Photo: VCG

The 2026 World AI Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance will be held in Shanghai from Friday to Monday. Just prior to this, the UN convened the first session of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva on July 6 and 7. As global AI governance enters the phase of institutional architecture building, the attitude of the US on this matter has become particularly intriguing. 

Nikkei Asia recently cited relevant sources noting that while China has actively participated in UN and other regional and international AI governance negotiations since 2024, Washington has generally shown little interest in such discussions.

The US is not unaware of the risks posed by AI. The real issue is that the current administration has ranked these risks in a clear order: The biggest threat, in their view, is losing America's technological dominance, followed closely by the danger of advanced technologies falling into the hands of their competitors. Meanwhile, the impacts of AI on society, labor, the environment and global development inequality are relegated to a relatively secondary status.

This explains why, at the AI Action Summit 2025 in Paris, the US refused to sign an international declaration on "inclusive and sustainable" AI. Furthermore, when the UN General Assembly voted to establish an independent international scientific panel on AI in February 2026, the US emerged as one of only two nations to vote against it. US representatives publicly proclaimed that AI governance should not be dictated by the UN, emphasizing instead that Washington would collaborate with "like-minded nations."

These actions clearly show what the US prefers: It favors a small-group system dominated by itself and its close allies, while staying deeply suspicious of the UN and other truly representative global institutions. At its core, the US cares most about keeping the power to set the rules firmly in its own hands.

Global AI governance can foster the very stability required for long-term development. The true purpose of global governance is also to prevent a handful of tech superpowers and multinational giants from monopolizing the future of AI. Viewing governance simply as a burden on innovation will ultimately harm the AI industry itself.

The root cause of the current US dilemma in AI governance is this: When market capitalization growth is treated as the primary metric of AI success, the real impacts on ordinary people - such as employment, education, privacy, public services, and energy burdens - are easily pushed aside as secondary concerns. The US needs to overcome both its overinflated impulse for value creation and the monopolistic grip of a select tech elite. 

The passive stance of the US toward global AI governance is also directly linked to its framing of AI development within the context of China-US strategic competition. By viewing AI through a purely competitive lens, Washington has driven a sweeping securitization of the issue. However, while China and the US compete in the realm of AI governance, they also share tangible common interests.

The US should adopt a more open and constructive attitude by actively participating in UN-led governance processes. Beijing and Washington could prioritize cooperation in areas with relatively well-defined risks and low political sensitivity. This includes establishing notification mechanisms for major AI incidents, promoting exchanges on safety evaluation methodologies for frontier models, setting standards for watermarking AI-generated content, preventing the use of AI in cybercrime and jointly supporting capacity building for the Global South.

Furthermore, both sides should establish necessary crisis communication channels regarding military AI, explicitly clarifying the principle that AI must never undermine human control over nuclear and strategic weapons, thereby avoiding the risk of miscalculation amplified by automated decision-making.

Global AI governance must not become a byproduct of China-US competition, nor should nations around the world be forced to choose sides between two separate technological ecosystems. As major players in the AI field, both China and the US bear the responsibility to preserve development space for other countries and provide institutional safeguards for the global public good.

True American leadership is not measured by how many countries it blocks from developing AI, nor by how much computing power a handful of its corporations can amass. Rather, it hinges on whether the US can work alongside the international community, including China, to foster an AI governance environment that is safe, open, fair and universally beneficial.

The author is director at the International Research Institute of Global Cyberspace Governance, Fudan University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn