For states, being part of everything doesn’t mean being part of nothing

Being part of multiple organizations does not necessarily mean a country is disengaged or inactive. The Trump administration is reportedly drafting a letter urging several countries to choose a side in the US-China artificial intelligence competition. Joining Beijing's AI cooperation framework would disqualify those countries from the US-led coalition.

The draft letter suggests that a state that participates in multiple forums risks losing its commitment to any single one. This argument extends beyond AI to the broader issue of international cooperation, especially as institutions become fragmented and competitive. While multiple memberships can sometimes be problematic, such as in cases of non-contribution or conflicting commitments, they can also bring benefits, like improved interoperability, shared understanding of regulations, and early identification of conflicts.

Countries like India, which participate in both the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, manage this balance effectively. However, exclusive alignment can concentrate national risk in the hands of a sponsor, making forced choices potentially risky. Thus, it is not the mere existence of multiple memberships that matters, but the specific obligations, identified risks, and the ability to manage conflicts and preserve essential cooperation.