“Intelligent World 2035”: a roadmap for progress or control? The geostrategic analysis behind Huawei's vision

AI as a Tool of Power: Huawei's Vision and the Global Security Dilemma

Huawei's evolution from a telecommunications giant to a global protagonist in artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced computing is not a purely commercial phenomenon, but a strategic component of Beijing's "civil-military fusion" policy. The ambitious forecasts contained in its "Intelligent World 2035" reports should not be read solely as a technological roadmap, but as a geoeconomic doctrine aiming to create a global technological superstructure. The direct participation of Huawei in the drafting of the "AI Safety Governance Framework 2.0" confirms its role as a key player in a state-controlled AI governance strategy. This strategy explicitly addresses the dual-use risks of technologies, such as their application in the production of weapons and in cognitive warfare, and identifies challenges related to supply chain security. This model, which blurs the line between corporate profit and state objectives, is cemented by the Chinese National Intelligence Law (NIL), which obligates every organization to cooperate with state intelligence apparatuses. The resulting structural threat justifies U.S. sanctions and global bans on 5G networks. The competition for technological dominance translates into a direct confrontation for control of the digital infrastructures of the future, with direct implications for the national security and economic sovereignty of every nation.

The Huawei logo, the Chinese multinational digital communications technology conglomerate corporation that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells telecommunications equipment, consumer electronics, smart devices, and various rooftop solar products, is on their stand during the Mobile World Congress 2025 in Barcelona, Spain, on March 5, 2025. (Photo by Joan Cros/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

New Evidence: Huawei's Role in State AI Governance

The analysis of the "AI Safety Governance Framework 2.0" document provides irrefutable proof of Huawei's role as a structural element of China's state-controlled strategy on AI and dual-use technology. The document, drafted under the guidance of the Cyberspace Administration of China and the National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity of SAC, explicitly lists Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. among the entities that contributed to its drafting.

This participation is not an isolated event, but fits into a broader ecosystem of collaboration that includes:

• State entities: China Electronics Standardization Institute, China Cyberspace Research Institute, and the National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team/Coordination Center of China.

• Leading laboratories: Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and Qiyuan Laboratory.

• Prestigious universities and research institutes: Peking University, Tsinghua University, and the Institute of Computing Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

This framework highlights a synergistic network where major tech companies, universities, and security and standardization bodies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) work in concert to define and control the development of AI.

Dual-Use Applications and Geopolitical Vision

The "Framework 2.0" is not limited to technical issues but outlines a series of risks that are directly linked to a strategic dual-use agenda, both military and commercial.

• Risk of weapon proliferation: The document explicitly warns that AI, if uncontrolled, could be used by "extremist and terrorist groups" to acquire knowledge and capabilities to "design, manufacture, synthesize, and use nuclear, biological, chemical weapons and missiles." This section represents a clear admission of the intrinsic military potential of AI technology and underscores the need for strict "end-use management."

• Cognitive warfare: The framework recognizes that AI can be used to "spread terrorism-related, extremism-related, and organized crime-related content" and to "interfere in the internal affairs of other countries." It also highlights the use of "social bots" to take control of the narrative in cyberspace, a form of cognitive warfare that aims to influence the values and thoughts of the public.

• Supply chain security: The document openly denounces that "certain countries" are using "unilateral coercive measures, such as technological barriers and export controls," to "maliciously damage the global AI supply chain." This is a direct reference to the U.S. sanctions against companies like Huawei and confirms that China perceives this as an ongoing technological war for control of a strategic asset.

Huawei's Vision for the "Intelligent World 2035": A Lens for Commercial and Strategic Intelligence

Huawei's vision for the "Intelligent World 2035" aligns perfectly with the objectives outlined in the state's governance framework. The ten technological trends identified are not just commercial goals, but potential tools to strengthen the power of the state.

1. General Artificial Intelligence (AGI): AGI that "enters the physical world" is not a purely software innovation, but an entity that controls and interacts with critical infrastructures, such as military robotics and autonomous command systems.

2. AI Agents: The evolution from simple tools to "decision-making partners" translates into autonomous weapon systems and intelligence systems capable of autonomously analyzing massive data streams.

3. New Computing Paradigms: The forecast of a 100,000-fold increase in computing power is the foundation for the operation of large-scale AI systems, essential for cryptography, decryption, and the modeling of conflict scenarios.

4. The Internet of Intelligent Entities: The transition to an omnipresent and omniscient network, if based on Huawei's technology, would give a state actor the ability to monitor, influence, or disable critical infrastructures globally.

Geopolitical and Security Implications: Civil-Military Fusion and State Control

The National Intelligence Law (NIL), adopted in June 2017, formalizes the relationship between private entities and state intelligence apparatuses, making every Chinese organization and citizen a potential tool for information gathering.

• Obligation to Cooperate: Article 7 of the NIL unequivocally states that "All organizations and citizens must support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the Law."

• Binding Requests: Article 14 further clarifies the coercive nature of the law, stating that intelligence agencies "may demand that relevant organs, organizations, and citizens provide the necessary support, assistance, and cooperation."

This law has global scope, extending to all foreign subsidiaries of Chinese companies and their citizens, regardless of their location. In such a context, every Chinese commercial actor, including Huawei, becomes a potential extension of the CCP abroad.

• U.S. Sanctions and the Domino Effect: The response of the United States and its allies, including the ban on 5G networks in dozens of countries, is a campaign of technological "denial" based on the awareness of the fusion between the private sector and state objectives. The globalized sanctions against Huawei, which limit access to chips and software, are a clear example of how economic tools are used to achieve geopolitical security and influence goals, a strategy that Huawei's own "Framework 2.0" denounces as "malicious."