Nations race for AI dominance as global power shifts

Nations race for AI dominance as global power shifts

Nations race for AI dominance as global power shifts
Shutterstock illustration image
Short Url

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a technological breakthrough; it is quickly becoming a linchpin of global power. While countries once focused on military alliances, industrial capacity, or energy resources, many now see AI as a crucial part of their national security and economic strategy.

This notion of “AI sovereignty” recognizes that whoever masters key components of the AI stack — ranging from high-performance computing to regulatory policy — will profoundly influence the world stage. Far from an abstract concern, governments across the globe are already putting billions of dollars into AI labs, ordering top-tier chips, and positioning themselves to attract or develop frontier technologies.

In the next few years, national leaders face a fundamental choice about how they will obtain the compute, data, energy, and regulatory frameworks that power advanced AI models. Some may opt to “build,” pouring resources into domestic research labs, data centers, and homegrown talent. Others may decide to “buy,” forming alliances with hypercenter nations or corporations that can supply cutting-edge hardware and knowledge.

This “build vs. buy” decision is not new in the history of technology. Countries grappled with similar questions when electricity, railroads, and telecommunication networks first arose. However, AI’s speed of evolution and its capacity to encode cultural values and worldviews in digital form make today’s decisions especially urgent.

One way to evaluate a nation’s AI potential is through four interlocking pillars: compute, data, energy, and policy.

Compute refers to access to high-performance hardware capable of training and running large AI models, often requiring specialized chips like graphics processing units. Data encompasses the quantity and quality of datasets that train AI systems necessary for advanced model capabilities.

Energy is the cost and availability of electricity — an increasingly critical factor because running large-scale AI workloads consumes enormous power. Finally, policy determines how governments regulate AI development, protect intellectual property, and set ethical boundaries on model usage.

Countries that have excelled in any of these pillars have a head start. The US has long been a leader in compute, hosting major chip manufacturers and cloud infrastructure giants. China is similarly advanced, although unique legal frameworks allow it to mobilize private-sector resources at scale.

Nations in the Middle East hold a comparative advantage in energy — ample reserves and low-cost power that could transform their economies into AI super-hubs if strategically paired with strong data-center construction and top research talent.

Meanwhile, regions like Europe are pushing forward on policy, trying to articulate a coherent approach to regulating AI models while safeguarding innovation.

For most nations, it is impractical to dominate all four pillars single handedly. At least in the near term, sovereignty does not require building everything in-house. Instead, the goal is to avoid dependence on unreliable or misaligned partners for any critical element of AI infrastructure.

Where a country lacks robust data center facilities, it might ally with a corporate cloud provider or a friendly state that can host compute capacity. Where local energy costs are high, a government might incentivize green power initiatives or forge international agreements to secure long-term energy contracts, thus creating an environment to attract AI labs and startups. The critical question is whether a nation can trust these alliances to remain stable and beneficial over time, particularly if geopolitical winds shift.

AI truly is a new dimension of geopolitics; therefore, each country can align its strengths toward building a robust AI ecosystem.

Mohammed A. Al-Qarni 

Leaders making these calculations should pay attention to several key indicators. First, watch where high-end computing hardware is flowing. Early chip orders and multi-year contracts for GPUs, tensor processing units, or specialized accelerators often signal a commitment to becoming an AI “hypercenter.”

Second, look for data-center investments and energy infrastructure expansions; both strong predictors of a nation’s ambition to host large-scale AI projects. Third, monitor research ecosystems: Are universities expanding AI curricula, are local tech firms partnering with global AI players, and is there a surge in AI talent visas or exchange programs?

Finally, observe the regulatory front. A patchwork of conflicting rules deters AI innovators and pushes them elsewhere, so any coherent federal-level framework is a sign a government wants to compete effectively.

Practically, policymakers can prepare in a few ways. They can provide clarity on data usage, ensuring local researchers have access to large, high-quality datasets while respecting privacy and ethical considerations.

They can incentivize the private sector to build and operate advanced data centers domestically, particularly if cheap energy is abundant. They might form strategic alliances, bilateral or regional treaties to pool resources and share the burden of significant infrastructure costs. And crucially, they can invest heavily in AI education and training, cultivating a workforce capable of building and maintaining sophisticated systems.

