While China promotes a vision of multilateralism, inclusion, and development, the U.S. pursues a more assertive, security-driven, and dominance-oriented AI strategy.

Competing Visions – China’s “Action Plan on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence” and the U.S. Strategic Divergence

by ChatGPT-4o

In July 2025, China released its comprehensive Action Plan on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai. Simultaneously, media coverage and commentary have highlighted the starkly contrasting paths the United States and China are taking in shaping global AI governance. While China promotes a vision of multilateralism, inclusion, and development, the U.S. pursues a more assertive, security-driven, and dominance-oriented strategy. Together, these documents illuminate not only geopolitical tensions but also competing ideologies for the future of technology governance.

China's Multilateral “Action Plan”: Principles and Proposals

China’s action plan emphasizes that artificial intelligence should serve as a global public good. Central to its vision is the belief that AI development and governance must be inclusive, equitable, sustainable, and anchored in multilateral cooperation. The plan identifies 13 areas of action, including:

1. Open Innovation Ecosystem: China promotes international cooperation on scientific platforms, open-source development, and the removal of technical barriers. The plan stresses lowering entry barriers and sharing data, tools, and infrastructure.

2. Infrastructure for the Global South: Recognizing global disparities, China calls for supporting developing countries with computing resources, clean energy infrastructure, and capacity building.

3. Ethics, Sustainability, and Governance Standards: China champions sustainability and proposes green AI initiatives, such as efficient chip design and environmental benchmarking. It also supports establishing global standards through bodies like the ITU and ISO.

4. Data Governance and Security: The plan highlights lawful and free data flows, while upholding personal privacy. It proposes international cooperation for risk mitigation, traceability, and AI safety testing.

5. UN-Centric Governance Model: China positions the United Nations as the primary vehicle for global AI governance, proposing new institutions such as a Global Dialogue on AI Governance and an International AI Science Panel.

6. Multi-stakeholder Inclusion: The plan acknowledges the importance of civil society, academia, and industry, stressing that AI governance must involve all actors—particularly in upskilling, ethical education, and inclusivity for women and children.

U.S. Approach: Strategic Dominance and Risk Control

In contrast, the U.S. strategy—outlined under the Trump administration's AI Action Plan—favors a unilateral, competitive, and infrastructure-centric approach:

• National Security Priority: AI is framed as a core pillar of geopolitical dominance. The U.S. plan focuses on securing domestic chip supply chains, deterring adversaries, and using export controls to retain control over frontier models.

• Deregulation and Dereferencing: It calls for the dismantling of “onerous regulation,” particularly criticizing risk frameworks that embed values like diversity, equity, and misinformation controls, which the administration views as ideological.

• Closed vs. Open Models: Though the U.S. supports open-weight models for academic purposes, its companies mostly operate closed systems. China, by contrast, promotes open-source as a strategic differentiator.

• Alliance-Led Governance: Rather than supporting U.N.-anchored mechanisms, the U.S. strategy relies on forming coalitions of like-minded nations to shape standards and promote American infrastructure globally.

Diverging Philosophies: Soft Power vs. Strategic Leverage

China’s plan reflects a diplomatic posture that leans on soft power—portraying itself as a benefactor to the Global South, emphasizing digital equity, and enabling capacity development. This is consistent with Beijing's broader narrative of being a steward of multilateralism and tech inclusiveness.

By contrast, the U.S. is more concerned with maintaining strategic leverage, technological leadership, and ideological neutrality (as defined by American values). It assumes that control over AI systems confers decisive geopolitical advantage and thus prioritizes domestic resilience and external containment.

Implications and Takeaways

• Geopolitical Ramifications: The global AI governance arena is evolving into a battleground for influence—where developing nations may find themselves courted by both China’s capacity-building offers and the U.S.'s technological muscle.

• Normative Clashes: Standards-setting will be a major area of contest. China favors inclusive processes through international standards bodies; the U.S. favors American-led frameworks, possibly undermining interoperability.

• Technology Ethics: The Chinese plan proposes a more structured and formalized global framework for ethical AI use, including the mitigation of bias and promotion of sustainability. The U.S. approach, especially under the current administration, appears to deprioritize such issues unless they align with strategic goals.

Conclusion

The two AI action plans expose a profound divergence in how China and the U.S. view both the purpose and governance of artificial intelligence. China’s proposal reflects a soft-power strategy to embed itself in the fabric of global governance, particularly among developing nations, while the U.S. seeks to secure its dominance through control, alliances, and deregulation. This divergence is not merely tactical—it signals a larger ideological struggle over who sets the rules of the digital future. The outcome will shape whether AI becomes a shared global asset or a fragmented domain of techno-nationalist rivalries.