Japan relationship, dedicating four extensive chapters to interactions ranging fromhigh-level diplomacy and territorial disputes through history textbooks, publicopinion surveys, and NGO activism. She draws from diverse Chinese and Japanesewritten sources, personal interviews, and original content analysis. These arecarefully set within the context of the larger strategic environment, yielding one ofthe more accessible and interesting tours of postwar Sino-Japanese relations to date.

My primary concern with this book likely relates back to its roots as a Ph.D.dissertation. The horse race-like structure between Realism and national mythmak-ing, while largely persuasive in showing that material threats alone are inadequate toexplain why, how, and when former enemy states are likely to move towardreconciliation, seems to obstruct an alternative inquiry into a more intriguing andnuanced explanation for how history matters in international relations. He brieflysuggests in the conclusion (pp. 292-3) that domestic political structures and regionalenvironments seem to have shaped the varying ways that wartime memories weremobilized in the two dyads. One might imagine an alternative approach whichwould have integrated the ideational variable of historical memory and instrumentalprocesses of mythmaking into a more comprehensive, if less parsimonious,explanation for the ways in which historical memory shaped, and was shaped by,postwar Sino-Japanese relations. This might have yielded fewer testable proposi-tions, but with the payoff of a richer description of the conditions under whichhistory itself becomes a part of the ideational environment in which internationalrelations unfold.

My suggestion may be unfair, arising in part out of an alternative set of prioritiesfor international relations scholarship, influenced perhaps by the air of theAntipodes. In any event, Yinan He has clearly produced one of the most importantstudies on postwar Sino-Japanese relations and on the role of historical memory ininternational relations. This book will be read profitably by all scholars and graduatestudents interested in these critical questions.

James Reilly is Lecturer in Northeast Asian Politics in the Department of Government and InternationalRelations at the University of Sydney. His book, Strong Society, Smart State: The Rise of Public Opinionin China’s Japan Policy, will be published by Columbia University Press in 2011.

438 J. Reilly