Pax Silica: The New Architecture of Digital Solidarity and the Geopolitics of Compute

Vladimir Tsakanyan

In the annals of 20th-century diplomacy, the term “Pax Americana” defined a global order underpinned by maritime security, liberal trade, and the strategic control of oil and steel. However, as we cross the threshold of 2026, the State Department has formally codified a new doctrine for the 21st century: Pax Silica.¹ Unveiled as the flagship initiative for AI and supply chain security, Pax Silica represents more than a mere trade agreement; it is a foundational realignment of international relations where the “silicon stack”—from lithium mines to LLM inference—is the new high ground of sovereign power.²+1

I. Situation Analysis: The End of the “Efficiency First” Era

For three decades, the semiconductor and technology sectors operated under the “Just-in-Time” logic of hyper-globalization. Efficiency was the primary metric, leading to a highly concentrated supply chain where 90% of advanced logic chips were produced in a single geographic flashpoint, and critical mineral processing was monopolized by a single adversarial state.

The launch of Pax Silica in late 2025 marks the definitive end of this “Efficiency First” era.³ As Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg famously articulated during the initiative’s inauguration, “If the 20th century ran on oil and steel, the 21st century runs on compute and the minerals that feed it.”⁴+1

The drivers of this shift are three-fold:

1. AI as a General-Purpose Technology: The transition of AI from a Silicon Valley novelty to a critical layer of national infrastructure (governing energy grids, military command, and economic productivity) has transformed compute into a strategic asset.⁵
2. Weaponized Interdependence: Recent history—from the 2022 energy crisis in Europe to the 2024 export restrictions on gallium and germanium—has demonstrated that technological dependencies can be used as “coercive levers” in geopolitical disputes.⁶
3. The Bipartisan Security Consensus: Despite the deep polarization of American domestic politics, a “Silicon Consensus” has emerged in Washington.⁷ This consensus views the preservation of a technological lead over the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the paramount security challenge of the decade.

II. Multi-Stakeholder Perspective: A Coalition of the Capable

Pax Silica is not a universal treaty but a “minilateral” coalition of what the State Department terms “trusted partners.”⁸ The initial signatories—the United States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Australia—represent the “most important companies and investors powering the global AI supply chain.”⁹+1

The Nation-State Actors

For the United States, Pax Silica is a tool of “Digital Solidarity,” a concept introduced in 2024 to move beyond traditional alliances toward a model of active integration. For The Netherlands, it is a means of protecting its crown jewel, ASML, while managing the immense pressure of U.S. export controls. For South Korea (Samsung, SK Hynix) and Japan, it is a high-stakes balancing act: securing the American defense umbrella and high-end equipment while navigating their proximity to and historical reliance on the Chinese market.¹⁰

The Private Sector

Unlike the Cold War, where the government led research through DARPA, the Pax Silica era is driven by private firms. Companies like NVIDIA, TSMC, and OpenAI are now “geopolitical corporations.” Their interests align with Pax Silica because the initiative promises “offtake guarantees”—government-backed assurances that their massive investments in fab capacity and R&D will have a stable market among allied nations, even if the Chinese market is decoupled.¹¹

Civil Society and International Bodies

Civil society remains cautious. While “trusted technology” sounds like a security win, there are concerns about “digital bifurcations” that could leave the Global South behind, creating a “compute-poor” class of nations. The UN and OECD serve as peripheral observers, attempting to harmonize these security-driven coalitions with global norms on human rights and AI ethics.

III. The Strategic Stack: A Comparative Assessment

Pax Silica operates across what the State Department calls “strategic stacks.”¹² To analyze the framework, we must look at the trade-offs between technical innovation and regulatory security.

