| |
need for sequencing in the creation of democratic states,
and redefined the meaning of sovereignty through the
responsibility to protect doctrine. By doing so, they set
the stage for the neoconservatives to actualize the Bush
Doctrine. In short, Smiths analysis suggests that Wilsoni-
anism is hardly a panacea for future American foreign
policy.
Anne-Marie Slaughters essay reaches a sharply differ-
ent conclusion than Smiths. The new president, Slaugh-
ter writes, will face a genuinely Wilsonian moment
(p. 91), and we must find ways to work together to
achieve Wilsons vision (p. 117). To make her case, she
directly challenges several of Smiths arguments and out-
lines a new direction for American policy. She argues
that Wilsons aim was to make the world safe for democ-
racy, not to democratize the world per se; rather, he
sought the use of common counsel from the inter-
national community to address global issues. Hence, his
commitment to multilateralism remains his core legacy,
not a subterfuge for American leadership or hegemony.
Slaughter also disputes Smiths contention that neoliber-
alism was a precursor to neoconservatism and the Bush
Doctrine. Although Slaughter acknowledges that the
responsibility to protect doctrine and the democratic
peace theory came together in a vision . . . that was
indeed Wilsonian, it was not one of forcible spread of
liberal democracy or a universal embrace of the United
States (p. 108). Her prescription for the United States is
to actualize Wilsons principles by embracing team lead-
ership, reaffirming a commitment to democratic institu-
tions, and adopting a changed view of international
institutions and treaty obligations. To the extent that
force would be employed under the responsibility to pro-
tect doctrine, it must incorporate an assessment of its
effect on the social and economic microfoundations of a
society (p. 115), as well as its reliance on Wilsons com-
mon counsel.
Despite the insights contained in these fine essays, the
volume does not resolve the meaning of Wilsons vision or
his impact. Indeed, it raises a number of interesting ques-
tions, much as its authors undoubtedly intended. For that
reason alone, this volume should serve as an important
resource for foreign policy students and analysts. On a
pedagogical level, it effectively outlines the components of
Wilsons vision, reveals how his views changed during his
presidency, and illustrates how those components support
several strands of arguments. Yet, it also creates several
puzzles that need unraveling. The first regards the ques-
tion of the very meaning of Wilsons vision. Here, the
authors strongly disagree both about the centrality of
democracy promotion and multilateralism and the very
meaning of these ideas. The second is the tension in Wil-
sonian thought between promoting democratic account-
ability within states and seeking collective security across
states. The third is the question of how Wilsonianism
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. International Christian University Library, on 15 Apr 2017 at 04:01:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709991149
would deal with international terrorism, since the authors
make only passing references to 9/11 and its impact. The
final intellectual challenge of the book relates to the pro-
vocative normative prescriptions contained in its chap-
ters. Smiths contention about the convergence between
neoliberals and neoconservatives, and the potential for lib-
eral progressive imperialism, should spark lively discus-
sion on one side of the political spectrum, while Slaughters
forceful endorsement of a new multilateralism, especially
in light of her current position as director of policy plan-
ning at the Department of State, should spark debate on
the other side.
On a theoretical level, the essays offer one important
idea-centered interpretation of American foreign policy
over the past century, but they also beg the question of
whether other explanations may be equally compelling.
The careful reader, for example, will note the differing
views of Ikenberry and Knock over the impact of Wilso-
nianism on Cold War policies. Are there other theoretical
explanations for American policy in that period and
beyond? The same holds true for the ultimate policy con-
sequences of liberal internationalism that Smith asserts
and that Slaughter questions. In this sense, this volumes
underlying theoretical explanation of American foreign
policy needs to be juxtaposed against alternative explana-
tions to weigh Wilsons impact more fully.
Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics.
By Jennifer Lind. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008. 256p.
$39.95.
doi:10.1017/S1537592709991149
Bronwyn Leebaw, University of California, Riverside
It is commonly argued that countries seeking political rec-
onciliation should acknowledge and apologize for past
wrongs. Jennifer Linds excellent new book compares the
postwar experiences of two countries that would seem to
confirm this proposition. Germany, which has engaged in
a thoroughgoing process of dealing with the past, has
enjoyed a dramatic reconciliation with former enemies in
Europe. By contrast, leaders in South Korea, China, and
Australia continue to be dismayed by Japans more limited
and conflicted process of remembrance. Sorry States rejects
conventional wisdom regarding the relationship between
apologies and reconciliation in favor of a more compli-
cated argument. Official expressions of contrition for past
abuses do have a significant impact, argues Lind, yet such
apologies are not essential and can undermine inter-
national reconciliation by provoking and unsettling back-
lash from those who remain unapologetic.
