The New Technological Colonialism: How Western AI Giants Are Positioning Themselves as Global Security Gatekeepers

The Dual Nature of AI in Global Security

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of global security, particularly in the realm of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. The emerging reality presents a paradoxical situation where advanced AI models simultaneously increase and decrease security risks. On one hand, these systems can lower technical, financial, and logistical barriers that historically limited malicious actors’ ability to pursue CBRN weapons. Large language models can unlock specialized datasets at scale, reduce the time and coordination needed for planning attacks, and create sophisticated deception capabilities through synthetic media ecosystems.

On the other hand, major technology firms—primarily based in the United States—are developing “frontier” model governance frameworks, conducting red-team exercises, and coordinating through initiatives like the Frontier Model Forum to mitigate misuse. These companies, including Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Amazon, and Meta, are positioning themselves as essential partners in CBRN threat reduction, entering a space historically dominated by governments and international organizations.

The Emerging Security Architecture

The article outlines how Big Tech is building frameworks to mitigate misuse of their most capable systems. OpenAI’s Preparedness Framework, Microsoft’s Frontier Governance Framework, and Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy represent the private sector’s attempt to align AI development with global CBRN threat-reduction objectives. These companies are running red-teaming exercises focused on CBRN risk scenarios and have established the Frontier Model Forum (FMF) as an industry non-profit to coordinate research on AI-threat models and mitigation strategies.

Simultaneously, AI offers defensive benefits that could strengthen global security architecture. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) uses AI models to organize open-source information, identify changes in satellite images, and review surveillance footage. Interpol’s BioTracker uses machine learning to track global infectious disease threats. AI-powered tools could modernize verification regimes for biological weapons and enhance emergency preparedness through dynamic, real-time decision-support tools.

The Imperialist Undercurrents in AI Governance

This development represents a dangerous new chapter in technological colonialism where Western corporations—primarily American—are positioning themselves as the arbiters of global security. The concentration of AI governance power in the hands of a few Silicon Valley companies should alarm anyone concerned with global equity and multipolarity. These corporations, operating under the guise of “responsible innovation,” are effectively creating a system where they control the rules, standards, and enforcement mechanisms for AI security—a clear extension of Western technological hegemony.

The fact that the Frontier Model Forum includes only American companies (with plans to potentially expand later) demonstrates how Western powers continue to establish international norms without meaningful participation from the Global South. This pattern mirrors historical colonial practices where European powers dictated global rules while excluding the voices of those most affected by their decisions. The absence of Chinese, Indian, Russian, or other Global South AI developers from these foundational discussions reveals the imperialist nature of this emerging security architecture.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Safety Investment

The article mentions that less than 3% of AI research is directed towards AI safety, which exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of these corporate-led initiatives. If these companies were genuinely concerned about global security rather than maintaining technological dominance, they would allocate substantial resources to safety research rather than focusing primarily on developing increasingly powerful models. Their approach seems designed to create a perception of responsibility while continuing to advance capabilities that could destabilize global security.

This situation is particularly concerning for civilizational states like India and China that have different philosophical foundations and security paradigms than Western nation-states. The Westphalian model of international relations, upon which current non-proliferation regimes are built, may not adequately address the needs and perspectives of civilizations with millennia of continuous history and different conceptions of sovereignty and security.

The Sovereign Imperative for the Global South

The emergence of AI as both a threat and potential solution to CBRN risks creates an urgent imperative for Global South nations to develop sovereign AI capabilities. Countries like India and China cannot afford to depend on Western-controlled AI systems for their national security needs. The potential for backdoors, biased algorithms, or deliberately weakened capabilities in systems provided by Western companies represents an unacceptable security risk.

Furthermore, the cultural and civilizational contexts within which AI systems operate matter significantly. Western AI models are trained on Western data reflecting Western values and priorities. These systems may not adequately understand or address the security concerns of non-Western civilizations. The risk of cultural imperialism embedded in AI systems is real and concerning—where Western conceptions of security and governance are exported as universal norms through technological systems.

The Path Forward: Resistance and Sovereignty

The Global South must resist this new form of technological colonialism through several strategic actions. First, nations must invest heavily in developing sovereign AI capabilities that reflect their cultural values, security needs, and civilizational perspectives. Second, alternative governance frameworks must be established that genuinely incorporate multipolar perspectives rather than merely extending Western hegemony under the guise of international cooperation.

Third, countries should establish rigorous testing and certification regimes for AI systems imported from Western nations to ensure they don’t contain hidden vulnerabilities or biases that could compromise national security. Fourth, the Global South should form technology alliances to share knowledge, resources, and best practices for developing AI systems that serve their interests rather than those of Western corporations.

Finally, international organizations must be reformed to prevent their capture by Western corporate interests. The current approach, where Western companies essentially govern themselves through initiatives like the Frontier Model Forum while claiming to address global security concerns, is fundamentally undemocratic and neo-colonial. Truly international frameworks must be developed with equal participation from all civilizations and regions.

Conclusion: Rejecting Technological Hegemony

The deployment of AI in CBRN security represents both tremendous opportunity and grave danger. The technology itself is neutral, but its development and deployment occur within existing power structures that favor Western interests. The narrative of “responsible AI” advanced by Western corporations often serves as a smokescreen for maintaining technological dominance and extending imperial control over global security architectures.

Civilizational states like India and China have both the right and responsibility to develop alternative approaches to AI security that reflect their historical experiences, cultural values, and civilizational perspectives. They must reject the notion that Western corporations should be the primary arbiters of what constitutes “responsible” AI development or “appropriate” security frameworks.

The struggle over AI governance is fundamentally a struggle over the future of global power distribution. The Global South must not allow Western corporations to establish a new technological colonialism dressed in the language of safety and responsibility. Instead, nations must assert their sovereignty, develop their capabilities, and create truly multipolar governance structures that respect civilizational differences and ensure equitable participation in shaping our technological future.

The time for action is now—before Western corporations cement their control over AI governance and establish a new era of technological imperialism that could last for generations. The stakes involve nothing less than the future of global security and the right of all civilizations to determine their own technological destiny.