Much of the Western discourse on Artificial Intelligence (AI) has lately focused on establishing safeguards and installing guardrails against powerful new AI systems, algorithmic bias, collusion of governments and tech oligarchs, and rising environmental costs related to AI ecosystems. The growing backlash in the West against the adverse effects of AI is labelled as ‘Botlash’ in the most recent commentary by Marietje Schaake. This commentary refers to various anti-AI movements that have gained tractions in the recent past including ‘QuitGPT’, ‘Resist and Unsubscribe’, and ‘Stealing Isn’t Innovation.’ While ‘botlash’ may be an apt description of how AI is now being perceived in the developed countries, the story for the Global South is completely opposite where AI is being viewed as some magical cure for poor governance, corruption, and weak economic development. Countries in the Global South are yet to undergo indigenous AI governance, development and deployment. Therefore, unlike the developed countries, the Global South is yet to experience a localised and large-scale adoption of AI or a ‘bot boom.’ However, the bid to adopt AI without first developing localised governance, digital literacy, and research ecosystem carries the risk of becoming passive consumers of foreign technologies.
AI is being pushed by political leaders and development agencies as the ultimate means of reigniting stagnant economic and development growth across multiple regions of Global South including Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Governments in these regions are presenting AI as a tool to fix bad governance, make healthcare and education more accessible, reduce corruption, and manage climate related disasters. For instance, in 2025 Ethiopia launched its Digital Ethiopia 2030 (DE2030) strategy, which explicitly calls for the integration of AI in education, healthcare, tax services, and justice. Similarly, Pakistan’s National AI policy 2025 frames AI as a transformative tool that would be employed in the sectors of healthcare, education, governance, agriculture and industry. Many countries in Latin America such as Chile, Argentina, and Colombia have also adopted national AI strategies that promote AI role in modernising public administration and fostering economic growth. However, none of these countries appear in the latest Stanford Global Vibrancy Ranking which means that they critically lack the pre-requisites for localised AI development and deployment including Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), talent, research and development (R&D), data governance, and digital literacy.
AI development in countries of the Global South remains slow due to various structural asymmetries mainly in four domains including infrastructure, data, governance and literacy. Infrastructure asymmetry relates to the lack of substantial local AI R&D, advance computational power (data centres, GPUs), uninterrupted high-speed internet, surplus energy, and development of indigenous large language models (LLMs) in the Global South. In addition, overall public investment in AI related research also remains low in the Global South. For example, Pakistan’s R&D expenditure remains at 0.16 percent of the country’s total GDP. As a result, countries in the Global South not only risk falling behind in the AI development but also must rely on foreign systems and expertise for digital infrastructure.
Many regions of the Global South are rich in data owing to the accelerated rate of mobile penetration, increasing number of internet users, agricultural sensors, and health records. However, these regions lack robust data governing mechanisms. The data of the Global South often ends up being extracted and monetised by foreign platforms for their own gains. The sheer scale of data offered by the countries in the Global South massive. For example, over 1.3 billion people have registered in India’s biometric identification system Adhaar. Similarly, over 228 million people have registered into Pakistan’s National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). However, in absence of indigenous data processing and protection mechanisms, the data of Global South ends up flowing to the servers of private corporations and companies of the developed world such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, Huawei, Amazon and Tencent.
Next is the asymmetry in the governance frameworks of AI. Many countries of the world have already rolled out their AI strategies and plans. However, the leadership role remains reserved by a few including the United States (US), China, France, and UK. In Europe, EU AI Act (2024) continues to offer defining framework for development and regulation of AI across the region and beyond. In Global South, however, the AI strategies often focus on ambitious goals without clearly defining binding regulatory mechanisms, enforcement architecture, budgetary commitments, and institutional mandates. Moreover, governments in these countries often rely on the foreign vendors and international consultants for expertise. Thus, these governments end up setting and enforcing digital norms that do not reflect local realities.
Lastly, one of the most fundamental asymmetries can be observed in the domain of digital literacy between the developed countries and the Global South. According to latest estimates, around 93 percent of the population in the high-income countries use internet as compared to 38 percent in Africa and 52 percent in South Asia which clearly shows the asymmetry in digital connectivity and access to AI tools. On top of that, only 5 percent of the people on low-income countries and 15 percent in the lower-middle income countries possess basic digital skills. Low levels of digital literacy increase the risks of digital manipulations, disinformation and online extremism in the Global South.
Global South cannot simply afford to engage in ‘botlash’ as it is a product of AI saturation and development, which is yet to happen for the Global South. Without localised research, development and governance of AI, many countries in the Global South could potentially become the testing grounds for new technologies. To avoid this trap, developing countries must invest in enhancing their digital literacy rate and build domestic capacity of AI R&D. Moreover, there is also a need to establish independent AI oversight and governing bodies and to prioritise local language and culturally relevant models of AI.
Muhammad Faizan Fakhar is a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in South China Morning Post. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Share this article
The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management
Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.
Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status
On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power
Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict
Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.
