Global AI strategies

As the artificial intelligence revolution continues to capture media headlines around the world, many nation states and international organisations are compelled to determine their stance towards this phenomenon that promises to reshape the very foundations of our societies. There is now a plethora of “strategies” and “plans”, that are both indicative of the overall disposition toward this technology and the proposed way forward. 

The landscape of global artificial intelligence approaches is in large part defined by strategic competition, where nations are vying for technological supremacy and actively pursuing distinct visions rooted in their political systems, economic models, and societal values. While governmental strategic documents should never be taken at face value and confused with reality (the map is not the territory!), it is nevertheless interesting to note the differences in approaches between individual actors.

After rescinding the (in) famous Biden-era executive order in the first hours of the new US Presidency, in July the Trump administration unveiled in July a completely new “America’s AI Action Plan”, aptly titled “Winning the Race”. The United States’ AI strategy is unequivocally driven by the goal of maintaining global technological dominance. This is framed as a national security imperative and a path to a new “Golden Age of innovation”.1 The central tenets of this strategy are accelerating innovation, building infrastructure, and leading international diplomacy. Artificial intelligence is seen as a source of national power and success and accelerating its development and adoption is top priority, where all other considerations are secondary and subservient to this overarching aim. The vision is bold and ambitious, up to a point where it could be even considered reckless. 

On the other side of the spectrum we have the European Union’s strategy, which is firmly founded on the principles of “trustworthiness,” and “ human-centric AI”. Its approach is a deliberate counterpoint to the innovation-at-all-costs model of the US, prioritizing democratic values and fundamental rights over technical progress and economic efficiency. The EU’s “AI Continent Action Plan,” launched in April 2025, ostensibly seeks to position Europe as a global leader by developing “trustworthy” AI technologies that enhance competitiveness while safeguarding democratic values. This is a vision of ensuring AI above all serves people and is a “force for good in society”. The EU has as the only major AI contender taken to “hard” regulation on a wider scale – the AI Act is touted as the “first comprehensive AI regulation” in the world, and the gamble is that the EU can export this approach to other jurisdictions relying on the so-called “Brussels effect”. 

Many smaller states adopt a light-touch and pragmatic approach to regulating and supporting AI development. 

A good example is the UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan, which maintains a pro-innovation regulatory stance, favoring flexibility over prescriptive legislation. It aims to fuel AI growth while ensuring safety—not through heavy regulation, but by enabling frameworks.

The Plan also seeks to transform regulators into enablers. Rather than acting solely as overseers, regulators are now expected to actively promote AI adoption. Key changes include:

• Sponsor departments must incorporate ‘enabling safe AI innovation’ into their strategic guidance.
  
• Regulators are required to publish annual reports showing how they’ve supported AI innovation – using measurable outcomes.

Japan’s AI strategy is heavily influenced by its current societal context, particularly its rapidly aging population and labor shortages. The overarching vision is “Society 5.0,” which aims to use AI to solve social issues and improve the quality of life for all citizens. Notable Japan has not opted for “hard” regulation, relying on a more agile approach, based on soft-law and standard setting by voluntary measures.

Singapore’s AI strategy is a pragmatic and action-oriented document, aiming to leverage its position as a global hub to attract talent, capital, and partnerships. The National AI Strategy 2.0 (NAIS 2.0) is a “whole-of-government, whole-of-economy” approach aimed at making the city-state a world leader and using AI for the “public good”. While not shying away from values, Trust being one of its 3 pillars,  the Strategy is clearly focused on encouraging value-creation activities, strengthening the AI startup ecosystem, and improving public service productivity through the use of AI. Singapore’s regulatory approach is described as “fit-for-purpose” and “tiered” in line with the overall pragmatic and goal-oriented approach. 

Another interesting example in New Zealand, where the National AI Strategy, titled “Investing with Confidence,” aims to promote widespread AI adoption, boost economic growth, and foster responsible innovation by adopting a light-touch, OECD-aligned, principles-based approach to AI governance. The strategy focuses on reducing regulatory uncertainty, building skills, fostering collaboration, and providing guidance to businesses on responsible AI use. Interestingly, perhaps as a rare testament to the realism of its authors, the Strategy emphasises practical adoption of AI over its local foundational development to leverage New Zealand’s strengths in sectors like agriculture and healthcare.

We cannot of course forget the “elephant in the room” and the only realistic rival to US dominance in AI – China. China’s AI strategy is a state-led, mission-oriented project unlike any other. For the Chinese, mastering AI is a “geopolitical imperative” aimed at establishing China as the “primary global AI innovation center” by 2030. Its key distinguishing features are a top-down, authoritarian approach to governance, the concept of Military-Civil Fusion, and the strategic use of data and open source as tools of furthering China’s ambitions.

The “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” (2017) set clear, time-bound targets: be competitive by 2020, become a world leader by 2025, and be the global innovation center by 2030. 

These goals are not merely economic but are framed in the context of global “great power competition” and as a matter of national interest.  AI is seen as a transformative tool for improving industrial output and enhancing productivity but also assuring social stability and national security. The key here is a holistic approach, where the security and military applications of AI form a tightly-bound integral part of the strategy.

Ultimately, the global approach to AI is a spectrum, ranging from the US’s audacious, innovation-first drive to the EU’s cautious, human-centric regulation. While the US and China are locked in a high-stakes race for dominance, smaller nations like Japan and Singapore are finding pragmatic ways to use AI to solve their unique challenges. The most effective strategy likely lies not at either extreme, but in a balanced approach that embraces innovation and technological progress without sacrificing ethical guardrails and human values. Striking this delicate balance is the true race to win.

As the AI Chamber, we’ve put forward our ideas in the form of the CEE AI Action Plan – a blueprint that champions regional collaboration and reimagines regulation as an enabler of innovation rather than a barrier. We’d love to hear your thoughts on our approach — the full plan is available at https://aiactionplan.eu/