Originally published on Global Voices

Code projected over woman. Photo by ThisIsEngineering. Free to use via Pexels.

Can the West foster a fair and democratic process for artificial intelligence (AI) governance, or will capitalist and business interests dominate? This question has polarized the Global South, particularly Africa, highlighting the digital divide and differing perspectives between the North and South. While AI’s utility is widely acknowledged, the key issue remains: Who benefits, and what purpose does it serve?

History has shown that technological advancements in the Global North have often been accompanied by exploitation in the Global South. The Industrial Revolution, sparked by innovations like the steam engine and transportation technology, is a prime example. These technologies drove progress in the North but exacerbated exploitation in the South, fostering defensiveness and skepticism towards Northern technological dominance. This legacy continues to influence the Global South’s approach to new technologies like AI. 

Furthermore, this skepticism is also rooted in historical precedents, which have shaped how nations interact with technology. Historical precedents suggest that nations’ technological strategies can be understood through two pedagogical approaches. The “Protestant pedagogy” allows nations to apply and tailor technology to their unique cultural and socio-economic contexts, driving advancement in both culture and economics. In contrast, the “Catholic pedagogy” takes an agency form, where nations can only participate through the agency of the technology’s originators. This approach has been detrimental to Africa’s development, as seen in the extractive economies established during colonization.

As noted by Acemoglu and Robinson in their 2012 book, “Why Nations Fail,” this approach has fostered a system in which resources are controlled by external agents, thereby limiting Africa’s ability to shape its own economic destiny. 

The AI divide: A growing concern

The AI divide is stark: North America and China are poised to reap the lion’s share of AI’s economic benefits, with the Global South experiencing more moderate increases due to lower adoption rates. According to the World Economic Forum, AI is forecast to contribute USD 15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, with the majority of benefits going to high-income nations. This disparity underscores the need for inclusive AI development and governance.

The 2nd Conference on the State of Artificial Intelligence in Africa (COSAA) 2025, a conference aimed at providing a platform to discuss AI’s transformative potential in Africa, was met with intense skepticism and uncertainty regarding artificial intelligence. A pressing question dominated the discussion: who truly benefits from AI? This concern is well-founded, given the current dynamics. For instance, Africa generates a substantial amount of data, yet only 2 percent of data centers are located on the continent, meaning the majority of the potential benefits are directed elsewhere. Furthermore, data laborers and gig drivers in Africa face significant inequalities compared to their counterparts in the Global North, highlighting the need for more equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities in the digital economy.

Given this context, it’s concerning that the United Nations General Assembly’s response to AI’s potential for economic upliftment and bridging the economic gap is inadequate. A more concrete approach would have addressed implementation gaps, brain drain, and local context limitations. Instead, the focus shifted to AI’s military applications, particularly in warfare, as highlighted by Ukrainian President Zelensky’s emphasis on AI’s potential for weaponry development. However, the question remains: on what grounds can Africa pursue AI development, given the existing power dynamics? 

Mercantilist interests often overshadow global prosperity

The digital sphere has become accustomed to prioritizing self-serving mercantilist goals over regional, national, and global development efforts. This trend persists despite AI’s potential to uplift millions out of poverty. A recent example is the controversy surrounding the African Network  Information Center (AFRINIC), a regional internet registry for Africa. 

AFRINIC was established to promote digital sovereignty and infrastructure development in Africa by allocating IP address resources across the continent. However, the acquisition of nearly 7 million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC by Cloud Innovation — a company founded by Chinese entrepreneur Lu Heng — has raised serious concerns. Although Cloud Innovation is formally registered in the Seychelles, the majority of its operations are based in Asia, where it leases these IP addresses to companies in China, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. This situation has sparked debate around issues of representation, inclusion, and the potential disruption of Africa’s internet ecosystem.

Consolidation and control: The future of AI

The AI race has sparked concerns about the global economy’s trajectory and security,  highlighting a trend towards consolidation. For example, the former US President Joe Biden’s administration introduced the Interim  Final Rule in January 2025, which regulates advanced chip distribution for AI, categorizing countries into tiers based on access. This policy favors the Global North, with over 90 percent of Tier 1 countries enjoying unrestricted access, while the Global South, including Africa, faces limited access in Tier 2. 

Furthermore, current US President Donald Trump plans to scrap this system and engage countries directly for chip access, which may not necessarily improve the situation, as it could lead to a more fragmented and potentially unequal landscape.

Many countries in the Global South, particularly those in  Africa, despite possessing significant reserves of critical minerals used in chip manufacturing, often lack the leverage, expertise, and negotiating power to effectively bargain with the US  government and secure favorable terms, potentially limiting their economic benefits from these resources and exacerbating the problem. The discovery of petroleum in African countries like Nigeria, Angola, and Gabon illustrates this point. Despite vast oil reserves, these countries often struggle to negotiate favorable deals with multinational corporations, leading to unequal revenue sharing, limited economic benefits, and dependence on foreign expertise. 

The Global South’s readiness for AI: Challenges and concerns

The Global South faces significant challenges in adapting to AI, particularly in data collection and management. One major issue is the current state of data collection standards. The three common methods are self-production, repositories, and sites, which can be tedious and time-consuming. Moreover, maintaining a consistent approach to data collection is crucial, but integrating data from foreign sources can introduce existing biases and perpetuate structural inequalities. 

Another significant challenge is the lack of a structured data ecosystem in Africa, because of the continent’s nascent presence in the field. This raises concerns about data transferability, given the varying data policies, laws, and enforcement mechanisms across countries in the Global South, particularly in Africa. For instance, over 40 countries have enacted data protection laws, creating complexity and potential fragmentation. 

These challenges highlight the need for a more coordinated and inclusive approach to AI  development in the Global South, one that prioritizes data quality, consistency, and fairness. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that AI benefits the Global South and promotes equitable development. 

The road towards legitimacy

The West has the power to make AI a legitimate tool for human advancement by adhering to democratic values as a fundamental characteristic. This journey begins with inclusivity and participation, engaging stakeholders across regions and countries to understand unique challenges and aspirations.

This collaborative approach promotes accountability and transparency, building trust between citizens and authorities. Transparency is crucial as AI systems make decisions impacting lives, and clear explanations empower citizens to understand choices and hold authorities accountable. 

Fairness and non-discrimination are essential principles, promoting social justice and equity while respecting human rights and diversity. Human oversight and regulation are vital, with robust frameworks governing AI development and deployment. 

To realize AI’s potential, governments, regional, and international organizations must collaborate to harness its power as a force for uplift. The United Nations should prioritize restoring confidence in AI by aligning it with global initiatives like the Sustainable Development Goals and data privacy laws. 

The UN can facilitate this by collaborating with regional institutions to align goals with international standards and promote responsible AI practices. Regional organizations should work together to ensure seamless data sharing, digital law enforcement, and high standards for data collection and protection, prioritizing language and cultural integration to benefit all communities.

Originally published on Global Voices

A realistic image of the interior of a modern data center. The scene features long rows of tall, sleek server racks filled with blinking LED lights. Image by Cbrasil0 on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed).

Carpenter James W. Marshall discovered gold flakes in Coloma, a small town on the American River in the United States, on January 24, 1848. This sparked the Gold Rush, a mass movement of fortune seekers, which drew diverse miners, sparking economic competition that led to discrimination, marginalization, and genocide against Native Americans and other non-white populations in what is now California.  

As California's economy grew, gold mines solidified Anglo-American (white American) dominance through exclusionary practices. Mexican and other Latino miners faced genocidal campaigns, violent opposition, and discriminatory taxes, while Black, Asian, and Latino Americans were barred from mining infrastructure. 

Within this environment, San Francisco emerged as the greatest boom town, its population surging from 600 in 1848 to 25,000 in 1849. As the primary port of entry for seaborne “Argonauts” (people who moved to California during the gold rush of 1849) and global supplies, San Francisco became California's banking, manufacturing, and economic epicenter. 

Today's Silicon Valley, a global hub for technology and innovation, is deeply rooted in the Gold Rush legacy. While academics often highlight the Argonauts’ entrepreneurial spirit and positive cultural attributes, this narrative overlooks the US government's role in consolidating wealth through policies such as the Preemption Act of 1841, which secured land rights largely for white men, to the disadvantage of anyone else. 

Moreover, these laws and government interventions led to economic consolidation around gold mines, achieved through displacement, violence, and unequal wealth distribution. Similar to their predecessor, Silicon Valley and the US Government have perpetuated these practices, consolidating global wealth and resources, often at the expense of low-income countries and former colonized states.

Myth of the equitable playing field

The US government and Silicon Valley claim to promote fair competition, but this contradicts Silicon Valley's own history of receiving government support. For instance, in 1958, after the incorporation of Fairchild Semiconductor (the seminal company that gave rise to Silicon Valley), government agencies like the Department of Defense, NASA, and the US AIR FORCE gave the company massive support in the form of contracts, subsidies, and tax incentives. 

Additionally, Stanford University, inaugurated by William Shockley, became an institution that would later become renowned for its academic output in Artificial  Intelligence (AI), Quantum Computing, and its thriving start-up ecosystem, while it was initially financed by the military. Again, Silicon Valley received military funding for the Massive Digital Data system, a program that was instrumental to the creation of Google, an enterprise that would come to be synonymous with lobbyist endeavors and a champion of mercantilist policies.  

