Identity Construction in Manchukuo

by Zhenghe Qian

凡在新国家领土之内居住者，皆无种族之歧视，尊卑之分别
All who reside within the territory of the new state shall be free from racial discrimination and distinctions of rank.
—满洲国政府
—Manchukuo Government

​Northeast China, historically known as Manchuria, has long been a multi-ethnic region. The Jurchens, who later became known as the Manchus, founded the Qing dynasty, the last feudal dynasty in Chinese history. The Qing fostered enduring ties among Manchus, Han Chinese, and Mongols, reflecting a form of Chinese cosmopolitanism that peaked during the Tang dynasty. The Japanese, heavily influenced by Tang culture, drew upon this legacy when they established the puppet state of Manchukuo following the Mukden Incident of 1931.

The Japanese Kwantung Army invaded Manchuria to create Manchukuo, seeking to legitimize a new East Asian order under their control. Concurrently, the abdicated Qing emperor Puyi aimed to restore the Manchu monarchy. Their shared interests led to the creation of a state with its own monarch, government, army, and identity. Manchukuo’s diverse population included Koreans, Han Chinese, Japanese, Manchus, Mongols, White Russians, Germans, Jews, Ukrainians, Poles, Crimean Tatars, and smaller numbers of British, American, French, and Italian residents.[1] Drawing on the region’s historical cosmopolitanism, Manchukuo’s national identity was framed as “the harmony of five ethnicities”—Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Manchus, and Mongols—united by loyalty to the monarch.
However, this multi-ethnic ideal was superficial. Approximately 80% of Manchukuo’s population was Han Chinese, most of whom identified with the Nationalist government in Nanjing or other Chinese authorities rather than Manchukuo. The Lytton Report, commissioned by the League of Nations to assess local attitudes, confirmed that many Han residents rejected Manchukuo’s legitimacy.[2] Drawing on the historical legacy of cosmopolitanism and the diverse demography of Manchukuo, its national identity was framed as embodying a multi-ethnic figure bound together by mutual loyalty to the monarch, summarized as “the harmony among five ethnicities.” The five groups were the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Manchus, and Mongols. The “Harmony of Five Races” ideology excluded significant groups, such as White Russians in Harbin and other minorities, while privileging the Japanese, who held military and political power despite comprising less than 3% of the population, even after significant migration.[3]
The distinction between Manchus and Han Chinese was also problematic. Centuries of cultural exchange and intermarriage had blurred these ethnic lines, and Manchukuo’s police reports often categorized them together.[4] The “Five Races Under One Union” framework was thus inherently flawed, creating an unequal ethnic hierarchy that favored the Japanese, who enjoyed economic and political privileges disproportionate to their numbers.[5] Koreans and Manchus/Han Chinese faced harsher treatment, with Koreans often enduring the worst conditions.​

Manchukuo’s passport system further undermined its national identity. Passports, typically symbols of citizenship, were treated as optional bureaucratic tools. Many Japanese residents retained dual nationality, maintaining Japanese citizenship while dominating Manchukuo’s institutions, which allowed them to act with impunity. White Russians, many of whom cooperated with Japan against the Soviet Union, were excluded from the “Five Races” framework and often left stateless, without passports or household registration. Similarly, most rural Han Chinese and Koreans lacked Manchukuo passports, rendering the system largely irrelevant. The absence of mandatory passports weakened Manchukuo’s ability to enforce a cohesive national identity or legal jurisdiction, leaving many residents in a legal gray zone.[6]
Manchukuo’s identity also lacked a clear “other” to define itself against, a critical component of national identity.[7] Most residents were already identified with existing nation-states, such as China or Japan, and the lack of enforced passport laws further eroded Manchukuo’s legitimacy. Instead, identity became little more than proof of residence.

The regime sought to build a unifying ideology through the concept of wangdao (the King’s Way), promoted through propaganda, national festivals, and state ceremonies. Wangdao, rooted in Confucian principles of virtuous governance, was contrasted with badao (the way of the hegemon), which prioritized force. The Japanese used wangdao to legitimize Manchukuo, arguing that China’s Nationalist and Communist governments had lost the Mandate of Heaven by deviating from Confucian values. At a 1935 Conference on Confucian Studies in Tokyo, attended by Puyi and scholars, wangdao was affirmed as the guiding principle for Manchukuo’s governance.[8] The regime reintroduced Confucian rites, established festivals honoring Confucius, and integrated Confucian teachings into education, presenting them as a shared East Asian moral standard.[9]
Manchukuo was also positioned within Japan’s “East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” as a model of Confucian governance and Pan-Asian unity. However, this identity-building project failed. Confucianism’s emphasis on the Mandate of Heaven and dynastic cycles undermined Manchukuo’s legitimacy, as its racial hierarchy and harsh governance contradicted Confucian ideals of fairness and moderation. The regime’s caste-like system, with the Japanese at the top, turned ideals like loyalty and datong (Great Unity) into tools of domination. Critics have described Manchukuo’s use of Confucianism as “the most negative example of Confucianism in over 2,000 years.”[10] The state’s failure to provide equitable governance exposed the contradictions in its propaganda, weakening its political project.

Meanwhile, rising nationalist movements in China embraced reformist ideologies, sidelining traditional Confucianism. Manchukuo’s attempt to construct a national identity rooted in Confucian principles was thus both theoretically incoherent and practically ineffective, failing to resonate with its diverse population or gain international recognition.

Sources:​ 
1. “Knowledge, Power, and Racial Classification: The ‘Japanese’ in ‘Manchuria’ on JSTOR,” accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2658656?seq=2.
2. Xiaoyan Liu, A State without Nationals: The Nationality Issue in Japan’s Making of Manchukuo, n.d.
3. “Knowledge, Power, and Racial Classification: The ‘Japanese’ in ‘Manchuria’ on JSTOR.”
4. 长谷口明三, 满洲国警察史 (吉林省公安厅公安史研究室 东北沦陷十四年史吉林编写组, 1989).
5. “Knowledge, Power, and Racial Classification: The ‘Japanese’ in ‘Manchuria’ on JSTOR.”
6. Liu, A State without Nationals: The Nationality Issue in Japan’s Making of Manchukuo.
7. Bhikhu Parekh, “The Concept of National Identity,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 21, no. 2 (1995): 255–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1995.9976489.
8. Dongxian Jiang and Shaun O’Dwyer, “Universalizing ‘Kingly Way’ Confucianism: A Japanese Legacy and Chinese Future?,” in Handbook of Confucianism in Modern Japan (Amsterdam University Press, 2022).
9. Aaron L, “Imitating the Colonizers: The Legacy of the Disciplining State from Manchukuo to South Korea,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 6, 2005, https://apjjf.org/suk-jung-han/1885/article.
10. Jiang and O’Dwyer, “Universalizing ‘Kingly Way’ Confucianism: A Japanese Legacy and Chinese Future?”

For more