Global AI governance at a crossroads

The divergence between the Paris AI Action Summit of 2025 and the New Delhi AI Impact Summit of 2026 represents more than a difference in signatory counts or diplomatic phrasing. 

It reflects a widening global schism: Is artificial intelligence a domain for coordinated cooperation under shared rules, or a battleground where great powers refuse any supranational constraints on their technological advantage? 

From Paris to Delhi, a multipolar governance landscape is taking shape — one in which the United States has signaled a clear stance: yes to voluntary coordination, but a firm no to binding “global governance.”

The Paris AI Action Summit sought to build on the momentum of Bletchley Park (the UK, 2023) and Seoul (South Korea, 2024), attempting to reconcile AI’s existential risks with its economic potential. Its core document, the “Statement on inclusive and sustainable artificial intelligence for people and the planet,” was endorsed by 58 countries, including France, China, and India.

However, the absence of the US and the UK as signatories weakened the prospect of a Western consensus. While the statement emphasized broad principles — inclusivity, sustainability, and narrowing the digital divide — Washington and London argued it lacked “operational clarity” and failed to sufficiently address national security imperatives.

Economically, Paris carried a dual message: a call for massive investment in Europe’s AI infrastructure — notably through the EU’s InvestAI initiative, which aimed to mobilize 200 billion euros — and a plea to reduce bureaucratic barriers to avoid falling behind the US and China. Politically, the summit reflected a European-led push for comprehensive standards. Yet, without American participation, its momentum faltered, leading analysts to label it a “missed opportunity.”

In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar

This followed a path set by the Bletchley Park AI Summit, which focused on existential risks, and the Seoul AI Summit, which shifted the emphasis toward practical innovation and inclusivity. Together, these summits formed the early architecture that Paris sought to refine — before New Delhi expanded it into a broader developmental agenda.

The India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi (Feb. 18-19) adopted a different lens under the banner “AI for All.” 

Its central document, the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact, secured a major diplomatic win: endorsement by 86 countries, including both the US and China.

The declaration broadened the global agenda to include digital infrastructure and social inclusion while maintaining a strictly voluntary, non-binding character. The US position here revealed strategic consistency: Washington rejected the Paris statement because it opened the door to supranational constraints that could limit regulatory autonomy. It embraced the New Delhi declaration precisely because it remained within the realm of "soft" coordination. This reflects a stable US policy — supporting multilateralism only when it preserves technological sovereignty and maximum flexibility in its competition with China.

The New Delhi summit also elevated the voice of the Global South, linking digital infrastructure to the empowerment of developing nations. Economically, the summit was a powerhouse, announcing more than $250 billion in commitments for infrastructure investments, with a specific focus on energy and efficiency.

Together, Paris and New Delhi have rebalanced the global conversation. Paris tied AI to safety and sustainability, while New Delhi added a developmental dimension. Yet the central challenge remains: the absence of binding mechanisms and the structural divide between European, American, and Chinese visions.

The world is gravitating toward distinct regulatory blocs: a stringent European model, a flexible US model, and a multipolar model emerging from the Global South. For policymakers in the Middle East and beyond, the lesson is clear. Nations must define their negotiating positions with care and participate early in shaping standards. In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

• Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar is an associate professor of economics at Cairo University.