Slobodan Popović Photo: PROVIDED TO CSST

Visitors view exhibits and take photos at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, held from July 17 to 20. Photo: CFP

AI is reshaping the world at unprecedented speed, even as global AI governance remains caught between fragmentation and institutional gaps. Geopolitical rivalry is becoming increasingly intertwined with competition over technological standards, while many developing countries risk being marginalized as “passive recipients” rather than active participants. Against this backdrop, the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) was held in Shanghai from July 17 to 20.

Speaking with CSST, Slobodan Popović, a research fellow at the Institute of International Politics and Economics in Serbia, said the root of the governance impasse lies not simply in technological shortcomings, but in the persistence of zero-sum competition among major powers and a traditional mindset of “technological monopolization.” In his view, the establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) represents a crucial step toward breaking the deadlock. The real challenge, however, lies in whether ethical consensus can be translated into binding international rules and whether a genuine capacity-building mechanism can be established to benefit countries of the Global South.

Challenge of fragmentation

CSST: The global AI governance landscape is currently marked by fragmentation and a pronounced “governance deficit.” In your view, what lies at the root of these problems?

Popović: In my view, the primary issue is that AI is an emerging domain that remains far from fully regulated, largely due to intense geopolitical and strategic competition among major powers. As AI gains critical importance across economic and security spheres, its massive potential naturally exposes it to risks of misuse and weaponization.

As a new, non-traditional actor in international relations, AI serves as an arena where traditional security interests collide with new, borderless dynamics. Regulation is further complicated by a zero-sum struggle over whose technical and ethical standards will become the global benchmark.

The debate over AI governance demonstrates that, despite claims of modernization, the international community remains weighed down by the colonial mindset of certain states seeking to preserve technical monopolies. At the same time, this fragmentation is a predictable historical phenomenon, as major international actors naturally promote their own vision of global order as the most effective framework.

Building inclusive platform

CSST: The WAICO was established in Shanghai on July 16 and has been described as a significant milestone in the evolution of global AI governance. What significance do you attach to its founding?

Popović: The founding of the WAICO in Shanghai marks a pivotal evolution in global tech governance. Its significance lies in creating a dedicated, action-oriented, and inclusive international platform specifically designed to move beyond traditional geopolitical deadlocks.

By establishing the WAICO, key stakeholders have shown that diplomacy and institutional cooperation remain sustainable, even amidst rising technology wars. It acts as a pragmatic counterweight to fragmented, minilateral tech blocs, offering a structured forum where emerging economies have a seat at the table alongside industry leaders to shape global standards collaboratively.

CSST: The organization has explicitly identified “assisting developing countries” and “bridging the intelligence divide” as core objectives. What practical cooperation mechanisms should the WAICO establish to ensure that developing countries do not become merely passive recipients of technology or providers of data?

Popović: To prevent developing nations from becoming passive consumers of technology or mere raw data providers, the WAICO must build on established multistakeholder frameworks.

Pragmatic mechanisms should focus on the following aspects. First, technology transfer and local R&D: establishing joint innovation hubs (similar to the AIM Global CoE) that build local tech ecosystems rather than importing “black-box” proprietary systems. Second, data sovereignty and localized models: supporting developing nations in training large language models on their own cultural and linguistic data, ensuring data value remains within the country of origin. Third, human capital development: launching specialized training programs and university exchanges to build an indigenous base of AI talent and researchers across the Global South.

CSST: In terms of regulatory alignment and collaborative governance, what kind of relationship should the WAICO maintain with AI governance platforms under the UN framework? How can it reconcile the universal standards it develops with existing international regulations, such as the EU’s compliance rules?

Popović: The WAICO should operate as an operational and technical complement to the UN’s universal, normative agenda. While the UN provides high-level ethical principles and political legitimization, the WAICO can serve as an agile platform for technical execution, industrial standards, and South-South technology transfer.

Regarding existing regulations like the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, we need to uphold the principle of synergy over substitution. The WAICO can act as a “translation bridge,” helping non-Western nations align with high compliance standards (such as the EU’s risk-based approach) without forcing them to adopt rules unsuited to their economic realities. Pluralistic governance is also necessary. Rather than imposing a single “one-size-fits-all” framework, the WAICO can foster mutual recognition of standards across different regulatory regimes, reconciling strict risk mitigation (like the EU’s) with developmental and capacity-building imperatives.

China’s approach

CSST: As a responsible major country, China has advocated “taking a people-centered approach and developing AI for the positive and for good.” How do you assess this philosophy? Compared with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and US executive orders, what distinctive advantages does the governance approach China presented at this conference offer? Why has it attracted broad support from organizations including ASEAN, the Arab League, and the African Union?

Popović: China’s “people-centered” philosophy and its vision of developing “AI for good” reflect core, long-standing principles embedded in Chinese diplomatic tradition and its strategic development path toward the second of the “Two Centenary Goals.”

Within China’s governance framework, AI is not merely a tool for economic growth, but a vital pillar for sustainable internal development and a key foundation for building “a community with a shared future for humanity.” China’s policy documents consistently emphasize that modernization must be shared rather than exclusive, rejecting the notion of a “one-size-fits-all” model for global development.

When comparing China’s governance approach to those of the EU and the US, several clear structural differences emerge.

The EU’s precautionary and regulatory model: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act is primarily risk-based and rights-focused, placing heavy compliance requirements on developers to protect individual rights. While effective for legal oversight, this framework often creates high regulatory barriers that are difficult for developing nations to navigate or afford.

The US market-driven model: The American approach relies heavily on private sector innovation, market dynamics, and corporate self-regulation. While this accelerates technological breakthroughs, it tends to concentrate power within a few major tech conglomerates and focuses heavily on national security alliances rather than broad international technology transfer.

China’s developmental and inclusive model: In contrast, China’s approach, as highlighted at the WAIC, centers directly on industrial application, infrastructure capacity, and socio-economic development. Rather than treating technology as an exclusive instrument of power, this approach emphasizes accessibility, technology transfer, and mutual economic benefit. This developmental perspective is precisely why China’s vision has generated such strong resonance across ASEAN, the Arab League, and the African Union.

Developing countries and regions are often alienated by Western governance models that either impose heavy regulatory burdens or demand compliance with rigid, non-inclusive standards. China’s framework appeals to the Global South because it links AI directly to economic growth, digital sovereignty, and practical capacity building. By advocating for multi-polar governance and respecting the unique developmental priorities of each nation, China offers a collaborative model that treats developing countries as equal partners in the global technological revolution.