Could the Vatican mediate US-China AI peace?

As the US and China accelerate toward frontier AI capabilities, the risk of catastrophic miscalculation grows. The current density of geopolitical tensions made me reflect on the historical contributions of the Holy See to international peace-making. In this post, I explore the role that the Vatican could play in mediating the US-China AI dialogue by drawing on relevant precedents and proposing three action scenarios.

What are the stakes of the US-China AGI race?

The announcement of China’s DeepSeek R1 model took the West by surprise when it matched the performance of the OpenAI model at the time, potentially at a fraction of the costs. As a result, it intensified the rhetoric around the US-China AI arms race. Palantir’s Chief Technology Officer went so far as to comment: “I think the real lesson, a more profound one, is that we are at war with China. We are in an AI arms race,”.

Amid the “winner takes it all” logic of developing superintelligence, the US and China are depicted as racing to secure strategic supremacy – economically, ideologically, and militarily – through control over transformative AI capabilities. Whatever stage the actual “race” is at, its narrative, especially in the West, has played a significant role in justifying accelerationism and reducing regulatory oversight. Broadly, these intensifying tensions between the frontier AI states matter gravely to humanity, for at least three reasons:

• Geopolitical risk: Multilateralism is further breaking down. The combination of rapidly accelerating capabilities and strategic opacity – each side’s uncertainty about the other’s true progress – raises the likelihood of miscalculations, pre-emptive moves, and dangerous escalation.
• Distortion of AI development priorities: Instead of being guided by long-term human needs – such as safety, accessibility, and alignment with social values – AI development is increasingly shaped by zero-sum national competition. This distorts incentives and potentially produces capabilities that transform daily life without our democratic input or ethical oversight.
• Missed opportunities for global good: The promises of the use of AI to tackle the near-term shared global challenges, like climate change or poverty, are deeply neglected in the name of achieving a greater level of AI capabilities that could theoretically solve these problems in the future.

However, an arms race benefits no one. US-China AI competition increases the chances of costly, potentially catastrophic conflicts, deepens societal and regulatory unpreparedness for the transformations to come, and incentivises frontier AI developers to compromise on safety rigour. Amid other emerging instabilities, such as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war or the recent Iran-Israel strikes, the AI Cold War further increases the risk of a catastrophic global war – one with consequences humanity may not be able to recover from.

On World Peace Day in 2000, John Paul II said, “War is a defeat for humanity.” – it fuels hatred, fragmentation and injustice; and it directly opposes God’s commandment in John 13:34 to love one another, just as God has loved us. That is why, amid the escalating AI tensions between the US and China, there is an urgent need for dialogue. It is not a time to further inflame competition, but rather a time to put humanity’s interests first, demystify uncertainties, and accordingly recalibrate the pace and direction of AI development. A trusted third party – unbound by military or economic ambition, and committed to peace and human flourishing – may be able to create the space for dialogue that global politics alone cannot. Trusting the Vatican’s desire to act in humanity’s best interests, I explore here its potential role in mediating US-China AI peace.

Why could the Vatican be the mediator?

“War is never inevitable. Weapons can and must fall silent, for they never solve problems but only intensify them. Those who sow peace will endure throughout history, not those who reap victims. Others are not enemies to hate but human beings with whom to speak.” Pope Leo XIV, 2025

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church emphasises that the promotion of peace in the world is an integral part of the Church’s mission of continuing Christ’s work of redemption on earth. This principle, alongside the Vatican’s commitment to global peace and security, “integral human development”, and the common good, have compelled and informed its previous interventions in international peacemaking and conflict resolution. Particularly relevant here is the parallel of Vatican-led international deliberations on nuclear weapons and disarmament. Here are a few key events:

• In 1948, amid the realisation of the potential catastrophic power of nuclear weapons, Pope Pius XII held the papal office and stated that they are “the most terrible weapon that the human mind has ever conceived.”
• In 1963, Pope John XXIII wrote an encyclical, Pacem In Terris, which explicitly addressed nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control.”
• During the 1980s, Pope John Paul II addressed the United Nations on deterrence as a means towards complete disarmament, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican City served as a neutral forum for scientists to discuss nuclear science and policy. Examples of the Academy’s publications emphasising the unprecedented scale of potential nuclear catastrophe include:
  • 1981: Statement of the Consequences of the Use of Nuclear Weapons
  • 1982: Report on the International Conference on Nuclear Power Experience
  • 1982: Declaration on Prevention of Nuclear War
  • 1984: Nuclear Winter: A Warning
• During his visit to Japan in 2019, Pope Francis expressed a condemnation of nuclear weapons: “The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral … How can we speak of peace even as we build terrifying new weapons of war?” Further, Pope Francis continued raising awareness on the destabilising effects of AI on the future of warfare and the world order, potentially exacerbating the nuclear risks.

Together, these actions show that the Vatican can engage deeply and proactively with technologies that could imperil humanity, and to do so from a place of moral neutrality, not geopolitical interest. Today, frontier AI poses similarly destabilising risks. And yet, no international body currently provides direct mediation of the US and China growing tensions in AI development. Here, the Vatican could step in.

