Structural AI arms race between US and China rooted in divergent governance models, requiring multilateral norms beyond bilateral talks
Original framing: “Trump and Xi face an AI security dilemma – but face-to-face diplomacy could be a start in mitigating it” — The Conversation - Global
The US‑China AI rivalry mirrors the Cold War nuclear arms race, where mutual fear drove escalation despite shared survival interests. Historical precedents such as the 1963 Hotline Agreement and the 1972 ABM Treaty show that technical verification and crisis communication can reduce misperception. Ignoring these lessons repeats the pattern of building destabilizing capabilities before establishing safeguards.
The AI security dilemma between the United States and China is not merely a matter of mutual mistrust between two leaders but a structural outcome of competing militar‑industrial complexes, divergent governance philosophies, and a lack of verifiable confidence‑building measures.
Historical parallels to the Cold War nuclear arms race reveal that technical verification, crisis communication, and shared norms have previously curbed escalation, yet these lessons are absent from the current discourse. Incorporating Indigenous data sovereignty, Global South ethics, and cross‑cultural philosophical traditions expands the frame from state‑centric security to relational, communal accountability for AI’s societal impacts. Scenario modeling shows that without binding limits, autonomous AI systems could trigger rapid, unpredictable escalation, whereas cooperative pathways—joint verification forums, dual‑use civilian R&D, and inclusive multilateral governance—can transform rivalry into mutual benefit. Ultimately, addressing the dilemma requires institutionalizing transparency, honoring diverse knowledge traditions, and redirecting technological competition toward shared human security.