Artificial Intelligence Independence Weakens All-The United States Can Take a New Approach
In recent months, several countries have announced plans to develop their own AI infrastructures under national leadership while partnering with US providers like Anthropic and Nvidia. One such country is Switzerland, which has become a growing tech hub hosting branches of US AI companies. This strategic approach combines national infrastructure development with partnerships involving US AI technology providers.
The UK, for instance, has declared that sovereign infrastructure allows it to protect sensitive data, direct resources towards national priorities, and ensure resilience in the face of global instability and supply chain disruption. The UK's recent compute roadmap prioritises AI infrastructure built on British soil and under domestic oversight.
However, the UK's strategy is not without controversy. Some argue that the second set of justifications for this strategy, limiting foreign competition to support and protect domestic AI industries and national economic interests, is protectionism, plain and simple. Governments may present control-oriented AI sovereignty as a fair demand, but it allows them to cherry-pick and is a form of protectionism.
Protectionism met with protectionism creates a self-defeating spiral, leaving both sides worse off and eroding the trust and collaboration necessary for a collective AI leadership. The current problem in US policy is that it conveys a binary choice between being a customer of the United States or China, reducing partners to clients rather than partners in building shared leadership.
To break this cycle, restore its authority, and build the collective strength needed to counter China, the United States needs to break from its own protectionist reactions and revive a tradition of national developmentalism. The offer to partner with the United States must be clear: a partnership that secures the privacy and resilience countries need while giving them a genuine stake in building influence, capturing value, and exercising leadership as part of a collective.
Michael Kratsios, White House Technology Advisor, endorsed the idea of control-oriented AI sovereignty at the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea last month. His endorsement was for the ability of a nation to dictate the terms on which foreign AI operates within national borders. However, insisting on measures like AI compute localization rather than allowing US firms the flexibility to comply with national standards through other effective means is not about security or resilience, but about disadvantaging foreign providers and shoring up domestic firms.
The UK's 2024 AI Sector Study reports that UK businesses are justifying AI sovereignty as a reaction to US protectionism in trade. The United Kingdom is partnering with US providers such as Anthropic and Nvidia to expand its national computing capabilities. Yet, countries that feel boxed into this binary often reach for sovereignty as a way to carve out influence, erecting barriers, localizing infrastructure, and duplicating capacity.
The idea that nations can invoke "AI sovereignty" to draw on US technology when convenient, while walling off their markets, is not a bargain US policymakers should entertain. To foster a collaborative and innovative global AI landscape, it is crucial to move beyond protectionism and towards partnerships that benefit all parties involved.
