Latin America charts independent, flexible course amid US-China AI rivalry

Latin America faces a pivotal choice as the U.S. and China advance competing visions for global AI governance, with Washington framing artificial intelligence as a zero-sum race for technological dominance while Beijing positions AI as a collaborative “global public good.” The region’s response could determine its technological sovereignty for decades, but a third path of digital non-alignment may offer the strongest strategy for preserving independence while accessing benefits from both superpowers.

The competing visions: Two radically different AI strategies emerged from the world’s technological superpowers in recent weeks, creating pressure for Latin American nations to choose sides.

• The Trump administration’s “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan” frames AI as a zero-sum competition where the U.S. must achieve “unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance,” launching an “American AI Exports Program” to export “full-stack” American AI technology packages.
• China’s “Action Plan on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence” positions AI as a “global public good” requiring multilateral cooperation, with Premier Li Qiang emphasizing that artificial intelligence should benefit all humanity.
• The U.S. approach reads like “a digital Monroe Doctrine,” establishing technological spheres of influence while excluding adversaries through export controls, while China promises infrastructure sharing, knowledge transfer, and UN-based governance frameworks.

Why this creates a dilemma: Latin American countries face complex pressures that make choosing either path problematic for their technological development.

• Brazil has developed sophisticated AI ethics frameworks and world-class research institutions but depends on U.S. cloud services while welcoming Chinese investment in telecommunications and manufacturing.
• Mexico’s proximity to the U.S. limits flexibility, as adopting Chinese AI standards would be viewed as a national security threat by its northern neighbor, yet its manufacturing base relies on Chinese supply chains.
• Adopting either model wholesale risks “swapping one form of technological dependence for another,” limiting indigenous innovation and sovereignty.

The digital non-alignment strategy: Regional leaders are exploring a third path that balances relationships with both technological powers while preserving autonomy.

• Chile’s LatamGPT initiative exemplifies this approach, combining U.S. hyperscalers like AWS and Microsoft with Huawei cloud infrastructure and Asia-Pacific connectivity via Google’s Humboldt trans-Pacific cable.
• Brazil’s $4 billion, four-year AI Plan “hedges the U.S.–China rivalry by pushing tech sovereignty: domestic models and compute, public financing” through development banks FNDCT and BNDES, “and rule-setting via the G20 and the United Nations.”
• This strategy mirrors the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, allowing countries to benefit from both blocs without full subordination to either.

Regional coordination opportunities: Latin America could leverage collective action to strengthen its negotiating position and technological independence.

• A Latin American AI consortium could pool resources for research and development, sharing costs and expertise across borders while preventing vendor lock-in.
• Brazil’s technical sophistication and market size could anchor regional cooperation, with Mexico’s manufacturing expertise, Central America’s growing tech sector, Argentina’s research institutions, and Chile’s digital infrastructure creating a comprehensive ecosystem.
• Regional data governance frameworks could protect sovereignty while enabling innovation, and joint procurement standards could prevent individual governments from being pressured into exclusive technology partnerships.

Cultural advantages: Latin America’s social traditions could inform more human-centered AI governance models than either superpower approach.

• The region’s “strong traditions of community organization, cooperative economics, and social solidarity could inform AI governance models that prioritize human welfare over pure technological progress.”
• Examples include Brazil’s General Data Protection Law guaranteeing review rights for automated decisions, Chile’s public consultation-based AI Policy development, and Argentine court rulings suspending Buenos Aires’ facial-recognition system on privacy grounds.
• This cultural dimension offers competitive advantages in developing trustworthy AI applications that face less social resistance, creating market niches neither superpower can easily replicate.

The urgency factor: Time is running short for Latin America to establish its independent technological path before options become limited.

• As both the U.S. and China accelerate efforts to lock in technological partnerships, “the space for autonomous decision-making is narrowing.”
• Countries that delay action may find themselves choosing “not between competing visions of AI governance, but between whatever options remain after the major powers have divided the technological landscape between them.”
• Regional leaders must recognize that “the choice between American and Chinese AI governance models is itself a trap,” emphasizing that Latin American societies should determine how transformative technologies get developed and deployed in their own countries.