These efforts foster self-sufficiency and signal to international partners that a nation is a credible, capable ally in collaborative ventures.

Those who underestimate AI’s geopolitical significance may be left scrambling for relevance as alliances solidify around the countries and corporations that control the fundamentals. For instance, missing the chance to secure a pipeline of GPUs can mean lagging years behind in frontier AI research.

Failing to craft a coherent data policy could deter innovators, while moral and cultural values are shaped elsewhere. And overlooking the crucial role of energy means watching from the sidelines as other regions with the right mix of power, computing, and policy surge ahead.

This may sound daunting, but it also represents an unprecedented opportunity. AI truly is a new dimension of geopolitics; therefore, each country can align its strengths — abundant energy, a tradition of technical expertise, or a highly skilled workforce — toward building a robust AI ecosystem.

The path need not be isolationist; international partnerships and private-sector collaboration can fill gaps in a nation’s strategy, provided mutual trust and a well-defined division of responsibilities exist.

What matters is that leaders recognize the shift now, weigh their options, and act before the global map of AI power becomes locked in place. In the near term, sovereignty is about ensuring you have choices rather than being at the mercy of those who took the AI revolution seriously first.

Mohammed A. Al-Qarni is an academic and consultant on AI for business.

 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view

President Donald Trump says Russian leader Vladimir Putin ‘has gone absolutely CRAZY!’

President Donald Trump says Russian leader Vladimir Putin ‘has gone absolutely CRAZY!’
Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

President Donald Trump says Russian leader Vladimir Putin ‘has gone absolutely CRAZY!’

President Donald Trump says Russian leader Vladimir Putin ‘has gone absolutely CRAZY!’
  • Says Putin is “needlessly killing a lot of people,” pointingto Russia's escalating missile and drone attacks on Ukraine
  • “Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don’t like it, and it better stop,” Trump wrote on social media

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump made it clear he is losing patience with Vladimir Putin, leveling some of his sharpest criticism at the Russian leader as Moscow pounded Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with drones and missiles for a third straight night.
“I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday night.
Trump said Putin is “needlessly killing a lot of people,” pointing out that “missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.”
The attack was the largest aerial assault since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022, according to Ukrainian officials. At least 12 people were killed and dozens injured.
The US president warned that if Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine, it will “lead to the downfall of Russia!” But Trump expressed frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as well, saying that he is “doing his Country no favors by talking the way he does.”
“Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don’t like it, and it better stop,” Trump wrote on social media.
The president has increasingly voiced irritation at Putin and the inability to resolve the now three-year-old war, which Trump promised he would promptly end as he campaigned to return to the White House.
He had long boasted of his friendly relationship with Putin and repeatedly stressed that Russia is more willing than Ukraine to reach a peace deal.
But last month, Trump urged Putin to “STOP!” assaulting Ukraine after Russia launched another deadly barrage of attacks on Kyiv, and he has repeatedly expressed his frustration that the war in Ukraine is continuing.
“I’m not happy with what Putin’s doing. He’s killing a lot of people. And I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin,” Trump told reporters earlier Sunday as he departed northern New Jersey, where he spent most of the weekend. “I’ve known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he’s sending rockets into cities and killing people and I don’t like it at all. ”
A peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine remains elusive. Trump and Putin spoke on the phone this past week, and Trump announced after the call that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately” begin ceasefire talks. That conversation occurred after Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Turkiye for the first face-to-face talks since 2022. But on Thursday, the Kremlin said no direct talks were scheduled.
The European Union has slapped new sanctions on Russia this month in response to Putin’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire. But while Trump has threatened to step up sanctions and tariffs on Russia, he hasn’t acted so far.


US Justice Department reaches deal to allow Boeing to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes

US Justice Department reaches deal to allow Boeing to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes
Updated 26 May 2025
Follow

US Justice Department reaches deal to allow Boeing to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes

US Justice Department reaches deal to allow Boeing to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes
  • Under the agreement announced Friday, Boeing must retain an “independent compliance consultant” who will make recommendations for “further improvement”

WASHINGTON: The Justice Department has reached a deal with Boeing that will allow the airplane giant to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly misleading US regulators about the 737 Max jetliner before two of the planes crashed and killed 346 people, according to court papers filed Friday.
Under the “agreement in principle,” which still needs to be finalized, Boeing would pay or invest more than $1.1 billion, including an additional $445 million for the crash victims’ families, the Justice Department said.
In return, the department has agreed to dismiss the fraud charge against Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to avoid a possible criminal conviction that could have jeopardized the company’s status as a federal contractor, according to experts.
“Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and Department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.
“Nothing will diminish the victims’ losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers.”
Boeing on Friday declined to comment.
Some relatives of the passengers who died in the crashes, which took place off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019, have been pushing for a public trial, the prosecution of former company officials, and more severe financial punishment for Boeing. The Justice Department noted that the victims’ families had mixed views on the proposed deal.
“This kind of non-prosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in US history,” said Paul Cassell, an attorney for many of the families in the long-running case. “My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject it.”
Javier de Luis, whose sister, Graziella, died in the Ethiopia crash, said the Justice Department is walking away “from any pretense to seek justice for the victims of the 737Max crashes.”
“The message sent by this action to companies around the country is, don’t worry about making your products safe for your customers,” he said in a statement. “Even if you kill them, just pay a small fine and move on.”
Boeing was accused of misleading the Federal Aviation Administration about aspects of the Max before the agency certified the plane for flight. Boeing did not tell airlines and pilots about a new software system, called MCAS, that could turn the plane’s nose down without input from pilots if a sensor detected that the plane might go into an aerodynamic stall.
The Max planes crashed after a faulty reading from the sensor pushed the nose down and pilots were unable to regain control. After the second crash, Max jets were grounded worldwide until the company redesigned MCAS to make it less powerful and to use signals from two sensors, not just one.
The Justice Department charged Boeing in 2021 with deceiving FAA regulators about the software, which did not exist in older 737s, and about how much training pilots would need to fly the plane safely. The department agreed not to prosecute Boeing at the time, however, if the company paid a $2.5 billion settlement, including the $243.6 million fine, and took steps to comply with anti-fraud laws for three years.
Federal prosecutors, however, last year said Boeing violated the terms of the 2021 agreement by failing to make promised changes to detect and prevent violations of federal anti-fraud laws. Boeing agreed last July to plead guilty to the felony fraud charge instead of enduring a potentially lengthy public trial.
But in December, US District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth rejected the plea deal. The judge said the diversity, inclusion and equity, or DEI, policies in the government and at Boeing could result in race being a factor in picking a monitor to oversee Boeing’s compliance with the agreement.
The plea deal had called for an independent monitor to be named to oversee Boeing’s safety and quality procedures for three years. Under the agreement announced Friday, Boeing must retain an “independent compliance consultant” who will make recommendations for “further improvement” and report back to the government, according to court papers.


Head of controversial US-backed Gaza aid group resigns

Head of controversial US-backed Gaza aid group resigns
Updated 26 May 2025
Follow

Head of controversial US-backed Gaza aid group resigns

Head of controversial US-backed Gaza aid group resigns
  • Jake Wood says he accepted the role as head of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation "to help alleviate the suffering" in Gaza
  • But he is stepping down because “it had become clear that implementing the organization’s plan was not possible”

WASHINGTON: The head of a controversial US-backed group preparing to move aid into the Gaza Strip announced his abrupt resignation Sunday, adding fresh uncertainty over the effort’s future.
In a statement by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), executive director Jake Wood explained that he felt compelled to leave after determining the organization could not fulfil its mission in a way that adhered to “humanitarian principles.”
The foundation, which has been based in Geneva since February, has vowed to distribute some 300 million meals in its first 90 days of operation.
But the United Nations and traditional aid agencies have already said they will not cooperate with the group, amid accusations it is working with Israel.
The GHF has emerged as international pressure mounts on Israel over the conditions in Gaza, where it has pursued a military onslaught in response to the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
A more than two-month total blockade on the territory only began to ease in recent days, as agencies warned of growing starvation risks.
“Two months ago, I was approached about leading GHF’s efforts because of my experience in humanitarian operations” Wood said.
“Like many others around the world, I was horrified and heartbroken at the hunger crisis in Gaza and, as a humanitarian leader, I was compelled to do whatever I could to help alleviate the suffering.”
Wood stressed that he was “proud of the work I oversaw, including developing a pragmatic plan that could feed hungry people, address security concerns about diversion, and complement the work of longstanding NGOs in Gaza.”
But, he said, it had become “clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which I will not abandon.”
Gaza’s health ministry said Sunday that at least 3,785 people had been killed in the territory since a ceasefire collapsed on March 18, taking the war’s overall toll to 53,939, mostly civilians.
Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the war resulted in the deaths of 1,218 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.
Militants also took 251 hostages, 57 of whom remain in Gaza including 34 the Israeli military says are dead.
Wood called on Israel “to significantly expand the provision of aid into Gaza through all mechanisms” while also urging “all stakeholders to continue to explore innovative new methods for the delivery of aid, without delay, diversion, or discrimination.”

 


Israeli strike kills 20 in Gaza school housing displaced people, health authorities say

Israeli strike kills 20 in Gaza school housing displaced people, health authorities say
Updated 47 min 36 sec ago
Follow

Israeli strike kills 20 in Gaza school housing displaced people, health authorities say

Israeli strike kills 20 in Gaza school housing displaced people, health authorities say
  • Medics said the dozens of casualties in the strike on the school, in the Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City, included women and children

GAZA CITY: An Israeli strike on a school housing displaced people in Gaza killed at least 20 people and injured dozens, local authorities told Reuters early on Monday.
Israel stepped up its military operations in the enclave in early May, saying it is seeking to eliminate Hamas' military and governing capabilities and bring back the remaining hostages who were seized in October 2023.
Medics said the dozens of casualties in the strike on the school, in the Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City, included women and children.
Some of the bodies were badly burned according to images circulating on social media, which Reuters could not immediately verify.
There was no immediate comment by the Israeli military.
Despite mounting international pressure that pushed Israel to lift a blockade on aid supplies in the face of warnings of looming famine, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that Israel would control the whole of Gaza.
Israel has taken control of around 77% of the enclave either through its ground forces or evacuation orders and bombardments that keep residents away from their homes, Gaza's media office said.
The Israeli campaign, triggered after Hamas Islamist militants attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people, has devastated Gaza and pushed nearly all of its two million residents from their homes.
The offensive has killed more than 53,000 people, many of them civilians, according to Gaza health authorities.

 


Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them

Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them
Updated 26 May 2025
Follow

Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them

Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them
  • Already, several universities have announced hiring freezes, laid off staff or stopped admitting new graduate students

