The strategic competition in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) between China and the United States has evolved from a simple competition in computing power and chip hardware to a deep geopolitical showdown involving international governance rules and technological standards. Recently, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) put forward the concept of “digital sovereignty” at the United Nations General Assembly and sought to establish a “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization” by rallying developing countries. Meanwhile, the United States is accelerating the expansion of the “Silicon Peace” alliance, which is centered around democratic values.
In this showdown perceived by experts as a clash between authoritarianism and democracy, the CCP’s strategic ambitions, technological security vulnerabilities, and the limitations of AI development under the party-state system are facing strong scrutiny and comprehensive prevention from the international community.
The first session of the United Nations Global Cybersecurity Mechanism was held in New York from July 20th to 24th. During the meeting, the CCP submitted a position paper to the global mechanism, formally presenting the principle of “digital sovereignty” and advocating that countries have the right to autonomously choose their paths of technological development, including AI, without being forced to take sides.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a press conference that this is another important principle proposed by China after “cyber sovereignty.”
Previously, CCP leader Xi Jinping announced the establishment of the “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization” (WAICO) consisting of 29 countries during the Shanghai “World Artificial Intelligence Conference” on July 17th, promising to provide open-source models and personnel training for developing countries.
However, behind this seemingly inclusive diplomatic rhetoric lies the ambition of the CCP to seize global dominance. Arindrajit Basu, a researcher at Leiden University, told the Financial Times that Beijing’s AI initiatives seek to “alter our understanding of the world and the core norms of technology.”
Asian Group digital business partner Chen Shu bluntly stated that the CCP is offering a low-cost “Plan B” to Global South countries, aiming to make most countries around the world rely on Chinese technology rather than American technology.
An editorial in Le Monde on July 21st sharply pointed out that the CCP’s AI strategy aims not to be the strongest but the most widespread, packaging commercial achievements as national diplomatic projects through the promotion of low-cost models like DeepSeek.
The editorial warned that the CCP is attempting to portray a more “closely controlled by the state” AI development model as a responsible solution and exporting its authoritarian governance under the guise of “autonomous choice” wrapped in democratic rhetoric.
Regarding the escalation of the AI competition between China and the United States, China affairs commentator Wang He pointed out that the shift from cyber sovereignty to digital sovereignty is a natural progression, reflecting the CCP’s strong desire for control over the disruptive power of the digital age.
Wang observed that since the stimulus from low-cost large models like DeepSeek on the United States, the competition between China and the US has become intense, leading to the rapid division of the global AI landscape into two major camps, with the CCP attempting to become the leader of its camp.
Facing the CCP’s aggressive expansion, the US has not slowed down either. The US State Department held the “Pax Silica” summit in Washington, D.C., at the end of June. The initiative aims to strengthen AI supply chain security, with members expanded to include 24 countries such as the US, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea.
Jacob Helberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs at the US State Department, proposed the concept of “Innovation Sovereignty” to counter the CCP’s “digital sovereignty” and warned that an excessive emphasis on digital sovereignty could lead countries into a “state of synchronous mediocrity.”
Helberg contrasted the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is driven by state entities, lacks transparency, has low capital efficiency, and fosters a predatory “debt trap,” with the Silicon Peace initiative that emphasizes close collaboration with the private sector to build a reliable technology ecosystem.
Regarding the CCP’s advocacy for AI sovereignty, Lai Rongwei, Executive Director of the Taiwan Inspire Association (TIA), analyzed the CCP’s underlying motives. He categorized AI competition into three layers: computing power, algorithms, and applications, noting that China still relies on the US for bottom-layer hardware and algorithm frameworks based on Western democratic logic but aggressively develops applications, using them to infiltrate other countries and even spread fake information.
Lai further criticized the CCP’s party-state system for overriding society, lacking concepts of a free market and human rights, and training AI models fundamentally subject to party leadership, lacking authenticity.
He argued that all human innovation over hundreds of years has stemmed from a free environment, while the CCP prioritizes “political stability,” which will ultimately lead to bottlenecks in technological development and a move towards “internalization,” making it difficult to establish a paradigm that can replace the US.
Furthermore, the Financial Times cited analysts pointing out that despite the CCP’s strong advocacy for open-source concepts, once Chinese companies gain a technological edge, it is not guaranteed that their models will remain open—some enterprises, including Alibaba and ByteDance, have already converted their leading models into closed systems due to commercial pressures.
Additionally, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has held discussions with top AI companies to restrict the overseas transmission of crucial data needed for model training and limit foreign users’ downloads of their model weights.
Western countries’ prevention measures against China’s AI system stem not only from geopolitical technological struggles but also deep concerns about data security and values. In February 2026, the Brookings Institution released a report on AI sovereignty, pointing out that despite China’s absolute advantage in critical minerals (such as accounting for 60% of global rare earth mining in 2024) and narrowing the model gap with the US through massive national investments, its AI system has severe security flaws.
Citing Cisco’s research, the institution revealed that China’s DeepSeek model failed to intercept any harmful commands, while the interception rate of the US’s OpenAI model reached 74%. Berlin Free University scholar Grace Yang raised serious doubts, questioning whether a system rooted in domestic monitoring and censorship systems could win global trust and become the foundation of open national standards.
To counter the authoritarian expansion of Chinese technology, Lai Rongwei mentioned in an interview that Europe and the US are actively constructing AI governance mechanisms centered around “value alignment” to ensure that basic democratic values like human rights, freedom, and equality are ingrained during AI training.
He pointed out that “Silicon Peace” is built on partnerships of democratic values, and the push for the “de-Red supply chain” by Europe and the US is due to the widespread politicization of Chinese products by the CCP, posing a threat to peaceful development in all countries. Therefore, at the current stage where computing power and algorithms still hold sway, Western countries view restructuring supply chains as the most reliable prevention strategy.
The Brookings Institution also revealed in its report that the CCP has combined the regulation of the “Great Firewall” with the support of the “national team” industrial policy, deepened the influence of the party, and integrated military-civil fusion, resulting in Chinese companies deeply embedded in national strategic plans. Subsequently, platform content, data, and network security are subject to more comprehensive regulation to ensure that digital technologies align with the party’s ideology and requirements—the AI system is no exception.
The think tank warned that a technology originating from another country and directly controlled by an authoritarian government is not a sustainable solution in the long run for societies that value autonomy and information freedom.