The United States has drafted a letter to 35 countries that signed its “AI Opportunity Statement” in June, demanding they choose between the American-led Pax Silica framework and China’s rival artificial intelligence initiative. The draft, dated 14 August, is blunt: “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.”

Key facts

• The US sent a draft letter to 35 signatories of its AI Opportunity Statement, urging them to commit to Pax Silica.
• Pax Silica aims to secure supply chains for AI models, semiconductors, and critical minerals.
• Kazakhstan joined both Pax Silica and China’s new World AI Cooperation Organization, alarming Washington.
• The letter does not mention China directly, instead referring to “duplicative initiatives whose expectations conflict with our own.”
• China’s open-weight AI models are gaining ground, with Hugging Face reporting 41% of model downloads.

What Pax Silica actually is

Washington launched Pax Silica last year with a broad goal: to secure supply chains across three critical domains simultaneously — AI models, semiconductors, and critical minerals. The framework is non-binding, but it encourages member countries to share investment opportunities in AI projects, coordinate export controls, and pursue joint ventures. About two dozen countries have joined so far. Named members include Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Kazakhstan.

The broader group of 35 signatories is looser. Signing the AI Opportunity Statement means agreeing symbolically on a “common purpose” and a “shared vision” with the United States, according to the State Department’s own public posting. The new letter aims to close the gap between symbolic agreement and binding commitment.

Kazakhstan: the trigger

Kazakhstan joined Pax Silica in June, with Under Secretary Jacob Helberg marking it as the first Central Asian accession. The country holds significant reserves of minerals that advanced chips depend on, including rare earth elements and other critical inputs. But shortly after joining the American framework, Kazakhstan also signed up to China’s AI initiative, making it the only known country to be part of both blocs. That dual membership reportedly set off alarm bells in Washington.

The minerals are what make the situation awkward. China has already used its near-monopolies in critical minerals as a retaliatory weapon during the tariff war. A supplier hedging between the two blocs is exactly the scenario Pax Silica was designed to prevent.

China’s rival framework

The rival body is barely a month old. In July, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization at a Shanghai conference. Beijing pitched its open-weight AI models as the alternative to American influence. The offer is different in kind: Pax Silica provides investment access and shared controls, while Beijing offers models that can be downloaded and adapted freely.

China’s own position is less open than the pitch suggests. In July, reports indicated that Beijing is weighing restrictions on overseas access to its leading models. Both sides are working out how much access they are willing to give away.

The word the letter avoids

The letter does not mention China. Instead, it refers to “duplicative initiatives whose expectations conflict with our own.” The reader is left to fill in the name. A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was less careful. Officials drafted the letter to make clear that “you can’t have it both ways.” The official added: “It is difficult to see how a country can credibly position itself as a trusted partner in one technology ecosystem while signing up to an initiative designed by China to advance a competing vision.”

Why now? The AI competition is heating up

The timing of the letter is not accidental. Chinese open-weight models have closed much of the gap on proprietary systems from OpenAI and Anthropic. Hugging Face’s chief executive told CNBC that China is winning the open-model race, with 41% of all downloads. That statistic has landed with force in Washington.

American industry is not united behind the closed approach. Nvidia and several other large firms broke with OpenAI and Anthropic over open weights this year, arguing that openness is necessary for innovation and security. The enforcement machinery has been tightening in parallel. The Commerce Department is examining how China gets remote access to Nvidia chips it cannot buy, and the Treasury Secretary has threatened to sanction Chinese AI firms outright.

Europe’s absence

From a European perspective, one detail stands out: Reuters named Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Kazakhstan among Pax Silica members, but no European country at all. That is not proof of absence, since the full membership list has not been published. Still, it is striking for a framework covering chips and critical minerals — areas where Europe handles a significant share of global production and regulation.

Brussels has spent the year building a third position rather than picking a side. The “Made in EU” rules start at a 5% local-content threshold and cover hardware. The sovereignty push runs through European compute, European satellites, and European models. A letter demanding a binary choice arrives into that environment. Whether any European capital receives one is now a key question.

Counter-arguments and criticism

Within hours of the letter being reported, the China analyst Rui Ma made the case that the ultimatum may cost more than it gains. Writing on X, she argued that the world is watching one side weaponize supply chains and controlled access while the other promotes open technology and broad access. Her point about durability was sharper: alliances are not permanent and incentives change, which is a caution about coercion rather than a defence of Beijing.

A third argument then appeared. Several developers responded that countries should build their own systems and depend on neither bloc, because either dependency hands someone else a switch over your economy. That is easier to say than to fund, but the sentiment reflects a growing desire for technological autonomy outside the US-China axis.

What would settle it

Three things would settle the debate. The first is whether the letter is ever sent. It is a draft, undated, and the State Department has not confirmed it exists. The second is Kazakhstan. It is the test case: it holds the minerals, and what it does when the letter lands will tell you whether the threat has force. The third is the full membership list. Pax Silica has announced accessions one at a time. Until the 35 names surface, nobody outside Washington can say whom the United States is asking to choose.

Source:TNW | Government-policy News