Ronnie Lins Photo: PROVIDED TO CSST

The MAZU meteorological AI model is displayed at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference on July 18, 2026. Photo: IC PHOTO

With AI racing into the global economy and everyday life at an unprecedented pace, attendant security risks and ethical challenges are following close behind. For the Global South, the stakes are particularly high. Facing deficits in computing power, data, talent, and infrastructure, how can it become an active participant in this technological wave? And how can it prevent AI from deepening existing inequalities and adding yet another governance deficit to an already imbalanced global order? In a recent interview with CSST, Ronnie Lins, director of the China-Brazil Center for Research and Business, argued that AI governance is no longer a niche technical issue, but a public matter that will help shape the future of the global order.

Economic and civilizational matter

CSST: As an economist, how did you first become engaged with the field of AI? And would you agree that AI governance is not merely a technical issue, but a defining challenge for global development and the human prospect?

Lins: My interest in AI grew out of practical experience rather than curiosity about the technology itself. Throughout my career, I have worked at the intersection of economics and engineering, where I learned to approach challenges through applied problem-solving. AI attracted my attention because it offered new ways to address real-world issues that I encountered in my professional work.

Over the years, I have developed AI-based applications for data analysis, knowledge management, and decision support. That hands-on experience allowed me to track the technology’s evolution from the inside. Having engaged with AI not only as a researcher but also as a user and developer, I gained a realistic understanding of both its remarkable potential and its current limitations.

AI has moved beyond the domain of computer science to become a central issue for economic development, national competitiveness, and public policy. My participation in international forums reinforced this conviction. I watched the global conversation shift away from algorithms and computing power toward broader concerns such as technological sovereignty, national security, governance frameworks, and digital inclusion. AI had ceased to be merely another economic sector; it had become strategic infrastructure capable of reshaping the global distribution of power. For that reason, I now view AI as both an economic and a civilizational matter.

Dual-track approach to governance

CSST: What are the distinctive challenges confronting global AI governance? And how can the Global South avoid a repeat of the Bretton Woods dynamic—in which rule-making was dominated by a handful of powerful nations—and secure a substantive voice in shaping the norms and institutional frameworks for AI governance?

Lins: The complexity of global AI governance far exceeds that of previous international governance efforts. We face a fundamental timing paradox: technological innovation advances much faster than governments and international institutions can negotiate rules and build consensus. In many respects, the international community is trying to establish the rules of the road while the vehicle is already moving at high speed.

For the Global South, this challenge carries an important historical dimension. The comparison with Bretton Woods remains highly relevant. Much of the postwar international financial architecture reflected the priorities of a relatively small group of advanced economies, while developing countries played only a limited role. Today, we face a similar risk: a small number of technological powers could define the standards, safety protocols, and evaluation frameworks that govern AI, creating a new form of technological and knowledge dependency.

Avoiding that outcome requires much more than securing representation in international negotiations. Genuine technological sovereignty depends on the ability to generate ideas rather than simply adopt them. The Global South must contribute to the principles, methodologies, and evaluation frameworks that will define responsible AI from the perspective of sustainable and inclusive development.

Platforms such as BRICS, CELAC, and the United Nations have an indispensable role to play in this process. They can ensure that AI governance reflects a wider range of development priorities and national experiences. More importantly, they can help establish AI not merely as an arena of geopolitical competition, but as a global public good that strengthens international cooperation and supports shared prosperity.

Humanity’s shared future

CSST: President Xi Jinping attended the opening ceremony of the 2026 World AI Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance and delivered the keynote address. How do you assess the questions he raised and the four observations he shared on AI development and governance?

Lins: I see the four observations shared by President Xi Jinping as mutually reinforcing elements of a single governance framework rather than as separate policy objectives.

