Asian Cup 2004 Protests and China-Japan Relations
When Japan defeated China 3-1 to win the 2004 Asian Cup, then-China coach Foppe de Haan was fuming mad at Kuwaiti referee Saad Kameel. The Dutch coach accused the referee of erring in allowing all three of Japan’s goals and, in a symbolic protest, refused to accept his second place medal.
Japan celebrate their victory in a nearly empty Chinese stadium
But the real protests of the 2004 Asian Cup were far from symbolic.
Throughout the tournament, Chinese fans repeatedly booed the Japanese team, burned Japanese flags, and even at one point surrounded the Japanese team’s bus, which sped off in panic, momentarily leaving behind two terrified players.
After the final, the protests became all-out riots. Reuters reported that, “Trouble flared outside the stadium after the match, however, with police in riot gear battling to restore order among furious Chinese fans amid wailing sirens and flashing police lights. A bus carrying delegates was attacked, with bottles and garbage thrown, and police charged the crowd with batons and riot shields to clear a path.”
The BBC offered further details: “Fans burned Japanese flags, shouted obscenities and sang patriotic songs outside the stadium as more than 5,000 police lined the streets.”
Chinese fans make their anti-Japanese feelings known
Where had the anger come from that led to such passionate and violent protests? Sport is one thing, but vitriol like that seen at the 2004 Asian Cup did not come from performance on the pitch. The anger that the Chinese protesters exhibited stems largely from Japan’s occupation of China from the 1930s through World War II.
As Reuters reported, “Chinese harbour bitter resentment over Japan’s military invasion and brutal occupation of parts of the country from 1931 to 1945, when tens of millions died.” The Rape of Nanking, an infamous Japanese bombing and murder campaign that killed 300,000 Chinese, occurred during this time. In the past few years, mustard gas dump sites dating back to war have been discovered in northern China, not coincidentally the location of Japan’s opening round games.
Perhaps most infuriating to the Chinese, many in Japan refuse to acknowledge the wrongs their country committed in China. As Robert Marquand wrote in the Christian Science Monitor wrote at the time, “Unlike postwar Germany, postwar Japan was never able to face its brutal wartime record in Asia in any serious, self-reflective manner.” Some Japanese history textbooks used today don’t mention Japanese occupation of China. And then-Prime Minster Junichiro Koizumi’s visits (as well as those by others before and since) to the Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the remains of World War II Japanese war criminals, have been a constant source of anger for many Chinese.
Junichiro Koizumi visits the Yasukuni Shrine in 2001
But the protests are not just about atrocities committed over half a century ago. As China has risen to become a global economic and political power, it has challenged Japan’s regional supremacy. More than one commentator suggested that the anti-Japanese protests of 2004 were permitted or even encouraged by the Chinese government in order to unite its people against a common enemy. Again, Robert Marquand: “[Anti-Japanese sentiment] gets raised when there are tensions in the region, and also when Beijing is seeking to unify its domestic patriotic base.”
A Christian Science Monitor editorial opined that, “After years of trying to befriend China with huge loans, Japan has begun to realize that Beijing finds it useful to unify the Chinese behind the Communist Party by occasionally letting loose nationalist and historical resentments against Japan.” This nationalist and historical resentment was never more obvious than at the 2004 Asian Cup.
So, what is the solution to this problem? To do so it is necessary to define the problem, or, as I see it, the problems.The two main problems that the 2004 Asian Cup protests exposed were: 1) lingering animosity of many Chinese toward Japan over its conduct in the World War II, and 2) the Chinese government’s willingness to exploit anti-Japanese animosity for its own benefit (i.e. uniting its people).
First and foremost, the Japanese must acknowledge their role in some of the most appalling events of the 20th century. The only thing more heinous than having brutally occupied and ruled China is the fact that many Japanese refuse to admit to having done so. A growing tide of nationalism in Japan makes this prospect unlikely, as recently elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is firmly in the nationalist camp, even supporting “revisionist history textbooks that teach students to take pride in their nation rather than focus on accounts of Japanese wartime aggression and atrocities.”
Bodies piled up after being killed during the Rape of Nanking
But China is not entirely without fault. Its control of nearly all media in the country meant that anti-Japanese issues raised in newspapers (such as the discovery of mustard gas) must be approved for publication by the government. That the 2004 Asian Cup protests were not shut down immediately suggests that the authoritarian Chinese government at least tacitly approved of them. The official China People’s Daily article headlined “Civility and reason: excitement likely for Chinese fans” sounded like the misleading propaganda it is when it said at the time, “There have been some overacting fans occasionally in major international games, who, however, are not what we want to copy.”
