Global AI divide - US and UK refusal to sign Paris AI Declaration

The Global AI Summit in Paris, a gathering of over 50 nations aimed at establishing a global framework for the ethical development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI), has ended with a surprising twist.

Whilst China joined the majority of countries in signing the Paris AI Declaration, the United States and the United Kingdom have refused to endorse the agreement.

This divergence has sparked intense speculation about the motivations behind these decisions, particularly as the declaration includes provisions to regulate the use of AI in defense, surveillance, and strategic decision-making, areas where all three nations are heavily invested.

The Paris AI Declaration– spearheaded by the European Union – seeks to establish international norms for AI development.

The declaration emphasises on transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights in development of AI tools. Key provisions include restrictions on the use of AI in autonomous weapons, safeguards against algorithmic bias, and measures to prevent the misuse of AI for mass surveillance and disinformation campaigns.

While China’s decision to sign the declaration has been seen as a diplomatic win for the EU, the refusal of the US and UK has raised eyebrows. Analysts suggest that the contrasting positions of these global powers reveal deeper strategic calculations about the role of AI in national security and global influence.

Autonomous AI-based weapons represent a significant shift in modern warfare, leveraging AI to perform tasks such as target identification, threat assessment, and even engagement without human intervention.

These systems, which include drones, robotic soldiers, and cyber warfare tools, promise to enhance military efficiency and provide a strategic edge on the battlefield.

AI-powered drones can conduct precision strikes, while autonomous submarines can patrol vast oceanic territories for extended periods. The deployment of such weapons raises profound ethical and legal concerns. The lack of human oversight introduces risks of malfunction, unintended escalation, and violations of international humanitarian law.

Critics argue that autonomous weapons could lower the threshold for conflict, making war more likely, whilst also creating a moral vacuum where machines decide life-and-death outcomes. As nations race to develop these technologies, the international community faces urgent questions about how to regulate their use and prevent an AI arms race.

Beyond the battlefield, AI is increasingly being harnessed for strategic and political gains, reshaping the landscape of global power dynamics.

Governments are using AI to analyse vast amounts of data for intelligence gathering, predictive analytics, and decision-making.

AI algorithms can sift through satellite imagery, social media posts, and intercepted communications to identify potential threats, predict geopolitical events, and inform foreign policy strategies.

In the political arena, particularly on social media, AI is being used to craft targeted disinformation campaigns, manipulate public opinion, and influence elections.

This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic processes. AI-driven economic models and resource allocation systems are helping nations optimise their strategies for trade, energy, and infrastructure development.

However, the use of AI in these domains also poses significant risks, including the potential for bias, misuse, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few technologically advanced nations.

Why did China sign while the US and UK Refused?

China’s decision to sign the declaration has been interpreted as a strategic move to position itself as a responsible global leader in AI governance. By endorsing the agreement, China may be seeking to counter its reputation for using AI in controversial ways, such as its mass surveillance programs in Xinjiang and its use of AI for social credit systems. Signing the declaration allows China to project an image of cooperation while continuing to develop its AI capabilities domestically with minimal external oversight.

The UK government stated that it had not been able to add its name to it because of concerns about national security and “global governance.” The US Vice President JD Vance told delegates in Paris that too much regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) could “kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off”.

Vance also told the world leaders that AI was “an opportunity that the Trump administration will not squander” and said “pro-growth AI policies” should be prioritised over safety.

Both nations have heavily invested in AI for military applications including autonomous drones, cyber warfare, and intelligence analysis. The declaration’s call for transparency and restrictions on AI in defence likely clashed with the US and UK national security priorities.

This has led to speculation about what they might be hiding. Both nations have been at the forefront of integrating AI into their defence and intelligence operations, often in ways that are not publicly disclosed. For example the US has been developing AI-powered autonomous weapons systems, which could be used in future conflicts with minimal human oversight.

The UK has invested in AI for surveillance and intelligence gathering, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Both nations have used AI for strategic decision-making, including predictive analytics for geopolitical events and economic forecasting.

By refusing to sign, the US and UK may be seeking to avoid scrutiny of these programswhich are critical to maintaining their strategic advantage on the global stage.

The DeepSeek Shock – A $1 Trillion Loss

Deepseek matches the performance of leading US counterparts but was developed at a fraction of the cost. This breakthrough led to a massive sell-off in US tech stocks, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value, with companies like Nvidia losing approximately $593 billion in a single day.

The strategic importance of tools like DeepSeek lies in their ability to democratise AI access, challenging established tech giants and potentially reshaping global technological leadership.

By making high-performance AI more affordable and accessible, such innovations can accelerate technological advancement and economic growth. A the same time, this also raises critical questions about data privacy, security, and the geopolitical balance of power in AI development.

Implications for Global AI Governance

The contrasting positions of China, the US, and the UK reveal the challenges of achieving consensus on AI governance. While China’s decision to sign the declaration may be seen as a diplomatic victory, its commitment to the agreement’s principles remains uncertain. In contrast, the refusal by the US and UK risks creating a fragmented approach to AI regulation with different regions adopting conflicting rules and standards.

This divergence could lead to an AI arms race with nations prioritising national security over international cooperation. It also raises concerns about the proliferation of AI technologies in ways that undermine global stability, such as the use of autonomous weapons or AI-driven disinformation campaigns.

This highlights the tension between national security interests and the need for international cooperation on AI. As AI continues to reshape the global landscape, the question of how to balance these competing priorities will remain a central challenge for policymakers worldwide.

For now, the world is left to grapple with the implications of a divided approach to AI governance.

While the Paris Declaration represents an important step toward establishing global norms, its effectiveness will depend on the willingness of major powers to participate. Without the US and UK on board, the dream of a unified global framework for AI may remain just that – a dream.

The article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Recorder or its owners