Technology has become a central pillar of global power competition. In the digital age, nations view control of cutting-edge technologies as essential to economic growth, military strength, and international influence. Breakthroughs in areas like artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced telecommunications can “reshape the global balance of power”. As one expert notes, countries now compete not just with armies and economies but with research and innovation: a state’s ability to innovate and adopt new technology can determine its standing on the world stage. This is true across multiple domains – from quantum computing to biotechnology – but nowhere is it more visible than in information and communications technologies.

In the era of digital networks, control over technology infrastructures like 5G networks and AI platforms confers economic and strategic influence on nations.

The Geopolitics of 5G Infrastructure

The rollout of 5G mobile networks has become a prime geopolitical battleground. China’s Huawei and ZTE companies lead the world in 5G technology and have deployed networks globally, but Western governments worry about security risks. U.S. and allied officials accuse Huawei of ties to Beijing and fear that Chinese-built 5G equipment could be used for espionage or cyber attacks. These concerns led to sweeping measures: by 2020, the United States, Australia, Japan, and others had effectively banned Huawei from their 5G markets. In Europe, the European Commission issued a “5G cybersecurity toolbox” urging member states to treat Chinese suppliers as high-risk; eleven EU countries have since imposed restrictions or outright bans on Huawei (and ZTE) equipment in their networks. India similarly moved in 2020 to exclude Huawei and ZTE from its 5G rollout, citing national security after a China border clash. In short, many U.S. allies and partners have restricted Chinese 5G gear on security grounds, even as those companies remain popular in other markets.

Telecom hardware made by Huawei (pictured) became a flashpoint. By 2024, many Western nations had banned or restricted Huawei from 5G networks amid espionage fears.

These moves reflect larger strategic stakes. Control over 5G isn’t just a technical issue; it touches on espionage, supply chains, and alliance politics. For example, Huawei was once ubiquitous in Europe’s telecom industry, but amid U.S. pressure, Europe’s approach became mixed: some EU states banned Huawei entirely, others allowed it with limits, and several did nothing. Where Huawei remains active, there are debates about whether relying on Chinese tech could force a split in the digital world. In fact, analysts warn of a coming “digital iron curtain” if nations must choose between U.S. and Chinese technology ecosystems. Meanwhile, China has been pushing its own 5G exports — building infrastructure in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia as part of its Digital Silk Road — which could shift influence toward Beijing in those regions. In short, the 5G saga illustrates how network infrastructure has become a matter of national security and geopolitical rivalry.

Artificial Intelligence as a Strategic Asset

AI is seen by governments as the next frontier of geopolitical competition. Nations believe that AI can power economic growth (through productivity gains and new industries) as well as military advantage (through smarter weapons, intelligence analysis, and cyber tools). Experts warn that countries “could see their power rise or fall” based on how they harness AI. For example, military planners envision autonomous drones, AI-assisted decision systems, and cyberdefense tools that rely on advanced machine learning. Indeed, some current AI-powered systems can identify and engage targets without human input, a transformative shift in warfare. Leading militaries (from the U.S. to China and Russia) are investing heavily to incorporate AI into fighter jets, ships, and command systems. All major powers have declared AI a defense priority: U.S. defense strategy, China’s Military–Civil Fusion policy, and Russian military doctrine all explicitly push AI integration. In practice, the Ukraine war has been described as a testing ground for these new technologies, from loitering munitions to automated threat analysis.

At the same time, AI shapes economic and social power. The companies and countries that lead in AI set the standards for data-driven industries and global platforms. For example, U.S. tech giants (like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft) and Chinese firms (like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) race to develop next-generation AI models. Some analysts frame this as an “AI arms race” for technological supremacy. The Trump administration’s 2025 AI plan bluntly put it: **“Breakthroughs in AI “have the potential to reshape the global balance of power… As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain… technological dominance.”**. In other words, leaders see AI not just as a business opportunity but as a core part of national security.

Governments are accordingly rolling out national AI strategies. The United States has largely left AI development to the free market, but is now bolstering R&D and focusing on the military angle (for example, running testbeds for AI decision-support in diplomacy). President Biden’s 2022 AI Executive Order and 2025 America’s AI Action Plan emphasize federal investment in AI R&D, workforce training, and partnerships with industry. Meanwhile, China has a state-driven roadmap (the “Next Generation AI Development Plan” from 2017) aiming for global leadership by 2030. Chinese authorities poured money into AI firms and research labs, and have already achieved major advances in areas like facial recognition and language processing. Experts note China’s advantage in large-scale data and state coordination may let it excel at deploying AI across society and the economy. Beijing also openly promotes AI for surveillance and social control; critics point out that China’s vast AI deployment in Xinjiang and elsewhere exemplifies how the technology can be used for political repression.

