Dr Zafar Khan Safdar<\/p>\n
Colonialism once announced itself through flags, armies and the occupation of territory. Its modern forms can be less visible. A country may possess political independence, elect its own government and control its natural resources, yet depend on foreign corporations for the digital infrastructure through which its economy, public services and citizens increasingly operate. In the age of artificial intelligence, cloud computing and big data, sovereignty is no longer determined by territory alone. It also depends on who controls the technology on which nations rely.
\nThis is not to suggest that every international technology company represents a colonial power or that technological dependence is equivalent to historical occupation. Digital technologies have expanded access to knowledge, opened markets and created opportunities that were once unimaginable. The concern is that their benefits and underlying power are distributed unequally. When a handful of companies control essential infrastructure, advanced computing capacity and influential digital platforms, countries without alternatives can find their choices constrained by decisions made beyond their borders.
\nThe scale of this imbalance is striking. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United States and China dominate artificial intelligence research and patents, while much of the computing infrastructure required to develop advanced AI remains concentrated in a small number of economies. The concentration of cloud infrastructure among a few major providers further reinforces this imbalance. Developing countries risk becoming consumers of technologies whose underlying systems, commercial terms and future direction they have little power to influence.
\nThe implications extend far beyond the location of servers. Artificial intelligence depends on computing power, advanced chips, training data, skilled professionals and reliable energy supplies. Countries lacking these foundations must purchase access from providers that control them. Businesses may benefit from affordable foreign services, and governments can modernise without building every component themselves. Yet dependence becomes a strategic vulnerability when access, pricing, data handling and the terms of service are determined largely by external providers over whom users have limited influence.
\nData presents another dimension of this imbalance. Every digital transaction, online search and interaction with an application can generate information of economic value. Such data can improve public services, support scientific research and help businesses understand their customers. But its collection and commercial use raise questions about privacy, ownership, consent and the distribution of profits. When countries supply vast amounts of data while lacking the infrastructure and expertise to develop competitive technologies from it, they risk remaining consumers of digital products rather than becoming producers of intellectual property and high-value services.
\nThe pattern recalls an older economic relationship in which developing countries supplied raw materials while wealthier economies captured greater value through processing, manufacturing and trade. The digital economy is not identical to that system, but the comparison is instructive. UNCTAD reported in 2025 that developing countries exported $1.1 trillion in digital services in 2024, representing only about a fifth of the global total. Digital investment has grown, but it remains concentrated in a limited number of economies. Access to technology alone, therefore, does not guarantee an equal share of its economic rewards.
\nPakistan illustrates this dilemma. The federal cabinet approved its National Artificial Intelligence Policy in July 2025, recognising the need to develop domestic capabilities and encourage responsible adoption. Yet implementation has encountered delays. In February 2026, Dawn reported that the proposed AI Council remained in limbo and key elements of the policy had made little progress. Meanwhile, the government has pursued partnerships intended to strengthen sovereign cloud infrastructure and local AI development. These initiatives offer opportunities, but their success will depend on effective oversight, technical capacity and sustained implementation rather than policy announcements alone.
\nFor Pakistan, digital sovereignty should not mean rejecting foreign investment or attempting to build every technology independently. It should mean retaining meaningful control over sensitive public data, ensuring transparent procurement of digital services, protecting citizens\u2019 privacy and enabling local businesses to develop products that can compete internationally. The proposed National Data Governance Policy 2026 could contribute to this effort, but it remains a draft. Strong institutions, enforceable safeguards and clear accountability are essential if technological partnerships are to serve national interests.
\nThe challenge extends beyond Pakistan. Developing countries need a greater voice in international discussions on artificial intelligence, data protection and digital trade. Regional cooperation could help them pool research resources, train specialists, develop local-language technologies and negotiate more effectively with global providers. International rules must also recognise that countries adopting digital technologies deserve a meaningful role in shaping the standards under which those technologies operate.
\nThe defining struggle of the digital age may concern not who occupies territory, but who controls the systems through which economies function and societies communicate. Political independence remains essential, but it cannot deliver its full promise if technological dependence leaves countries with little power to shape their digital futures. The answer is neither to reject global innovation nor to retreat behind digital borders. It is to build the capacity, institutions and partnerships necessary to participate in the global technology economy on fairer terms.
\nColonialism once extracted wealth from territories. Its digital counterpart risks concentrating data, profits and technological power in the hands of those who already possess the greatest advantages. Preventing that outcome requires more than connecting developing countries to the digital world. It requires ensuring that they have a meaningful stake in building it.<\/p>\n
The writer is Ph.D in Political Science and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad. His area of specialization is political development and social change. He can be reached at zafarkhansafdar@yahoo.com and on X @zafarkhansafdar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dr Zafar Khan Safdar Colonialism once announced itself through flags, armies and the occupation of territory. Its modern forms can be less visible. A country may possess political independence, elect its own government and control its natural resources, yet depend on foreign corporations for the digital infrastructure through which its economy, public services and citizens […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13031],"class_list":["post-572844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-article","tag-dr-zafar-khan-safdar"],"yoast_head":"\n