The UN Security Council's AI Statement: Technological Colonialism in Disguise?

The Facts: A Carefully Worded Statement with Significant Implications

As 2025 drew to a close, four United Nations Security Council members—Slovenia, France, Denmark, and Greece—issued a joint statement on artificial intelligence and international peace and security. This statement emerges from increased Council interest in technology and security issues, with members having convened high-level open debates on cybersecurity in June 2024 and AI in September 2025, alongside numerous specialized meetings on commercial spyware, ransomware attacks, and broader cybersecurity concerns.

The December 31 statement recognizes AI’s transformative potential for international peace and security while acknowledging significant risks from its irresponsible use. It recalls the Security Council’s “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and commits members to “remain seized of the implications of AI to this mandate.” Importantly, the statement stresses that AI use must comply with international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, to prevent destabilizing effects and unintended harm.

The statement arrives amid significant global developments in AI governance. The General Assembly established an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance in August 2025, adopted a resolution addressing AI in the military domain in December 2024, and established a permanent “Global Mechanism” for cybersecurity in 2025. Additionally, the UN Convention on Cybercrime opened for signature in 2025, and the WSIS+20 review process on digital governance reached an outcome.

Context: The Digital Dimension of Modern Conflicts

The article highlights how conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza to India-Pakistan increasingly incorporate digital or technological components. Digital technologies like AI offer genuine benefits for UNSC mandates—AI-enhanced surveillance can improve civilian protection in peace operations, while machine learning algorithms can help predict food insecurity or identify at-risk populations.

However, these technologies also create new vulnerabilities. United Nations peace operations and humanitarian actors increasingly rely on digital systems for communication, logistics, and coordination, creating attack surfaces that hostile actors can exploit. The statement references AI as an “enabler” of cyber and information threats, acknowledging that AI amplifies existing cyber threats through automated vulnerability discovery, sophisticated phishing messages, and deep-fake technology enabling impersonation attacks.

During the September 2025 high-level debate on AI convened by the Republic of Korea, developing countries expressed fear of being left behind. As commentary noted, “AI has the potential to either deepen global inequalities and jeopardize democratic processes or become a transformative driver to better serve the UNSC’s international peace and security objectives.”

Opinion: Another Western Power Grab in Disguise

The Illusion of Inclusive Governance

This carefully crafted statement represents everything wrong with international governance structures dominated by Western powers. The Security Council, with its outdated permanent membership reflecting 20th-century power dynamics rather than 21st-century realities, suddenly discovers the importance of AI governance precisely when Western technological dominance faces challenges from the Global South, particularly from civilizational states like India and China.

The statement’s ambiguity—“not taking positions on AI governance directly”—is telling. It allows Western powers to maintain control while creating the illusion of inclusive dialogue. This is classic neo-colonial strategy: establish frameworks that appear neutral but inherently favor existing power structures. The concern that “AI governance frameworks and regulatory standards are developed primarily in the global North” is not merely theoretical—it’s the predictable outcome of such Western-dominated processes.

Technological Colonialism and the Global South

The statement’s emphasis on international law compliance rings hollow when we consider how selectively these laws have been applied historically. The same powers that have violated international law with impunity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere now preach about responsible AI use. This hypocrisy cannot be overlooked.

For the Global South, particularly for India and China, this represents another attempt at technological colonialism. If advanced AI capabilities remain concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations, power imbalances will deepen dramatically. The statement’s vague promises about capacity building ignore the fundamental reality that developing countries need technological sovereignty, not dependency on Western-controlled systems.

The Civilizational State Perspective

Civilizational states like India and China understand that technology cannot be separated from cultural and civilizational contexts. The Westphalian nation-state model, which underlies the UN system, is inadequate for addressing the complex realities of 21st-century technological governance. The statement’s failure to acknowledge this fundamental limitation reveals its Western-centric bias.

India’s digital public infrastructure and China’s technological advancements demonstrate that the Global South can develop alternative models that better serve their populations. Yet the UN Security Council statement, dominated by Western voices, seems designed to preserve the technological status quo rather than embrace truly innovative approaches emerging from the East.

The Urgent Need for Structural Reform

This statement highlights why the UN Security Council requires fundamental reform. A body that excludes the world’s most populous countries from permanent membership cannot legitimately claim to govern technologies that will shape humanity’s future. The concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a few Western nations—with Slovenia, France, Denmark, and Greece leading this initiative—perpetuates the very inequalities that AI could either exacerbate or alleviate.

The statement’s careful avoidance of concrete commitments reflects the Council’s dysfunction. While technology evolves at breathtaking speed, the Security Council remains trapped in procedural ambiguity and political maneuvering. This gap between technological reality and governance capability threatens to make the Council irrelevant precisely when we need effective international cooperation most.

Toward Authentic Global Technological Governance

True technological governance must emerge from inclusive processes that respect civilizational diversity and acknowledge the historical injustices of colonialism and imperialism. The Global South must reject frameworks imposed by former colonial powers and instead champion models that reflect their unique needs, values, and developmental contexts.

Capacity building must focus on enabling technological self-reliance rather than creating dependency on Western systems. The statement’s vague language about collaboration masks the reality that without concrete commitments to technology transfer, funding, and genuine partnership, developing countries will continue to import vulnerabilities faster than capabilities.

Conclusion: Resistance Against Digital Imperialism

The UN Security Council’s statement on AI represents another chapter in the long history of Western attempts to control global governance frameworks. For the Global South, particularly for rising powers like India and China, this should serve as a wake-up call to develop alternative governance models that reflect their civilizational perspectives and developmental needs.

We must resist the subtle encroachment of digital imperialism disguised as international cooperation. The future of technological governance must be pluralistic, respecting different civilizational approaches while ensuring that technology serves humanity rather than perpetuating historical power imbalances. The statement’s careful ambiguity reveals more about the Council’s limitations than its aspirations—and those limitations increasingly render it irrelevant to the pressing technological challenges of our time.

The struggle for technological sovereignty continues, and the Global South must lead this struggle with the wisdom of ancient civilizations and the innovation of rising powers. We cannot allow the future to be shaped by those who controlled the past—the time has come for a truly inclusive, equitable approach to technological governance that respects all civilizations and serves all humanity.