The UN and the AI Power Struggle: Who Will Govern the Technology Shaping Global Security?
Programmes

The UN and the AI Power Struggle: Who Will Govern the Technology Shaping Global Security?

On 23 September 2026, the United Nations Security Council confronted an unusual development in international security. The people warning governments about the dangers of AI were not only diplomats or military officials, but the executives building the technology itself. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, and Hugging Face co-founder Clément Delangue briefed the 15-member Council as governments grapple with increasingly capable AI systems that can write code, operate autonomously, interact with external systems, and potentially improve their own capabilities. Amodei warned that, if poorly managed, “AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole”, while Altman argued that decisions about AI could not be left to technology companies alone.   The meeting was significant because AI is rapidly moving from a technology-policy issue into the domain of international security. Yet the deeper question is not simply how dangerous AI may become. It is who will establish the rules governing a technology increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of states and companies. The UN is attempting to become the forum where those rules are debated, but it is entering a contest in which technological capabilities, economic power, national security interests, and competing visions of governance are already shaping the outcome.
When Global Competition Becomes about Indispensability
Programmes

When Global Competition Becomes about Indispensability

Countries are increasingly shifting toward making themselves indispensable in a specific area. China controls rare-earth minerals, Taiwan pioneers in semiconductor manufacturing, the United States leads in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies, and the Gulf, particularly the UAE, positions itself as a global logistics hub.   This new era introduces the concept of “strategic irreplaceability or indispensability”, in which countries no longer focus solely on maximizing their national power but instead become experts in a specific field, making them an indispensable bottleneck in the global system.