India and Europe also have distinct approaches. India has emphasized inclusive, welfare-oriented AI: its 2018 NITI Aayog strategy and recent policies focus on using AI for agriculture, healthcare, financial inclusion, and governance. At the 2023 G20 in New Delhi, India, championed a “pro-innovation” approach, stressing that AI should benefit the Global South. India advocates “collaborative AI” and equitable access, aiming to become a hub for scalable AI solutions. On 5G, India has moved to protect its networks (effectively banning Huawei) even while pursuing large-scale digitization at home (with systems like Aadhaar and UPI feeding data into AI systems). Europe has focused on regulation and sovereignty. The EU’s forthcoming AI Act (negotiated since 2021) will impose strict rules on so-called “high-risk” AI applications (healthcare, criminal justice, critical infrastructure), and impose transparency obligations on AI companies. EU leaders speak of “digital sovereignty” – ensuring Europe has its own cloud platforms, semiconductors, and software, rather than depending on American or Chinese providers. For example, EU legislators passed the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act to rein in big tech, and are investing in homegrown AI and chipmaking. Brussels and member capitals worry that without these measures, Europe could lag in new tech (rightly pointing out that “90% of the EU’s data is managed by US companies” and most cutting-edge chips are made in Asia).

In summary, AI is now a global contest of ideas and interests. Countries frame it as an existential competition: will AI serve openness and free markets, or will it advance state-controlled models? The result will shape economies and militaries worldwide. As RAND analysts put it, geopolitics “may never be the same” with advanced AI, and “the AI development path that ultimately unfolds will matter enormously for the future world”.

Case Studies: United States, China, India, Europe

United States

The U.S. has responded to the tech competition with multiple tools. It has banned Huawei from U.S. infrastructure (declaring the company a national security threat) and pressured allies to follow suit. It has imposed strict export controls on advanced chips and technology: since 2022, the Commerce Department has required licenses for cutting-edge AI chips (from Nvidia, AMD, etc.) shipped to China. The U.S. is also investing massively in domestic industry: the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act allocates ~$52.7 billion to boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and R&D. These funds are already spurring announcements of new fabs in Arizona, Ohio, and other states. In security cooperation, the U.S. has enlisted allies through informal pacts (e.g., a “Chip 4” dialogue with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan on supply chains, and sharing of 5G security among Five Eyes intelligence partners). American policy mixes open innovation with vigilant defense: for example, U.S. agencies push AI adoption, but also emphasize benchmarking and testing models in foreign-policy contexts (so-called “AI for statecraft”).

China

Beijing has mounted its own full-court press. Since 2015’s “Made in China 2025” plan, China has prioritized self-sufficiency in strategic tech: government subsidies and industrial policy aim to reduce dependence on foreign semiconductors and AI tools. Chinese firms dominate domestic markets for 5G and AI, and in many cases outspend Western rivals. Politically, the Communist Party explicitly integrates tech into national strategy: top leadership has said AI development is key to national rejuvenation. China’s model contrasts with the U.S.: it favors government-led deployment (for example, state-run “AI cloud platforms”) and doesn’t shy away from using AI for surveillance. The government is also building global partnerships on its terms: for instance, China exports 5G networks through its Belt and Road initiatives and promotes open-source AI projects to gain influence, even as the U.S. warns that such openness could aid adversaries.

India 

As Asia’s third-largest economy, India is increasingly a tech actor. New Delhi has declared “digital sovereignty” goals: it now requires local data storage for many services and has enacted data protection laws (the Personal Data Protection Act) with an eye on security and local industry. On 5G, India initially flirted with Huawei in trials but ultimately barred it in 2020 by invoking border-security rules. India is also wooing chipmakers: in 2023, it announced large incentives for semiconductor fabs and approved dozens of chip-design projects under its National Semiconductor Mission. In AI, India seeks a balance between innovation and risk. Its flagship policy, AI for All, promotes AI use in agriculture, health, and education. Importantly, India positions itself as a leader for the Global South: it hosted the Global Partnership on AI summit and has pushed a “collaborative AI” concept to ensure developing countries also benefit from AI technology.

European Union

Europe’s approach is defined by regulation and strategic investment. The EU has unveiled multi-billion-dollar programs to bolster its digital industries. The European Chips Act (effective 2023) aims to double Europe’s share of global chip production to 20% by 2030, combining funding for R&D, a new “Chips Joint Undertaking,” and incentives for plants on European soil. Brussels also moved to protect its networks: in 2020, it issued the 5G toolbox, and in practice, about a dozen member states have restricted Huawei/ZTE. EU institutions stress that these measures are about “security and independence”. Ursula von der Leyen said Europe must “break [its] dependency” on foreign chips and dubbed semiconductors a matter of “technology sovereignty”. On AI, the EU leads with a novel regulatory framework: the proposed AI Act classifies applications by risk and bans certain uses (like social scoring) while requiring transparency for high-risk systems. Meanwhile, the EU champions digital rights globally (GDPR style privacy, strict content moderation rules, etc.), positioning itself as an alternative to both the American laissez-faire model and the Chinese control model.

