The US is preparing to request that 35 nations decide between aligning with it or China regarding AI.

      Michael Martina reported for Reuters on 14 August about a draft letter, citing a US official and an internal document. This letter is directed towards the 35 signatories of an American "AI Opportunity Statement" from June and emphasizes that countries need to make a clear choice.

      The language used is quite direct for a diplomatic message. It states, “To be part of everything is to be part of nothing.” Signing the Pax Silica Declaration is described as “not merely a membership subscription, but a commitment.” The letter encourages countries to make their choices thoughtfully.

      Reuters has yet to determine when Washington will send the letter or if there will be any modifications to the text prior to its release, as the draft itself is undated. The State Department has declined to comment on "purportedly leaked internal documents."

      Understanding Pax Silica

      The initiative was launched by Washington last year with the goal of ensuring supply chains in three critical areas: AI models, semiconductors, and essential minerals. Approximately twenty countries are currently participating, including Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Kazakhstan. Member countries gain access to shared investment opportunities in AI projects and are encouraged towards collaborative initiatives and coordinated export controls.

      The broader group is less structured; signing the AI Opportunity Statement symbolizes agreement on a “common purpose” and a “shared vision” with the US, as outlined by the State Department. This group of 35 is now receiving the letter. The framework itself is non-binding, which is the gap that the letter aims to address.

      A triggering event

      Kazakhstan became a member of Pax Silica in June, and this was highlighted by the State Department, with Under Secretary Jacob Helberg noting it as the first accession from Central Asia, as the country has substantial reserves of key minerals needed for advanced chips. Subsequently, Kazakhstan also aligned with China’s framework. It is the only known country to have committed to both initiatives, raising concerns in Washington.

      The challenge relates to the critical minerals, as China has previously leveraged its near-monopoly on them during trade disputes. A supplier attempting to navigate between the two groups presents the exact scenario that Pax Silica seeks to mitigate.

      What was unveiled by Xi in July

      The competing body is very new, having been announced by Xi Jinping at a Shanghai conference where he introduced the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization and proposed China’s open-weight models as an alternative to American dominance.

      The approaches differ substantially. Pax Silica offers investment opportunities and joint controls, while Beijing provides downloadable models. However, China's actual stance might be less transparent than it appears; reports indicated that Beijing is considering restrictions on overseas access to its leading models. Both sides are negotiating the extent of access they are willing to provide.

      The term omitted

      China is notably absent from the letter's text. Instead, it refers to “duplicative initiatives whose expectations conflict with our own,” leaving it up to the reader to infer the reference. A US official who spoke to Reuters was more explicit, indicating that the officials intended to convey clearly that “you can’t have it both ways.”

      The official elaborated that it is hard to see how a nation can genuinely position itself as a trusted ally in one technological ecosystem while simultaneously participating in an initiative crafted by China to foster a competing agenda.

      The timing is deliberate

      Chinese open-weight models have narrowed the gap with proprietary systems from OpenAI and Anthropic. The head of Hugging Face recently noted that China is leading in the open-model sector with 41% of downloads. Moreover, the American industry is not united in its preference for closed models; this year, Nvidia and other major corporations diverged from OpenAI and Anthropic regarding open weights.

      Enforcement measures have also been tightening. The Commerce Department is investigating how China gains remote access to Nvidia chips that it cannot purchase directly, and the Treasury Secretary has hinted at potential sanctions against Chinese AI firms.

      The European context is noteworthy

      From a European perspective, it's significant that Reuters lists Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Kazakhstan as members, but does not mention any European nations. While this does not confirm their absence, it's nevertheless striking, considering Europe's substantial involvement in chips and critical minerals.

      Throughout the year, Brussels has been working to establish an independent stance rather than aligning with either side. The Made in EU regulations commence with a low local-content threshold and encompass hardware, while the push for sovereignty continues across European computing, satellites, and models. The impending letter demanding a clear choice arrives amid this context, and whether any European capitals will receive it remains to be seen.

      The counter-argument emerged quickly

      China analyst Rui Ma contended that the letter might come at a higher cost than anticipated. On X, she noted that the world is witnessing one side weaponizing supply chains and controlled access, while the other promotes open technology and accessibility.

      Her observation regarding the stability of alliances is particularly incisive. She stated that alliances are not permanent and incentives can shift, caution