Dudin Pavel Nikolaevich

In this article the author attempts to determine the place and role of Buddhism in the process of building a regional political order in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by identifying key characteristics that refl ect the specifi cs of the East Asian region. Contrary to the conventional belief of the universality of state and legal institutions — which, according to Francis Fukuyama’s prediction, was to take place with “all human societies” — the region under study demonstrated its own value-ideological attitudes. Buddhism was never perceived by the people of East Asia exclusively from a religious, sacral position. It was a way of thinking and living that undoubtedly fi gured in the development of state institutions as well. Although in a closer study of the principles of power, place, and the role of the head of state and his relationship with the Sangha diff ered in the tradition of Hinayana (South-East Asia) and Mahayana (North-East Asia), the author provides a set of characteristics typical of any existing current in Buddhism which played a decisive role in the question of its infl uence on the regional political order. An important feature of the region was the presence of predominantly nationstates, which meant that religion played a signifi cant role in forming the identity of the subjects of each state, who felt themselves guardians of ancient traditions, culture and language. Buddhism allowed the peoples of the region to be perceived as part of a whole, and above all, by these peoples themselves — a concept that Japan took advantage of by declaring an ambitious project to create a “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Playing on cultural and spiritual contradictions and the opposition of “European” to “Asian,” the Japanese managed to achieve signifi cant success in implementing this project in a short period of time, which was greatly facilitated by Buddhism itself and its most active minions both in Japan and on the continent.

In this article the author examines the process of formation of a regional political order during the 17th–20th centuries in the territories whose population adhered (and adheres) to the traditions of Mahayana Buddhism. Analyzing the process of statehood formation in Bhutan, Tibet and Khalkha-Mongolia, the article traces the infl uence of Buddhism on the formation of state institutions and the determination of the head of state — the monarch. A provisional conclusion is advanced to the eff ect that, unlike the Theravada tradition, the monarch could fulfi ll both the role of head of state and the functions of a spiritual leader. This appeared particularly rational in Tibet, which since the middle of the 17th century was ruled by the Dalai Lamas. The institution pf the Dalai Lamas, which arose in the Gelug School of Buddhism, envisioned in the Lamas the embodiment of the Bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteshvara, which organically fi t into the concept of theocratic power. At the same time, a civil administration was created in both Bhutan and Tibet, with powers corresponding to its status. The transfer of supreme power was associated with reincarnation, which subsequently caused serious problems and created political crises. The stabilization and achievement of the peak of power of Tibetan statehood is associated with the name of the Dalai Lama XIII, who, fl eeing the invasion by British troops, hid for two years in Khalkha-Mongolia and thereby ensured the legitimacy of the supreme power of Bogd Gegeen VIII, who became the last Great Khan of Mongolia after the fall of the Qing Empire. In 1912 an agreement was concluded between the two monarchs, and the tendency toward the rule of Buddhism in the region, not only in the spiritual but also in the secular sphere, was dubbed pan-Buddhism. The author also cites data on polities that did not receive full development: the Kudun state within one of the Buryat aimaks in 1919 and the theocratic movement in the Khorchin lands of Inner Mongolia in the 1930s. The article concludes that despite its significant encompassment of the population, Buddhism did not become a driving force that would compete with the two leading powers of the region — Soviet Russia and the Japanese Empire — which maintained more radical views on the political order in the region and more eff ective tools for its construction.

This article attempts to formulate the key features and defi nitions of buff er zones by comparing the positions of Russian and foreign specialists and analyzing the process of the creation of such buff ers in the 20th century. Variants of a wide and narrow approach to the interpretation of the “buff er zone” concept are proposed by the author and the concept is compared with other territories with a special regime — enclaves and exclaves, mandate territories and territories under international guardianship — that are close in meaning and character but far from them in goals and content. Given the fact that this study is mainly focused on the events of the fi rst half of the 20th century, the author does not consider other dependent territories with special status, such as vassal territories, dominions and others. Since the main focus is on the strategic presence of Russia and Japan in the East Asian region, most of the examples and analytical positions, are focused on the eastern direction of scholarly thought. This is important due to the fact that East Asia, as a specifi c geographical and ethnocultural region, had tangible features in the construction of buff er spaces and territories. They were expressed in a lower degree of participation of the international community in comparison with other regions of the world,; in the deep historical traditions of interaction of the states present in the region; in a mentality that does not presuppose haste and quick and radical solutions; in the absence of colonial practices; and in other ways.

This article analyzes Soviet and Japanese ideas of the phenomenon of buff er statehood. Russia (and later the USSR) and Japan were the main players in the international arena of northeast Asia in the fi rst half of the 20th century, and it is these countries which built up a chain of buff er states that were designed, on the one hand, to ensure their presence in the region and, on the other hand, to protect them from potential military threats. For Soviet Russia, the Far Eastern Republic, which existed in 1920–1922 with capitals in Verkhneudinsk (currently Ulan-Ude) and Chita, acted as an eff ective tool that successfully served these ends in the majority of the territory of the modern Far Eastern Federal District. For Japan, attempts to form a buff er state in the territory of Siberia remained at the planning level, while the policy for the occupied regions of northeast China proved to be more successful. The occupation of Manchuria and the creation of the “ideal state” of Manchukuo, the formation of buff er autonomies in 1935–1937 on the territory of northern and eastern China, and consolidation of the buff er states n 1940 into the alternative “Republic of China” allowed the Japanese to work out in practice a model of military and economic presence which was then extended to other Asian regions that were in their zone of occupation.