Global Dialogue on AI as a UN Response to Fragmentation of Technology Policy and a Step Toward Strengthening Multilateral Cooperation

The active integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into international politics poses challenges in the field of technological autonomy and digital diplomacy. The competition between the United States and China leads to the formation of conflicting normative paradigms. The U.S. emphasizes democratic values and global partnership, seeking to maintain technological leadership. China integrates AI into its national rejuvenation strategy, subjecting technological development to state control. This creates risks of fragmentation in the digital space, an arms race, and destabilization of security. The aim of the study is to compare the approaches of the two powers, identify differences in their strategies and national priorities, and assess the risks for the future of global governance of technologies. The analysis will contribute to finding a balance between technological competition and the necessity of international cooperation to ensure a stable and secure digital ecosystem for the future. The research employs an interdisciplinary approach and a range of methods: a comparative method for analyzing the national strategies of the U.S. and China; a systemic approach to consider AI as an element of global governance infrastructure; and a formalization method to identify gaps in the international regulatory framework. Specific case studies and institutional initiatives are also analyzed. The research has scientific novelty, offering a theoretical model of "multilateral survival" for analyzing international institutions in the context of technological division. The study confirms that in the era of techno-nationalism, where the U.S. approaches (AI as a security tool) and China (AI as a means of state governance) mutually exclude each other, classical mechanisms of “soft law” by the UN are losing regulatory power. It is proven that formats such as the Global AI Dialogue are incapable of creating universal norms but acquire a new function – forming a "zone of minimal trust" for crisis communication. The main conclusion is that the future of global governance of AI lies not in normative unification but in ensuring minimal functional connectivity between conflicting ecosystems through pragmatic UN tools.