Pax Silica is the outcome of US fear of losing dominance

Pax Silica is the latest US-led coalition born from the superpower’s fear of losing hegemony. Under the second Trump administration, efforts to counter China's dominance in critical minerals have intensified.

This new bloc includes Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, the UK, Israel, the UAE, and Australia. Israel’s inclusion in Pax Silica is a significant elevation of its strategic role as it was notably absent from previous major US critical mineral minilaterals, including the Biden era’s Mineral Security Partnership (MSP), AUKUS, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).

The new coalition, much like the Abraham Accords signed in Trumps first term, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states, furthers the ties between Israel and the UAE specifically.

According to Pax Silica’s official description, “the United States is organizing a coalition of countries around the principle of building a secure, resilient, and innovation-driven ecosystem across the entire global technology supply chain—from critical minerals and energy inputs to advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, AI infrastructure, and logistics.”

Imperialist interests

China’s global leading position in critical mineral mining and production is not new. Even back in 2017, under Trump’s first term, the Economist observed that, ‘China could be a close second to America—and perhaps even ahead of it—in some areas of AI.’ It warned China is moving to the forefront in green technologies (solar panels and wind-generated power) and in electric cars.

But what are critical minerals? ‘Criticality’ is not a physical or chemical property; rather, it is determined by the imperatives of the private sector and by the economic priorities of a state. While dressed in a green façade, as with electric vehicles or wind turbines currently, this is being driven by the defence and technology sectors.

The US is explicitly modelling Pax Silica on the concept of Pax Americana. The press release's unambiguous invocation of Pax Romana and Pax Americana shows naked in the scramble for critical minerals.  

Following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro earlier this month, Trump administration officials framed the intervention in Venezuela as an economic reclamation project. For example, Howard Lutnick stated that Venezuela's immense resources, which include critical mineral reserves in areas like the Orinoco Mining Arc, had not been “unlocked” by Maduro.

According to Lutnick, Trump, “will fix the broken Venezuelan economy and rebuild the country," positioning a resource-exporting Venezuela as beneficial for American and hemispheric interests.

It was Trump’s first administration that brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan in 2020, which is often declared by his supporters as the key foreign policy win for that term.

The US continues to persuade Saudi Arabia to join the accords using security guarantees adopting an approach that was the brainchild of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

William D. Hartung  and Ben Freeman wrote in their recent publication, Trillion Dollar War Machine: “Part of the strategy for winning support for the accords involved increasing weapons sales to Arab states in the region, so much so that at least one critic called them “The Arms Sales Accords”.

The mineral hungry defence-tech alliance

Silicon, germanium and gallium - the building blocks of AI are on most critical mineral lists, like those of the US and UK. These critical minerals are fundamental to semiconductors and thereby to modern economies. Under the second Trump administration, the relationship between the military and the AI complex has been intensifying.

The first Trump administration was dominated by personnel from the legacy defence contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc.). However, Silicon Valley has decisively expanded its influence during the second Trump administration. Figures like Elon Musk (SpaceX, Tesla, xAI) and venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen were active architects of the second administration, "vetting candidates" and advising on budgets and foreign policy.

Jacob Helberg, a former adviser at Palantir Technologies Inc. and the current Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth in the US, believes that Pax Silica will help the country become this century’s “arsenal of AI”.

His logic is stark and revealing: “... the countries that lead in AI and in technology will have the larger economy and the stronger military.” 

Calling America the "arsenal of AI" is the shiny branding for a militarised economy that the Trump administration envisions. The entire economy (from the mines, to the chips, to the code) is now just the supply chain for permanent military dominance.

Hoarding

Another strategy being followed by the USA is stockpiling.

The current leadership is ramping up critical mineral stockpiles, according to the FT, with the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency expressing interest. Mentioned plans include intentions to buy up to $500mn of cobalt, up to $245mn of antimony from the domestic US Antimony Corporation, up to $100mn of tantalum from an undisclosed US source, among others.

The question that should be asked by us all is why our governments are spending so much on AI when we are facing a planetary crisis and increasing inequality? Not only that – these governments are actively diverting materials away from civilian-led decarbonisation efforts to the defence-tech sectors.

As Karl Marx identified about crises driven by over-accumulation: an economy becomes unstable when accumulated capital can no longer find profitable reinvestment. More simply put, when capital has exhausted every sane investment, it builds nonsense.

Nandita Lal is an independent researcher on climate change and Indigenous People. She stood as an anti-war candidate in the General Election in the UK in July 2024

Follow Nandita on X: @ditalalmolloy 

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.