By Stuart Kerr, Technology Correspondent – LiveAIWire
Published: August 2025 | Updated: August 2025
Contact: [email protected] | @LiveAIWire
Meta description: State-backed AI models are being deployed as geopolitical tools of influence in Africa, South America, and Asia. How is code becoming a new form of soft power?
A New Battlefield for Influence
Diplomacy has always evolved alongside technology. From the printing press to radio, and later the internet, states have used communication innovations to shape narratives and project influence abroad. In today’s world, artificial intelligence has become the newest frontier. Rather than deploying tanks or trade embargoes, countries are increasingly exporting state-backed AI models—systems trained not only on language, but also on national values, politics, and strategic interests. These models are quietly reshaping how influence travels across borders.
Unlike traditional propaganda, AI systems are packaged as neutral tools for productivity, education, or public service. Yet beneath their code lies an architecture of influence. As a recent analysis from the Diplomatic Courier noted, China’s Digital Silk Road strategy positions AI and data infrastructure as key components of its soft power exports (Diplomatic Courier). By embedding Chinese-built AI platforms into African universities, Asian startups, and Latin American government offices, Beijing ensures that its worldview and technological standards spread far beyond its borders.
The Global South as a Battleground
Much of this contest is playing out in the Global South, where infrastructure gaps provide openings for external partners. According to the Carnegie Endowment, countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and Kenya are not just passive recipients but are actively shaping the AI landscape through export strategies and local alliances (Carnegie Endowment). These states recognise AI as both a development tool and a means to assert influence on the global stage.
For Africa, Chinese investment often comes bundled: fibre-optic networks, cloud infrastructure, and AI-enabled governance tools. In South America, partnerships with both China and the U.S. are producing rival ecosystems, with Brazil at the forefront of regional innovation. In Asia, India has positioned itself as a counterweight, exporting its own AI systems with an emphasis on open-source frameworks and democratic safeguards.
The Digital Silk Road and Beyond
China remains the most aggressive in promoting AI as diplomacy. The Sundial Press highlighted how Beijing’s Digital Silk Road integrates AI into a larger toolkit of fibre networks, surveillance systems, and smart city platforms across Africa and Asia (Sundial Press). By tying critical infrastructure to Chinese-built AI, Beijing creates dependencies that extend beyond trade agreements.
This approach mirrors earlier soft power strategies, such as Confucius Institutes spreading Chinese language and culture. But the stakes are higher now. AI systems do not simply teach language—they mediate access to information, frame conversations, and even influence decision-making in subtle but powerful ways. When a government ministry in Nairobi or a classroom in São Paulo relies on a Chinese-trained AI assistant, that interaction quietly reinforces Beijing’s presence.
Academic and Strategic Frameworks
The idea of AI diplomacy is not merely speculative. Scholars have begun developing frameworks to understand its strategic implications. A paper on arXiv outlines how generative AI models are already shaping public diplomacy and international negotiation practices (arXiv Paper). Meanwhile, a recent ResearchGate study traces the conceptual evolution of AI diplomacy as a distinct branch of foreign policy, where states export not just culture or technology, but coded influence (ResearchGate PDF).
These academic explorations underscore a central point: AI diplomacy is not only about competition between superpowers but also about how middle powers and developing nations use AI to amplify their voices. By building their own models or adopting those aligned with their political values, states can reposition themselves in the hierarchy of global influence.
Risks of Code as Diplomacy
Yet this new frontier raises pressing concerns. If AI models become vectors of state influence, what safeguards prevent misuse? Unlike traditional media, where biases are often overt, algorithmic influence is subtle. The framing of search results, the prioritisation of certain narratives, or the shaping of cultural idioms within AI responses all embed political leanings beneath a veneer of objectivity.
Critics warn that countries adopting foreign AI systems may inadvertently cede informational sovereignty. A ministry using Chinese AI translation tools may find its language policies subtly skewed; a school using U.S.-backed educational AI may absorb American pedagogical assumptions. Without transparency in training data and objectives, users risk being shaped by invisible hands.
Echoes of Tech Rivalries
This struggle mirrors broader technological rivalries. Just as Google’s nuclear-powered AI infrastructure reflects an arms race in compute power, AI diplomacy represents an arms race in influence infrastructure. The contest is not about who builds the fastest chip, but about who defines the cultural and ethical boundaries of the digital future.
As Google’s Gemini expands across productivity platforms, and as Gemini’s integration into Google Workspace becomes routine for millions, we see how quickly AI systems can embed themselves into daily workflows. Apply that same logic to international relations, and the stakes of AI diplomacy become clear.
Toward Responsible AI Diplomacy
The question now is whether AI diplomacy can evolve responsibly. Scholars and policymakers alike stress the need for transparency, interoperability, and accountability. States that export AI models should disclose training data sources, governance structures, and intended use cases. Recipient countries must invest in AI literacy to evaluate these systems critically rather than blindly adopting them.
Multilateral forums may also play a role. Just as climate negotiations created shared norms for carbon accountability, international agreements could establish guardrails for AI diplomacy. Without such frameworks, the risk is a fragmented digital order, where competing AI blocs pull the Global South in conflicting directions.
A Future Written in Code
Diplomacy has always been about narratives, persuasion, and alliances. What has changed is the medium. Today, instead of pamphlets, radio broadcasts, or satellite TV, nations are projecting influence through algorithms and datasets. Code has become a new lingua franca of international politics.
The rise of AI diplomacy underscores the reality that power is no longer only measured in armies or GDP. Increasingly, it is measured in the ability to shape digital ecosystems and the values embedded within them. The battlegrounds of the future may not be deserts or seas but servers and cloud networks—spaces where influence is exerted not by soldiers, but by lines of code.
About the Author
Stuart Kerr is a technology correspondent at LiveAIWire, covering artificial intelligence, geopolitics, and society. His reporting examines how emerging technologies reshape diplomacy, alliances, and global power dynamics. More at About LiveAIWire.