China’s call for global AI governance is loud and clear. Is the US listening?

In late July, Shanghai hosted the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, once again showcasing China’s formidable progress in AI. From Unitree’s robot boxer to Huawei’s next-generation AI developments, the energy on the exhibition floor was palpable. Despite Shanghai’s rainy weather, large crowds flocked to the exhibition, reflecting strong public enthusiasm. But beyond the futuristic gadgets and technical breakthroughs, this year’s conference delivered a deeper message: China’s readiness to play a constructive role in shaping global AI governance. In his opening address, Premier Li Qiang struck a note of urgency, calling for deeper international cooperation and warning against the risks of fragmented governance in the age of rapidly advancing AI. The conference’s alternative title, “High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance”, was not just symbolic. China recognises the question is no longer whether we can innovate, but whether we can govern wisely. This stands in stark contrast to the path taken by other powers. Days before the Shanghai event, US President Donald Trump unveiled “America’s AI Action Plan”, doubling down on great-power competition and framing AI supremacy as a matter of national security. The US intends to outcompete China and preserve American leadership, especially through efforts to “counter Chinese influence in international governance bodies”, offering little in the way of genuine global collaboration or responsible development frameworks that include China. Indeed, many AI governance initiatives emerging in recent years, such as the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence and AI Partnership for Defence, have been framed around alliances of “like-minded” countries. While these initiatives often speak the language of ethics and responsibility, they also reflect geopolitical fault lines. China is not only rarely invited to the table but is often treated as an imagined rival or a problem to be contained. The result is not global AI governance, but fragmented spheres of trust, each side viewing the other’s intentions with suspicion. It is, of course, far easier for Western countries to agree among themselves. Shared political values and institutional norms offer fertile ground for consensus. But global AI governance cannot be built on exclusion. For an issue as complex and consequential as AI, any regime that fails to include major players like China – as well as India, Brazil and others – will lack legitimacy and effectiveness. In this regard, China’s call for a multilateral approach is a step in the right direction. Sceptics will argue that such cooperation is wishful thinking. Geopolitical frictions, whether over the Taiwan Strait or the Ukraine war, frequently overshadow areas of potential collaboration. Political distrust runs deep. And with both China and the US increasingly driven by techno-nationalist thinking, AI is often seen through a security lens: not as a tool to uplift humanity, but as a strategic asset to outpace rivals. From AlphaGo to ChatGPT, breakthroughs in American AI innovation have been seen in China as a “Sputnik moment”. Conversely, China’s rapid advancements, such as the emergence of its large language model DeepSeek, have been portrayed in the US as a threat to American AI supremacy. US President Donald Trump described DeepSeek as a “wake-up call” and urged the US to “be laser-focused on competing to win”. In this climate of rising geopolitical tension, each side increasingly views the other’s AI progress not as an opportunity for collaboration but as a threat to national security. This zero-sum mentality is deeply dangerous. It escalates the AI race, narrows the space for dialogue and magnifies the risks of unintended consequences. The very technologies being showcased – generative AI, autonomous systems and decision-making algorithms – are developing at a pace that outstrips our collective capacity to regulate them. Without multilateral guard rails, we risk unleashing tools we do not fully understand. China’s call for cooperation is not without self-interest. As a leading AI power, it has every reason to help shape the norms, standards and frameworks that will govern the future of this technology. But to dismiss its overtures as mere geopolitical posturing misses the bigger picture. Global governance often begins with signalling a willingness to embrace shared responsibility. In Shanghai, China made that signal loud and clear. There is, admittedly, a long road ahead. To translate aspiration into action, global actors must do more than make speeches at conferences. They must find ways to institutionalise trust in an era of suspicion. This may involve technical exchanges, joint research on AI safety or building interoperable regulatory frameworks. It will certainly require difficult conversations about transparency, accountability and values. But first, the world must make a choice: whether to let AI governance become another arena of rivalry or to treat it as a space where even adversaries can cooperate. The stakes are too high for inaction. From algorithmic bias to automated warfare, from misinformation to labour disruption, AI is already reshaping societies. Without governance, innovation can just as easily harm as help humanity. Premier Li’s message in Shanghai offers a rare opportunity to pivot away. It calls for moving beyond binary narratives of competition versus cooperation. It invites the global community to acknowledge that, however great the political divides, the challenges posed by AI transcend national borders. The US – still the world’s most powerful AI actor – should not dismiss this signal. Instead, it should test China’s willingness through engagement, not isolation. True leadership in AI means more than building the fastest chip or launching the flashiest chatbot. It means crafting a vision of the future that is inclusive, secure and sustainable. That vision will not be possible without China. Luckily, China seems ready to talk.

China’s call for global AI governance is loud and clear. Is the US listening?

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Framing artificial intelligence as a matter of national security will only fragment global governance when the world needs it the most

Framing artificial intelligence as a matter of national security will only fragment global governance when the world needs it the most