The neighbouring state is the natural enemy and the state beyond it the natural ally, so alignment follows position rather than affinity.
Book VII places the aspiring conqueror at the centre of concentric rings: the immediate neighbour is the enemy, the neighbour's neighbour the friend, with indifferent and neutral kings beyond. It is a positional theory of alliance, worked out independently of and long before the European balance of power, and with a sharper rule.
In practice
- Two firms competing for the same customers ally against a third that supplies them both.
- Two departments that share a budget line argue more than either does with the department upstairs.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation is geography and interest: neighbours compete over the same borders, resources and buffer states, while a state beyond the neighbour shares an interest in constraining it.
- In its favour
- Shared borders do raise the frequency of disputes in conflict datasets, and encirclement alliances are a recurring pattern in diplomatic history.
- Against it
- It describes rather than predicts, since alliances also follow ideology, trade and alliance systems, and long friendly borders are common. The text's date and authorship are disputed.
- Standing
- The Arthashastra's date and authorship are disputed. The framework describes a pattern rather than predicting it: shared borders raise the frequency of disputes without making enmity necessary.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Games & Strategic Interaction
- Essay
- The recurring shapes of conflict and cooperation