Flint advises international businesses and investors on policy, politics, regulation and competition.
Flint advises international businesses and investors on policy, politics, regulation and competition.
Quick links
Sectors
Follow Us
As the world’s most advanced economies vie to gain a competitive edge in artificial intelligence (AI), they are also increasingly interested in the future of technology in the Global South. Governments are seeking to extend their influence and export their AI governance models, with profound implications for the regulation of technology around the world. In the best-case scenario, there would be a concerted effort to ensure broad interoperability of different approaches; however, there is also the possibility of the world being divided into two competing AI governance systems or, more likely, a fragmented, multipolar landscape with a patchwork of regulatory approaches. Below, we analyse these developments and what it means for business.
Discussions around AI governance have typically focused on the world’s wealthiest nations, with initiatives like the G7’s Hiroshima AI Process and AI Safety Summits in the UK and South Korea driven primarily by actors in the so-called Global North.
Learn more about how the AI Safety Summit shaped the direction of global AI governance in our analysis here:
However, there is a growing ambition to include the Global South, where economies hold the greatest growth potential and the majority of the world’s population resides.
Several recent developments highlight this shift:
The key question is how far these initiatives engender greater global cooperation on AI policy, or how far they lead to a fragmentation of policy approaches. The answer to this question will determine the ease with which businesses will be able to develop and deploy AI across borders in some of the fastest-growing regions of the world.
The US has recently made a concerted effort to lead global AI governance. A key move was last October’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, underscoring the US’ commitment to shaping global AI ethics. As Vice President Harris stated, this is to “ensure [the United States] leads the world in AI”. The order also includes plans for an AI in Global Development Playbook to address the unique risks and opportunities of AI in the Global South.
Building on this momentum, the US took a significant step in March by leading a UN resolution on “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI, addressing concerns that developing nations were excluded from agreements like the Bletchley Declaration. Central to the resolution is the recognition that human rights and fundamental freedoms must be upheld through the lifecycle of AI systems, a point likely directed at China. The resolution received unanimous support from 193 countries. The process reportedly involved over 40 hours of discussions and three months of negotiations with countries across the Global South and China, reflecting the complexities of global AI cooperation.
The resolution’s avoidance of contentious issues, such as AI’s use in military applications, further underscores the difficulty of reaching an agreement on issues of substance. While the focus on AI’s positive potential and development helped the US gain goodwill among developing countries, the failure to address these critical issues – even in a nonbinding framework – leaves significant gaps. These could, over the coming years, undermine global AI cooperation and deepen divisions among nations.
As US-China strategic competition will continue to be a defining feature of global affairs, China, too, is assertively promoting its vision of global AI governance with a focus on developing nations. In 2023, it launched the Global AI Governance Initiative (GAIGI), which focuses on developmental objectives aimed at enhancing “the wellbeing of humanity”, contrasting with the US emphasis on democracy and human rights protection. More recently, China successfully led a resolution at the UN General Assembly, calling for a “free, open, inclusive, and non-discriminatory” AI environment, wording implying criticism of US export and investment controls targeting China’s development of the technology. It also hosted the World AI Conference in Shanghai, where the Shanghai Declaration on Global AI Governance similarly promoted a globally inclusive approach to AI development.
These moves reflect China’s strategy to challenge perceived Western dominance in AI by promoting a model that includes developing nations. The timing of GAIGI’s launch, coming right after the US tightened export controls, underscores China’s intent to shape global AI standards by rallying the Global South and positioning itself as leading a more inclusive and equitable alternative to Western approaches.
However, despite China’s success in garnering support for inclusive AI development — demonstrated by the unanimous adoption of its UN resolution — substantive outcomes remain limited. For now, it is unclear the extent to which China’s efforts to regulate the technology domestically and to prevent it from being used to undermine government control could present a model for governments with authoritarian leanings around the world.
The European Union’s AI Act, which came into force on 2 August, marks the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for the development and commercialisation of AI systems.
For a deeper dive into the EU’s approach to AI regulation and what it means for innovation and risk, read our blog here:
Ever since the AI Act’s conception, European policymakers have emphasised the bloc's ambition to export its regulatory model globally, leveraging its first-mover advantage. This approach has been reflected in the EU’s institutional setup, with the newly established AI Office featuring a senior Adviser for International Affairs, who will lead the EU’s global outreach. Additionally, an important task for the new Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen, will be to promote the EU’s AI norms and standards globally.