Ultimately, soccer tournaments should be about sports, not politics. Japan should apologize for past atrocities and China should responsibly discuss sensitive issues with its neighbor rather than encourage violent anti-Japanese protests. But both of these things should occur in discussions between politicians, far from the soccer field. Leaders in Japan and China would do well to listen to Chinese captain Li Weifeng, who said before the Asian Cup final, “Sport is the symbol of friendship so there are absolutely no political feelings or thoughts involved in our minds.”
Li Weifeng: Asian peacemaker?
March 21st, 2007 04:53
The soccer field is a semiotic battlefield. And whatever meaning one gives to these “symbols” are up to the spectators. And thus, this game is given political meaning. Shame, but not that surprising.
March 21st, 2007 07:34
I’m originally from China, so this is a topic near and dear to me, and I agree with your points. Both sides have a responsibility to take steps that will decrease tensions. Authorities on both sides must realize that no matter how helpful it may be to stir up nationalistic sentiment now, that kind of thing tends to get out of control, beyond anyone’s expectations.
(But my Japanese comrades can at least rest easy on the football front, as our team is so bad that the Japanese NT will be kicking our asses for at least another 10 years.)
March 21st, 2007 14:12
“Ultimately, soccer tournaments should be about sports, not politics.”
And, come on. That’s a very uncool statement. What you really mean, must be, that violence has no place in society. Withdrawing politics from sports, takes away half the fun. Would River Plate vs. Boca Juniors be the same without the social and class politics that surrounds it? Would Rangers vs. Celtic be as emotional? No.
March 21st, 2007 14:28
HeiaVincent - You’re right, that is a more accurate statement of what I believe. In fact, after I wrote this I was thinking that I completely approve of games, like the US vs. Iran in the 1998 World Cup, which are billed as having the potential (unfulfilled in this case) to lead to peace and reconciliation. So, thank you for helping me to clarify what I truly intended to say.
March 22nd, 2007 21:11
Top post mate. I can understand the feelings and resentment from the Chinese as I’m from one of the nations that was under the Japanese occupation (Singapore) but obviously not old enough to go through it (only 20 this year).
First and foremost, no matter what the Japanese have done, I think it shouldn’t affect football at all. Don’t bring in hatred into a game we love and something that’s totally not relevant.
But yet it’s understandable. Rivalries are rife even at club level and these two nations might never come face to face with their own problems.
Japan doesn’t want to admit while the Chinese doesn’t want to let go. No step taken by either side, no chance of any reconciliation in the near future.
March 23rd, 2007 20:29
Drogballs - Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that both China and Japan have sins to atone for. That said, they should do so in the political arena, not by encouraging animosity between their fans.
June 2nd, 2007 17:02
It seems like the Asian community in the United States has no problem with Japan being portrayed heroically in World War II.
http://azntv.com/axawards/night_of_excellence/winners.aspx
Outstanding Film: Letters from Iwo Jima
Nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima tells the untold story of the Japanese soldiers who defended their homeland against invading American forces during World War II. With little defense other than sheer will and the volcanic rock of Iwo Jima itself, the unprecedented tactics of General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai) and his men transform what was predicted to be a swift defeat into nearly 40 days of heroic and resourceful combat. Their sacrifices, struggles, courage and compassion live on in the taut, gripping film Rolling Stone calls “unique and unforgettable.†It is the powerful companion to Flags of our Fathers.
—-
I am not one to hold a grudge but the Japanese used Chinese citizens for chemical warfare testing. The Chinese still haven’t forgiven them for that.
And somehow American history has lost the stories of how the Japanese treated American Prisoners of War
And how about the Rape of Nanking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EL3h8rTwvg
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691
But, no to Clint Eastwood (and I guess the American Asian Community who honored his film) the Japanese soldiers were merely defending their homeland against those mean olde invading American imperialists.
Clint Eastwood is a traitor to America who has denigrated all those who fought in the Pacific as merely racist imperialists going after the yellow men instead of the liberators of Asia which they really were.
I spit on Clint Eastwood! No wonder Hollyweird can’t distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in Iraq when they can’t even do that when it comes to the Japanese in World War II.
By the way, on the Truth Serum video, of course I disagree with the whole part accusing Bush or America covering it up in order to get access to the scientific research that the Japanese inhumanly performed. That is just insane.
But everything else on that Truth Serum video seems historically accurate. If that isn’t the case, I would really appreciate someone educating me to the inaccuracies in the video.
I do wonder why we didn’t after World War II convict Japanese of War Crimes to the extent we did the Germans. They Japanese did terrible things to AMERICAN POWs. From my understanding the Japanese treated American POWs far worst by and large than the Germans did. And then of course there was the way they treated the Asian Civilian communities they invaded. They never seemed to be personally held accountable for it the way the Germans were the Holocaust.