By Cai Cuihong is Professor of the Center for American Studies at the Fudan University 20-09-2024

Topic II

2023 marks a key juncture for artificial intelligence (AI) to be deeply embedded in international relations. From a technical point of view, the rapid development of generative AI not only provides new carriers and capabilities for countries’ foreign exchanges, but also brings new risks and challenges to national security. In terms of topics, AI has created a series of new agendas for international relations, such as security, ethics and development, which need to be accelerated under the framework of global governance.

Formally speaking, the international competition and cooperation in AI are evolving fast and different power relations prompt countries to follow different paths of competition or cooperation, giving rise to various forms of international interaction in AI. Therefore, comprehensive analyses of AI influence on national power acquisition, holding and expectation, and discussions on the power logic behind AI international competition and cooperation can provide new ideas for resolving the dilemma of international competition, promoting AI international cooperation and improving global governance.

International Competition in Artificial Intelligence

International competition is a more popular topic in AI, but previous discussions either focused more on the strategic game of major countries, incorporating AI as one of the sub-topics, or laid more attention to technical and commercial competition, instead of putting it under the framework of international politics. In 2023, more policy makers began to show interest in the power relations between countries in the field of AI. Hence there comes the opportunity to deconstruct international competition from the perspective of power.

First, power acquisition in AI is more comprehensive and flexible. Countries often migrate strategic relationships in other fields to AI, and exploit AI power to achieve joint influence, which is called “relationship linkage”. It is not uncommon in AI international competition. For example, the antagonistic strategic relationship between the United States and Iran has spilled over to the field of AI. While the Iranian army received the Abu Mahdi missile equipped with AI guidance system, the United States also sent Task Force 99 to cooperate with its allies in the Gulf region by using AI to predict and defend Iran’s drone attacks. In addition, the strategic competition of major powers inevitably leads to “relationship linkage” in the field of AI.

US Congressman Mike Volz has publicly stated that AI is an important tool for the United States to carry out all-round strategic competition with China. If the United States does not want to lose the whole game, it must vigorously promote technological development and strengthen its comparative advantages and control over China. From this perspective, the international competition in AI is, to a certain extent, the epitome of the power relationship between the antagonists in broader arena. AI competition not only reflects the contest at the technical level, but also profoundly reveals the power dynamics in the global political and economic structure.

Second, in AI power holding, a country’s potential technical resources can be quickly transformed into substantive power, and countries will naturally seek to accumulate potential power on the basis of their own factor endowments and further transform it into substantive power.

As the international division of labor in the field of AI has not yet formed and the rules of competition and cooperation are in the generation stage, countries may easily run into contradictions and competition as they have different factor endowments and external environments, which is called “heterogeneous resources”.

For example, in the negotiation and implementation process of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, France and Germany, relying on the innovative resources of large AI enterprises such as Mistral AI and Aleph Alpha, had differences and competition with Spain and other member states that wanted to strengthen standard setting and unify market resources, and thus placed the theme of “whether to regulate AI big models” high on the agenda.

This shows that countries with different potential resources have different considerations and expectations in technological innovation and regulatory strengthening. The divergence and competition between France and Germany among other EU countries is similar to that between the United States and Europe, that is, the confrontation between “Silicon Valley Culture” and “Brussels Effect” in the field of AI. Because of the heterogeneity of power resources and the similarity of resource transformation ability, even two parties with common strategic interests and cooperation basis will inevitably fall into competition on key issues, which will affect the sound development and governance of global AI.  

Third, in terms of power expectation in the field of AI, countries often worry that the uncertainty of technology development and application will bring risks and challenges to their international status, security and interests. If a certain country holds that another country has formulated an operable and threatening technical strategy, it may trigger competition even without a conflict of interest, which is what we call “strategic vigilance”.

The current strategic competition of the United States with China in AI is a case in point. The United States misinterpreted Made in China 2025 and defined China’s development strategy as competitive, thereby strengthening the threat perception of China’s technology policy. The United States has long been worried that its hegemonic position will be weakened and that it will encounter “Sputnik moment” in the field of AI, so it stays more alert and sensitive.

With the maturity and wide application of AI technology, it has become a common concern of the international community how China and the United States can manage and ease the current tension in bilateral relationship, identify common interests and avoid falling into a new round of cold-war-style confrontation.

Based on the above three aspects, relationship linkage, resource heterogeneity and strategic vigilance in the international competition of AI reveal the complexity of power interaction between countries. AI competition not only reflects the pursuit of technological superiority, but also sheds light on the deep-seated power dynamics in the global political and economic structure. With the rapid development of AI technology, misunderstandings between countries, strategic distrust and concerns about the future technical landscape have intensified competition and tension. This shows that AI international competition is not only a technical contest, but also deeply influenced by multiple factors.

On November 8, 2023, the second Dialogue on China-ASEAN Information Harbor was held in Wuzhen, Zhejiang Province, China. The theme of this event is “Building a New Digital System Together, Creating a New Blue Ocean of Collaboration”.

