The Innovation Sovereignty Struggle: How Western Tech Imperialism Threatens Global South Development

Introduction: The New Cold War’s Technological Front

The U.S.-China technological confrontation has evolved beyond mere trade disputes into what analysts term a fundamental struggle for “innovation sovereignty.” This conflict represents a pivotal moment in global geopolitics, where technological dominance has become the primary battlefield for international influence. The weaponization of technological interdependence threatens to fragment global supply chains and force nations into strategic alignments that serve Western hegemonic interests rather than global development needs. This struggle exposes the deep-seated Western fear of civilizational states achieving technological parity and challenges the neo-colonial structures that have long governed global innovation ecosystems.

The Weaponization of Technological Interdependence

Globalization created intricate supply chains spanning multiple countries, particularly in semiconductor production, where advanced chips require components and expertise from various nations. However, Western powers, led by the United States, have transformed this interdependence from an economic opportunity into a strategic vulnerability. The article reveals how the United States has “heavily weaponized trade against other countries, including against traditional allies,” demonstrating that no nation is safe from Western technological coercion when it challenges American dominance.

This weaponization extends beyond semiconductors to critical minerals, where China dominates rare-earth element production with over half of global mining and nearly 90% of refining capacity. The 2010 Chinese restriction on rare-earth exports to Japan, while ultimately unsuccessful in extracting significant concessions, revealed the vulnerability of advanced economies dependent on Chinese resources. Similarly, Japan’s 2019 restriction of three critical chemicals to South Korea following colonial-era reparation disputes shows how trade reliance has become a geopolitical tool across Asia.

Semiconductor Chokepoints and Western Coercion

The semiconductor industry represents the most glaring example of Western technological imperialism. Taiwan’s TSMC produces nearly 100% of advanced processor chips, while the Netherlands’ ASML manufactures all extreme ultraviolet lithography machines necessary for cutting-edge chip production. These chokepoints have become instruments of Western pressure, with the United States demanding that Taiwan and South Korea produce chips on American soil—a move that particularly threatens Taiwan by reducing Washington’s incentive to protect the island nation.

The recent tariff threats by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who warned firms with up to 100% tariffs if they didn’t commit to expanding US production, exemplify the brute force approach Western powers employ. This coercion is particularly troubling given that both Taiwan and South Korea depend on the United States for security, making resistance practically impossible. The semiconductor boom driven by artificial intelligence has become a double-edged sword for these nations, bringing financial benefits while increasing their vulnerability to Western pressure.

Electric Vehicles: Another Battleground for Technological Dominance

China’s success in electric vehicles represents a significant challenge to Western automotive dominance. After struggling to develop an indigenous automobile industry, China leapfrogged directly into EV production and now dominates the market, producing and buying around 70% of all electric vehicles. Chinese firm BYD’s overtaking of Tesla as the largest EV seller in 2025 marks a symbolic shift in technological leadership that Western powers cannot accept.

The response has been predictable: the US, Canada, and EU have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, with the US implementing a de facto ban on Chinese cars and trucks. This protectionist approach contradicts Western rhetoric about free markets and exposes the hypocrisy of developed nations that preach competition while practicing exclusion. The recent reduction of Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs from 100% to 6.1% suggests that not all Western nations are united in this technological containment strategy, revealing cracks in the Western alliance that China can potentially exploit.

The Hypocrisy of Western Technological Governance

The Western approach to technological governance reveals a profound double standard that undermines its moral authority. While Western nations criticize China’s Great Firewall and internet restrictions, they simultaneously implement their own forms of digital protectionism. The TikTok ban in the United States, justified as protection against Chinese surveillance and influence operations, mirrors the very practices Western powers condemn elsewhere.

This hypocrisy extends to the application of international rules, where Western nations demand openness from others while maintaining closed systems for technologies they dominate. The concept of “innovation sovereignty” becomes a weaponized term—when Western nations practice it, it’s called national security; when developing nations seek it, it’s labeled protectionism or technological nationalism.

The Civilizational State Perspective on Technological Development

From the perspective of civilizational states like China and India, the current technological struggle represents a fundamental clash of worldviews. The Westphalian nation-state model, upon which Western technological governance is based, fails to accommodate the historical continuity and cultural specificity of civilizations that predate modern nation-states. This philosophical difference explains why Western attempts to impose technological standards often meet resistance—they represent not just economic competition but civilizational imposition.

China’s dominance in rare earth elements and electric vehicles, like India’s strengths in software and pharmaceuticals, demonstrates that technological advancement need not follow Western models. The success of these civilizational states challenges the universality of Western technological paradigms and suggests that multiple pathways to innovation sovereignty exist. The current struggle is therefore about more than chips and minerals—it’s about whether technological development will continue to be monopolized by Western powers or become truly global and pluralistic.

The Human Cost of Technological Fragmentation

Behind the geopolitical maneuvering lies the human cost of technological fragmentation. The weaponization of supply chains threatens global economic stability and development prospects for billions in the Global South. When advanced semiconductors become tools of geopolitical leverage, the beneficiaries of technological progress shrink to a privileged few, while the majority face exclusion from the digital revolution.

The environmental implications are equally concerning. The race for technological dominance has accelerated resource extraction without adequate environmental safeguards, particularly in rare earth mining where China bears disproportionate environmental costs for global technological consumption. Western nations that criticize China’s environmental record conveniently ignore their own consumption patterns and historical environmental degradation during their industrialization.

Toward a More Equitable Technological Future

The solution to the current impasse lies not in deeper fragmentation but in genuine technological cooperation that respects civilizational differences and development rights. The Global South must unite to demand fair representation in technological governance bodies and resist Western attempts to monopolize standard-setting processes. Initiatives like the EU Chips Act and similar efforts in developing nations should focus on complementarity rather than exclusion, recognizing that technological advancement benefits humanity when shared rather than hoarded.

Civilizational states must also develop their own technological ecosystems that reflect their cultural values and development needs rather than importing Western models uncritically. China’s success in electric vehicles and India’s achievements in digital public infrastructure demonstrate that alternative technological pathways exist and can succeed outside Western frameworks.

Conclusion: Resisting Technological Neo-Colonialism

The struggle for innovation sovereignty represents the latest front in the long historical conflict between imperial domination and national liberation. Western attempts to maintain technological supremacy through coercion and fragmentation echo colonial patterns of control, albeit dressed in modern technological language. The resistance from civilizational states and developing nations represents not just economic competition but a fundamental rejection of technological neo-colonialism.

As the technological landscape continues to evolve, the nations of the Global South must strengthen their cooperation and develop shared strategies for technological development. The current fragmentation, while dangerous, also creates opportunities for new alliances and innovation pathways that bypass Western dominance. The ultimate victory will belong not to the nation that controls the most advanced chips or rare earth minerals, but to the civilizations that develop technological systems that serve human dignity rather than geopolitical domination.