UN agency renews AI ethics push at Bangkok forum amid intensifying US-China tech rivalry

UNESCO’s forum on AI ethics, held this week in Bangkok, may have spotlighted noble ideals—but it also laid bare the fragmented reality of global tech governance. The agency’s call for ethical guardrails in artificial intelligence wasn’t new. What was telling, however, was how little traction those principles have gained where it matters most: in policy, infrastructure, and private-sector decision-making.

The message was clear, but the mechanism remains elusive. Ethics without enforcement don’t govern—they gesture.

While UNESCO champions fairness, transparency, and accountability, the pace of AI development is being set elsewhere. And the key players—national governments, platform monopolies, and algorithm-rich economies—aren’t inclined to wait for international consensus.

UNESCO’s 2021 framework marked a milestone: the first globally endorsed set of AI ethics guidelines. It aimed to draw a moral perimeter around technologies advancing faster than most regulatory systems can track. At this year’s forum, Director-General Audrey Azoulay reiterated the agency’s intent: “Preparing the world for AI, and preparing AI for the world.”

Yet the gap between intent and impact is widening. Values can be stated. Embedding them into the DNA of digital infrastructure—across jurisdictions with competing incentives—is an entirely different proposition. Even the most aligned actors struggle to move beyond principle into practice. For others, the framework is an optional accessory at best.

Across the globe, there’s little convergence in how ethics translates into code, compliance, or capital. If anything, the regulatory terrain is drifting apart. Europe’s AI Act remains the most structured legislative attempt to classify and constrain AI risk. But its reach stops at the edge of the EU’s internal market. For players in MENA, Southeast Asia, or the US, its influence is peripheral at best—observed, perhaps admired, but rarely mimicked.

In contrast, the United States has favored voluntary frameworks and industry self-regulation, prioritizing innovation velocity over moral scaffolding. Meanwhile, China has doubled down on algorithm registries and state-controlled data regimes—not to harmonize globally, but to consolidate control internally.

Each of these models responds to distinct strategic priorities. None are trying to meet in the middle. And none fully reflect UNESCO’s universalist appeal. Instead, what’s emerging is a patchwork of norms, often incompatible, occasionally transactional, and always geopolitically tinted.

Soft power can shape narratives—but not behavior. UNESCO convenes, consults, and codifies. But it cannot compel. It doesn’t fund AI labs, oversee infrastructure procurement, or adjudicate cross-border data flows. And without those levers, it’s hard to influence the AI stack’s construction. The uncomfortable truth? Governance today is less about shared ethics and more about digital sovereignty. Whoever owns the compute layer, sets the data standards, and writes the compliance rules gets to shape the game.

UNESCO isn’t in that room. Which is why, absent enforcement, ethical frameworks risk becoming what corporations print on policy decks—until those values threaten profit, market share, or geopolitical edge.

Universal buy-in may be politically attractive, but strategically naïve. The more viable path forward isn’t global convergence—it’s modular adoption. What does that look like? Think ethics principles embedded into specific policy areas—like education tech, healthcare AI, or automated social services—where sectoral alignment is easier to engineer. Or regional blocs (such as ASEAN or the AU) tailoring standards to fit shared context and capacity, rather than importing one-size-fits-all prescriptions.

UNESCO’s smartest role now may be to act less as architect and more as integrator: bridging gaps, translating standards, supporting coordination. That could mean:

• Embedding ethical criteria into multilateral research grants or procurement eligibility
• Offering voluntary certification models that global firms can use for reputational credibility
• Supporting sandbox environments where low-risk AI systems are tested under public oversight

The aim isn’t universal rulemaking. It’s ecosystem signaling. And incentives—not ideals—will determine uptake.

For multinational companies, aligning with UNESCO’s ethics language might not be legally required—but it’s becoming strategically relevant. In a climate of increasing scrutiny, adopting ethical frameworks can serve as a buffer against public backlash, investor concern, or political exclusion.

For mid-sized governments and emerging markets, especially in the Global South, the framework offers more than just alignment—it offers positioning. By selectively integrating ethics standards, these states can signal neutrality, attract responsible investment, and avoid dependency on either US or Chinese digital ecosystems.

And for academic institutions or policy coalitions, UNESCO’s framework provides a platform to steer the global conversation—before the logic of surveillance, extraction, and automation becomes normalized as default.

UNESCO’s renewed appeal carries moral weight. But moral weight without material consequence doesn’t move systems. Not when data supremacy, compute hegemony, and algorithmic control are shaping a new kind of industrial race. Still, dismissing the framework outright would be shortsighted. Even a symbolic standard has power—if it creates friction, raises expectations, or delays harm. Ethics may not build the AI future. But without them, what gets built may leave most of us behind.