A history of conflict and distrust can inflame disputes between neighboring countries. Conflict between states may evoke resentment, but some regions have found it especially difficult to overcome painful history. In Northeast Asia, negative remnants of history continue to shape the current political fault lines (Cho and Park 2011). Historical animosity filters down into all aspects of relations, keeping states from agreeing to put the past in the past and move forward (Cha 2003). In media and government circles, this phenomenon—where remnants of aggression and injury serve to inhibit present- day cooperation—is commonly referred to as the “history problem” (Berger 2008).¹

In numerous unresolved historical disputes between China, Japan, and South Korea concerning wartime atrocities, national pride has been blamed as a cause. In April 2005, when anti-Japanese mass movements broke out in more than thirty Chinese cities following then-Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine,² pundits emphasized the elements of national pride that still plague the countries’ relations well into the twenty-first century (Chan and Bridges 2006). When Japanese and South Korean civil society clashed over a statue commemorating wartime sex slaves, or “comfort women,” commentators highlighted the “deep [ . . . ] national identity and pride” rooted in the issues that make resolution challenging (Everard 2014; Fisher 2013; Hamilton 2014; Kimura 2019; Kindig 2019).

Throughout the twentieth century, strong pride in and love of one’s nation have been noted as major contributory factors in war. From this perspective, distinctive attachment and allegiance to different nations divide people and generate conflict between countries, prompting ego-enhancing social comparisons and discriminatory behavior toward other nations (Dunn 1999; Herrmann, Isernia, and Segatti 2009; Nussbaum et al. 1996; Spinner-Halev and Theiss-Morse 2003). In Asia, specialists have written that “the power and persistence of national identity is one of the most important obstacles to the forging of a productive partnership” between Northeast Asian states (Glosserman and Snyder 2015).

Noting clashes of strong nationalism around the world, particularly in areas like Northeast Asia, numerous researchers argue that more peaceful relations are likely only if countries submerge or paper over existing national identities by promoting universalism, through cultural convergence or the embracing of overarching commonalities such as “Asian-ness” (Gaertner and Dovidio 2014; Kupchan 2010). This could also be achieved through the formation of a tighter community like the European Union (Haas 1958; Rosamond 2000), emphasis on cosmopolitan humanity (Held 2003), or through the homogenizing effects of globalization (Ohmae 1995). According to these scholars, the persistence of individual national identities in each country leads to a continuation of conflict. Yet some have questioned whether strong national identities are always impediments to peace, as they have coexisted with international cooperation. How do we make sense of this?

This book argues that nations can in fact build trust and reconcile with each other when each affirms³ its own national identity.⁴ To “affirm” a national identity means to bolster a positive image of one’s country (Čehajić-Clancy et al. 2011). Researchers have identified that national identity is an attachment to one’s country with no necessary implication for how one feels toward other countries (Huddy 2013; Mummendey et al. 2001; Sniderman et al. 2004). In other words, national identity can generate a sense of liking for conationals but does not necessarily confer a hatred of outsiders (Huddy and Del Ponte 2020). Therefore, national identity is not always manifested in prejudice toward other nations and does not always translate into xenophobia (Hopkins 2001). I focus on national identity as the psychological foundation of belonging to a nation upon which national pride, attachment, and nationalistic attitudes form (Smith 1993; Tajfel 1978; Wimmer 2017).⁵ I distinguish and highlight a positive element of national identity from its frequently linked darker components: one that emphasizes attachment to one’s nation, without an attitude of arrogant superiority over other nations. Affirmation is thus a seemingly counter-intuitive approach that stresses that through a reflection on group values, people actually come to act in less defensive ways toward other groups. This book argues that affirmation of strong national identities can have pacifying effects in world politics and serve as a more feasible and effective way to build peaceful relations.