As the Trump administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to scientific research, thousands of scientists in the US lost their jobs or grants — and governments and universities around the world spotted an opportunity.
The “Canada Leads” program, launched in April, hopes to foster the next generation of innovators by bringing early-career biomedical researchers north of the border.
Aix-Marseille University in France started the “Safe Place for Science” program in March — pledging to “welcome” US-based scientists who “may feel threatened or hindered in their research.”
Australia’s “Global Talent Attraction Program,” announced in April, promises competitive salaries and relocation packages.
“In response to what is happening in the US,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, head of the Australian Academy of Sciences, “we see an unparalleled opportunity to attract some of the smartest minds here.”
Since World War II, the US has invested huge amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. That funding helped the US to become the world’s leading scientific power — and has led to the invention of cell phones and the Internet as well as new ways to treat cancer, heart disease and strokes, noted Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the journal Science.
But today that system is being shaken.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has pointed to what it calls waste and inefficiency in federal science spending and made major cuts to staff levels and grant funding at the National Science Foundation,the National Institutes of Health, NASA and other agencies, as well as slashing research dollars that flow to some private universities.
The White House budget proposal for next year calls to cut the NIH budget by roughly 40 percent and the National Science Foundation’s by 55 percent.
“The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration’s projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people’s priorities and continue our innovative dominance,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai.
Already, several universities have announced hiring freezes, laid off staff or stopped admitting new graduate students. On Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, though a judge put that on hold.
Research institutions abroad are watching with concern for collaborations that depend on colleagues in the US — but they also see opportunities to potentially poach talent.
“There are threats to science ... south of the border,” said Brad Wouters, of University Health Network, Canada’s leading hospital and medical research center, which launched the “Canada Leads” recruitment drive. “There’s a whole pool of talent, a whole cohort that is being affected by this moment.”
Promising a safe place to do science
Universities worldwide are always trying to recruit from one another, just as tech companies and businesses in other fields do. What’s unusual about the current moment is that many global recruiters are targeting researchers by promising something that seems newly threatened: academic freedom.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this month that the European Union intends “to enshrine freedom of scientific research into law.” She spoke at the launch of the bloc’s “Choose Europe for Science” — which was in the works before the Trump administration cuts but has sought to capitalize on the moment.
Eric Berton, president of Aix-Marseille University, expressed a similar sentiment after launching the institution’s “Safe Place for Science” program.
“Our American research colleagues are not particularly interested by money,” he said of applicants. “What they want above all is to be able to continue their research and that their academic freedom be preserved.”
Too early to say ‘brain drain’
It’s too early to say how many scientists will choose to leave the US It will take months for universities to review applications and dole out funding, and longer for researchers to uproot their lives.
Plus, the American lead in funding research and development is enormous — and even significant cuts may leave crucial programs standing. The US has been the world’s leading funder of R&D — including government, university and private investment — for decades. In 2023, the country funded 29 percent of the world’s R&D, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
But some institutions abroad are reporting significant early interest from researchers in the US Nearly half of the applications to “Safe Place for Science” — 139 out of 300 total — came from US-based scientists, including AI researchers and astrophysicists.
US-based applicants in this year’s recruitment round for France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology roughly doubled over last year.
At the Max Planck Society in Germany, the Lise Meitner Excellence Program — aimed at young female researchers — drew triple the number of applications from US-based scientists this year as last year.
Recruiters who work with companies and nonprofits say they see a similar trend.
Natalie Derry, a UK-based managing partner of the Global Emerging Sciences Practice at recruiter WittKieffer, said her team has seen a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in applicants from the US cold-calling about open positions. When they reach out to scientists currently based in the US, “we are getting a much higher hit rate of people showing interest.”
Still, there are practical hurdles to overcome for would-be continent-hoppers, she said. That can include language hurdles, arranging childcare or eldercare, and significant differences in national pension or retirement programs.
Community ties
Brandon Coventry never thought he would consider a scientific career outside the United States. But federal funding cuts and questions over whether new grants will materialize have left him unsure. While reluctant to leave his family and friends, he’s applied to faculty positions in Canada and France.
“I’ve never wanted to necessarily leave the United States, but this is a serious contender for me,” said Coventry, who is a postdoctoral fellow studying neural implants at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
But it’s not easy to pick up and move a scientific career — let alone a life.
Marianna Zhang was studying how children develop race and gender stereotypes as a postdoctoral fellow at New York University when her National Science Foundation grant was canceled. She said it felt like “America as a country was no longer interested in studying questions like mine.”
Still, she wasn’t sure of her next move. “It’s no easy solution, just fleeing and escaping to another country,” she said.
The recruitment programs range in ambition, from those trying to attract a dozen researchers to a single university to the continent-wide “Choose Europe” initiative.
But it’s unclear if the total amount of funding and new positions offered could match what’s being shed in the US.
A global vacuum
Even as universities and institutes think about recruiting talent from the US, there’s more apprehension than glee at the funding cuts.
“Science is a global endeavor,” said Patrick Cramer, head of the Max Planck Society, noting that datasets and discoveries are often shared among international collaborators.
One aim of recruitment drives is to “to help prevent the loss of talent to the global scientific community,” he said.
Researchers worldwide will suffer if collaborations are shut down and databases taken offline, scientists say.
“The US was always an example, in both science and education,” said Patrick Schultz, president of France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology. So the cuts and policies were “very frightening also for us because it was an example for the whole world.”