Great power competition for global leadership in artificial intelligence (AI): Reconstructing AI narratives of the United States, China and the European Union
Jakob Landwehr-Matlé, Kai Oppermann and Daniel Lambach discuss the key arguments from their new Review of International Studies (RIS) article. If you'd like to know more you can read the full article here - Great power competition for global leadership in artificial intelligence (AI): Reconstructing AI narratives of the United States, China, and the European Union
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most symbolically charged and politically consequential technologies of the early twenty-first century. Yet, much of the debate about global AI competition still understands it primarily as a technical or economic phenomenon. Governments routinely speak of an ‘AI race’ that will determine future prosperity, security, and power. Rather than assessing who is ‘winning’ this race in any objective sense, this article asks a different question: how do leading powers narrate AI, and what political work do these narratives do in international politics?
The article examines the AI narratives of the US, China and the European Union (EU) and argues that these narratives are central to the construction of AI’s meaning in world politics. Especially in forward-looking and uncertain technological fields, narratives are not mere reflections of reality. They shape expectations, legitimise policy choices and structure how actors perceive rivals, partners, and themselves. A proper understanding of global AI competition therefore requires close attention to the stories governments tell about AI and its geopolitical significance.
Empirically, the article makes a novel contribution through a systematic comparison of the AI narratives of the US, China, and the EU, drawing on 81 official documents. These include national strategies, white papers and policy reports published by the three powers between 2016 and mid-2023. Rather than examining policies or capabilities, the article looks at how the three powers make sense of AI competition. It demonstrates how these debates relate to broader ideas about world order, identity, and leadership. Narratives are understood as structured stories with three interrelated elements: the setting in which they unfold, the protagonists involved and the plot that gives them direction.
In all three cases, AI appears as a transformative technology with far-reaching effects on economies, societies, and power relations. Yet the narratives vary in their priorities, strategies, and international perception of the actors. The article shows how these differences shape opportunities for cooperation, competition, and confrontation.
In the US case, AI features within a competitive and often confrontational worldview. The narrative centres around the US’s ambition to maintain AI leadership. This leadership functions as a means of sustaining US global leadership and military superiority. The US sees itself as a challenged global AI leader. China appears as the primary strategic competitor that threatens not only American economic and security interests but also a ‘free and open’ international order. Europe appears as a broadly like-minded yet difficult partner, due to regulatory constraints. The plot of the US narrative revolves around winning or at least not losing the AI race. This focus presents AI leadership not only as an instrumental necessity but also as a condition for sustaining US global status.
China’s AI narrative unfolds in a predominantly competitive setting. Compared to the US, publicly accessible documents present a narrative that places greater emphasis on economic and societal transformation than on military applications. The narrative frames AI as a historic opportunity and a cornerstone of national development, modernisation, and ‘rejuvenation’. While Chinese documents acknowledge ethical and security risks, the dominant image is one of opportunity. In this narrative, the US is implicitly recognised as the leading AI power that China must catch up with and ultimately surpass. The EU, by contrast, plays a marginal role, mainly as a regulator and potential market. The plot centres on becoming a global AI superpower by 2030, illustrating how AI is woven into China’s longer-term project of enhancing international standing and recognition. At the same time, the narrative stresses the need to avoid international isolation, with initiatives linked to the Digital Silk Road and partnerships with countries in the Global South playing a central role.
The EU occupies a distinctive position between the two powers. Its narrative presents a worldview in which the EU faces a fiercely competitive global environment, while stronger cooperative elements remain present. The EU sees AI leadership as a source of global influence. However, the EU does not seek to become the sole AI leader in the way the US or China do. Instead, it accepts a position as one AI leader among others. In addition, the EU emphasises the societal implications and risks of AI. Fundamental rights, democracy, and trust play a central role in this perspective. The EU positions the US as both competitor and partner. China features as a systemic rival, though selective cooperation remains an option. The plot of the EU narrative centres on global competitiveness. Ethical and trustworthy AI serves as a European trademark and a source of symbolic and geopolitical influence.
Comparing these narratives yields several insights that go beyond existing accounts of AI geopolitics. The article shows that global AI competition does not unfold as a single, uniform race. Instead, global AI competition plays out across several interconnected arenas. The narratives display distinct storylines that emphasise struggles over technical infrastructure such as data, computing power, and hardware, as well as competition for human capital, skills, and societal adaptation. A further arena concerns rival efforts to shape international norms, standards, and acceptable uses of AI. Each arena follows a distinct logic of rivalry and cooperation. This helps explain why AI politics can heighten geopolitical tensions and yet allow selective collaboration. All three actors view AI competition as unavoidable, but their priorities diverge sharply across military power, economic transformation, and societal trust. In addition, the scope for cooperation and conflict varies across different dimensions of AI competition. Competition over hardware, data, and computing infrastructure, especially between the US and China, carries the greatest risk of confrontation. Competition over talent stands out as one of the most important arenas of rivalry among the three actors. At the same time, both talent and research involve lower potential for confrontation, with mutual dependencies in research becoming particularly evident. By contrast, work on norms and standards mixes rivalry with selective cooperation. Here, attempts and counter-attempts at international isolation also become evident.
The analysis suggests that material interests alone do not explain global AI competition. Across all three cases, claims to AI leadership carry symbolic weight. The AI narratives of the three powers also relate to questions of status and recognition in international politics. Status as an AI leader matters beyond economic, societal or security concerns as it signals influence over rules, standards, and future trajectories. In this respect, AI follows a familiar pattern seen with earlier technologies linked to prestige.
By foregrounding narratives and status-seeking, the article offers a novel perspective on the emerging global AI order. It demonstrates that AI narratives do strategic work. They justify investments, inform policy choices, and influence how actors view rivalry and cooperation. For scholars and practitioners, these narratives deserve close attention. They shed light on the direction of AI competition. They also help explain why AI now occupies such a central and potentially destabilising place in international politics.
Want to know more? You can read the full article at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210526101776
This particular article is for members only, however BISA members receive access to RIS (and to our other journal European Journal of International Security) as a benefit of membership. To gain access, log in to your BISA account and scroll down to the 'Membership benefits' section. If you're not yet a member join today.
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash
