Chinese President Xi Jinping speaking at the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in Gyeongju, where he proposed a global AI body called WAICO.
Chinese President Xi Jinping stated at the APEC Leaders’ Meeting held in Gyeongju, South Korea, on November 1, 2025, that a global body is needed to develop, operate, and control China AI governance. He stated the goal of making it a “public good for the international community.” He named such a body the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) and suggested it could be established in Shanghai, China’s commercial hub.
Key Motivations Behind the Proposal of China AI governance
This is a timely opportunity for China to advance its technology and AI governance model toward global leadership. US-China Differences in AI Governance There are clear differences in AI policy and governance models between the US and China. The US generally prefers a private sector and market-oriented model and is less in favor of strict control by an international institution. In contrast, China wants to establish a global platform that can foster global rules, standards, and cooperation for AI. Xi emphasized that “the benefits of AI should be shared by people in all countries and regions.” Technological Autonomy and Chinese AI Company Forefrontality China has in recent years embraced the concept of “algorithmic sovereignty”—that is, a move toward reducing excessive dependence on foreign chips, software, or models.
What are the main points of the proposal?
A detailed look at the proposal reveals the following key points: AI development by national or private companies should not be solely profit-driven, but should be developed as a “public good.” Establish rules, standards, development strategies, and cooperation processes for AI governance through a global body (WAICO). This body could be headquartered in Shanghai or another major location in China. The Asia-Pacific region is particularly focused on: promoting technology, AI analysis, model development, and education in APEC countries.
Responses and differences from the US and other countries
Regarding the proposal, the US and other major countries have raised some concerns and disagreements. The US has long stated that establishing a centralized global body for AI governance could be risky, as it could slow innovation and undermine the leadership of US companies. Other countries fear that a China-dominated model could be adopted in the global body, undermining multilateral democratic control. Many countries have acknowledged that global coordination is essential for AI development and its impact. Research articles have suggested that potential areas for US-China cooperation exist.
Implications for India and other developing countries
Challenges for India: If the global body model becomes China-dominated, a democratic country like India will have to ensure that governance processes are transparent, participatory, and autonomous. India must ensure that innovation freedom is maintained in global AI standards so that domestic start-ups and companies are not hindered. Issues such as data security, privacy, and misuse of artificial intelligence are already sensitive for India; these must be effectively raised on the global stage. For other developing countries, this proposal can offer smaller countries hope that they are not left behind in AI penetration and benefits—as China has emphasized bridging the AI divide. But this will be a shared task, and resource-constrained countries will need to garner global cooperation and support.
Strategic and Technological Implications on China AI governance
This proposal will have several strategic and technological implications going forward. Below are some key points Changing the global AI governance framework. If WAICO or similar bodies are established, it could challenge the AI standards currently set by the US-dominated private sector and national policies. The type of government oversight, standard-setting, and benchmarking that will emerge under a China-led model will be crucial. China’s role in standard-setting increases. Through this proposal, China seeks to play a leading role in standards, regulations, and operational practices in AI. For example, transparency of AI training data, model reliability, algorithmic accountability, etc.
Competition and Geopolitics: AI has become not just a technology but a means of power projection. Through this proposal, China aims to increase its dominance over the US in artificial intelligence, ecosystems, and standard-setting. When a global institution is formed, the question arises as to how much freedom innovation should be allowed and how strict the control mechanisms should be. If the controls are too strict, start-ups, new research, and model development may be slowed. Impact on the Digital/AI Divide: If AI education, model development, and resource support for developing countries are increased within the global institution, it could be positive in reducing the AI divide. Similarly, China has placed special emphasis on this point.
Challenges and Questions Facing the Proposal
Like every major proposal, this one faces many questions. If a country or region misuses AI tools, how much accountability will there be? Geopolitical competition and trust-building Technological competition between the US and China is growing—how will a global institution gain trust amid this competition? How will the balance of power in standard-setting and rule-making be maintained? Will such an institution be able to develop when major countries seek to protect their technological and commercial interests? Resource base and implementation What resources will be available to establish, run, and support a global institution’s members? AI education, capacity-building, and model availability are challenges, particularly for developing countries. How will smaller countries be ensured that this framework does not leave them behind?
What could happen next – Possible scenarios
Let’s examine the potential scenarios that could emerge in the future based on this proposal: Formation of a Visionary AI Governance Body. If WAICO or a similar body is formed, it could mark the beginning of a new global framework where principles such as AI standards, model trustworthiness, algorithm transparency, and human-centered AI are set globally. Developing countries could receive AI education and resource support. China could gain a leadership role in global AI governance. The US and other countries would have to participate—or, if they remain, form separate networks.
Two Models Continue to Fail If the US does not join or accept such an institution, two models could emerge: Model One: A China-led global AI body with rules and procedures aligned with China’s priorities. Model Two: A US-led or private-sector-led model, with less central control and greater priority given to innovation. Thus, global AI governance could suffer from divisions. Slow progress and incomplete proposals are also likely to remain incomplete due to various differences, resource constraints, and participation challenges.
Conclusion: China AI governance
The proposal presented by Xi Jinping at the APEC Committee—the establishment of a global AI governance body—is not merely a technical proposal but a broader geopolitical, economic, and strategic initiative. This proposal is significant for the following reasons: It reveals the presence of a new stakeholder in global AI governance—China. It could open a path to help developing countries access and benefit from AI. It could change the direction of global rulemaking amid the US-China technological competition. But it also faces serious challenges—participation, innovation freedom, data security, geopolitics, and resource constraints.
About the Author