Sharpened national identity can have positive aggregate effects in times when widespread national pride is framed as inward-looking. For example, political, economic, or cultural pride and confidence of one’s country may spring from awareness of how far one’s country has come in comparison to its past, rather than perceived superiority over another country. Throughout the book I give examples of historical cases such as the Sino-Japanese “honeymoon” phase of the 1970s and early 1980s, which coincided with a period of revitalized national identity in both countries (He 2009; Sasaki 2001). With the help of policy, media, and rhetoric in framing the heightened national self-confidence toward a willingness to reach out to its neighbor and overcome the past, the China-Japan dyad— which has been portrayed as the most war-prone in the world (The Economist 2012, 2013, 2015)— exhibited a series of reconciliatory gestures and reciprocation, creating a period experts describe as “representing the peak of the bilateral relationship not just in the postwar era, but in all of history” (Reilly 2012; see also Ijiri 1996; Soeya 1995). On the other hand, strengthening national identity based on xenophobia and supremacy over a coexistent other can invite prejudicial effects and downsides of national pride.⁶

1.1 “Embrace Commonality, Downplay Differences”

Numerous studies have suggested that for antagonistic groups to reconcile, they must promote a sense of commonality through a shared identity that sets aside existing subidentities and downplays differences (Allport 1954; Gaertner and Dovidio 2014; Nussbaum 1994; Putnam 2007; Riek et al. 2010), as the distinction between groups itself promotes bias (Brewer 1999; Jackson and Smith 1999; Simon, Kulla, and Zobel 1995; Stets and Burke 2000; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Tajfel 1981; Turner et al. 1987). However, this is much easier theorized than done.

What’s wrong with the prevailing prescription? A review of news headlines from around the world suggests that the prospect of achieving reconciliation through an erosion of existing identities is doubtful. Even with forces of globalization, regional integration (e.g., the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and the proliferation of transnational organizations, we have not seen a decline in national identities.

Predictions of withering nationalism or an obsolete nation-state (Ohmae 1995) have yet to be borne out, and nationalist interstate tensions loom ominously large in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even within states, conflicts based on ethnic, linguistic, or religious identities remain undiminished today, as witnessed in areas of intrastate uprising such as Iraq, China, and Russia.

Strategies that involve a weakening of existing identities are also costly in terms of difficulty, time, and risk. National identities are usually deeply ingrained and socialized into their members’ mindsets. These identities influence feelings, cognition, and behavior in everyday life. People do not, and in many cases cannot, simply abandon or switch identities associated with family or heritage overnight.

Moreover, integrating countries into a larger group carries the risk of backfiring. Most people crave some sense of belonging (Brewer 2003). Since national identities are deeply ingrained in people’s minds, any seemingly forced attempt to weaken or alter these identities may be perceived as a threat to ontological security and thus meet fierce resistance (Mitzen 2006; Steele 2008). Consequently, reconciliation may be much harder to achieve when the process requires doing away with identities that are deeply socialized into people’s minds from a very young age. For these reasons, attempts to achieve trust, cooperation, or reconciliation between countries by weakening national identities appear highly questionable. It seems that we have not yet found an adequate means of coexisting peacefully in all our global diversity. A key step may lie in challenging two existing notions. First, while distinctive national identities may appear to be the cause for international conflict, peace does not require cultural homogeneity or assimilation around some united commonality—the clichéd “melting pot.” Instead, recognition of subgroups in their diverse authenticity, and a world where such groups can be respected by and coexist with their different identities, is a better and more realistic route to peace.

Second, strong national identities and pride can have positive effects for peace. This approach reflects the liberal nationalist thesis that emphasizes the virtues of independent nations and nationalisms. According to liberal nationalists, respect for independent nations and national belonging secures a sense of dignity in people that provides a basis for international peace and cooperation (Glover 1997; Kymlicka 1998; Mazzini 2009; Miller 1995; Tamir 1995; Taylor 1998; Walzer 2008). As will be seen, compromising or converging existing national identities are not necessary for reconciliation between past adversaries.

