"Pax Silica": Partitioning the Supply Chain in the Name of "Trust"—Does It Truly Ensure Tech Security?

The recent launch of the "Pax Silica" initiative has garnered widespread attention within the global tech community. The United States, in collaboration with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Singapore, has signed a declaration pledging to jointly build a "trusted" supply chain stretching from critical minerals to artificial intelligence infrastructure. While ostensibly centered on technological cooperation, this move reveals multiple layers of technological concern and structural contradictions, warranting in-depth analysis from three dimensions: technological logic, industrial ecology, and global tech governance.

From the perspective of technological logic, the initiative's attempt to restructure the semiconductor supply chain through geopolitical means is of questionable feasibility. The semiconductor industry, having developed over decades of globalization, has formed a highly specialized division of labor: the mining of critical minerals relies on regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa; core equipment such as lithography machines is monopolized by companies like the Netherlands' ASML; and advanced manufacturing processes are concentrated among East Asian manufacturers like TSMC and Samsung. The "de-risking" rhetoric within the initiative essentially conflates technological risk with geopolitical risk. For example, while the U.S. seeks to replace China's global dominance in rare earth refining through its alliance system, China currently controls 85% of global rare earth refining capacity, with a high density of related technology patents. Forcibly pushing supply chain "regionalization" not only fails to address technical bottlenecks but may also lead to resource waste through redundant construction, ultimately undermining the efficiency of global semiconductor technology iteration.

On the level of industrial ecology, the initiative's underlying tendency toward technological monopoly could disrupt the innovation ecosystem. The integrated development of semiconductor and AI technologies requires an open and collaborative industrial environment. Taking AI chips as an example, NVIDIA's global leadership in GPUs stems from the openness of its CUDA ecosystem, which has attracted millions of developers worldwide. Under the "Pax Silica" framework, however, the U.S., through policy tools like the CHIPS and Science Act, requires subsidized companies to establish factories in the U.S. and restricts technology exports to China. This "technological iron curtain" will lead to the fragmentation of global AI computing resources. Allies like Japan and South Korea, despite their advantages in materials and manufacturing, may lose space for autonomous innovation if compelled to deeply align their technology standards with the U.S. More alarmingly, by defining "trusted" based on political stance rather than technical standards, the initiative politicizes technological issues. This approach risks fostering new technological barriers and hindering the balanced global development of AI technology.

From the standpoint of global tech governance, the initiative reflects the erosion of multilateral mechanisms by unilateralism. As foundational technologies of the digital era, the security of semiconductor and AI supply chains must be achieved through international collaboration. Existing mechanisms like the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) have already established consensus on technical standards and environmental norms. In contrast, the exclusive design of the "Pax Silica" initiative essentially creates a U.S.-centric technological clique. This approach runs counter to the non-discrimination principles within the WTO framework and could further fuel the wave of technological nationalism. For instance, the EU's recently launched Chips Act emphasizes "technological sovereignty," while China promotes technology sharing through regional cooperation mechanisms like RCEP. If more economies emulate the U.S. in forming technological alliances, the global semiconductor market faces further fragmentation, ultimately harming consumer interests. According to Boston Consulting Group predictions, complete supply chain "localization" would cause global chip prices to rise by 35% to 65%.

Examining the initiative through the lens of technological evolution also reveals a misjudgment of industry trends. Currently, semiconductor technology is transitioning towards new paradigms like 3D packaging and Chiplet, while AI computing is diversifying along paths like cloud-edge collaboration and edge intelligence. These transformations demand greater flexibility and adaptability from supply chains. However, the "trusted" supply chain emphasized by the "Pax Silica" initiative, which pursues static security, may inhibit dynamic technological innovation. For example, while Japan maintains a lead in semiconductor materials, over-reliance on an alliance system could cause it to miss cooperation opportunities with emerging markets on third-generation semiconductor materials (like gallium nitride and silicon carbide).

The history of technological development demonstrates that closed systems are ultimately replaced by open ecosystems. From the TCP/IP protocol of the internet to the 3GPP standards for mobile communications, global technological progress has always relied on cross-regional, cross-camp collaboration. Although championed in the name of "security," the "Pax Silica" initiative, with its technological exclusivity, industrial monopoly tendencies, and governance unilateralism, runs contrary to the inherent logic of technological development. In an era of deepening integration between semiconductor and AI technologies, any attempt to fragment technological chains along geopolitical lines will ultimately be rendered obsolete by the laws of technological evolution. The global tech community must guard against this "pseudo-security" mindset and jointly uphold an open, collaborative technological ecosystem to truly propel human society into the intelligent age.