US escalates AI geopolitical tensions with unsubstantiated claims of China-linked theft, obscuring systemic tech rivalry and global governance gaps

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems often frame AI development as a collective responsibility, prioritising community data sovereignty and intergenerational knowledge transfer over proprietary models. Many Global South communities view AI as a tool for decolonisation rather than a battleground for superpower rivalry, with initiatives like the Māori Data Sovereignty Network in Aotearoa (New Zealand) offering alternatives to extractive tech governance. These perspectives are entirely absent in the US State Department's framing, which treats AI as a purely strategic resource to be controlled through state power.

The current US-China AI rivalry echoes historical patterns of techno-nationalism, such as the US-Japan semiconductor wars of the 1980s, where accusations of unfair trade practices were used to justify protectionist policies. The US has a long history of weaponising IP laws against perceived rivals, from the Cold War-era COCOM export controls to the 2018 Entity List sanctions against Huawei. Meanwhile, China's AI ambitions are rooted in decades of state-led industrial policy, including the 'Made in China 2025' plan, which the US now frames as 'theft' rather than strategic development.

Cross-culturally, AI governance is often framed as a public good rather than a competitive asset, with models like India's 'AI for All' initiative or the African Union's AI strategy prioritising inclusive access over geopolitical control. In Latin America, the 'Buenos Aires Declaration on AI' emphasises ethical AI as a tool for social justice, contrasting sharply with the US-China binary. These approaches highlight the need for governance frameworks that integrate diverse cultural values, such as Ubuntu philosophy's emphasis on communal well-being over individual ownership.

Scientifically, the US State Department's claims lack empirical substantiation, relying on vague assertions of 'theft' without providing concrete evidence of proprietary AI model replication. Studies on AI model transferability suggest that reproducing state-of-the-art models requires significant computational resources and expertise, making large-scale theft implausible. The framing also ignores the role of open-source AI development, which challenges the narrative of AI as a proprietary resource to be protected through state intervention.

Artistically and spiritually, AI is often framed as an extension of human creativity and consciousness, with traditions like Buddhist 'right livelihood' ethics questioning the extractive logic of AI development. Indigenous artists in the Americas and Oceania use AI to revitalise endangered languages and cultural practices, reframing the technology as a tool for cultural preservation rather than espionage. These perspectives challenge the militarised framing of AI, instead emphasising its potential for healing and intergenerational knowledge transfer.

Future modelling suggests that the current US-China AI rivalry could lead to a bifurcated global AI ecosystem, with separate standards, hardware ecosystems, and ethical frameworks emerging in each bloc. This fragmentation risks exacerbating global inequalities, as nations outside these blocs struggle to access critical AI resources. Scenario planning also indicates that unchecked techno-nationalism could accelerate the militarisation of AI, with autonomous weapons systems becoming a new battleground for superpower competition.

Marginalised voices—including researchers from the Global South, Indigenous communities, and independent AI ethicists—are systematically excluded from the US State Department's narrative, which centres elite US and Chinese actors. The framing ignores the disproportionate impact of AI export controls on smaller nations, which lack the resources to develop indigenous AI capabilities. It also overlooks the contributions of marginalised communities to AI ethics, such as the Global South AI Ethics Network, which advocates for governance models centred on justice and equity.