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

Tan Poh Hwee is president of the Asia Academy of Digital Economics, a Singapore-based non-profit, and a corresponding fellow of the National Academy of Artificial Intelligence.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 part of nothing,” the draft says. An American official summarised the message more bluntly: countries cannot have it both ways.The letter’s underlying logic reaches far beyond AI. As international institutions become more fragmented and competitive, governments increasingly face the same demand: prove the depth of your commitment by closing the door on everyone else. That is a seductive argument. It is also a dangerous way to organise international cooperation.There are circumstances in which multiple memberships become meaningless. A government may sign declarations for diplomatic display, collect benefits without contributing, make contradictory promises or pass confidential information from one platform to another.But the number of institutions a country joins tells us remarkably little about its reliability. One country may belong to a single alliance and still free-ride. Another may participate in several organisations while paying its dues, implementing their rules and protecting sensitive information.The opposite of commitment is breach, not multiplicity. The crucial distinction is between obligation-based exclusivity and identity-based exclusivity.