Finally, in 1990, the US military allocated over 1.1 percent of the federal budget to defense contracts in Silicon Valley. In a similar vein, former President Joe Biden’s USD 850 billion defense budget proposal sparked global curiosity over its allocation. 

The unseen forces shaping global politics

Analogous to the Argonauts, Silicon Valley's rise was facilitated by a lax regulatory environment in the 1990s–2000s. This enabled tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook to flourish. By 2024, Apple's market capitalization reached USD 3.50 trillion, rivaling the combined  GDP of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Poland, and Argentina.

In addition, Apple’s value approaches that of the Dutch East Indian company, historically considered the most valuable company in existence. Other tech giants, including Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, boast market capitalizations exceeding USD 1 trillion. 

Silicon Valley wields vast political influence through strategic lobbying and diplomacy, both domestically and internationally. For instance, Denmark's 2017 appointment of a foreign minister to Silicon Valley, followed by Austria, the UK, and Estonia, demonstrates this influence. Another instance is the rise of tech specialists in politics, like Robert Holleyman, former CEO of Business Software Alliance and deputy US trade representative under President Barack Obama.

Indeed, the Silicon Valley giants spent USD 70 billion on lobbying in 2021, exceeding 2020's USD 64 billion. A study found that every USD 1 spent on lobbying generated a USD 220 return. Furthermore, the companies aggressively pursue mercantilist policies globally, seeking to penetrate foreign markets through trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), Trade Agreement Authority, and Tax Evasion. 

The digital oligopolies

Today, Silicon Valley dominates the digital economy by controlling consumption and underlying infrastructure. The digital infrastructural space is a modern-day gold mine. Just as the Argonauts concentrated wealth and talent around gold mines, data centers now serve as hubs for economic consolidation. 

Data centers offer hidden economic benefits beyond privacy and sovereignty. They attract Foreign Direct Investment, create high-paying jobs, boost local economies, and improve reliability. A 10 percent increase in internet penetration yields 1.4 percent GDP growth, while local data centers bring taxes, infrastructure, and a competitive edge. 

Despite clear benefits, Africa and other global majority nations underinvest in data center infrastructure. This is because data centers are capital-intensive, making private investment unviable and government investment risky due to potential anti-competitive concerns. This hands-off approach is seen as perpetuating the digital oligopoly. 

To illustrate further, the US owns over 50 percent of global data centers (5,381/11,800). Silicon Valley has more data centers than Singapore, Switzerland, and India combined. Data center-related activities generate 7.1 percent of the US's 2.1 trillion GDP. 

Global Constellation of Cloud computing data centers (Amazon green, Google blue and Microsoft red). Image by Abdallah Khalifa Abdallah. Used with permission.

Finally, Silicon Valley's infrastructural dominance controls consumption. Google and Facebook dominate global advertising, while Google holds over 90 percent of the global search market.

 A way forward

Parallel to the gold mines during the “Gold Rush,” Data centers concentrate economic resources, attracting skilled workers and enterprises. Africa and countries in the global majority need a digital integration blueprint to compete in the digital economy. Furthermore, African and other global majority regions must acknowledge their integration into the global system. However, they must contest the terms of this integration. The playing field remains uneven, leaving them vulnerable to Silicon Valley's exploitative policies. A competitive, driven approach is necessary. 

The World Trade Organization's crisis has led nations to prioritize bilateral agreements and national interests, using data localization and other measures to promote domestic digital firms. China's 2015 requirement for foreign tech firms to share source code highlights the need for a balance between regulation and democratic values. Africa and the global majority nations must regulate technology strategically to compete. 

Inadequate infrastructure is a product of low spending on Research and Development (R&D). Africa's R&D spending averages 0.45 percent of its GDP, far below the global average of 1.7 percent, and this can significantly impede the localization of products and infrastructure.

In another case, digital skills encompass digital literacy, content creation, and entrepreneurship. However, inadequate infrastructure can hinder the development of these skills. 

Furthermore, regional institutions like the African Union, African Development Bank (AfDB), and New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) can fund infrastructure projects through resource-backed loans. Governments and NGOs can also support local R&D spending. 

The world is at a crossroads. Digital technology has interconnected people and services, but global governance driven by mercantilist interests has led to unprecedented marginalization, exacerbating poverty, the immigration crisis, and global instability. The digital economy should prioritize eradicating global poverty, not just serving corporate interests.  

African governments must take a more active role in shaping the digital economy, rather than leaving it to the giants of Silicon Valley, to ensure accountability and social well-being for its consumers.