Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In a time of deepening fractures across the global technology landscape, China's recent initiative to establish the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) marks a pivotal step in reimagining the international architecture of artificial intelligence (AI) governance.

Announced during the 2025 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, WAICO is not merely a bureaucratic proposal; it is a geopolitical signal. As the world navigates intensifying competition in the AI economy, which is projected to reach $15.7 trillion by 2030, the call for multilateral stewardship has never been more urgent.

WAICO is China's answer to a widening governance vacuum. While initiatives such as the Bletchley Declaration, the G7 Hiroshima Process and the UN AI Advisory Body proposed over the past few years have each advanced parts of the global regulatory conversation, they remain partial and often exclusionary. WAICO, instead, aims to offer a complementary, not contradictory, platform – one rooted in inclusion, development and sovereignty. In doing so, it seeks to reset the coordinates of international dialogue on AI.

The proposed Shanghai-based organization reflects both strategic foresight and normative ambition. China's offer to host WAICO is not just logistical; it leverages Shanghai's formidable ecosystem of innovation, infrastructure and international connectivity. With around 990 multinational regional headquarters, a critical mass of AI firms centered around Zhangjiang Science City, and experimental regulatory zones capable of piloting advanced frameworks, Shanghai offers a ready-made testbed for global governance.

WAICO's proposed structure is not without innovation. From the technology-sharing platform to the equity adjustment mechanism and rapid response unit, its architecture reflects a deliberate effort to integrate equity with functionality. A novel algorithmic compensation fund, financed by a modest royalty on commercial AI revenues, aims to address developmental imbalances without discouraging enterprise. Meanwhile, an AI-for-governance toolkit targeting disinformation and autonomous system failures offers tangible solutions for regulatory implementation, especially in areas lacking technical capacity.

The initiative's normative framework is equally notable. WAICO incorporates principles from China's 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative, emphasizing human-centric design, data sovereignty and algorithmic transparency. Yet it also echoes – and sometimes exceeds – Western standards in its ambition.

Perhaps most consequential is WAICO's orientation toward the Global South. At a time when digital inequality is hardening into structural dependence, WAICO places capacity-building, infrastructure development and non-interference at the core of its mission. This is not only a strategic move; it is a moral positioning. If over three-quarters of all AI patents originate from three economies, and if many developing countries still lack even the foundational computing infrastructure, then any credible global governance framework must address this imbalance. WAICO seeks to do precisely that.

Skepticism from parts of the Global North is inevitable. The U.S. Department of State has already warned against what it perceives as a potential export of "techno-authoritarian governance." But such characterizations may be more reflex than reasoned. WAICO's governance model, notably its inclusion of corporate voting rights and its alignment with the UN Global Digital Compact, is structurally open. And unlike some Western-led processes, it does not impose ideological preconditions on participation. Instead, it offers a tiered and phased membership pathway – one that rewards commitment to shared standards while allowing for national adaptation flexibility.

Indeed, WAICO's success will hinge not only on its ambition but also on its ability to operationalize its vision across diverse political and developmental contexts. Still, three contradictions remain central: the balance between technological neutrality and civilizational values; the tension between intellectual property protection and algorithmic redistribution; and the challenge of globalizing a state-driven innovation model without sparking ideological confrontation. These are not problems exclusive to China; they are shared dilemmas of all who seek to govern AI in a globalized world.

To navigate these, WAICO may benefit from focusing its early agenda on non-controversial public goods. AI applications in climate modeling, disaster response and agricultural optimization offer high-impact, low-politics domains for early success.

Ultimately, WAICO is not just a Chinese initiative – it is a litmus test for whether the world is ready to move from fragmented declarations to functional governance. It is a proposal that accepts the reality of geopolitical rivalry, yet insists on rules over chaos. It acknowledges competition, but insists on cooperation. And it affirms sovereignty, while promoting shared responsibility.

In a digital era where the stakes of inaction grow by the hour, WAICO is a timely and necessary experiment. Whether it becomes an enduring institution or a missed opportunity will depend less on China's intentions than on the international community's willingness to engage constructively with a framework that dares to imagine a shared future for artificial intelligence. The world should not let the moment pass.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions?on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)