Under the influence of international power relations, there do exist opportunities for cooperation while countries compete with each other. Cooperation helps promote sound development of AI and shape a new pattern of international AI development.

First, from the perspective of AI power acquisition, if a country wants to use punishment, reward and regulation in a more comprehensive way and display its power more effectively, it is likely to be inclined to engage in capacity cooperation in some aspects, that is, “joint capacity building”. For example, although the trilateral security partnership between the United States, UK and Australia (AUKUS) contains evil intentions, its AI cooperation embodies the logic of joint capacity building.

In 2023, AUKUS’s first trial on AI and autonomy was made in UK, which pioneered the world to advance AI military use, and represented the collaboration between Australia, UK and the United States in detecting and tracking military targets. The three countries want to quickly establish AI in the military capacity and further achieve AI superiority in the military field.

In addition, the North Atlantic Defense Innovation Accelerator (DIANA) project launched by NATO and the data and intelligence sharing mechanism of the Five Eyes alliance are mostly based on the same logic, that is, to promote AI international cooperation with the common goal of power gain. Notwithstanding all that, the cooperation of “joint capacity building” within these military alliances is exclusive in essence, and the fundamental goal is to maintain the dominant position of the United States and its Western allies in the field of AI. Alliance-based “joint capacity building” cooperation will not only intensify international power inequality, but also create new security dilemmas and threaten international peace and stability. 

Second, from the perspective of AI power holding, it is easy for countries to run into differences and competition at similar development stages, while identify cooperation opportunities when there is a certain gap in their capabilities. The cooperative relationship based on the difference of ability can be summarized as “complementarity”. Under this model, countries with more advanced technologies can help countries with less advanced technologies improve their AI capabilities by providing technical support, financial assistance or training.

At the same time, countries weak in technology can also provide support for AI projects in more technologically developed countries by offering resources such as labor and data. For example, China and ASEAN launched the Joint Initiative on Advancing the China-ASEAN Science, Technology and Innovation Enhancing Program, and both sides promised to strengthen cooperation in emerging sectors such as AI and digital economy.

The rapid development of China and the diversified demand of ASEAN countries create unique opportunities for China-ASEAN cooperation. In addition, this mode of cooperation is also reflected in the partnership between China, Arab and African countries for AI and digital technology. The cooperation mode of complementarity reflects how countries transform the difference of power resources into the driving force of cooperation rather than the excuse of competition while maintaining their respective cultural and social characteristics, so as to jointly cope with global challenges and spur scientific and technological progress.

On April 26, 2024, in Paris, France, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius signed a MoU on the joint development of a next-generation main battle tank equipped with AI and laser technology.

Third, from the perspective of AI power expectation, international cooperation often revolves around shared and abstract visions, which transcend the conflict between specific national interests and strategic goals and reflect the variability of power relations and the consistency of overall interests. This phenomenon can be summarized as “abstract vision” which refers to the cooperation consensus reached by different countries on a global scale based on the common understanding and expectation of the development path and ultimate goal of AI.

The consensus not only promotes scientific and technological innovation exchange and cooperation, but also provides a new idea and platform for solving global problems in the field of AI. Guided by abstract vision, countries will not let conflicts on specific strategic goals hinder international cooperation, because the consensus of abstract vision is based on a broader standing, focusing on long-term interests and common goals.

At present, with the publication of documents such as Governing AI for Humanity at the United Nations level, countries have carried out diversified cooperation in solving global challenges, such as enabling AI to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs). On the basis of this common vision, the United Nations adopted a landmark resolution in March 2024, which clarified the goal of “seizing the opportunities brought by safe, reliable and trustworthy AI systems and promoting sustainable development”. In addition to efforts made by conventional international mechanisms such as the United Nations to strengthen AI governance, countries around the world are also building new cooperation mechanisms around the vision of development and security.

In November 2023, 28 countries around the world and the European Union jointly issued the Bletchley Declaration, which put forward the first global statement on AI from the perspective of human survival and development security, and is regarded as an important manifestation of international solidarity.

In addition, think tanks, research institutes and scientific and technological enterprises in China, the United States, India and other countries have jointly established the “AI4SDGs Network” with the support of the United Nations, forming a specialized cooperation mechanism that focuses on supporting underdeveloped countries and regions and achieving sustainable development goals with the aid of AI. These new cooperation mechanisms focus on global challenges, enabling different countries to transcend the traditional geopolitical and ideological divide, jointly invest resources and expertise, carry out scientific and technological cooperation, and share technological achievements.

It can therefore be seen that although there is competition in the field of AI between countries, the possibility and necessity of cooperation do exist. AI International cooperation can not only promote technology innovation and application, but also provide new impetus and ideas for the solution of global security, development and social problems. Future AI international cooperation calls for more in-depth communication and collaboration among governments, international organizations, scientific research institutions and enterprises, so as to make better use of AI technology for the benefit of mankind, and at the same time effectively meet the challenges arising in the process of technological development. In this process, joint capacity building, complementarity and abstract vision will continue to play a key role and guide AI international cooperation towards a broader prospect.