Articles of Interest - Week 12/9 - 12/15

Chinese Military Thinking at the Crossroads of Biological Security, Biotechnology, and Global Health

Alexis Dale-Huang, Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, The National Bureau of Asian Research, December 4th, 2024.

Chinese military thinking is becoming increasingly focused on biotechnology and global health as key components of their national security strategy. According to a new analysis from leading researchers, China's military, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), views biological security as an essential strategic domain on par with cyber and space. China seeks to utilize "health diplomacy" through vaccine distribution and medical aid missions to expand its global influence and gain favor with other countries. The authors highlighted how the PLA has already used this tactic in the past, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when distributing vaccines to Africa. The authors highly recommended increased cooperation between the U.S. national security and biotechnology communities to better understand and respond to these actions by China. They also suggested more dialogue with China on shared global health challenges despite the potential national security threats posed by their potential militarization of biotechnology.

On the one hand, China's growing involvement in global health initiatives could help address worldwide medical challenges. On the other hand, the report also raises valid concerns about how the PLA's biotech research and data collection might be used to enhance the CCP's military capabilities. Like most emerging technologies, the realm of biotechnology is incredibly complicated, making it difficult for decision-makers in the U.S. to effectively and swiftly take action to undermine emerging threats in this field. Should China weaponize its biotechnology research, it would pose an immense threat to the U.S., especially if the country is underprepared. I appreciated the balanced approach that the two authors took in their recommendations. Emerging technology challenges should not be solely framed as an "us vs. them" problem, especially regarding China, as many associated threats will require working together to address them adequately. While I firmly believe that the U.S. should do everything it can to prepare for the threats posed by the PLA's possible militarization of biotechnology, I don't think that should mean closing the door on communication and cooperation with China over related issues. As always, finding a balance between protecting U.S. national security and mitigating threats will be necessary. On a side note, this paper's other subsections were highly insightful and worth reading if you have the time. 

Malaysia launches national AI office

NAIO. December 12th, 2024.

Malaysia has taken a step into the AI era with the launch of its National AI Office (NAIO). The country seeks to establish itself as a regional AI leader within ASEAN. The initiative, unveiled by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, hopes to create an AI ecosystem that reflects Malaysian values and priorities rather than simply adopting Western or Eastern approaches. Operating under the Ministry of Digital, NAIO will coordinate AI research, adoption, and commercialization efforts while focusing on practical applications. These applications range from helping local fishermen locate the best fishing spots to enabling authorities to better manage natural disasters.

This sort of development will likely become commonplace as AI and other emerging technologies advance and defuse from the leading AI countries (like the U.S. and China). The creation of NAIO reflects a broader trend among countries to establish their own AI governance frameworks rather than simply following the lead of major tech powers. I believe this more neutral approach will benefit global AI development and regulation. Should the race to develop AI technology and AI regulation become split and take a “Cold-War-like” path between the U.S. and China, it would likely spell disaster and cause an AI arms race. 

Russia teams up with BRICS to create AI alliance, Putin says 

Gleb Bryanski, Reuters. December 11th, 2024.

Russia has announced plans to create an "AI Alliance Network" with BRICS partners and other nations. This announcement is the Kremlin's latest attempt to challenge Western technological dominance. At Moscow's premier AI conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited global scientists to join this initiative. Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Serbia, and Indonesia are already involved with this initiative. Russia has been dealing with widespread Western sanctions since it invaded Ukraine in 2022 (and before), making technological development difficult as the sanctions have severely limited Russia's access to components like microchips. Because of these sanctions, Russia has sought alternative partnerships and development paths for its emerging technology sector, particularly with China. Despite Russia's current ranking of 31st out of 83 countries in AI implementation, the Kremlin has set aggressive targets for AI development in the coming years. Russia is projecting a $109 billion contribution to its GDP by 2030 and seeks to equip 80% of its workforce with AI skills.

As discussed above, I firmly believe that a split global approach to AI development and regulation will only lead to an AI arms race that dramatically increases the risk of conflict. Russia's current poor relationship with Western countries understandably has caused them to look elsewhere for partners in emerging technology. That said, the U.S. and Western countries should seek to partner, or at least communicate with the other countries that have partnered with Russia, especially China. I cannot confidently say that I believe China would be willing to work closely with the U.S. (or that the U.S. would be willing to work closely with China). Still, in a perfect world, the best approach to mitigating AI risks and miscalculations would be working together to address these challenges. Unfortunately, this is a far from perfect world. However, the U.S. and other countries should still try to establish these communication channels should we ever reach the point where both sides are willing to engage. A direct line of communication between high-level decision-makers is better to have and not need than need and not have. I hope that the importance of communication for de-escalation and crisis management does not require a crisis to be realized.