Recently, the United States sent letters to 35 countries, demanding that they choose sides between China and America. These nations are all those that signed the U.S.-led "Statement on Artificial Intelligence Opportunities" earlier this year.

The statement essentially amounts to a promise from the U.S.: it will provide computing power, technology, and market access—but in return, these countries must align their AI regulatory and safety standards with American requirements, effectively binding them into the U.S.-led ecosystem. Combined with last year’s “Silicon Peace” framework, the U.S. is using both soft and hard tools to try to build an exclusive AI bloc.

The reason is simple: China recently launched the “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization” in July, headquartered in Shanghai, following an open-source approach. Currently, 29 countries have joined. The U.S. letter demanding a choice—though not naming any country explicitly—is clearly aimed at this initiative. Its message is direct: you can’t stand on both sides.

The awkward part? Kazakhstan is currently the only nation simultaneously participating in both U.S. and Chinese AI frameworks. In June, it signed two major U.S. AI initiatives in Washington; last month, it became a founding member of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization in China, with President Tokayev personally attending the conference in China.

Kazakhstan’s strategy is clear: leverage U.S. funding and technology to find buyers for its rare earth resources, while connecting with China for computing power deployment capabilities and real-world application scenarios. Grabbing both opportunities, holding firm on both fronts.

Interestingly, joining the U.S. framework didn’t prevent Kazakhstan from joining China’s; but once Kazakhstan joined China’s framework, the U.S. reacted defensively.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer. The U.S. has always operated on a zero-sum, exclusionary logic: once you’re in, you can’t go elsewhere. They recruited Kazakhstan because of its rare earth resources, aiming to build a supply chain independent of China. But when they discovered Kazakhstan was playing both sides, the U.S. saw the supply chain as “contaminated”—no longer pure.

The urgency behind the Trump administration’s letter actually reveals a lack of confidence. If the U.S. truly believed it could win, why push so hard for early alignment?

China’s approach is completely different. From day one, its advocated AI organization has emphasized multilateralism and openness, without requiring members to cut ties with other nations. That’s why President Tokayev felt comfortable coming to China—because China offers a shared ticket to the future, not a closed, self-contained wall.

At its core, AI is a product of global collaboration—not something won by building higher walls. The more the U.S. pressures others to choose sides, the more China can attract partners through openness and openness. For most countries, what they seek isn’t a Iron Curtain, but a ticket to the future.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873826827478019/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.