Linds central claim is that the way a state remembers
past violence influences the way that other states perceive
its intentions. Contrition can demonstrate that a former
adversary has repudiated policies that caused past suffer-
ing. It is also a way for a state to demonstrate that it would
December 2009 | Vol. 7/No. 4 1007
| |
Book Reviews | International Relations
like to restore good relations with others. Refusal to apol-
ogize may convey indifference or disdain. For these rea-
sons, Lind argues that Japans denial and unapologetic
remembrance of its role in World War II atrocities has
been unsettling for its neighbors. However, she argues,
contrition is only one of many factors that countries exam-
ine as they assess intentions. The rapprochement between
France and West Germany occurred in the 1950s, when
Germans were still primarily focused on their own war-
time suffering. And the author rejects the view that con-
trition is required for reconciliation, noting that many others
who fought during the World War II reconciled without
any expressions of remorse whatsoever.
Lind also argues that contrition affects reconciliation
by influencing domestic mobilization. Official expres-
sions of remorse may undermine nationalist mobilization
by educating people about the costs of violence or acknowl-
edging the suffering of victims. However, official contri-
tion can also provoke a nationalist backlash, which fuels
ongoing distrust among former enemies. According to
Lind, this is precisely what happened in postwar Japan. As
some leaders began to acknowledge Japans responsibility
for wartime suffering, a backlash that exposed and inten-
sified denial and revisionism in the wider society was pro-
voked. While its neighbors may not view Japan as a major
threat, such denials fuel ongoing suspicions and wariness
about the future. In Germany, this kind of backlash was
effectively contained. Lind argues that the Japanese expe-
rience is likely to be more common and reveals the
unexpected ways that official apologies can actually under-
mine reconciliation.
Official apologies come in many forms, ranging from
the distinctly unapologetic mistakes were made to Willy
Brandts dramatic Kniefal before the Warsaw Ghetto
Memorial. One important contribution of this book is to
develop a theoretical framework that breaks down these
categories in order to examine the complex and dynamic
logic of political contrition. Lind distinguishes between
apologetic remembrance, which admits past mistakes and
expresses remorse for them, and unapologetic remem-
brance, which fails either to accept responsibility for wrong-
doing or to express remorse. This approach provides an
important corrective to the tendency, in some empirical
scholarship on transitional justice, to take official expres-
sions of remembrance at face value. Lind demonstrates
how policies that ostensibly acknowledge past wrongs may
operate as strategies of forgetting. Even war crimes trials,
which are often assumed to be an unambiguous expres-
sion of accountability, may function to reinforce denial.
The trials of Nazi personnel from Auschwitz and the Ein-
satzgruppen that took place in the 1960s reflected a wid-
ening acceptance of responsibility for past abuses, according
to the author. However, she argues, postwar trials reinforced
amnesia in Japan by emphasizing misdeeds in the Pacific
war while ignoring the sex slaves of the Imperial Army
1008 Perspectives on Politics
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. International Christian University Library, on 15 Apr 2017 at 04:01:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709991149
and the forced conscription and labor of Koreans and
Taiwanese.
Lind develops her argument by tracing processes of
remembrance in Germany and Japan from the immediate
aftermath of the World War II to the present. She looks at
how remembrance has been institutionalized in the form
of reparations, trials, commemoration, and national edu-
cation. For evidence of remembrance in the wider society,
she examines public opinion polls and writings of main-
stream opinion leaders. She then charts responses to Japans
process of remembrance in South Korea and responses to
the German process of remembrance in France. Lind sup-
plements the primary case studies with a chapter that sur-
veys responses to Japanese remembrance in China and
Australia, and responses to West German remembrance in
Britain. Throughout, she carefully analyzes the reasoning
behind these responses, evaluating the significance of con-
trition as against other explanations for threat perception.
Ultimately, Lind recommends an approach to official
remembrance that she characterizes as negotiated mem-
ory (p. 190). She argues that leaders should focus on
shared suffering in a nonaccusatory way, designed to
acknowledge the suffering of victims without rattling apol-
ogists. The trouble with this approach is that it is not so
easy to distinguish from the unapologetic remembrance
that she associates with a denial of responsibility. More-
over, it is not clear that such an approach would minimize
backlashes, given that nationalists might interpret even
minimal contrition as a step toward greater concessions.
Nevertheless, this book makes an important contribution
to policy debates by demonstrating how official contrition
generates conflicting internal and external demands, which
can lead to unpredictable and unintended outcomes.
Sorry States should be of great interest to scholars of
threat perception in international relations, as well as to
those who are interested in the power of ideas. It also
makes an important contribution to debates on transi-
tional justice by challenging common assumptions regard-
ing the role of apologies and examining forms of
remembrance that are commonly overlooked, such as text-
book reform. Lind brings an impressive set of skills to
this ambitious project, moving deftly from expert inter-
pretations of speeches, memorials, and textbooks to analy-
ses of threat perception based on changing dynamics of
power and capabilities. The result is a book that is unusu-
ally well written and a fascinating read.
Protectors of Privacy: Regulating Personal Data in
the Global Economy. By Abraham L. Newman. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2008. 240p. $39.95.
doi:10.1017/S1537592709991150
Stephen J. Kobrin, University of Pennsylvania
Economic interdependence compromises the fundamen-
tal principles of discrete and meaningful borders,