What the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance Reveals About Global Power Shifts
On September 25, the United Nations launched the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. This initiative aims to provide a platform for future discussions surrounding AI governance, with governments and stakeholders set to convene annually, starting at the 2026 AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva. The dialogue will address critical issues including the safe development of AI systems, AI capacity gaps in developing countries, interoperability of national AI governance efforts, and the socioeconomic implications of AI technologies.
A Milestone in Multilateral AI Governance
The Global Dialogue on AI Governance marks a significant milestone in the quest for multilateral AI governance. However, not all countries support this initiative. The day before the launch, during a UN Security Council debate, the United States expressed strong opposition to any multilateral AI governance initiatives, raising questions about the future and effectiveness of the dialogue.
Origins of the Global Dialogue
This launch was a year in the making. In a report published in September 2024, the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI recommended the creation of a scientific panel on AI, similar to existing initiatives that assess risks related to climate change and atomic radiation. The report also proposed a recurring policy dialogue to develop a multilateral AI governance framework. Following negotiations led by Spain and Costa Rica, the General Assembly approved these initiatives in an August resolution.
The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, emphasized the importance of the Global Dialogue, stating that it would allow every country to have a seat at the AI governance table and would complement existing global efforts.
Reactions from UN Member States
During the discussions, member states generally supported cooperation on multilateral AI governance to address the digital divide between the Global North and South, albeit with national nuances. The United States was the only country to express outright skepticism, with the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios rejecting centralized control and global governance of AI.
Conversely, China strongly supported the establishment of a global governance framework, aligning itself with developing nations to ensure that all countries participate in the dialogue, pushing back against the notion that AI governance could become exclusive to wealthy nations. This sentiment was echoed by Iraq, representing the G77 and China, emphasizing the need to address disparities in AI infrastructure and technical capacities.
Comparison to Previous International AI Conversations
While most countries echoed previous positions on multilateral AI initiatives, the strong opposition from the United States marked a stark departure from its earlier stances on AI governance. In contrast, China’s position remained consistent, advocating for inclusive governance through international bodies.
Reasons Behind the U.S. Rejection of Global AI Governance
The Trump administration perceives global AI governance as a threat to innovation and American values, viewing it as a means for the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence. The U.S. administration’s AI Action Plan explicitly lists countering Chinese influence in international governance bodies as a key policy action.
China’s Support for Global Governance
The Chinese Communist Party views UN-based global governance as a strategic opportunity to enhance its soft power and reduce U.S. leadership in AI. China’s Vice Foreign Minister, Ma Zhaoxu, condemned unilateralism and called for international consensus in developing governance models, directly challenging U.S. export controls.
Implications for Global AI Governance
The rejection of the Global Dialogue by the U.S. undermines its near-term relevance, as effective global governance is challenging without participation from leading technology holders. This creates a potential leadership vacuum that China seems poised to fill, both in AI discussions and within broader UN forums.
Moreover, the Global South’s active participation in the dialogue highlights a growing engagement trend, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty in AI governance. However, this raises concerns about the influence of non-democratic states in shaping the governance framework.
While the dialogue signifies a symbolic political will for global AI governance, the actual regulatory impact remains uncertain. The ongoing tensions between U.S. disengagement and China’s assertiveness will likely influence the trajectory of international AI governance.