Policy Responses: Export Controls, Semiconductors, and Sovereignty

As technology’s geopolitical weight has grown, governments have deployed a range of policy tools:

• Export Controls: Western nations have tightened rules on selling advanced technology, especially to China. In October 2023, the U.S. imposed new license requirements on exports of high-end AI chips (such as top-tier Nvidia GPUs). Japan and the Netherlands have similarly restricted sales of chipmaking equipment. Beijing retaliated by announcing controls on critical minerals like gallium and germanium (used in semiconductors) in 2023. Overall, these measures aim to hinder rival states’ access to cutting-edge hardware, but they carry economic trade-offs. Indeed, analysts caution that overly broad controls could undermine Western companies themselves.
• Semiconductor Strategies: Many countries see chips as vital. The U.S. CHIPS and Science Act (2022) provides $52.7 billion in subsidies to build fabs and support R&D. In response, companies like Micron and Intel have pledged tens of billions for new U.S. factories. The EU’s Chips Act (2023) likewise mobilizes funds and networks to onshore semiconductor production. Other players (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) are also investing heavily. The goal is to avoid a repeat of the 2020 chip shortages and to ensure semiconductors – the “brains” of electronics and weapons – are not hostage to geopolitics. As one commentator put it, semiconductors are “central to the modern digital economy… [and] at the centre of strong geostrategic interests and the global technological race”.
• 5G and Telecom Security: In addition to bans, governments are offering alternatives. The U.S. launched the “Clean Network” initiative to help allies build 5G without Chinese gear. European and NATO countries are collaborating on secure mobile standards. India has used procurement rules to steer its 5G future. At the same time, some nations are quietly supporting homegrown suppliers: for example, Sweden and Finland insist on using local firms (Ericsson, Nokia) for their next-generation networks.
• Digital Sovereignty and Data Laws: Beyond hardware, many states are asserting control over data and platforms. The EU’s landmark Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act require global tech firms to adhere to EU rules on competition, privacy, and content. India passed its Data Protection Act in 2023, mandating local data storage and stricter privacy norms. China enforces data localization through its Cybersecurity Law and Data Security Law. These moves reflect a broader push for “digital sovereignty” – i.e., ensuring that domestic industries and governments have enough control over the digital domain. Even if not motivated purely by geopolitics, such laws affect cross-border data flows and digital trade, influencing the global tech balance.
• Standards and Norms: Governments and international bodies are also trying to shape technology norms. UNESCO adopted the first global Recommendation on the Ethics of AI in 2021, urging all nations to uphold human rights in AI use. G7 and Quad discussions have produced “toolkits” and guidelines for responsible AI deployment. In military AI, forums like the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons have begun debates on autonomous weapons (the so-called “next Oppenheimer moment”). However, there is no binding international AI treaty yet. In practice, countries still primarily pursue national agendas, which can clash on issues like content moderation, cyber norms, or facial recognition.

Global Order: Alliances, Decoupling, and Governance

The emerging tech rivalry is reshaping alliances and the international order. On the one hand, it has spawned closer collaboration among like-minded democracies. The U.S., Japan, Australia, and India (the “Quad”) now meet to coordinate on technology security and supply chains. NATO leaders have recognized that AI, space, and cyber are core defense domains, and are boosting joint efforts (for example, new NATO AI centers of excellence). The EU and U.S. launched a Trade and Technology Council to align on standards and controls. Initiatives like AUKUS (US-UK-Australia) include provisions for joint development of quantum and AI.

On the other hand, technology competition is driving decoupling between major blocs. The U.S. and China are unwinding decades of tech integration: each is building domestic tech champions and wary of the other’s influence. Supply chains are being “friendshored” – with Washington urging allies to rely on trusted partners for chips and network gear. Observers warn this bifurcation could harden into a digital Cold War. The notion of a “digital iron curtain” highlights how technology could split the world: countries may soon face a choice of aligning with either a Western-led tech sphere or a China-led one. In such a scenario, global platforms and the internet itself might fragment along geopolitical lines.

These shifts also raise questions about global governance. Traditional bodies (UN, WTO) were not designed for digital-era challenges, and indeed China and the West have different visions (e.g., China favors state-led internet governance, while the West champions multi-stakeholder models). New international efforts (from the G20 Digital Economy Task Force to AI observatories) seek to fill gaps. But for now, much policymaking occurs in competitive silos. The United States and EU proudly tout their tech initiatives as setting a model for the “free world,” while China promotes alternatives like its own Digital Silk Road and regional data-sharing pacts.

The bottom line is that technology is not a neutral tool in the 2020s – it is a terrain of power. Every 5G tower, semiconductor fab, or AI regulation has geopolitical weight. As one expert wryly noted, unlike the Cold War era, today’s science and business are highly interconnected, but governments still see a strategic need to draw lines in cyberspace. The coming years will test whether nations can balance security with cooperation. If not managed carefully, tech competition could strain alliances and even rewrite international rules. Conversely, some analysts hope that shared challenges (like AI safety or cybercrime) might yet forge new cooperative frameworks. For now, the geopolitics of technology—from 5G networks to AI platforms—remains one of the most critical dimensions of global affairs.

.    .    .

Sources: 

Authoritative analyses and reports from think tanks, international organizations, and major media were used. These include the Council on Foreign Relations and Atlantic Council on Huawei and 5G; RAND and Hudson Institute on AI and national security; government policy documents such as the U.S. America’s AI Action Plan and CHIPS Act fact sheet; EU press releases on the Chips Act; and news analyses of India’s tech policies. All facts and quotations above are duly cited.