Kazakhstan Positions Itself in the Emerging Global AI Governance Architecture
President Tokayev has proposed the emerging U.S. approach to AI governance — a potential “Washington Model” — as a foundation for broader international cooperation under the United Nations.
Kazakhstan is seeking to move beyond adopting international artificial intelligence standards and position itself as one of the countries contributing to their formation.
At a meeting of Kazakhstan’s Artificial Intelligence Development Council on October 2, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposed considering the emerging U.S. approach to AI governance as a possible foundation for broader international cooperation. Referring to the voluntary agreement recently reached in Washington between the U.S. administration and leading technology companies, Tokayev described the framework as a potential “Washington Model” that could eventually be developed into an international mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations.
The proposal comes as governments face a common policy challenge: how to introduce safeguards for increasingly capable AI systems without creating a regulatory environment that slows technological development, investment and commercialization.
The U.S. approach currently relies heavily on cooperation with the private sector. On September 29, President Donald Trump and executives from Google, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia and xAI announced a voluntary framework for the development of advanced AI systems. Participating companies committed to strengthening internal controls, monitoring their most advanced models, using independent external assessments and establishing senior-level oversight of safety mechanisms.
The agreement is not legally binding. Its significance instead lies in an attempt to establish common operating principles among the companies developing some of the world’s most advanced AI systems while avoiding, at least at the current stage, a comprehensive federal regulatory regime.
For Kazakhstan, this model is consistent with its own emerging approach to AI policy.
Astana has been developing a regulatory framework that combines state oversight with an emphasis on maintaining an attractive environment for technology companies and investors. Kazakhstan has adopted legislation governing artificial intelligence and broader digital activity, while its leadership has repeatedly emphasized that regulation should focus primarily on areas involving security, fundamental rights and critical national interests.
This places Kazakhstan relatively close to the policy debate currently taking place in the United States: regulation is viewed as necessary, but excessive restrictions are seen as potentially damaging to innovation and competitiveness.
Tokayev’s proposal, however, goes further than simply endorsing the American framework. Kazakhstan is effectively suggesting that principles initially developed through cooperation between the U.S. government and private technology companies could become the starting point for a multilateral discussion.
The distinction is important. Domestic voluntary commitments can be implemented relatively quickly because they involve a limited number of companies operating within one political and legal environment. Translating the same principles into an international framework would require governments to reconcile substantially different approaches to data governance, cybersecurity, model transparency, intellectual property, national security and corporate accountability.
Countries also differ considerably in their willingness to allow private companies to determine the safeguards governing advanced AI systems. Any international framework based on voluntary corporate commitments would therefore need additional mechanisms for verification, interoperability and accountability before it could function as a credible global standard.
Kazakhstan may nevertheless have an opportunity to play a useful intermediary role in this process.
The country does not compete directly with the United States, China or the European Union for global leadership in frontier AI development. At the same time, it has been expanding cooperation with major technology companies and positioning itself as a regional platform for digital infrastructure, computing capacity, investment and AI development.
That positioning has become more visible during 2026. Kazakhstan has increased its engagement with the U.S.-led technology ecosystem, including participation in initiatives focused on AI infrastructure, investment, research cooperation and secure technology supply chains. Astana has also sought to attract international technology companies and investors through platforms such as AI & Digital Bridge.
The proposed Washington Model therefore fits into a broader foreign economic strategy. Kazakhstan is attempting to establish itself not only as a consumer of advanced technologies but also as a jurisdiction where governments, technology companies and international institutions can discuss the rules governing their deployment.
There is also a diplomatic dimension. AI governance is increasingly becoming part of competition over international standards. The United States, European Union, China and other major actors are developing different regulatory models, and the standards ultimately adopted internationally may influence investment flows, access to computing infrastructure, technology exports and market access.
For middle powers such as Kazakhstan, participation in the formation of these rules can therefore carry economic as well as political value.
Astana’s emphasis on the United Nations provides an additional element to the initiative. Rather than proposing an alternative international institution, Kazakhstan is suggesting that the U.S. framework could eventually be discussed within an existing multilateral system. This would allow the country to support closer technological cooperation with the United States while maintaining its traditional preference for multilateral diplomacy.
Whether such an approach can gain broader international support remains uncertain. The voluntary nature of the Washington agreement makes it easier for companies to join, but the same characteristic may limit its acceptance among governments seeking legally enforceable safeguards. Differences between national regulatory systems will also make the development of a common framework difficult.
The next indication of the initiative’s prospects is expected when Kazakhstan presents its approach to international AI cooperation at the G20 Summit in Miami in December.
For Kazakhstan, however, the immediate significance extends beyond whether a future UN agreement ultimately emerges. By introducing the proposal at an early stage of the international AI governance debate, Astana is seeking a place in the discussion before global standards become fixed.
If sustained by concrete proposals, technical expertise and partnerships with both governments and industry, that positioning could give Kazakhstan a larger role in the emerging international architecture governing artificial intelligence than the size of its domestic technology market would otherwise suggest.