The Trump administration is preparing to tell Kazakhstan and 34 other countries that they may have to choose between competing US-backed and China-backed artificial intelligence frameworks as Washington intensifies efforts to shape global technology alliances.

The scenario is outlined in an exclusive report by Reuters. A US official told the news service that partners “can’t have it both ways”.

A draft US State Department letter obtained by the Reuters is addressed to 35 countries that signed the US AI Opportunity Statement in Washington, DC in June. It warns that countries joining the US-led Pax Silica framework would not be able to participate in competing initiatives where the requirements conflict with those of the American framework.

The draft reportedly urges countries to “choose deliberately” and says membership of Pax Silica represents a commitment rather than simply a diplomatic designation. It is reported to state: "To be part of everything is to be part of nothing. Signature of the Pax Silica Declaration is not merely a membership subscription, but a commitment."

The letter has reportedly not been sent and could still be amended.

First to join

Kazakhstan was the first Central Asian country to join the US-led AI framework. Washington has highlighted the country’s importance as a potential essential supplier of critical minerals used in semiconductors and advanced technologies. However, Astana has also joined China’s World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organisation (WAICO). It was launched in Shanghai by Chinese President Xi Jinping in July.

It is thought Kazakhstan is presently the only country signed up to both the US and Chinese frameworks.

The competing commitments present a particular challenge for Kazakhstan. It pursues a multi-vector foreign policy aimed at maintaining relationships with all the major powers while avoiding excessive dependence on any one partner.

Kazakhstan, for instance, maintains strong economic ties with both China and Russia while seeking deeper cooperation with the US and European countries in areas including critical minerals, energy and technology.

The US-China competition over AI has intensified as Chinese open-weight AI models have made advances against proprietary systems developed by US companies including OpenAI and Anthropic, the report noted.

Washington is seeking closer alignment among partner countries partly to limit China’s access to critical minerals, semiconductor technologies and other resources considered important to the development of advanced AI systems.

The draft State Department letter indicates that Washington could increasingly make participation in its technology initiatives conditional on restrictions on cooperation with competing Chinese frameworks. A final US position has yet to be communicated to Kazakhstan.

A report by Tech Times argued that the draft has a major weakness – it does not specify what would constitute a conflicting commitment or what consequences countries would face for refusing to choose. It does not name China, set a deadline or establish a mechanism for determining violations and enforcing compliance, the report observed.

Weak enforcement mechanisms

The potential enforcement mechanism lies in access to advanced chips, the report said. AI accelerators require replacement every few years, creating a recurring dependence on supply channels controlled by the US and its partners. Washington could potentially restrict future chip access through export controls, a mechanism demonstrated in the case of the UAE's G42, which removed Huawei equipment as part of its closer alignment with the US.

However, applying such pressure to Kazakhstan could undermine Washington's objectives, the report argued. Kazakhstan's critical-mineral reserves are a major reason for US interest in bringing the country into Pax Silica, meaning sanctions or an exclusion over its WAICO membership could weaken the supply-chain diversification the framework seeks to promote.

The report also cited China analyst Rui Ma as saying that the approach could ultimately cost Washington more than it gains by encouraging countries to view supply chains as instruments of geopolitical pressure rather than as stable partnerships.

For now, the draft's call to “choose deliberately” remains a political signal rather than an enforceable requirement, the report concluded.