Openness and win-win cooperation remain essential because no country—particularly in the Global South—can respond alone to the challenges posed by a technology of global reach. Effective risk management is equally important, because public trust depends on the assurance that human judgment will remain at the center of critical decisions. Inclusiveness, dialogue, and mutual learning between civilizations help ensure that AI governance reflects diverse cultural traditions, legal systems, and development priorities rather than imposing a single institutional model. Finally, international solidarity provides the foundation for a more balanced distribution of AI’s benefits through technology cooperation, capacity building, and knowledge sharing.

AI governance cannot remain the exclusive responsibility of engineers and computer scientists. Economists, legal scholars, social scientists, educators, business leaders, and public policymakers all have an essential role to play. AI will reshape economies and societies, so its governance must reflect a broad range of expertise and perspectives.

Pragmatic cooperation

CSST: On what fronts should international cooperation be strengthened to build a just and equitable global governance architecture for AI?

Lins: International cooperation forms the foundation of effective AI governance. However, its purpose should extend far beyond issuing joint statements or negotiating broad principles. Its most important function is to build lasting trust among countries, institutions, and societies. Trust and consensus are not the same. Political consensus can shift as governments and priorities change. Trust, by contrast, creates the conditions for cooperation to continue even when disagreements arise. No system of AI governance will remain sustainable if countries in the Global South believe that international rules primarily serve to preserve existing technological advantages.

China’s recent policy instruments—including the “Global AI Governance Initiative,” the “AI Capacity-Building Action Plan for Good and for All,” the “Global AI Governance Action Plan,” and the “AI+ International Cooperation Initiative”—reflect a forward-looking approach that integrates governance, capacity building, and technological openness. Effective governance should not function merely as a restrictive framework; it should also expand countries’ ability to develop, adapt, and apply new technologies.

This point carries special significance for the Global South. Meaningful participation in AI governance requires much more than representation at international meetings. Countries also need well-trained researchers, robust digital infrastructure, capable public institutions, and the ability to absorb and adapt emerging technologies. Without these foundations, formal participation risks masking a deeper form of technological dependency.

Transforming AI into a global public good also requires a pragmatic approach. This objective does not imply eliminating intellectual property rights or discouraging private innovation. Rather, it means ensuring that essential knowledge, technical capabilities, and opportunities for applying AI do not remain concentrated within a small number of countries or corporations.

At the same time, concepts such as justice and equity naturally reflect different historical experiences, cultural traditions, legal systems, and levels of economic development. International governance should not attempt to impose a single institutional model on every country. Instead, multilateral cooperation should establish a core set of shared principles while allowing sufficient flexibility for national implementation.

Multilateral platforms

CSST: Multilateral platforms are increasingly coming to the fore in AI governance debates, while AI itself is intersecting with climate change, the digital divide, and global governance reform across multiple fronts. How would you assess this interplay, and could it yield positive spillovers that extend well beyond individual policy areas?

Lins: Multilateral institutions have become increasingly important because AI is no longer a sector-specific technology. It has evolved into foundational infrastructure that influences virtually every dimension of economic and social development. For that reason, AI governance cannot exist in isolation. It must connect with the broader international agendas that already shape global cooperation.

Multilateral mechanisms—including the United Nations, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), CELAC, ASEAN, the Arab League, the African Union, and the newly established World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO)—each play a distinct yet complementary role. The United Nations provides universal legitimacy and a global coordination platform. At the inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance, UN Secretary-General António Guterres outlined four priorities for AI governance: safety, human rights, capacity building, and transparency.

BRICS brings together major emerging economies with the capacity to develop practical solutions that address the priorities of developing countries. CELAC strengthens regional cooperation and supports digital sovereignty across Latin America. WAICO fills an important institutional gap by focusing directly on technical cooperation, scientific exchange, and talent development in AI.

The greatest value of these institutions extends beyond drafting international rules to integrating AI into the broader development agenda. AI offers a historic opportunity to renew multilateral cooperation itself, shifting from a reactive model of crisis management to a preventive one built on knowledge sharing, joint innovation, and shared solutions. That shift is precisely the kind of breakthrough global governance reform now urgently requires.