Looking at the New Global AI Governance Landscape on the Eve of WAIC: the race over rules accelerates, reject the "wealthy-country game"

Keywords: artificial intelligence governance, World Artificial Intelligence Conference, Global South, technical standards, international cooperation, digital divide

Introduction

As AI capabilities continue to leap forward, global discussion has shifted from "whether to develop it" to "how to govern it, and who sets the rules." Recently, a joint appeal signed by multiple Nobel laureates, tech leaders, and economists called for immediate action, warning that while AI may bring an efficiency revolution and improve daily life, it could also trigger large-scale unemployment, power concentration, and security risks. Against this backdrop, the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance will soon be held in Shanghai, marking a new critical window for AI governance.

Main Text

1. The debate over AI governance has risen from a technical issue to a contest over rules

In the past, AI governance focused more on algorithmic bias, data security, and content compliance. Today, as discussions about artificial general intelligence (AGI) intensify, the governance focus has shifted to a higher level of institutional design. The international community has widely recognized that without an enforceable and coordinated rule framework, the expansion of AI technologies may magnify inequalities among countries, companies, and different groups.

From the G7 summit to the United Nations Global Dialogue on AI, all sides are competing for the "power to set standards." On the surface, this reflects a shared concern for the safety of frontier models; in essence, it is about reshaping the future industrial order, data flows, compute allocation, and rules for technology exports. Whoever defines the standards is more likely to gain the upper hand in global AI competition.

2. Global governance faces real-world dilemmas: hard to build consensus, weak constraints, deep divisions

The biggest challenge for the international community today is not "whether governance is needed," but "who will lead it and under what rules." On one hand, the United States tends to center governance on markets and companies, using alliances to extend its influence over technology and standards. Europe places greater emphasis on legislative regulation and risk constraints. The United Nations, meanwhile, seeks to bring AI governance into a multilateral framework to safeguard the public interest.

But reality is not optimistic. Geopolitical tensions, widening technological gaps, and diverging industrial interests make it difficult to reach a truly binding global treaty. In this context, standards bodies, industry self-regulation, regional coordination, and corporate policies are becoming the governance tools that can actually be put into practice. As a result, the contest over rules has extended from the "conference table" to the "standards arena," and from diplomatic negotiations to industrial ecosystems.

3. The Global South's demand: AI must not become a game for a few

If AI governance serves only a handful of tech powerhouses and leading companies, it will become a new "wealthy-country game." This has already become a common concern among developing countries. UN Secretary-General Guterres has repeatedly stressed that advanced AI capabilities are concentrated in the hands of a small number of countries and companies, that developing countries have far too little say in governance, and that a more inclusive global mechanism must be built.

For many Global South countries, AI is not only an innovation issue, but also a development issue. Their reality is a lack of compute, data, talent, and capital, and even a lack of mechanisms to protect local interests. Countries such as India hope to move from being technology adopters to rule participants, but they still have clear shortcomings in core technology foundations, industrial-chain completeness, and ecosystem financing capacity. Without fairer international cooperation, the digital divide will only continue to widen.

4. The China approach: promoting inclusive governance through open cooperation

Amid the complex global AI governance game, China emphasizes "AI for good, safe and controllable, inclusive and fair." Since the release of the Global AI Governance Initiative, China has continuously promoted the idea of AI as an international public good, and has provided practical examples for global governance through the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, participation in international standards, and capacity-building cooperation.

China's governance path has distinct features: first, it balances development and security; second, it emphasizes open cooperation rather than closed confrontation; and third, it values capacity building and fair participation for developing countries. China's proposal to establish a World AI Cooperation Organization, and the launch with Zambia of the Friends Group for International Cooperation on AI Capacity Building, are both intended to give more countries a voice in rule-making and help them benefit from technological progress.

5. The significance of WAIC: providing a real platform for global consensus

The upcoming World Artificial Intelligence Conference is not just an industry event, but also an important node in global governance dialogue. At a time when international rules remain unsettled and technological competition is accelerating, Shanghai offers not only a platform to showcase technological achievements, but also a space for consultation that connects governments, companies, academia, and international organizations.
Future AI governance should not stop at "preventing risks"; it should also focus on "promoting development." It should not be limited to balancing the interests of a few countries, but should respond to the shared expectations of all humanity. Only within a framework that is more open, fairer, and more inclusive can AI truly become a public force that drives the progress of civilization.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the global industrial landscape, and it is also reshaping the logic of international governance. Faced with the contradiction between rapid technological evolution and lagging rules, what the international community needs is not a zero-sum game, but institutional innovation based on inclusive cooperation. On the eve of WAIC, global AI governance has reached a critical turning point: whoever can help build a fair, reasonable, open, trustworthy, and development-first rule system is more likely to write the right answer for the AI era.