The AI Race: Western Anxiety Meets Civilizational Reality

The Manufactured Competition Narrative

As the world watches what Western media portrays as an existential technological competition between the United States and China, we must critically examine the underlying assumptions and imperialist frameworks that shape this narrative. The recent coverage of AI development as a “race” echoes the same Cold War mentality that has governed Western geopolitical thinking for decades. This framing deliberately ignores how civilizational states like China approach technological progress not as a zero-sum game but as an integrated component of comprehensive national development.

The article reveals several telling admissions from Western analysts: China’s “AI-plus” strategy prioritizes application across all economic sectors under unified state direction, while the US struggles with coordination between private stakeholders and suffers from weakening legal protections. What Western commentators describe as China’s “advantage” in state direction is actually a reflection of a fundamentally different philosophical approach to technology’s role in society - one that aligns with millennia of Chinese civilization’s integration of collective advancement and technological innovation.

The Historical Context of Technological Hegemony

Western technological dominance has never been merely about innovation for human betterment; it has consistently served as an instrument of imperial control and neocolonial exploitation. From the industrial revolution’s role in colonial expansion to the internet’s development as a vehicle for Western cultural hegemony, technology has been weaponized to maintain global power imbalances. The current anxiety about China’s AI progress stems from the West’s recognition that its technological monopoly - and thus its ability to set global standards favoring Western interests - is facing its most serious challenge.

When Tess deBlanc-Knowles of the Atlantic Council acknowledges that China’s approach involves “prioritization of application” across all sectors, she inadvertently reveals what makes Western powers nervous: China’s model demonstrates that technological progress can be pursued without adopting Western political systems or value frameworks. This represents an existential threat to the neoliberal consensus that has governed international relations since the Cold War’s end.

The Civilizational-State Difference

What Western analysts consistently misunderstand - or deliberately obscure - is that China operates as a civilizational-state rather than a Westphalian nation-state. This fundamental difference means China’s technological development isn’t constrained by the same short-term profit motives or election cycles that dominate Western decision-making. China’s integration of AI across surveillance, manufacturing, military modernization, and scientific discovery reflects a holistic view of national power that Western reductionist frameworks cannot adequately assess.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s comment that “China is going to win the AI race” because of Beijing’s “looser regulations, new energy subsidies, and direct intervention” misses the larger point: China isn’t “winning” according to Western rules but playing an entirely different game. The Chinese system’s fusion of state direction and private ambition represents a civilizational approach to technological development that has characterized Chinese innovation for centuries.

The Atlantic Council’s Revealing Initiative

The establishment of the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Commission on Artificial Intelligence explicitly aims to “ensure that the United States maintains its technological preeminence in an AI-defined world.” This language betrays the imperial anxiety underlying Western technological policy: the fear that without dominance, Western values (which they equate with “democratic dynamism”) cannot prevail globally.

Yet this framing conveniently ignores how Western-defined “democratic dynamism” has historically meant corporate control, privacy erosion, and technological colonialism. The Commission’s focus on “overall competitiveness across six critical realms” mirrors the same compartmentalized, reductionist thinking that has prevented Western nations from developing coherent technological strategies. Meanwhile, China’s integrated approach demonstrates how civilizational-states can mobilize entire societies toward technological advancement without the fragmentation that characterizes Western efforts.

The False Manhattan Project Analogy

The comparison between the AI race and the Manhattan Project reveals much about Western technological psychology. The Manhattan Project represented centralized, secretive technological development for military purposes during wartime. While the article correctly notes this analogy is “misleading,” it fails to recognize the deeper implication: Western technological breakthroughs have historically emerged from military-industrial complexes, while China’s advances stem from integrated national development strategies.

This distinction matters profoundly. When technological progress serves national development rather than military dominance, its benefits diffuse throughout society rather than being concentrated in weapons systems. China’s AI applications in manufacturing, consumer products, and scientific discovery demonstrate this developmental approach - one that Western analysts struggle to comprehend because it doesn’t fit their conflict-based frameworks.

The Real Stakes: Civilizational Values vs. Imperial Control

The article’s dramatic warning that the AI race will determine “which values—authoritarian efficiency or democratic dynamism—set global norms” represents perhaps the most transparent admission of Western anxiety. What Western commentators label “authoritarian efficiency” is actually the civilizational capacity to coordinate technological development with societal needs. What they celebrate as “democratic dynamism” has increasingly manifested as corporate-controlled technological exploitation that serves shareholder interests rather than human dignity.

The real competition isn’t between political systems but between fundamentally different conceptions of technology’s purpose. Western technology has largely served to concentrate wealth and power, while China’s technological approach emphasizes widespread application and societal benefit. This explains why Western analysts view China’s progress with such alarm: it represents an alternative model that challenges Western technological hegemony not through confrontation but through superior development outcomes.

Conclusion: Beyond the Race Framework

The AI “race” framing serves Western imperial interests by creating a confrontational narrative that justifies technological protectionism and containment strategies against China. This manufactured competition obscures the reality that technological progress need not be zero-sum and that multiple civilizational approaches can coexist and mutually benefit humanity.

Rather than accepting Western-defined competition parameters, Global South nations should recognize this moment as an opportunity to break free from technological dependency and develop sovereign capabilities. China’s demonstration that technological advancement can occur outside Western frameworks offers hope that the coming AI era might serve human dignity rather than corporate profits or imperial control.

The Atlantic Council’s anxiety about maintaining US “technological preeminence” reveals the bankruptcy of Western technological leadership. True global progress requires moving beyond imperial dominance models toward civilizational cooperation that respects different developmental paths and technological philosophies. The future of AI shouldn’t be determined by which power “wins” but by how humanity collectively harnesses technology for universal human flourishing.