For states, being part of everything doesn’t mean being part of nothing
A coalition may call itself a commitment. It still has to say what that commitment is. The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to send a letter to dozens of countries, pressing them to choose sides in the US-China artificial intelligence race. Those that join Beijing’s proposed AI cooperation framework would be excluded from the US-led AI coalition. “To be part of everything is to be…
A coalition's commitment should be clear, but the Trump administration's letter to countries threatens to label them as disloyal if they join China's AI cooperation framework. This binary thinking – belonging to everything equals being part of nothing – risks alienating countries that play multiple roles. While multiple memberships can lead to complications like conflicting duties, incompatible obligations, or exposure to classified information, they also enable valuable interoperability and communication.
Countries can manage these risks through clear rules, independent audits, and tiered access. The real danger lies in blanket exclusivity, which can concentrate national risk in the hands of a single sponsor. Smaller states, in particular, could find themselves overly dependent on a major power's demands. The key is not the number of institutions a country joins, but whether it can clearly define any incompatible obligations and manage associated risks.
Blanket exclusion should only be used as a last resort, preserving opportunities for valuable cross-institutional collaboration.
Written by urgent.news from Reuters Business via SCMP's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
