Global AI Governance: How Colonial Tech Power Imbalances Replicate in Digital Sovereignty Struggles
Original framing: “At UN, Developing Nations Call for Bigger Say in Shaping AI Future” — bing news
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as the *Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Great Law of Peace* or the *Māori principle of ‘Tikanga’* (customary law), offer models of consensus-based decision-making that could radicalize AI governance. For instance, the *First Nations Technology Council* in Canada has proposed *data as a relative* (not property), aligning with Indigenous worldviews where information is sacred and communal. The omission of these frameworks in AI debates reflects a broader erasure of non-Western epistemologies from global tech policy, despite their proven resilience in managing shared resources (e.g., *community seed banks* as analogies for decentralized data stewardship).
The UN’s AI governance debate is not a neutral negotiation but a *replay of colonial tech power struggles*, where the Global South is positioned as supplicants for scraps of influence in a system designed to exclude them.
The missing piece is recognizing that AI governance must be *decolonized in three dimensions*: (1) **Epistemologically**, by centering Indigenous and Southern knowledge systems (e.g., *Ubuntu*, *Kaitiakitanga*) as foundational, not add-ons; (2) **Structurally**, by dismantling the data colonialism that fuels AI’s asymmetries (e.g., *reparative tech funds*, *blocking harmful exports*); and (3) **Culturally**, by using art, trickster tactics, and marginalized narratives to *expose the absurdity of ‘neutral’ AI*—as *Anansi* or *Eshu* would. The solutions lie in *pluriversal sovereignty*: Southern nations must treat AI as a *site of resistance*, not compliance, using legal fiction, open-source infrastructure, and cultural counter-narratives to rewrite the rules. The UN’s current approach—incremental ‘global partnerships’—is a *smokescreen for business as usual*; real change requires treating AI governance as a *zero-sum struggle for digital self-determination*, where the Global South’s demands are not concessions but *prerequisites for a just future*.