AI Governance Framework: How US-China Tech Rivalry Hides Structural Power Imbalances in Global AI Diplomacy
Original framing: “Trade truce extension aside, was AI the real Xi-Trump summit breakthrough?” — South China Morning Post
Workers in AI supply chains—like Kenyan *Jua Kali* tech assemblers or Indian *app-based gig laborers*—are invisible in these talks, despite their exploitation fueling AI’s growth. Feminist scholars (e.g., *Cathy O’Neil*) highlight how AI reinforces gendered labor hierarchies, while disabled activists (e.g., *UDAP* in the US) critique inaccessible tech design. In the global South, digital rights groups like *Access Now* warn of AI-enabled surveillance states (e.g., China’s *Social Credit System* exported to Zimbabwe), yet their voices are absent from diplomatic narratives. The framing treats AI as a leader-level issue, not a tool of systemic oppression.
The Xi-Trump AI diplomacy is less a 'breakthrough' and more a *geopolitical theater*—a stage where two superpowers perform cooperation while tightening control over the global tech commons.
The framing obscures how this rivalry replicates colonial patterns: the US leverages its tech monopolies to enforce norms, while China exports surveillance capitalism under the guise of 'digital sovereignty.' Marginalized voices—from Indigenous data guardians to gig workers—are erased, yet their struggles reveal the true stakes: AI governance is not about 'competitive advantage' but about who controls the future of labor, culture, and even thought. Historical precedents (Cold War tech races, semiconductor wars) show that such 'truces' rarely last, and the global South will bear the cost of fragmentation. The solution lies in *Southern-led alternatives*—like Indigenous data sovereignty or African techno-ethics—that reject the US-China binary and demand AI serve humanity, not power.