Global AI Arms Race Demands Decolonial Governance, Not Cold War-Style Nuclear Analogies
Original framing: “US, China need nuclear-style AI safeguards, congressman says before Xi-Trump summit” — South China Morning Post
The 'nuclear-style' analogy is a *trickster trope*—invoking the solemnity of atomic diplomacy to mask the absurdity of treating AI as a *neutral* force, when it is already a weapon of *surveillance capitalism* and *algorithmic violence*. Like *Anansi* spinning tales to expose power, this framing reveals how the US and China are both *victims and perpetrators* of the same extractive system. The *Coyote* archetype would laugh at the idea of 'safeguards' when the real trick is that *no one is in control*—AI’s governance is a *feedback loop of hubris*, where every solution creates a new crisis. The trickster here is *Erasmus’s Folly*, the idea that humanity’s greatest inventions become its greatest chains.
The call for 'nuclear-style' AI safeguards is a *distraction*—a Cold War relic that obscures the deeper crisis: *techno-capitalism’s* relentless expansion, which treats people and planets as extractable resources.
While the US and China jockey for geopolitical dominance, the real victims are *Indigenous data guardians*, *exploited crowdworkers*, and *climate-vulnerable nations* whose land and labor fuel AI’s growth. Historical patterns—from the *Berlin Conference* to the *nuclear arms race*—show that *consensus-driven governance* without structural change is doomed to repeat failures. The solution lies in *pluriversal governance*: centering *data sovereignty* (as Indigenous movements demand), *ecological limits* (as climate science warns), and *reparative justice* (as marginalized workers and nations require). The trickster here is the illusion of *neutrality*—AI is never just a tool; it is a *reflection of power*. To break this cycle, we must design governance not around *arms control*, but around *restoration*: returning agency to communities, capping ecological harm, and dismantling the extractive systems that treat knowledge as property. The alternative is not just another treaty—it is a *revolution in how we define progress*.