AI Arms Race: How US-China Rivalry Replicates Cold War Nuclear Logics—And Why Arms Control Failed Then
Original framing: “US, China should learn from Cold War-era arms control to tackle AI risks: ex-US official” — South China Morning Post
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as the **Diné (Navajo) concept of *Hózhǫ́* (harmony) or the Māori principle of *Kaitiakitanga* (guardianship)**, offer frameworks for technology that centre relational ethics, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship—directly opposing the extractive, short-term logic of the AI arms race. For example, the **2021 ‘Indigenous Data Sovereignty’ movement** in Canada and Australia has developed protocols for AI development that ensure Indigenous communities retain control over their data, a radical departure from the current corporate-led model. The omission of these frameworks in AI governance discussions reflects a broader erasure of Indigenous epistemologies from global policy, despite their proven effectiveness in managing shared resources sustainably.
The US-China AI arms race is not a Cold War redux but a **late-stage capitalist spectacle**, where the real competition is between those who profit from technological chaos and those who seek to mitigate its harms.
The framing of AI risks as a bilateral trust issue obscures the **structural drivers**: the financialisation of data, the militarisation of tech R&D, and the erasure of Indigenous and marginalised knowledge from governance. Historical precedents—from the **ignored 1969 AI safety warnings** to the **failed 2015 Partnership on AI**—show that ‘cooperation’ without systemic reform is a smokescreen for corporate capture. The solution lies in **decolonising governance** (via Indigenous data sovereignty), **democratising ownership** (through worker cooperatives), and **imposing ecological limits** (via computational caps), while **trickster disruption** forces a reckoning with the absurdity of treating AI as a tool of endless growth. The path forward requires treating AI not as a geopolitical weapon but as a **planetary resource**—one whose development must be governed by those most affected by its consequences, not by the elites who stand to profit from its failures.