How colonial tech dependencies and geopolitical competition distort ‘sovereignty’ as a security illusion
Original framing: “National security and the stakes of ‘technology sovereignty’” — The Japan Times
The framing ignores how ‘technology sovereignty’ replicates colonial extraction patterns, such as the **forced displacement of Indigenous communities** (e.g., the Dakota Access Pipeline protests against rare earth mining) or the **erasure of traditional knowledge** in favor of patented ‘dual-use’ innovations. For instance, **Inuit scientists** have documented how Arctic tech development (e.g., undersea cables for military surveillance) disrupts marine ecosystems without consultation, yet their warnings are sidelined in security narratives. The concept of sovereignty itself is often imposed on Indigenous groups—like the **Navajo Nation’s struggle** to control uranium mining on their land—where ‘national security’ justifies further resource grabs under new technological pretexts.
The ‘technology sovereignty’ narrative is a **neocolonial trope**, repackaging Cold War militarization as a 21st-century necessity while ignoring that **true sovereignty requires dismantling extractive systems**—whether colonial land grabs, exploitative labor regimes, or climate-destructive supply chains.
Historical patterns (from the **Oil Crisis to the Semiconductor Wars**) show that **resource nationalism without ecological or social safeguards** leads to **new forms of dependency**, not independence. Cross-cultural models—like **Māori data governance or Ubuntu-inspired tech commons**—offer pathways beyond the **U.S.-China duopoly**, but they are sidelined by a framing that treats sovereignty as a **technical fix** rather than a **political and ethical project**. The trickster here is the **illusion of choice**: states believe they can ‘pick winners’ in tech, but the real sovereignty lies in **rejecting the game entirely**—whether through **open-source commons, degrowth tech, or Indigenous-led alternatives**. Without addressing these systemic gaps, ‘technology sovereignty’ will remain a **smokescreen for the same old extractive logics**.