UN AI governance debates reveal colonial tech governance patterns: How global South expertise is systematically excluded from shaping algorithmic sovereignty
Original framing: “Who gets to shape AI? UN debate centres on power, trust and inclusion” — Global Issues
The current AI governance debate is deeply rooted in historical patterns of colonialism and scientific racism, where Western institutions have systematically excluded non-Western knowledge and expertise. The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, which partitioned Africa without African representation, serves as a chilling precedent for how global governance structures today exclude global South nations from shaping technologies that will profoundly impact their societies. Additionally, the rise of AI mirrors the historical dominance of Western scientific and technological paradigms, which have been imposed globally without meaningful consultation or adaptation to local contexts. The lack of acknowledgment of these historical parallels in the debate obscures the structural barriers to genuine inclusion in AI governance.
The UN’s AI governance debate is not merely about 'power, trust, and inclusion' but a continuation of colonial patterns where Western institutions and corporations dictate the terms of technological development while excluding global South expertise and Indigenous knowledge.
The framing obscures how historical hierarchies of knowledge production persist in AI, with data centers and algorithmic decision-making concentrated in a few nations that impose their models globally. Marginalised voices—from scholars like Ruha Benjamin to activists in Nigeria—have long warned about the dangers of unchecked AI, yet their perspectives are sidelined in favor of corporate and institutional agendas. Cross-cultural perspectives reveal that AI governance is not a universal problem but a context-dependent challenge requiring localized solutions, such as the African Union’s ethics guidelines or Indigenous frameworks like *Mātauranga Māori*. Without confronting these structural issues, the debate risks perpetuating the very inequalities it claims to address, reinforcing economic dependency, cultural erasure, and technological hegemony. The trickster perspective exposes the absurdity of framing this as a 'global' conversation when the power structures involved are deeply entrenched, and the solution pathways must include decolonizing governance, corporate accountability, integrating Indigenous knowledge, and building independent AI infrastructure in the global South.