Layer of the Stack	Strategic Focus	Primary Challenge	Diplomatic Opportunity
Critical Minerals	Lithium, Cobalt, Graphite	PRC dominance in processing	Joint investment in Australian/Canadian mining
Compute & Logic	GPUs, Accelerators, EDA tools	High R&D costs; technical complexity	“Kill-switch” mechanisms for non-compliance
Energy & Infrastructure	Data centers, Power grids	Massive energy consumption of AI	Cross-border modular nuclear energy cooperation
Frontier Models	Foundation AI Models	Intellectual Property theft	Alignment of “Safety-First” governance

Technical Challenges vs. Innovation Opportunities

The primary technical challenge is the degradation cycle of AI hardware. Unlike oil, which can be stockpiled, AI compute relies on chips that become obsolete every 18–24 months.¹³ This creates a “rolling dependency.” However, this also presents an innovation opportunity: by aligning the R&D cycles of the Netherlands (lithography), Japan (materials), and the US (design), the coalition can outpace competitors through sheer collaborative velocity.

Security Risks vs. Strategic Advantages

The “Security vs. Strategic” trade-off is best seen in the Gulf Accession. Bringing the UAE and Qatar into Pax Silica (January 2026) provides the coalition with immense sovereign wealth and energy resources. However, it risks the leakage of sensitive Western IP to “countries of concern” through these more permeable borders. The policy solution has been the “Kill Switch”—the ability for Washington to withhold future shipments of AI accelerators if partners drift toward adversarial security architectures.¹⁴

IV. Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison: Three Roads to the Future

Pax Silica represents the American “Industrial-Security” model, but it is not the only framework in play.

1. The U.S. Pax Silica Model: Focuses on “derisking” and “trusted ecosystems.”¹⁵ It is transactional and security-centric, using export controls as its primary tool.¹⁶ It prioritizes winning the AI race above all else.¹⁷+2
2. The EU Regulatory Model: Exemplified by the AI Act and the GDPR.¹⁸ The EU prioritizes rights-based governance. While the EU is a “guest contributor” to Pax Silica, tensions remain between the U.S. focus on raw power/security and the European focus on safety and individual privacy.
3. The PRC State-Led Model: China’s “Digital Silk Road” offers an alternative “stack.” It is often lower-cost and comes with fewer human rights stipulations, but it entails “coercive dependencies”—where the infrastructure provider retains back-door access and political leverage over the host nation.

V. Forward-Looking Policy Implications: The Geography of Compute

As we look toward 2027 and beyond, Pax Silica suggests several shifts in the global security architecture:

• The Rise of “Compute Diplomacy”: Ambassadors are no longer just negotiating borders and tariffs; they are negotiating “compute-sharing agreements.” Access to advanced GPUs will become a primary diplomatic carrot, similar to how vaccine access or military aid functioned in previous eras.
• A “Bifurcated” Global Supply Chain: We are moving toward a world of “Locks and Dams.”¹⁹ Trade will flow freely within the Pax Silica bloc, but the barriers to the outside (particularly the PRC) will become permanent features of the landscape.²⁰ This is not a “cold war” in the traditional sense, but a permanent state of “high-tech friction.”+1
• The “Silicon Shield” for Taiwan: Taiwan’s status as a “guest contributor” acknowledges its central importance while maintaining diplomatic ambiguity.²¹ The “Silicon Shield” theory—that Taiwan’s indispensability prevents conflict—is now being institutionalized through Pax Silica, as the coalition seeks to diversify fabrication (e.g., TSMC plants in Arizona and Germany) without abandoning the island.

VI. Conclusion: Complexity and the Path Forward

Pax Silica is a recognition that the digital and physical worlds have merged. Security no longer ends at the border; it begins at the atom. The initiative successfully addresses the “Single Point of Failure” problem that haunted the 2020-2023 era, but it introduces a new risk: Strategic Exclusion.

To remain viable, Pax Silica must be more than a “defensive crouch.” It must be an “affirmative vision.” It must prove to the UAE, Singapore, and emerging economies that “Digital Solidarity” is more profitable and more stable than the alternatives.

The path forward requires a nuanced balance. Policy makers must ensure that in our quest to build a “secure silica wall,” we do not accidentally stifle the very innovation that made the silicon age possible. The “peace” in Pax Silica will depend not just on the strength of our export controls, but on the durability of the trust we build with the nations that hold the keys to the next great technological leap.