The EU’s efforts are exemplified by its bilateral engagement with one of the largest developing economies, Brazil. In part due to several meetings between Brazilian and European officials, Brazil’s Proposed AI Regulation incorporates several elements of the AI Act’s approach, such as its risk-based approach and its focus on protecting human rights. However, challenges to the EU’s international influence have already emerged. The European Commission’s attempt to promote international harmonisation with the AI Act via the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention faced resistance. While the resulting Convention is broadly compatible with the EU’s policy framework, most non-EU countries rejected the AI Act’s extensive scope.
Ultimately, the “Brussels effect” – the EU’s capacity to extend its regulatory influence beyond its Member States – is unlikely to be as pronounced as in the case of the GDPR, the EU’s flagship privacy regulation, which became a global benchmark. Three main factors contribute to this: (1) the geopolitical sensitivity of the issue, with many countries recognising AI's strategic importance and fearing that over-regulation could hinder competitiveness; (2) the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology, which makes regulation a moving target; and (3) tech companies’ demonstrated reluctance to launch their latest AI models in Europe due to the EU’s regulatory regime. Despite these obstacles, the European Commission will continue promoting the AI Act’s approach through bilateral and multilateral engagements.
India is increasingly positioning itself as a leader for the Global South in AI governance. At the July Global INDIAai Summit, India reaffirmed its commitment to democratising AI and ensuring equitable access to AI technologies and their benefits for developing nations. As chair of the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) for 2024, India aims to expand the organisation’s membership from 29 to 65 countries by February 2025, with a focus on increasing representation from developing nations.
Historically, GPAI has struggled to include nations outside the Global North, but the recently announced merger with the OECD presents new opportunities. India has secured a key concession: GPAI will maintain its identity and operate alongside, not under, OECD members. This ensures that non-OECD countries have a platform to participate equally in policy discussions and advocate for AI policies tailored to their needs.
By promoting equitable access to AI resources—such as advanced computing infrastructure, high-quality datasets, and capital—India is paving the way for broader AI adoption and innovation across the developing world. These efforts have been well-received by nations in the Global South, who appreciate India's role in advocating for their interests in global AI forums. In the long-term, how effectively this approach will reshape the AI landscape and balance global power dynamics remains to be seen, though it presents a valuable opportunity for businesses looking to broaden their presence in some of the fastest-growing regions of the world.
Singapore is emerging as a key player in global AI governance, particularly in championing the interests of small states. It has played a leading role in driving the ASEAN grouping’s development of a policy position on AI, including its Guide on AI Governance and Ethics published in February 2024. Singapore’s leadership in the Forum of Small States (FOSS) – a voluntary, informal grouping of countries at the United Nations – highlights its commitment to bringing the Global South into the wider AI discourse.
A key initiative is Singapore’s partnership with Rwanda to develop an AI Governance Playbook for small states, published recently on 22 September. This playbook aims to provide practical solutions and reflects Singapore’s broader ambition of establishing a credible force of small states in digital governance that can collectively influence global AI norms. For businesses, Singapore’s co-regulatory and flexible model of AI governance could present an appealing alternative to some of the other regulatory models under consideration around the world.
The shifting landscape of multilateral AI diplomacy brings both opportunities and risks for business. These diplomatic efforts go beyond inclusivity – they are about shaping influence and control over the future global landscape of AI governance. Businesses will need to carefully monitor and track these developments.
Some combination of the following scenarios appears most likely:
In this scenario, efforts to establish a more inclusive global AI governance framework succeed. Though legal, cultural and political differences mean important variations in AI governance will remain, these accompany a drive towards agreeing basic standards and rules across borders. This simplifies compliance for businesses and enables smoother international operations.
In this scenario, two distinct AI governance ecosystems emerge, with one group of nations aligning with Western-led models, while the other follows the AI frameworks promoted by China and its allies. This bifurcation of the world into competing blocs could create regulatory challenges, forcing businesses to navigate varying standards and manage the complexities of operating within conflicting frameworks.
This is the most likely scenario, where the world sees a patchwork of regulatory and policy approaches. Each country draws on aspects of EU, US, Chinese, Indian, and Singaporean policy approaches but adapts them to the local context. Such fragmentation would require businesses to manage a diverse array of regulatory environments, adapting their strategies to a patchwork of evolving standards in living standards.
Flint’s AI team offers deep expertise in navigating these complex issues. We cut through the noise and rhetoric, providing clear, actionable insights to help businesses understand how these developments impact their product and business strategies. For tailored advice on adapting your strategies to these changes, please get in touch with us here.