The US demands that its allies make a choice: Pax Silica or the Chinese AI bloc.
Washington is moving to decisive action in its technological confrontation with Beijing. I have obtained a draft of a State Department document addressed to the 35 countries that signed the June Declaration on AI Opportunities. The essence of the message is crystal clear: participation in competing alliances automatically closes access to the privileges of the Pax Silica coalition. This is not just a diplomatic demarche, but a tough demand to pick a side.
Recall that Pax Silica, presented by Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Helberg in December 2025, is an ambitious cross-sectoral project covering critical minerals, energy, advanced manufacturing, and semiconductor infrastructure. By the June summit in Washington, 24 states had joined, including Japan, Australia, South Korea, the UK, India, and the UAE. Italy joined in August.
Beijing's response was swift: on July 16, 29 countries, including Russia, Belarus, Serbia, and Brazil, signed an agreement to establish the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization with headquarters in Shanghai. Notably, no G7 country joined it.
"Being part of everything means being part of nothing. Signing the Pax Silica Declaration is not a formality, but a commitment," the text of the letter emphasizes.
The document's authors call on partners to make a "conscious choice," directly pointing out the incompatibility of Pax Silica membership with participation in projects that contradict American interests. Although Beijing is not named directly, the context leaves no doubt. Of particular interest is the position of Kazakhstan—the only country formally belonging to both coalitions. Astana joined Pax Silica in June, but within a month, President Tokayev participated in the Shanghai conference where WAICO was formalized. It is this "double game" that has sparked Washington's concern.
Technological backdrop and escalation
The situation is exacerbated by the rapid convergence of Chinese open-source models with the proprietary systems of OpenAI and Anthropic. Beijing, meanwhile, is increasingly considering restricting exports of its best AI developments. Earlier, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission already banned the import of Chinese robots and inverters, citing the protection of AI infrastructure.
My analysis: The U.S. demand is not just a diplomatic demarche, but a sign of the formation of a bipolar technological world. Countries trying to navigate between the two will have to make a painful choice. The only question is how sustainable such an "either-or" policy will be, since many developing economies are interested in cooperating with both sides. The coming months will show who is willing to sacrifice economic benefits for geopolitical loyalty.