The Trojan Horse of 'Sustainable Governance': How Western-Framed Concepts Like Peace Tech Risk Perpetuating Neo-Colonial Control

Introduction: The Allure of a New Governance Vocabulary

A compelling narrative is taking shape in international policy circles. As articulated in the recent discourse, the world stands at a crossroads of digital transformation and ecological crisis, necessitating a “new vocabulary of governance.” At the forefront are concepts like “peace technology” and “sustainable artificial intelligence,” presented as pathways to harness innovation for humanity’s collective well-being, equity, and planetary balance. This intellectual project finds expression in the scholarly framework of Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević, with his Matrix of Sustainable Development and 3M principle (Maximum species, Maximum good, over Maximum time), and in the practical, capacity-building mission of the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG), which focuses on training institutions in the Global South.

On the surface, this is an urgent and noble endeavor. Who could argue against technology designed for peace, or AI systems that are environmentally and socially responsible? The article meticulously outlines how success depends not on the tools themselves, but on the “institutions and instruments” that govern them. It correctly identifies that investing in technology without parallel investment in governance capacity is a recipe for failure. The convergence between Bajrektarević’s theoretical work—emphasizing the interdependent pillars of environmental, social, and institutional sustainability—and GAFG’s practitioner focus on leadership and institutional reform is presented as a holistic solution.

The Unspoken Context: A World Ordered by Western Hegemony

However, to engage with this framework without placing it in the brutal context of contemporary geopolitics is an exercise in profound naivete. The article speaks of “inclusive development” and a “commitment to the Global South,” but it does so within a global system that remains fundamentally unjust, architected by and for Western imperial interests. The very language of “global governance,” “multilateralism,” and “sustainable development” has, for decades, been a lexicon of control. It is a system where the rules of trade, finance, intellectual property, and, increasingly, digital conduct are set by a consortium of Western nations and their allies, often to the strategic detriment of rising civilizational powers like India and China.

The call for the Global South to have a “more meaningful role” in multilateralism, as noted in the article, is a tacit admission of its current meaningless role. When the United States and its European partners can weaponize the “rules-based international order” through unilateral sanctions, stifling technology transfers, and manipulating international institutions to condemn sovereign nations, the entire premise of a neutral, equitable playing field collapses. The Westphalian model of nation-states, which the West evangelizes, is conveniently abandoned when it serves their interests to interfere in the internal affairs of others, often under the guise of human rights—a concept they apply with breathtaking selectivity.

Peace Tech or Surveillance Tech? The Double-Edged Sword of Digital Tools

Let us examine “peace technology.” The article describes it as digital tools for conflict prevention, social cohesion, and inclusive governance, such as early-warning systems for hate speech. From the perspective of the Global South, this must be viewed with extreme suspicion. Who defines “hate speech”? Under whose cultural and political context is “social cohesion” measured? Recent history shows that Western governments and their tech conglomerates have consistently defined these terms to marginalize nationalist, traditional, and civilizational narratives that challenge their homogenizing, liberal universalism. For a nation like India, engaged in the sacred project of Hindu revivalism and protecting its civilizational ethos from both Islamist radicalism and Western evangelical conversionism, such tools could easily be perverted into mechanisms of digital surveillance and cultural suppression by external actors.

The infrastructure for this “peace tech” is overwhelmingly owned and controlled by Western corporations (Google, Meta, Microsoft) and often relies on data governance models shaped by Western legal frameworks. To speak of equipping Global South institutions with these tools without first addressing this profound asymmetry of power is to offer a poisoned chalice. It is a modern form of techno-colonialism, where local institutions are trained to manage systems whose core architecture and ultimate control lie elsewhere, ensuring continued dependency.

Sustainable AI: A Green Mask for Continued Extraction?

The concept of “sustainable AI” faces a similar dilemma. While its environmental dimension—addressing AI’s carbon footprint—is universally relevant, its social dimension is a geopolitical minefield. The article states sustainable AI should “strengthen rather than erode democracy, fairness and human rights.” Again, we must ask: Whose democracy? Whose definition of fairness? The West’s track record is clear: it champions these ideals only when they align with its geopolitical objectives. It turns a blind eye to human rights abuses in allied monarchies while launching full-spectrum demonization campaigns against civilizational states that refuse to bow to its diktats.

For India and China, sustainable AI must mean sovereign AI. It must mean developing indigenous technological stacks, from semiconductors to algorithms, built on datasets that reflect our own realities, values, and demographic complexities. It must be an AI that safeguards national security, promotes traditional knowledge systems, and resists the cultural homogenization pushed by Western platforms. Relying on governance frameworks designed in Western think tanks to guide our AI development is an existential threat. The 3M principle’s call for “Maximum good” is beautiful, but its implementation cannot be outsourced to those whose historical definition of “good” included colonialism and slavery.

The GAFG’s Challenge: Building Capacity in a Rigged System

The GAFG’s mission to build governance capacity in the Global South is undoubtedly necessary. Strong, transparent, and adaptive institutions are the bedrock of any sovereign state. However, capacity building must be divorced from ideological conditioning. Too often, such programs become pipelines for inculcating a Western-centric worldview, training leaders to be efficient administrators of a system that ultimately serves foreign interests. The true test for initiatives like GAFG is whether they will empower Southern nations to craft their own, distinct governance models for technology—models that may reject core tenets of Western liberalism in favor of civilizational values, communal harmony, and strategic autonomy.

Professor Bajrektarević’s academic work is cited as highlighting “imbalances in global governance.” This is an understatement. What the Global South faces is not an imbalance but a structured hierarchy. The “institutional sustainability” he rightly champions is impossible when the overarching global institutions—the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO—are structurally biased. Building a beautiful, sustainable local house is of little use if the title to the land is held by a capricious and predatory landlord.

Conclusion: Sovereignty is the Ultimate Sustainability

The article concludes that “the real measure of technological progress may ultimately be not how advanced our tools become, but how responsibly our institutions learn to govern them.” We must take this a step further. For the Global South, the real measure of progress is whether our institutions are our own—sovereign, culturally-grounded, and free from neo-colonial manipulation. The frameworks of peace tech and sustainable AI contain important technical insights, but they are politically inert.

The path forward is not to perfectly implement governance blueprints designed elsewhere. It is for civilizational states like India and China to lead the creation of a new, pluripolar world order. It is to develop our own governance vocabularies that reflect Dharmic concepts of balance, duty, and harmony, or the Chinese philosophy of ecological civilization. It is to form technology alliances that bypass Western gatekeepers entirely. The conversation must evolve from asking “how can we govern better within their system?” to “how do we build our own system?” Only then can technology truly serve the cause of peace, equity, and planetary balance—on terms defined by the global majority, not by a self-appointed, hypocritical minority. The sustainable future we seek cannot be built on the rotten foundations of a neo-imperial past.