The New Frontier of AI Sovereignty, Security, and Regulation: Escalating Power Struggles and Strategic Divergence

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues its rapid evolution, the geopolitical landscape is transforming into a complex tapestry of competing national interests, regional ambitions, and fragmented regulatory frameworks. The pursuit of AI sovereignty—the control over critical AI technologies and data—has emerged as a central battleground, fueling a new era of strategic decoupling, militarization, and regulatory fragmentation. Recent developments underscore an intensifying race among global powers, with profound implications for international stability, civil liberties, and technological innovation.

---

Major Power Strategies and Vendor Leverage: A Tipping Point

The United States, China, and India are adopting markedly divergent approaches to secure their dominance:

• United States: The U.S. continues to emphasize military AI and advanced surveillance systems. A key recent event exemplifies this shift: on February 24, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered an ultimatum to Anthropic, a leading AI vendor. The Pentagon’s message was clear: accelerate autonomous capabilities but only if safety and ethical safeguards are strictly met. This move signals a strategic push to control vendor access based on compliance, effectively leveraging defense procurement power to shape AI development standards. The Pentagon’s stance underscores a broader trend: conditional vendor engagement—where access to military contracts is contingent on adherence to strict safety protocols—aims to accelerate military-grade AI while mitigating risks of proliferation.

• China: Beijing seeks global AI dominance by integrating AI into civil infrastructure and military hardware. Chinese firms like DeepSeek are making strides in cost-effective, high-quality AI models for both civilian and military use. China’s rapid militarization—embedding autonomous systems within its defense strategies—raises alarms about regional escalation and the spread of military AI capabilities.

• India: Focused on self-reliance, India’s National AI Strategy promotes indigenous development to achieve strategic autonomy. This approach aims to reduce dependence on foreign technologies and bolster economic resilience against regional tensions.

---

Regional Governance and Sovereignty: Divergent Pathways in Asia and Beyond

Beyond the major powers, regional actors are asserting their independence through pioneering regulatory frameworks:

• Taiwan’s AI Basic Act (passed December 2025 and enacted January 2026) exemplifies regional autonomy. It sets out comprehensive standards for AI development, deployment, and ethics, positioning Taiwan as a regional leader in AI governance. The Act’s focus on transparency, civil rights protections, and industry standards offers a model for other Asian nations seeking to craft region-specific policies that diverge from Western and Chinese norms.

• APAC countries like South Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asian nations are increasingly developing region-specific AI standards to avoid over-dependence on external models. This movement toward decentralized regulation reflects a broader regional assertion of sovereignty, aiming to balance influences from the U.S. and China while fostering independent AI ecosystems.

---

Supply Chain Decoupling and Export Controls: Deepening Fragmentation

The bifurcation of global AI supply chains continues to accelerate, driven by export restrictions and technology controls:

• The European Union recently imposed restrictions on Chinese access to critical AI chips and technology, aiming to limit proliferation and strengthen its technological sovereignty. These measures contribute to a divided AI ecosystem, with Western and Chinese spheres increasingly isolated.

• The U.S. and EU are coordinating export controls, which, while intended to prevent proliferation of military AI, risk deepening technological fragmentation. This decoupling hampers interoperability and international collaboration, potentially stifling innovation and exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

---

Militarization and Autonomous Battlefield AI: Escalating Risks

The militarization of AI remains a focal concern, with recent breakthroughs emphasizing autonomous battlefield systems capable of operating under extreme conditions:

• The AI Defence Summit 2026 (AIDEF 2026) showcased resilient autonomous systems designed to function amidst high temperatures, electromagnetic interference, and physical shocks. Leaders like H.E. Theo Franken highlighted ongoing investments by the U.S., China, and India in autonomous weapons and battlefield analytics.

• These systems aim to enhance regional military dominance, enabling faster decision-making and tactical advantages. However, their deployment raises ethical concerns—notably the risks of unrestricted autonomous engagement, accidental conflicts, and destabilization of regional balances.

• The proliferation of advanced AI weapons, coupled with export restrictions and technological decoupling, heightens fears of misuse and escalation. Without robust international norms, such autonomous systems could increase misunderstandings and trigger conflicts.

---

Surveillance Technologies, Civil Liberties, and Cybersecurity: Growing Vulnerabilities

AI-powered surveillance continues to expand rapidly, bringing civil liberties and cybersecurity into sharp focus:

• Governments and corporations increasingly deploy facial recognition systems—notably Clearview AI—at borders, urban centers, and critical infrastructure. These tools enable behavioral monitoring, mass data collection, and predictive analytics.

• Recent cybersecurity insights reveal AI-accelerated threats that threaten identity security and cyberspace stability. According to cybersecurity leaders, the rise of AI-driven cyberattacks—including deepfake disinformation campaigns, automated intrusion tools, and identity impersonation—poses serious risks. As BTR (Cybersecurity Leaders’ Association) warns, “AI-accelerated threats are creating unprecedented vulnerabilities, making identity fragile and cyber defenses more complex.”

• These developments threaten to undermine public trust, facilitate repression, and exacerbate social unrest if unchecked.

---

The Need for Binding International Norms: Toward a Safer AI Future

While frameworks like the EU AI Act and OECD Responsible AI Guidelines have laid groundwork, enforcement challenges remain amidst sovereign pursuits of technological independence:

• Renewed calls for binding international treaties focus on military AI, transparency, and global norms. The AI Impact Summit 2026 emphasized the importance of multilateral agreements to prevent autonomous weapons proliferation and ensure human rights protections.

• Diplomats like French President Macron stress that global treaties are essential to curb autonomous weapons and set shared standards. The U.S. is actively lobbying to shape global AI regulations, seeking to protect American interests and counteract regional regulation efforts that might limit U.S. companies’ influence.

• Industry-government collaborations, including initiatives like “Tech Corps,” aim to set international standards and counter Chinese influence through public-private partnerships.

The AI-GPR Index

A recent innovation, the AI-GPR Index (Artificial Intelligence-Geopolitical Risk Index), provides a quantitative tool measuring geopolitical risks stemming from technology decoupling, export controls, and military AI deployment. This real-time analytical framework enhances policy situational awareness, helping leaders anticipate flashpoints and manage escalation pathways.

---

Current Status and Strategic Outlook

The AI landscape is characterized by heightened competition, technological fragmentation, and security concerns that threaten to destabilize international order:

• Major powers are racing to deploy cutting-edge AI, with vendor leverage, military applications, and regional governance models evolving rapidly.

• The fragmentation of supply chains and export restrictions amplify geopolitical tensions, risking technology bifurcation and reduced global cooperation.

• The escalation of autonomous weapons and surveillance technologies necessitate urgent international action to establish norms, transparency, and accountability.

---

Implications and the Path Forward

We are at a pivotal crossroads. The choices made now—regarding regulation, transparency, and international cooperation—will determine whether AI acts as a force for stability or a catalyst for conflict:

• Binding treaties on autonomous weapons and global AI standards are imperative to prevent arms races and protect human rights.

• Regional sovereignty efforts, like Taiwan’s AI Basic Act, demonstrate the desire for independent regulation, but risk fragmenting the global AI ecosystem if not balanced with international dialogue.

• The civil liberties concerns associated with surveillance expansion demand robust oversight, public engagement, and privacy protections.

In conclusion, the future of AI sovereignty and security hinges on collective leadership, diplomatic engagement, and industry accountability. The decisions of today will shape whether AI becomes a peaceful enabler or a destabilizing force—the path we choose will determine the stability, security, and rights of future generations. Building trustworthy, transparent, and cooperative frameworks is essential to harness AI’s transformative potential responsibly.