However, would either side listen? While JD Vance is a Catholic convert and has recently expressed that he’d welcome the Pope’s moral leadership on AI, China and the Vatican have no formal diplomatic ties.

An exerpt from JD Vance’s recent comment during a NYT interview: “(…) part of this arms race component is if we take a pause, does the People’s Republic of China not take a pause? And then we find ourselves all enslaved to P.R.C.-mediated A.I.?

One thing I’ll say, we’re here at the Embassy in Rome, and I think that this is one of the most profound and positive things that Pope Leo could do, not just for the church but for the world. The American government is not equipped to provide moral leadership, at least full-scale moral leadership, in the wake of all the changes that are going to come along with A.I. I think the church is.

This is the sort of thing the church is very good at. This is what the institution was built for in many ways, and I hope that they really do play a very positive role. I suspect that they will.”

The Vatican cannot dictate AI policy – but it doesn’t need to. Its power and contribution lie in moral convening and impartiality: it does not seek AGI supremacy, nor does it compete for military dominance. Instead, it prioritises the protection of human dignity and global peace. Through an institution like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – whose members now include DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis – the Vatican has the intellectual and ethical capital to initiate dialogue. Since 1603, the Academy has convened experts of high moral profile and significant value of their research to advance the progress of science. Today, it holds the potential to fill in the AI governance gap, bring together the US and China and mitigate global escalations.

Potential Action Scenarios for the Vatican

I now sketch out three examples of how the Vatican, specifically via the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Papacy, could advance US-China AI peace:

Scenario 1: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences convenes leading US and Chinese scientists for a Study Day or Week focused on frontier AI risks—especially societal and existential ones.

• Intended output: A report on AI risks to which both the US and Chinese academics contributed and that offers an insight into the respective sides’ threat perceptions and policy priorities.
• Precedent/parallel: In 2010, ahead of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, PAS hosted a similar Study Week on disarmament and peacebuilding. The Vatican emphasised that short-term national security logics must not override long-term peace and global security.
• Strengths:
  • Involves key scientific voices from the frontier AI states, facilitates knowledge sharing, and encourages a culture of collaboration.
  • Low diplomatic stakes, yet potential for norm shaping among the US and Chinese AI academics and developers.
• Limitations:
  • Limited influence on national AI policies, so outcomes may remain primarily symbolic or academic.
  • A one-off event which doesn’t maintain channels for US-China academic exchanges.

Scenario 2: The Pontifical Academy of Science hosts a recurring bilateral forum (e.g. every 6 months) where leading AI scientists from the US and China exchange insights and forecasts to de-escalate mutual uncertainty and the potential of conflict.

• Intended output: A sustained, trust-building channel where top US and Chinese researchers and technical advisors can regularly share AI forecasts, safety concerns, and governance developments.
• Precedent/parallel: In the 1980s, PAS served as a forum for scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain to exchange ideas on nuclear issues. The International Dialogues on AI Safety, led by the Safe AI Forum, also provide a helpful parallel.
• Strengths:
  • More intentional about information exchange and consensus-building than the one-off Study Day or Week.
  • The recurring nature of the event maintains relationships and trust over time.
  • Allows for building a shared risk perception around AGI capabilities, safety and societal impacts.
• Limitations:
  • Requires sustained commitment and willingness to participate during politically tense moments.
  • The influence may still be limited to academia, with uncertain trickle-down into national security or AI labs circles.

Scenario 3: Pope Leo XIV welcomes the US and Chinese officials for AI dialogues to negotiate an agreement.

• Intended output: A binding international agreement on the de-escalation of the AI arms race.
• Precedent/parallel: Pope John Paul II’s moral interventions during the Cold War (e.g. in Poland, or in nuclear disarmament advocacy). The Vatican’s involvement in negotiating the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, and the 2014 Cuba–US rapprochement.
• Strengths:
  • High-level of information-sharing between the national officials from both the US and China.
  • The official dialogue would directly inform the US and China’s national AI policies.
  • It could catalyse public awareness and normative pressure, even if the agreement is not reached.
• Limitations:
  • The dialogue may be dismissed as idealistic unless preceded by strategic groundwork (e.g. via Scenarios 1 and 2).
  • Key decisions do not rest with governments alone, but with AI labs, which are partly independent of the state.
  • The Vatican has no enforcement power.
  • Uncertainty about the political buy-in from the US and China to participate.

While the Vatican cannot enforce treaties or dictate national priorities, its ability to convene, moralise, and humanise the debate remains unique. In a field dominated by power, speed, and opacity, the Church’s moral voice could be exactly the guidance we need.

I aimed to point out a case for why and how the Vatican could be a meaningful mediator of the US-China AI dialogues. There is an array of specific details that would need to be addressed once the Vatican decides to initiate them. I’m convinced about the feasibility of the three scenarios outlined above, and I am filled with hope by the vision that the Vatican – an advocate of humanity’s flourishing – could lead the pathway toward peace.