By Saxon Zvina
1. WAIC 2026: A Turning Point for Global AI Governance
Held in Shanghai under the theme “AI Partnership for a Brighter Future”, the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) has been presented by organisers as an important platform for shaping discussions on global artificial intelligence (AI) governance. According to conference organisers, the event brought together more than 1 100 exhibitors showcasing over 3 000 technological innovations, including more than 300 global product launches. Delegates from more than 100 countries and international organisations attended, underscoring the growing importance of AI as a public policy issue extending beyond the technology sector.
Ahead of the conference, representatives from 29 countries signed an agreement establishing the World AI Cooperation Organisation (WAICO). Chinese officials have described WAICO as the first intergovernmental platform dedicated to AI cooperation, signalling what they see as a move from voluntary commitments towards more structured international coordination.
In his keynote address, Chinese President Xi Jinping identified four major challenges associated with AI development: ensuring harmonious coexistence between humans and intelligent machines; strengthening safety safeguards as AI systems assume greater decision-making roles; ensuring regulatory frameworks keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies; and preventing the widening of the global digital divide.
President Xi proposed four guiding principles for AI governance: promoting openness and mutually beneficial cooperation to support innovation; strengthening risk management to ensure AI remains safe and controllable; encouraging exchanges between civilisations; and advancing multilateral cooperation in developing international AI governance frameworks. In the author’s view, these principles seek to balance technological progress, risk management, cultural diversity and international collaboration.
2. China’s Openness Agenda: Initiatives for the Global South
The author argues that one of the defining features of China’s AI strategy is its stated opposition to technological monopolisation. Chinese policymakers have consistently advocated expanded open-source collaboration, international knowledge sharing and joint research, while criticising export controls and technology restrictions that they argue hinder innovation and widen global inequalities.
This position resonates with concerns expressed by many developing countries regarding unequal access to advanced computing infrastructure, AI models and technical expertise. International organisations, including the United Nations, have also highlighted the risk that unequal access to AI technologies could deepen existing development gaps if left unaddressed.
China has announced several initiatives intended to support developing countries.
The first is a commitment to provide 5 000 AI training opportunities for professionals from developing countries over the next five years. Chinese authorities have said this initiative aims to strengthen technical capacity by training engineers, regulators and entrepreneurs.
Secondly, China plans to establish six regional AI cooperation centres serving ASEAN, the African Union, the Arab League, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Latin American partners. According to Chinese officials, these centres will focus on practical AI applications tailored to local priorities, including agriculture, healthcare, energy, trade and public administration.
Thirdly, China has announced plans to expand deployment of its “Mazu” AI-enabled disaster early warning system to 30 countries. Chinese authorities say the initiative is intended to improve disaster preparedness and climate resilience through AI-supported forecasting and emergency response.
These initiatives are supported by China’s rapidly expanding domestic AI sector. According to official Chinese data, the country’s core AI industry has surpassed one trillion yuan in output. It is supported by a broad ecosystem of technology companies, manufacturing capacity and digital infrastructure. Several Chinese-developed open-source AI models have also gained increasing international adoption.
3. A Distinct Governance Model Compared with Western Approaches
The author contends that three broad approaches to AI governance are emerging internationally.
In his assessment, the United States has prioritised maintaining technological leadership, including through export controls and restrictions on access to advanced semiconductor technologies. Supporters argue these measures are necessary for national security, while critics contend they may contribute to fragmentation of the global technology landscape.
The European Union has focused on developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks, including the AI Act, with an emphasis on safety, transparency and accountability. While supporters argue these regulations build public trust, some industry stakeholders have expressed concerns that compliance requirements could prove challenging, particularly for smaller firms and developing economies.
The author argues that China’s approach seeks to combine rapid AI development with adaptive regulation while promoting multilateral cooperation and technology sharing. In his view, this model may offer greater flexibility for many countries in the Global South seeking to expand AI capabilities while strengthening governance frameworks.
The article acknowledges that strategic competition among major powers, particularly in advanced semiconductors and frontier AI technologies, is likely to remain a defining feature of the international landscape. Balancing international collaboration with legitimate national security considerations will continue to present complex policy challenges.
China has introduced regulatory frameworks covering AI safety, cross-border data governance and technology management. According to Chinese authorities, these measures are intended to balance international cooperation with risk management, although international observers continue to debate their effectiveness and implementation.
4. Implementation Will Determine the Future of Inclusive AI
The author argues that WAIC 2026 raises an important question for the international community: will artificial intelligence widen existing global inequalities or contribute to more inclusive development?
From the author’s perspective, China’s emphasis on international cooperation, skills development, regional partnerships and open-source collaboration represents one possible pathway towards narrowing the global digital divide. Through initiatives such as WAICO, training programmes and regional cooperation centres, China has outlined a framework that it says is intended to broaden access to AI capabilities.
Many developing countries possess growing pools of technical talent, expanding digital markets and increasing volumes of data but continue to face constraints in computing infrastructure, investment and specialised expertise. International organisations, including the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union, have identified these gaps as significant barriers to broader AI adoption.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any AI governance model will depend on its practical implementation rather than policy commitments alone. China has already undertaken AI cooperation initiatives through organisations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and has supported the international deployment of several Chinese-developed AI models and disaster management technologies. The long-term impact of these programmes, however, will become clearer as they expand and independent assessments emerge.
In the author’s assessment, China’s combination of industrial capacity, policy support and multilateral engagement positions it as an influential participant in the evolving global AI governance landscape. Whether this approach succeeds in promoting more equitable access to AI technologies will depend on sustained implementation, international cooperation and the willingness of participating countries to translate policy commitments into measurable development outcomes.
Author’s Note
Saxon Zvina is Principal Consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services and an independent political commentator. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC).
