Contents
Introduction
The proposed World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) by China signals a shift from Western-dominated tech governance to Beijing-led AI multilateralism, challenging existing frameworks like the UN’s Global AI Governance Track (2024) and OECD AI principles.
WAICO: Beijing’s Strategic Bid for Algorithmic Multilateralism
China’s WAICO proposal, announced by President Xi Jinping (2024 APEC Summit, Busan), aims to institutionalise global AI norms under Chinese leadership — the “Bretton Woods of algorithms.”
Key features:
- Headquarters: Shanghai — signalling geographic centralisation.
- Objectives: Establish a technology-sharing platform, AI governance standards, and an Algorithmic Compensation Fund financed by AI revenues.
- Design: Formally multilateral, but functionally China-centric — echoing earlier initiatives like the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI).
- Strategic intent: To move from being a rule-taker to a rule-maker, giving Beijing an edge in data standards, surveillance norms, and AI trade regulation — the soft power equivalent of setting global operating systems.
Implications for the Global South
For developing nations, WAICO appears attractive:
- Promises AI access, funding, and capacity-building, bridging the digital divide.
- Reflects frustration with Western techno-nationalism and export controls on semiconductors (e.g., U.S. CHIPS Act 2022).
- Offers inclusion and voice where OECD and EU AI Acts remain restrictive.
However, hidden asymmetries persist:
- Control over standards may reinforce digital dependency rather than autonomy.
- “Algorithmic colonisation” could replace old economic hierarchies with new data-driven hierarchies.
- Surveillance-based governance models could erode privacy and democratic accountability.
Thus, WAICO risks turning AI multilateralism into a techno-political monopoly, shaping norms on ethics, bias, and data localisation to align with Chinese interests.
India’s Strategic Dilemma: Engage Without Endorsing
India sits at the intersection of technological sovereignty and global cooperation. As Chair of the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) and leader in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), its choices will shape Global South’s stance.
Why India must engage:
- Access: To influence governance and prevent exclusion from AI resource pools (chips, compute, cloud).
- Voice: To represent Global South perspectives on ethical AI, fairness, and affordability.
- Leverage: Participation provides visibility and early insight into standard-setting mechanisms.
Why India must not endorse blindly:
- WAICO may compromise data sovereignty and open-source ethics.
- Could undercut UN-based AI frameworks (UNGA 2024 resolution on Global AI Governance).
- Centralisation in Shanghai risks a China-centric digital order, undermining pluralism.
India’s prudent approach:
- Transparency over geography: Advocate for open budgeting, rotating leadership, and third-party audits.
- Interoperability over ideology: Promote DPI model—combining openness and sovereignty.
- Access over allegiance: Demand compute quotas and equitable algorithmic access.
- Parallel coalitions: Build South-South AI hubs (e.g., with Brazil, UAE, South Africa) for balanced innovation networks.
Broader Geopolitical Context
- The AI governance race mirrors the 20th-century battles over trade and finance rules.
- Just as the IMF and World Bank institutionalised Western dominance, WAICO could become Beijing’s “Digital Bretton Woods.”
- Hence, India’s strategy must blend strategic autonomy with principled multilateralism, ensuring no bloc monopolises AI ethics or infrastructure.
Conclusion
As Yuval Noah Harari cautions in Homo Deus, “Those who own the data own the future.” India must shape AI’s global grammar—engaging strategically, yet preserving ethical and sovereign autonomy.
