By Daily Touch Insights Editorial Team
Editorial Team
View Journalist Profile

TECHNOLOGY & GEOPOLITICS — The United States is preparing to tell dozens of countries that they cannot simultaneously align themselves with competing American and Chinese artificial-intelligence initiatives, escalating Washington's efforts to shape the global AI ecosystem.

According to a U.S. official and an internal State Department draft reviewed by Reuters, countries participating in the U.S.-backed AI framework could face exclusion from the American-led coalition if they also join China's competing initiative. 0

The proposed policy reflects a broader technology rivalry between Washington and Beijing over artificial intelligence, semiconductors and the critical minerals needed to build advanced technology.

Washington Wants Countries to Choose

The draft letter is directed at the 35 countries that signed a U.S. "AI Opportunity Statement" in June.

Washington's message is straightforward: countries seeking to become trusted partners in the American AI ecosystem may not be able to participate simultaneously in competing Chinese-led frameworks.

A U.S. official described the position as a situation where countries cannot "have it both ways," according to Reuters. 1

The Pax Silica Initiative Is at the Centre

The dispute is closely connected to Pax Silica, a U.S.-backed initiative launched last year to strengthen supply chains involving artificial intelligence, semiconductor technology and critical minerals.

About two dozen countries have joined the initiative, including Japan, Australia and South Korea.

Kazakhstan is particularly important because it has joined the U.S.-backed framework while also becoming involved in China's competing coalition. 2

China Is Building Its Own AI Coalition

Beijing has been developing an alternative international framework designed to expand cooperation around artificial intelligence.

Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization in July, promoting China's approach to AI and open-weight models as an alternative to U.S.-dominated technology platforms.

That creates two increasingly distinct technology ecosystems competing for international influence.

Why Critical Minerals Matter

The conflict is not only about AI software.

Advanced AI requires enormous amounts of computing infrastructure, including sophisticated semiconductors, data centres and electricity.

Those technologies also depend on critical minerals used throughout the electronics and energy supply chains.

Countries possessing large mineral reserves therefore have strategic importance far beyond their domestic technology industries.

Kazakhstan, for example, is considered an important potential source of critical minerals, making its participation in competing international initiatives particularly significant for Washington. 3

The U.S. Wants to Limit China's Access to Resources

Washington's strategy is partly aimed at preventing China from gaining greater access to the resources, infrastructure and international partnerships needed to expand its AI capabilities.

The United States wants allied countries to build supply chains that reduce dependence on China while strengthening American technology companies and semiconductor infrastructure.

The AI competition is therefore becoming a competition over the entire technology supply chain.

China's Open AI Models Are Changing the Competition

The rivalry has become more complicated because Chinese AI companies have made rapid progress with open-weight models.

Models developed in China have increasingly gained attention outside the country, challenging the assumption that the most capable AI systems will necessarily come from American companies.

That development has increased the strategic importance of international access to AI models, computing infrastructure and developers.

America's AI Lead Is No Longer Being Taken for Granted

The United States still has major advantages in frontier AI research, semiconductor design, cloud computing and access to enormous pools of private capital.

However, China's ability to develop competitive AI systems despite U.S. technology restrictions has changed the nature of the race.

Washington is therefore increasingly treating AI leadership as a national-security issue rather than simply a commercial competition.

Allies Face a Difficult Choice

For many countries, choosing between Washington and Beijing may not be straightforward.

Countries have economic relationships with both the United States and China and may want access to technology from both sides.

Some governments may therefore resist pressure to completely align themselves with one ecosystem.

That could make the proposed U.S. policy particularly difficult to implement.

Kazakhstan Illustrates the Problem

Kazakhstan is an important example of why Washington is concerned.

The country has joined Pax Silica while also participating in China's competing framework.

For the United States, this raises questions about whether a country can simultaneously be a trusted participant in two technology ecosystems whose strategic objectives increasingly conflict.

For Kazakhstan, however, maintaining relationships with both powers could provide economic and diplomatic advantages.

The Policy Could Reshape Global AI Alliances

If Washington follows through with the proposed policy, countries may have to make more explicit choices about which technology ecosystem they want to join.

That could affect everything from semiconductor supply chains and AI infrastructure to research partnerships and access to advanced models.

The result could be a more divided global technology market.

It Could Also Create Problems for the U.S.

There is a significant risk for Washington.

If the United States pushes countries too aggressively to choose sides, some governments may decide that maintaining technological neutrality is more valuable than joining either camp completely.

Countries could also seek alternative suppliers and develop their own AI capabilities rather than becoming dependent on either Washington or Beijing.

That would make the global AI market more fragmented rather than simply strengthening American leadership.

China Opposes the Politicisation of Technology

China has criticised efforts to turn technology and trade into geopolitical weapons.

A Chinese embassy spokesperson told Reuters that politicising trade and technology would hinder global AI development rather than benefit countries involved in the competition. 4

Beijing has an obvious strategic interest in resisting U.S. efforts to build an exclusive technology coalition.

The AI Race Is Becoming a Supply-Chain War

The most important development may be that the AI competition is moving far beyond model performance.

The countries that control computing hardware, energy, semiconductor manufacturing, critical minerals, cloud infrastructure and talent will have enormous influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

That is why Washington is attempting to build alliances around the entire AI supply chain rather than focusing only on software.

What It Means for the Rest of the World

Countries outside the United States and China could become increasingly important.

Nations with large mineral reserves, advanced semiconductor industries, cheap energy, strong universities or rapidly growing technology sectors may have significant bargaining power.

Instead of simply choosing a side, some countries may attempt to use competition between Washington and Beijing to attract investment from both.

Our Perspective

The United States is right to recognise that AI is becoming strategically important. But forcing countries into a binary choice could produce an outcome Washington does not want.

America's strongest advantage is not simply that it has powerful AI companies. It is that much of the global technology ecosystem still wants access to American capital, chips, cloud infrastructure and research networks.

If Washington makes participation too restrictive, it could encourage other countries to build independent alternatives.

The real battle is therefore not simply about whether countries choose America or China. It is about which ecosystem becomes so useful that countries choose it voluntarily.

Conclusion

The United States is preparing to pressure dozens of countries to choose between competing AI alliances, warning that participation in China's rival framework could lead to exclusion from the U.S.-led coalition. 5

The policy is part of Washington's broader effort to protect its position in artificial intelligence while reducing China's access to critical minerals, advanced chips and international technology partnerships.

China, meanwhile, is building its own international AI network and promoting open-weight technology as an alternative to the U.S.-dominated ecosystem.

The next phase of the AI race will therefore be fought not only inside laboratories and data centres, but across governments, supply chains, mineral markets and international alliances.