China has proposed the creation of a global AI cooperation organization, aiming to address concerns about technological monopolies and the digital divide. Premier Li Qiang emphasized the need for a unified global AI governance framework at the 2025 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai. This move contrasts with the US approach, which prioritizes domestic innovation and minimal regulation. China's proposal includes promoting open-source AI and sharing technologies with developing countries, positioning itself as a champion of technological inclusivity. The announcement comes amid ongoing US-China tech tensions and challenges in enforcing AI chip export controls. The proposal's success will depend on balancing national interests and addressing concerns about standards, privacy, and security in AI development.
In a significant development that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence governance, China has formally proposed the creation of a global AI cooperation organization. The announcement, made by Chinese Premier Li Qiang at the 2025 World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, comes amid growing concerns about technological monopolies and the widening digital divide between nations. This proposal represents a strategic move in the increasingly competitive AI landscape between China and the United States, with far-reaching implications for international technology cooperation and regulation.
Premier Li’s proposal emerged against a backdrop of escalating tensions in the global technology sector, where artificial intelligence has become a critical battleground for technological supremacy. During his address at the conference, Li warned about the dangers of “technological monopolies” and expressed concern that AI could become “an exclusive game for a few countries and companies.” While he did not explicitly mention the United States, the statement clearly referenced the ongoing tech rivalry between the two superpowers, particularly in light of strict US export controls on advanced AI chips to China.
The proposed global AI cooperation organization would aim to create a more inclusive framework for AI development and governance. According to Li, “Currently, overall global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts and institutional rules.” He emphasized the need to “strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible.” This framework would potentially address various aspects of AI development, including ethical standards, data protection, intellectual property rights, and the equitable distribution of AI technologies across nations.
A key component of China’s proposal involves promoting open-source artificial intelligence and sharing technologies with developing countries, particularly those in the Global South. This approach aligns with China’s broader diplomatic strategy of strengthening relationships with developing nations through technology transfers and infrastructure development. By positioning itself as a champion of technological inclusivity, China appears to be countering what it perceives as Western technological hegemony while expanding its influence in emerging markets.
The timing of China’s proposal is particularly noteworthy, coming just days after the Trump administration unveiled its AI Action Plan on July 23, 2025. The US plan, presented at the “Winning the AI Race” summit in Washington, explicitly aims to limit state regulation of AI companies and ensure American dominance in the field. The plan prioritizes domestic AI infrastructure development and promises to remove “red tape” for Silicon Valley companies to accelerate innovation. President Trump’s strategy clearly frames AI development as a competition with China, highlighting the administration’s view that “staying ahead of China in AI is a top priority.”
This policy divergence underscores fundamentally different approaches to AI governance between the two technological powerhouses. While China advocates for a coordinated international framework with shared standards and regulations, the US appears to favor a more competitive model that prioritizes innovation speed and minimal government intervention. These contrasting visions reflect deeper philosophical differences about the role of government in technological development and the balance between innovation and regulation.
Meanwhile, despite stringent US export controls, advanced NVIDIA AI chips continue to flow into China through various channels. A recent investigation by the Financial Times revealed that at least $1 billion worth of NVIDIA’s high-performance AI chips were smuggled into China in just three months following the tightening of US export restrictions. These chips, including the coveted B200, H100, and H200 models, are significantly more powerful than the export-compliant H20 chip NVIDIA designed specifically for the Chinese market.
The investigation uncovered a sophisticated network of third-party data center operators, middlemen, and smuggled server racks advertised openly on Chinese social media. Companies whose products appeared in these advertisements, including Supermicro and ASUS, have denied knowledge of how their equipment reached the Chinese market. The report suggests that certain Southeast Asian countries have become hubs for Chinese entities to obtain restricted technology, prompting the US Department of Commerce to consider expanding export controls to these regions.
NVIDIA has responded to these allegations by stating it has “no evidence of any AI chip diversion” and that “trying to cobble together data centers from smuggled products is a losing proposition, both technically and economically.” The company emphasized that authentic NVIDIA products require service and support that is only provided for authorized purchases. Nevertheless, the persistence of this black market demonstrates the challenges of enforcing export controls in a globalized technology supply chain and China’s determination to access cutting-edge AI hardware despite restrictions.
China’s domestic efforts to achieve technological self-reliance have intensified in response to US export controls. Chinese companies like Huawei have accelerated the development of their own AI systems and chips to reduce dependence on American technology. The country has also established substantial government funding for AI research and development, with reports indicating that China plans to invest billions in early-stage AI projects. These initiatives form part of a broader strategy to build indigenous technological capabilities while simultaneously advocating for more inclusive international governance.
Looking ahead, the feasibility of China’s proposed global AI organization will depend on how it balances competing national interests and addresses concerns about technological standards, data privacy, and security. For such an organization to gain international legitimacy, it would need to establish transparent governance mechanisms and ensure equal representation for participating nations. The proposal also raises questions about how existing multilateral bodies like the United Nations might be involved in coordinating global AI governance efforts.
The divergent approaches of China and the United States present both challenges and opportunities for the international community. While competition can drive innovation, uncoordinated or conflicting regulatory frameworks could fragment the global digital landscape and exacerbate technological inequalities. Finding common ground on AI governance will require diplomatic engagement, technical cooperation, and a shared commitment to developing artificial intelligence that benefits humanity while minimizing risks.
As artificial intelligence continues to transform industries, economies, and societies worldwide, the establishment of effective global governance mechanisms becomes increasingly urgent. China’s call for an international AI organization represents a significant step in this ongoing conversation about how to manage one of the most transformative technologies of our time. Whether this proposal leads to meaningful international cooperation or further intensifies technological competition remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks an important moment in the evolution of global technology governance.
