Resistance to alien rule in Taiwan and Korea^†

Abstract

Although alien rule is widely assumed to be illegitimate, nationalist resistance to it varies across time and space. This article explores why there was greater nationalist resistance to Japanese colonial rule in Korea than Taiwan from the turn of the twentieth century to the end of World War II. Resistance to alien rulers requires both a supply of participants in nationalist collective action and a demand for national self-determination. The article assesses two principal propositions: (1) that the supply of participants increases to the degree that native elites are stripped of their traditional authority and offered few incentives to collaborate; and (2) that the demand for national self-determination decreases to the degree that alien rule is fair and effective. A comparative analysis of the effects of Japanese alien rule in Taiwan and Korea suggests that nationalist resistance is greater in the earliest phases of occupation, that the greater native elites' opportunities, the weaker the resistance to alien rule; and that the fairer the governance, the weaker the resistance to alien rule.

Political Devolution and Resistance to Foreign Rule: A Natural Experiment

“…Building on the notion that nationalism is the primary motivation for resistance to foreign occupation (Liberman 1996), these scholars have suggested that granting greater native authority to elites under foreign occupation serves to dampen nationalist motivations that would otherwise spur resistance. For example, although Edelstein (2008, 11–14) notes that “the greatest impediment to successful military occupation is the nationalism of the occupied population,” he argues that occupiers may be able to co-opt “political elites within the occupied society who can control the nationalist instincts of the population.” Likewise, Hechter, Matesan, and Hale (2009, 44) argue that utilizing native elites may reduce resistance under foreign rule because these elites “are already endowed with at least a modicum of legitimacy.”…”

“…This question—crucially important to debates about foreign occupation, insurgency, and colonialism—remains contested. While some studies suggest that the identity of those in control should be of little significance so long as they possess strong coercive capacity (Kalyvas 2006; Liberman 1996), others suggest that devolution can play a key role in limiting resistance to foreign rule (Edelstein 2008, Hechter, Matesan, and Hale 2009). Even if devolving authority does reduce resistance, the causal mechanisms remain unclear, with some scholars arguing that native rule dampens nationalist motivations to resist (Edelstein 2008, Hechter, Matesan, and Hale 2009), while other work stresses native advantages in counterinsurgency (Lyall 2010, MacDonald 2013).…”