The 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the High-Level Meeting on (Global AI Governance) will be held in Shanghai, China from July 17 to 20, 2026. Chinese President Xi Jinping will attend the opening ceremony and deliver a keynote speech. International reactions to President Xi Jinping’s anticipated speech, which will likely focus on global AI governance, have been mixed. Given my background in Chinese studies and my critical perspective on AI, I understand this global anticipation surrounding President Xi Jinping’s address at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. President Xi Jinping’s personal attendance at the conference, his first time delivering a keynote address, marks a significant strategic shift. This participation elevates the event from a local technological and economic platform to an international political one, where Beijing aims to lead the development of global rules and standards for AI and challenge American dominance in the field. Drawing on my background in Chinese studies and my ability to adopt a critical view of AI, I can analyze the key themes of President Xi’s anticipated speech and the resulting diverse international reactions through a number of points. Among the dimensions of the expected speech by President Xi Jinping, which will reflect the official Chinese vision, is the focus of his address on the Global AI Governance Initiative previously proposed by Beijing. His speech will revolve around several pillars, including the rejection of global technological monopolies. President Xi will indirectly criticize US sanctions policies and attempts to isolate China technologically, such as restrictions on the export of advanced chips. He will call for a global cooperation framework to prevent technology from becoming a tool for domination. Furthermore, China will emphasize its role as a representative of the Global South, presenting itself as a leader and defender of the interests of developing countries and the Global South. This will be achieved by demanding a fair distribution of the benefits of artificial intelligence and building comprehensive technological capabilities to ensure that technological gains are not limited to wealthy nations. The emphasis will be on AI as a public good for all, underscoring the principle of AI for Good and for All. China will also call for a of The United Nations UN platform to play a pivotal role in governance to ensure international technological and technical multilateralism. Beijing’s focus on the principle of AI for Good and for All and its repeated calls to make the UN the central and pivotal channel for global governance are cornerstones of its digital diplomacy strategy. This approach offers a critical and geopolitical perspective that explains the deep international divisions regarding China’s ambitions in the field of artificial intelligence.
Consequently, international reactions to the upcoming AI conference in China have varied, offering both critical and geopolitical analyses. This reflects international stances and underscores the clear divide between diplomatic welcome and critical apprehension regarding China’s ambitions in artificial intelligence and its global applications. The United States and the Western camp view the conference with deep apprehension and a critical approach to the apparent contradiction between governance and censorship. The West sees a paradox in China’s call for ethical global governance while domestically employing AI algorithms (strict surveillance, social credit systems, and facial recognition) and highlighting the technological arms race with China. Washington and the West perceive the conference as a marketing tool to showcase the superiority of Chinese models, such as DeepSeek and Zhipu, and to bridge the gap with Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, the Global South views the Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, China, as an invitation to embrace a multilateral system. This is welcomed and strategically supported by the Global South as an alternative to Western conditionality. These countries welcome the Chinese alternative, which allows them access to computing and artificial intelligence technologies without political or value-based restrictions imposed by the West. From the perspective of the Global South, this achieves a balance of power. The Global South supports the Chinese vision, which calls for broader international organizations to be involved in setting rules, rather than Washington and major American corporations unilaterally setting security and governance standards.
As an expert on Chinese politics, I can analyze the dimensions of this strategic conflict in the field of artificial intelligence between China, the United States, and the West through several key aspects, the most important of which is the geopolitical dimension. China advocates for international multilateralism as a tool to counter American unilateralism. Here, China is working through the United Nations to reshape the balance of power in the technology sector through specific mechanisms. These mechanisms are based on China’s vision of dismantling what is known as the small arena and high orbit paradigm. China is using the UN to dismantle American protectionist strategies and technology embargoes, such as restrictions on the export of advanced semiconductors and chips to China. China is openly calling for an open and non-discriminatory business environment, while simultaneously demanding that Western alliances in the artificial intelligence sector be undermined. Here, Beijing prefers the United Nations platform (where it has a strong voice and broad support) because it recognizes that Washington leads global AI governance through small, exclusive alliances, such as the G7 (Group of Seven) and the US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC), which systematically exclude Beijing and many developing countries and the Global South. In addition to the competitive dimension of attempting to attract the Global South and build international legitimacy, Beijing is trying to exploit the widening digital divide between developed and developing countries to enhance its influence in what is known as the principle of technological hegemony. China does this by proposing initiatives at the United Nations to support technological capacity building in the Global South, such as the Capacity Building Action Plans. Beijing presents itself as a technological savior bridging the digital divide, in contrast to the profit-driven, monopolistic models of American companies. With China’s call for the principle of regional digital sovereignty, the Chinese vision for how to deploy AI applications globally, particularly in developing countries, grants international legitimacy to developing countries in managing their internal digital space. China’s concept of governance recognizes the right of each country to choose and develop AI systems in accordance with its sovereignty and national culture, without Western dictates related to individual rights. The critical analysis of this Chinese vision and its relationship to the dilemma of moral discourse versus practical reality remains crucial. This discrepancy places the Chinese vision under intense Western and American scrutiny, given the stark contradictions between rhetoric and practice. They emphasize the concept of governance for the sake of securing systems, not protecting individuals. From a critical perspective, the West and human rights organizations argue that China’s slogan of artificial intelligence for good essentially means for the sake of the stability of the Chinese state. They accuse China of pioneering the use of algorithms in mass surveillance and predictive systems, social credit, and information flow control, which contradicts the narrative of universal public goods aimed at humanity. The critical analysis of this Chinese vision and its relationship to the dilemma of moral discourse versus practical reality highlights the stark contradictions between its stated principles and its actual implementation.
From my analytical perspective, it is essential to redefine security principles in the field of artificial intelligence. While the West focuses on AI security in terms of protecting privacy and personal data and resisting algorithmic bias, Chinese governance prioritizes content security and control to ensure that AI algorithms do not generate any content that threatens the political direction of the ruling Communist Party or social order. Thus, the essence of the sharp international division in the field of AI ranges from the diplomatic welcome extended by the developing Global South (the beneficiary) to China’s role and vision in breaking the monopoly of the United States and the Western camp over AI applications. This stems from the Global South’s pressing need for inexpensive and highly efficient Chinese technology, such as open and commercially available AI models, as a means of escaping the digital colonialism of the US and the West in the global AI landscape. Here we find the theory of critical (sovereign) apprehension on the part of the United States and the West towards China in the field of artificial intelligence. This stems from Western fears of exporting digital authoritarianism, where it is feared that China, by establishing governance rules within the United Nations, will succeed in granting international legitimacy to the use of technology as a tool for strict control and the suppression of freedoms under the guise of national sovereignty, according to the American and Western perspective.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
From my specialization in Chinese studies, I can assess the importance of China’s support for this World Artificial Intelligence Conference from an analytical and technical standpoint. From my analytical perspective, this event reflects a practical application of China’s concept of a community with a shared future for mankind in the digital sphere, through China’s call for nationalizing governance. This means Beijing’s endeavor to impose its own model, which balances strict political control with rapid technological development, and presents it as a model of stability, an alternative to the corporate chaos in the United States and the West. This drives Beijing to bridge the technological gap with the West. This underscores the high-level presence of Xi Jinping, coinciding with significant technological leaps recently achieved by Chinese models in cost efficiency and operational rates, thus strengthening China’s leverage in imposing governance rules more than ever before.
