The stage for this new grand game is being set, and the main players are making their moves. While Silicon Valley has been busy building the latest models and worrying about AGI safety, Beijing has been playing a different game entirely. It’s been playing chess while others were playing checkers. And as we saw at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, China just put the US tech establishment in check. This isn’t just about code; it’s about control.
The New Great Game: What on Earth is AI Geopolitics?
So, what exactly is this new buzzword, AI Geopolitics? Strip away the jargon, and it’s quite simple. It’s the contest between nations to shape the future of artificial intelligence to their advantage. This isn’t just about having the best AI companies, like Nvidia or DeepSeek. It’s about setting the rules of the road for the entire world. It’s about who writes the international AI regulations, who controls the data flows, and ultimately, who gets to define what is “ethical” or “safe” when it comes to this technology.
Think of the Cold War space race. Getting to the moon wasn’t just a scientific achievement for the US; it was a powerful statement about its technological, economic, and ideological superiority. AI is the 21st-century equivalent, but with far more direct implications for every aspect of our lives, from commerce and communication to warfare and social control. The current landscape is a patchwork of competing philosophies. The EU has its GDPR and the AI Act, focusing heavily on rights and regulation. The US, traditionally, has favoured a more hands-off, market-led approach, letting its tech giants run free. And then there’s China.
China’s Masterstroke: A ‘World AI Organisation’
This brings us to the pivotal moment at the APEC summit. As reported by CNBC, Chinese President Xi Jinping didn’t just talk about economic cooperation. He tabled a bombshell proposal: the creation of a “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization”. In a direct quote, he stated that AI “should be made for the benefit of people in all countries and regions”. It sounds noble, doesn’t it? But let’s read between the lines.
This is a move straight out of the geopolitical playbook. The United States, particularly under the previous Trump administration, has largely rejected the idea of binding international bodies dictating its tech policy. The prevailing view in Washington is that American innovation shouldn’t be shackled by global bureaucracy. Into this leadership vacuum steps China, positioning itself not as a disruptor, but as a responsible global stakeholder—the adult in the room. By proposing a UN-style body for AI, China is offering the rest of the world, especially developing nations, an alternative to a future dictated by Silicon Valley.
It’s a clever gambit. For countries wary of American tech dominance, the idea of a multilateral forum where their voice can be heard is incredibly appealing. China isn’t just offering technology; it’s offering a seat at the table. This is less about open-source code and more about open-source diplomacy. The announcement that China will host the 2026 APEC summit in Shenzhen—a sprawling tech hub of nearly 18 million people—cements this strategy. It’s a declaration that the future of tech governance may be written in Mandarin, not just English.
The Burning Question of Technology Sovereignty
Underpinning this entire drama is the increasingly vital concept of technology sovereignty. This is arguably the most important term to understand in the AI Geopolitics playbook. In essence, it’s a nation’s ability to control its own digital destiny. It means having authority over the digital infrastructure, data, and technologies that operate within its borders.
Think of it like a country’s food supply. A nation that relies entirely on imports for its food is vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, price hikes, and political pressure from its suppliers. Technology sovereignty is the digital equivalent. Do you want your country’s critical data stored on servers owned by a foreign company? Do you want your core digital infrastructure to be built and maintained by another nation that might not share your interests? For a growing number of countries, the answer is a resounding ‘no’.
This desire for digital governance is pushing nations to build their own AI models, foster domestic tech industries, and erect legal frameworks to protect their data. This isn’t just protectionism; it’s a matter of national security in the 21st century. We’re seeing this play out globally. India is championing its “India Stack” and pushing for data localisation. The European Union, with its regulatory-heavy approach, is trying to carve out its own path, distinct from both the US and China. These nations are no longer content to be mere consumers in a tech ecosystem dominated by two superpowers. They want to be architects of their own digital worlds.
Is Real Cooperation Possible, or Is It Just Talk?
Despite the clear battle lines being drawn, the APEC summit wasn’t all confrontation. The 21 member nations, who together account for a staggering half of all global trade, managed to approve joint declarations on AI governance. According to the same CNBC report, this included a consensus on promoting safe, secure, and trustworthy AI. It’s a positive step, but one we should view with healthy scepticism.
Joint declarations are often diplomatic niceties, designed to project an image of unity while papersing over deep-seated disagreements. The real test will be in the implementation. Can a group as diverse as APEC—which includes the US, China, Russia, and Japan—truly agree on meaningful, enforceable international AI regulations? The philosophies are just too different. The US champions innovation at all costs, the EU prioritises individual rights, and China values social stability and state control above all. How do you reconcile those worldviews in a single regulatory framework?
The inclusion of green technology cooperation in the declaration is also telling. It shows that digital governance is being bundled with other major global challenges. The message is clear: the platforms and rules we build for AI will also be the ones we use to tackle climate change, manage supply chains, and run our economies. Getting the governance right on AI is, therefore, crucial for everything else.
The Road Ahead: A Fragmented or Federalised Digital World?
So, where do we go from here? The chessboard is set, and the pieces are in motion. China has made a bold play to become the standard-bearer for global AI governance, directly challenging American leadership. The US now faces a critical choice: does it continue on its unilateralist path, risking isolation as the rest of the world coalesces around alternative frameworks? Or does it re-engage and fight for its vision of a free and open internet on a global stage?
The future of AI Geopolitics is unlikely to be a simple binary contest between Washington and Beijing. We are heading towards a multi-polar digital world with several centres of power. The EU will continue to wield its regulatory might, India will leverage its massive market and talent pool, and blocs of smaller nations may band together to amplify their influence. The dream of a single, global, open internet is fading fast, potentially being replaced by a ‘splinternet’—a series of national and regional internets governed by different rules and values.
Establishing collaborative frameworks for international AI regulations is more critical than ever, but it will be messy and fraught with tension. The proposal for a World AI Organisation, whether it succeeds or not, has fundamentally changed the conversation. It has forced every country to confront the question of technology sovereignty and decide where it stands. The era of passively consuming Silicon Valley’s latest creations is over. Now, every nation must be an active participant in shaping its own digital future.
The real question for all of us is, what kind of digital world do we want to live in? One dominated by a single power, a duopoly, or a mosaic of different digital nations? The debate is just getting started, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. What do you think the US and its allies should do in response to China’s proposal?
