Pax Silica, Helberg attacks EU regulations: “This is how Europe falls behind”

The regulatory issue: AI Act under accusation

Helberg is traveling between Brussels, Paris, London and The Hague: the Netherlands, where the giant Asml is based, is the only EU country to have participated in the Pax Silica ceremony (but has not yet signed on). “The EU should not change the AI ​​Act to join this alliance,” Helberg responded to Adnkronos, immediately clarifying that there is no formal condition for entry. However, he added, “we have serious concerns” about the structure of European legislation: according to the American administration, the concrete effect would not be to protect citizens, but to protect the European market from foreign companies, with the result of slowing down internal development. A dynamic which, in his opinion, risks keeping Europe “permanently behind” in a technological transformation comparable in impact to the industrial revolution.

What is Pax Silica and why does the USA want Europe

Pax Silica, which Adnkronos talked about in this article, is the initiative launched by the United States to coordinate a network of allied countries along the entire artificial intelligence supply chain: from semiconductors to critical minerals, from energy to hardware. For Washington, it is a strategic platform to face global competition, in particular with China, and at the same time a concrete economic opportunity for the partners involved. In this framework, Europe is considered a key player, not only for its industrial weight, but also for the technological skills spread across various member countries.

Helberg, responding to journalists from all over Europe, insisted on this point several times, underlining that joining Pax Silica is “fundamentally in Europe’s interest”, because it would allow “to derive value from every level of the AI ​​supply chain” and to actively participate in global competition. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that the process will not be immediate. The European Commission has not yet obtained the negotiating mandate from the governments, and the United States does not intend to accelerate without first addressing existing differences.

“We want to do it well, not rush,” he said, also citing the agreement already signed with India on an agenda explicitly oriented towards promoting innovation. It is precisely this approach that Washington would also like to see in the dialogue with Brussels: a convergence that is not only industrial, but also regulatory, or at least compatible. On this topic he also signed, together with the American ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

The Digital Markets Act as the main source of tension

The broader criticism of the European regulatory system, which goes beyond the AI ​​Act, fits into this context. Helberg explicitly indicated the Digital Markets Act as one of the main points of friction in the economic relationship between the United States and the European Union. According to the undersecretary, fines on American companies are “onerous and punitive” and risk absorbing an increasing part of the political energy of the transatlantic relationship, diverting attention from other areas of cooperation.

“The DMA is consuming an ever-increasing share of the bilateral relationship,” he said, underlining that without this element of tension it would be possible to move forward more quickly on issues such as the security of supply chains, industrial agreements and technological cooperation. However, Helberg made it clear that the dialogue is open and that there is room to “define and defuse” the differences, also in light of the contacts he had with the Commission representatives in the same hours as the briefing.

Emergency for European civilization

The clearest passage, however, concerns the diagnosis of the state of the European economy. Helberg spoke openly about a critical situation, calling it a “civilizational emergency”, echoing the words of Vice President JD Vance, who had spoken of the suicide of European civilization. In his reasoning, Europe would have already missed the great wave of the digital revolution of the 2010s – that of platforms, the cloud and technological business models – and would now risk being left behind even in the current phase, dominated by artificial intelligence.

“The accumulated gap will be very difficult to recover,” he said, explaining that this is not a delay that can be filled in a few years, but potentially in a generation. But the problem, according to Washington, is not just economic. It is also cultural and political. Helberg has criticized what he calls a kind of adaptation to stagnation, an implicit acceptance of very low growth rates in a more dynamic global context.

“It is not just stagnation that worries us, but the habit of it,” he observed, speaking of a “soft defeatism”, a form of resignation that progressively lowers expectations. In this framework, regulation is seen as one of the main factors that have contributed to slowing down the European economy, making it more difficult to take risks and allocate private capital.

Little growth, too many fines

According to Helberg, who was born in France and said his mother worked for years at the European Commission, the overall effect is visible both in growth (close to zero in a world that grows at around 3%) and in the progressive reduction of Europe’s weight in the global economy. And, he adds, the consequences of regulatory policies do not stop at the companies directly affected. “The fines are on American companies, but the real cost is paid by European citizens,” he said, referring to the impact on investment and innovation.

Despite the critical tone, the overall message is not disruptive. Helberg has repeatedly reiterated that the United States wants “a strong Europe” and that transatlantic cooperation remains a strategic pillar. He cited ongoing negotiations on trade, critical raw materials and technology as “constructive,” and highlighted the opportunities offered by industrial collaboration along global supply chains.

Will Europe adapt to US demands?

At the same time, he recognized that differences exist and, if not managed, risk slowing down the relationship. Pax Silica fits precisely into this space: on the one hand as a proposal for strategic integration, on the other as a political test bed on Europe’s ability to adapt (or not) its model.

In short: for Washington, Europe does not have to change its rules to enter the Pax Silica, but without a broader rethink of its approach to regulation it risks not being able to fully exploit the opportunities. And, above all, to remain on the margins of the new phase of the global economy. (by Giorgio Rutelli)