---
type: source
title: "From Competition to Cooperation: Can US-China Engagement Overcome Geopolitical Barriers in AI Governance?"
author: "Tech Policy Press"
url: https://www.techpolicy.press/from-competition-to-cooperation-can-uschina-engagement-overcome-geopolitical-barriers-in-ai-governance/
date: 2026-03-01
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [us-china-ai-governance, geopolitical-fragmentation, military-ai-exclusion, governance-philosophy-divergence, soft-law, nuclear-analogue, belief-1, governance-laundering]
---

## Content

**Core argument:** US-China AI governance cooperation is shifting toward cautious engagement, but structural barriers make binding governance for military AI or frontier development effectively impossible. The author's assessment is "moderately pessimistic with conditional optimism."

**Structural barriers identified:**

1. **Military AI Development:** Both nations aggressively pursue military AI applications while avoiding governance discussions about them. The US National Security Commission on AI (2019) and China's clandestine military AI integration (2018) proceed in parallel. CRITICALLY: Neither UN resolution addressing AI governance mentions "development or use of artificial intelligence for military purposes" — military AI is categorically excluded from every governance forum.

2. **Fundamentally Opposed Governance Philosophies:** US approach = market-oriented self-regulation favoring industry dominance. China approach = state control with mandatory Communist Party algorithm review for "core socialist values." These reflect "not only conflicting governance philosophies but also competing geopolitical interests."

3. **Trust Deficits:** China has violated international commitments to WTO and ITU, making compliance agreements uncertain. Question: do current engagements represent genuine cooperation or "short-term calculations of interests for public relations purposes"?

4. **Fragmented Global Approach:** G7 Hiroshima AI Process excludes non-Western allies; EU pursues regulatory monopoly through AI Act; BRICS nations created competing frameworks. "Contested multilateralism."

**Recent positive signals:** Both nations supported joint UN resolutions (June and March 2024) emphasizing capacity-building, sustainable development, and international cooperation. Trump-Xi APEC summit agreement to "consider cooperation on AI" in 2026. Eight Track 1.5/2 dialogues between China and Western nations since 2022.

**Author's assessment:** "By end of 2026, AI governance is likely to be global in form but geopolitical in substance, testing whether international cooperation can meaningfully shape the future of AI."

**Proposed mechanism:** Soft law frameworks (not binding treaties) accommodating divergent governance philosophies. Historical parallel: US-USSR nuclear governance cooperation "at the height of geopolitical turmoil." Technical cooperation on shared science, testing procedures, and evaluation methods as confidence-building measures.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This directly answers the Session 04-08 open question: the trade war accelerates governance fragmentation, not convergence. The article confirms Direction A (decoupling accelerates fragmentation) while also showing the limits of Direction B (governance convergence pressure). The key finding is structural: military AI is explicitly excluded from every governance dialogue, meaning the sector where governance matters most is categorically ungoverned internationally.

**What surprised me:** The symmetry of the exclusion. The article confirms that BOTH the US AND China exclude military AI from governance discussions. This isn't US unilateralism — it's a mutual exclusion agreement by the two most capable military AI states. The governance gap at the military AI level is by design, not by accident.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence that the April 2026 tariff escalation specifically affected AI governance tractability. The article is relatively optimistic about the potential for soft-law cooperation but doesn't analyze whether the tariff war (April 2) specifically closed or opened cooperation pathways.

**KB connections:**
- [[strategic-actors-opt-out-at-every-stage-of-international-AI-governance]] — US-China mutual exclusion of military AI from governance is the structural confirmation of this claim
- [[enabling-conditions-framework-for-technology-governance]] — US-China AI governance has zero enabling conditions: strategic competition rules out commercial migration path AND creates active anti-governance commercial incentives (military contracts)
- Multi-level governance laundering — "global in form but geopolitical in substance" is the international-level version of the pattern

**Extraction hints:**
1. CLAIM CANDIDATE: "US-China geopolitical competition structurally prevents military AI governance — both nations mutually exclude military AI from every governance forum, making the domain where governance matters most (autonomous weapons, AI-enabled warfare) categorically ungoverned regardless of trade war status or bilateral diplomatic engagement." (confidence: likely — confirmed by mutual exclusion pattern, domain: grand-strategy)
2. ENRICHMENT: The "global in form but geopolitical in substance" synthesis phrase should be added to the governance laundering pattern claim. The international level shows the same mechanism as domestic governance laundering: governance form (UN resolutions, bilateral dialogues) concealing governance substance (military AI excluded, philosophies incompatible, no enforcement mechanism).
3. The nuclear analogue is the counter-argument worth engaging: US-USSR cooperation "at height of geopolitical turmoil" did produce the NPT and arms control agreements. The enabling conditions framework distinguishes why: nuclear governance had commercial migration path (peaceful nuclear energy) + triggering events (Cuban Missile Crisis) + limited number of actors. AI governance has none of these.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[strategic-actors-opt-out-at-every-stage-of-international-AI-governance]] + enabling conditions framework
WHY ARCHIVED: Directly answers Session 04-08 open question on US-China trade war governance effects. Confirms Direction A (fragmentation over convergence) and provides structural analysis of WHY — military AI mutual exclusion is the key mechanism. The "global in form, geopolitical in substance" synthesis is a strong candidate for inclusion in the governance laundering claim.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the military AI mutual exclusion as the structural mechanism, not the general "cooperation is hard" argument. The extractor should produce a claim about the SPECIFIC exclusion of military AI from every governance forum, not a general claim about US-China competition.
