The UN Security Council's AI Debate: Digital Colonialism Masquerading as Global Governance

The Historical Context of Technological Governance

The recent United Nations Security Council high-level debate on artificial intelligence, convened by South Korea, represents a crucial moment in global technological governance. The discussion brought together UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Professors Yoshua Bengio and Yejin Choi, and numerous national representatives to address how an institution created in 1945 can possibly govern technologies evolving at algorithmic speed. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung aptly noted that just as the UN was founded to manage nuclear threats eighty years ago, it must now confront the challenges posed by AI.

This debate occurred during the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, reflecting the rapidly growing attention to AI governance within international bodies. Multiple initiatives have emerged within the UN system over the past two years, culminating in the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. The central tension evident throughout the discussions revolves around whether the UNSC, with its anachronistic structure and slow decision-making processes, can effectively regulate technology that advances exponentially.

The Dual Nature of AI: Promise and Peril

Participants broadly acknowledged AI’s dual-use nature, recognizing both its transformative potential and inherent risks. Many countries highlighted AI’s benefits for peacekeeping operations, with France and the UK emphasizing enhanced early warning systems and data analysis capabilities. Slovenia noted AI’s potential to optimize logistics for complex missions, while Kenya and Guyana pointed to applications in strengthening health systems and climate response—factors directly relevant to peacekeeping needs.

However, numerous nations expressed serious concerns about AI misuse. These included AI-generated disinformation threatening democracies and peacekeepers, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, and the exacerbation of online extremism. Somalia and Sierra Leone emphasized how uneven AI adoption creates disparities leaving vulnerable nations at risk, while Algeria noted that limited internet coverage and inadequate ICT regulations across Africa compound these challenges.

Military Applications and Global Power Dynamics

The debate extensively covered military applications, particularly autonomous weapons systems (AWS), which have been discussed in UN forums for over a decade. Secretary-General Guterres reiterated his call for banning fully autonomous weapons without human control by 2026. The discussion also touched on how AI facilitates cyberattacks, with references to national cybersecurity strategies and global norms.

Perhaps most revealing was the divergence in national positions regarding the UNSC’s role in AI governance. The United States explicitly rejected “efforts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance of AI,” marking a significant shift from its position less than a year earlier. Russia maintained that Council work would duplicate existing efforts elsewhere, while China advocated for a “people-centered approach” with accountability mechanisms grounded in international law.

The Specter of Digital Colonialism

This debate fundamentally concerns who holds power in an AI-driven world. Will AI development remain concentrated in technologically advanced nations, or will it become accessible to all? Will governance frameworks be imposed by the powerful or co-created through inclusive dialogue?

Global Majority countries expressed palpable concerns about digital colonialism. Guyana and Somalia warned about the risks of technological domination, while Algeria explicitly cautioned against Africa becoming a “lab rat” for testing technologies. Giulia Neaher of the Stimson Center emphasized that we must consider how AI applications vary across global contexts, particularly in regions historically underrepresented in international governance and technology development.

A Critical Perspective on Western Hegemony in AI Governance

The UN Security Council’s composition itself represents the fundamental problem—five permanent members with veto power reflecting 1945 geopolitics, overwhelmingly dominated by Western interests. This structure inherently privileges former colonial powers and perpetuates global inequality through institutional design. When these same powers propose to govern emerging technologies like AI, we must view their actions through the lens of historical patterns of domination and control.

Western nations, particularly the United States, have consistently used international institutions to advance their strategic interests while preventing meaningful representation of developing nations. Their sudden interest in AI governance follows this established pattern—seeking to control the technological frontier through frameworks that preserve their advantage while paying lip service to inclusivity. The American rejection of “centralized control” ironically comes from the nation that has most aggressively centralized technological power within its corporate and military structures.

China’s advocacy for a “people-centered approach” represents an important alternative vision, though one that Western powers immediately dismiss without genuine engagement. The Global South’s warnings about digital colonialism reflect painful historical experiences with technological transfer under unequal terms. When Algeria worries about becoming a “lab rat” for Western technologies, it speaks from centuries of exploitation where developing nations bear risks while advanced economies reap benefits.

The Path Toward Equitable AI Governance

True AI governance must begin with governance reform. An institution that excludes the Global South from meaningful decision-making cannot possibly create equitable frameworks for technological development. The UN Security Council’s permanent membership must expand to include representatives from Africa, Latin America, and South Asia to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities rather than colonial-era power distributions.

We must reject any AI governance framework that emerges from exclusively Western technological laboratories and corporate boardrooms. The development of AI standards and regulations requires genuine multicultural input, particularly from civilizations like India and China that offer alternative epistemological foundations for understanding technology’s role in society.

The conversation must shift from risk mitigation to opportunity creation. Rather than focusing primarily on preventing harm—a framing that often serves to restrict technological access—we should emphasize how AI can accelerate achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, enhance climate resilience, and improve healthcare delivery in underserved regions.

Conclusion: Beyond Westphalian Constraints

Civilizational states like India and China understand that technology governance cannot be constrained by Westphalian notions of state sovereignty that primarily serve Western interests. Our approach to AI must reflect the interconnected nature of technological development and its impacts across human civilization.

The UN Secretary-General correctly stated that innovation must serve humanity rather than undermine it. However, this requires dismantling the structures that have consistently ensured innovation serves only portions of humanity at the expense of others. We stand at a historic inflection point where we can either perpetuate patterns of technological colonialism or create genuinely inclusive frameworks that recognize the equal dignity and potential of all human societies.

The future of AI governance must be decolonial, multipolar, and civilizational—not merely an extension of Western corporate and strategic interests through international institutions. Only when the voices of the Global Majority determine technological governance can we ensure AI serves all humanity rather than becoming another instrument of domination.