1.2 How Can National Identity Affirmation Promote International Reconciliation?

Rather than try to weaken categories of identification, I suggest an alternative approach to boosting trust, guilt recognition, and positive perception between countries: through strengthening of existing national identities. Building on psychological theories of identity affirmation, I apply them to the national identity level as a way to promote peace between countries. By reflecting on values that are important to one’s country, people of a given country are able to be less defensive in their dealings with another country (Sherman et al. 2007; Steele 1988). This tendency to be less defensive is consistent with the idea that clarity and security in the sense of who you are, or what it means to be part of a group, increases tolerance toward others, even a past adversary. I investigate how identity affirmation works at a group level, in particular with regard to national identities.

How can affirming one’s national identity promote reconciliation? Psychologists have made an important distinction between out-group hate and in-group love (Brewer 1999). Attachment to a nation can be similarly separated into two components: an outward-looking component of chauvinism (the nastier variant of nationalism), which entails comparison and superiority; and a purely inward-looking component, which involves affirmation and reclarification of what it means to be part of a group (Spinner-Halev and Theiss-Morse 2003). This inward- looking component applied to countries denotes a reinforcement of one’s national identity, and it can have positive effects for public sentiment across countries. Indeed, recent studies find national attachment increases trust, while chauvinism has the opposite effect (Gustavsson and Stendahl 2020). In other words, attachment to one’s own country does not automatically mean hostility toward other countries (Herrmann, Isernia, and Segatti 2009). Affirmation of national identity does not have to involve comparison with an “other”—it can promote the effect of elevating the self without necessarily putting down the other. In this sense, affirmation provides a route to peaceful coexistence of groups and should be promoted in a way that is distinct from chauvinism and xenophobic self- esteem.

1.3 Three Obstacles to Peace and Security: Distrust, Guilt Avoidance, and Negative Images

In separate chapters, I empirically examine trust, guilt recognition, and perception in international reconciliation. I use these three variables as central to reconciliation for three reasons. First, relations between numerous countries have been fraught with distrust. Chronic distrust between people in countries with lasting memories of conflict prevents institutional cooperation and heightens the publics’ perception of threats to security. In order for states suffering from a negative past to overcome historical grievances, an increase in interstate trust is essential. In my study of trust, I focus on trust among the general public, assuming that small changes in the public psyche can alter overall public opinion and eventually affect political change between states on a larger level. As we will discover, two different types of trust— strategic and moralistic— are required for institutional cooperation and alleviation of security dilemmas, respectively.

A second issue that recurs in postconflict areas and seriously impedes reconciliation is guilt recognition. This often becomes an important matter for the comparatively weaker state or group of people who believe they were victimized in a conflict. To them, acknowledgment of guilt by the more dominant power becomes an issue of achieving justice and restoration. Conflict resolution specialists stress that denials of past aggression or atrocities elevate fear and tension between past adversaries, but this is not always a simple matter (Berger 2003; Lebow 2004). When it comes to guilt for historical deeds, there is a temporal gap between today’s younger generation and their ancestors who were directly involved in past conflict. For example, among Japanese today there is a divide between those who argue the current Japanese government and people must admit guilt for the country’s past actions, and those who think it is unfair to demand reparation from a younger generation of Japanese who have no memory of war. Should those who personally have no responsibility for atrocities of the past need to pay for something they never did? To address this problem, I examine when people will or will not admit guilt about an in-group member’s behavior, even when they themselves never participated in the act.

Finally, besides distrust and guilt avoidance, overall negative perceptions of other countries have toxic consequences for international relations as well. People might perceive another country as a potentially cooperative ally or a competitive enemy. Perceptions that this country has ill motives and goals that are incompatible with one’s own can threaten international security and even initiate war (Kray et al. 2010; Lebow 1984). When citizens base such judgments solely on what happened in the past, this can have particularly chilling prospects for already-strained relations in the present. Perceptions of other countries and their implications for international relations have a lot to do with the concept of images (Herrmann and Fischerkeller 1995). Image theory—which specifies the conditions under which an ally or enemy image of a country is expected to appear—will aid our examination of the relationship between the public’s psychology of perception and how it can boost positivity in images in world politics.