The Anthropology of Digital Sovereignty: The Case of the
Italo-G7 African AI Hub Initiative
Abstract
The emergence of Sovereign Artificial Intelligence
(Sovereign AI) marks a turning point in the political geography of power in the
21st century. While often interpreted through the lenses of geopolitics and the
digital economy, this transformation demands deeper analysis that includes an
anthropological perspective. This article explores the symbolic, cultural, and
social meanings of Sovereign AI, focusing on how it redefines sovereignty,
democratic participation, and power relations between states, communities, and
individuals.
We analyze the case of the Italo-G7 initiative for an
African AI hub , highlighting internal contradictions in Italian rhetoric and
the risks of digital neocolonialism . Using a mixed-method approach
(qualitative and quantitative), we demonstrate how inconsistencies between
domestic and foreign practices weaken Italy’s international credibility and
reproduce historical patterns of domination under new technological forms.
1. Introduction: Sovereignty in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence
In recent years, the concept of “Sovereign AI” has gained
prominence in international debates on technological control, national
security, and the future of innovation. It refers to a state's capacity to
develop, manage, and use artificial intelligence systems independently from
external influence, ensuring data protection, compliance with local
regulations, and strategic autonomy.
While many studies focus on geopolitical and infrastructural
factors, few have addressed the issue from an anthropological perspective . As
Appadurai (1996) argues, the contemporary world is shaped by "imagined
landscapes" (scapes ), where global technologies and narratives shape
collective identities and future expectations. Therefore, Sovereign AI cannot
be fully understood without considering how it is embedded in specific cultural
contexts, reshaping traditional power structures and redefining the very meaning
of sovereignty and democracy.
Guiding Research Questions
How does Sovereign AI redefine the relationship between
technology, power, and society?
What anthropological implications arise from the export of
Western technological models to the Global South?
Is there coherence between Italian domestic practices and
its international promises regarding AI cooperation?
2. Methodology: A Mixed-Methods and Interdisciplinary
Approach
The research adopts a mixed-methods approach , combining:
2.1 Secondary Document Analysis
Official policy papers (EU, G7, African Union)
National AI strategies (Italy, India, UAE, China)
Reports from international organizations (UN, World Bank)
2.2 Semi-Structured Interviews
Fifteen qualitative interviews were conducted between March
and July 2024 with:
African AI researchers (n=5)
Italian public officials (n=4)
Experts in digital ethics (n=3)
Digital activists (n=3)
2.3 Quantitative Analysis
Datasets on Sovereign AI investments (Sources: Statista,
IDC, Eurostat, World Bank)
Surveys on digital literacy in Italy and Africa (Sources:
Eurostat, Afrobarometer)
2.4 Theoretical Framework
Technological Anthropology (Suchman, 2007)
Digital Sovereignty (Deibert, 2020)
Post-Colonial Critique of AI (Couldry & Mejias, 2019)
3. Case Study: The Italo-G7 African AI Hub Initiative
3.1 General Context
The Italo-G7 African AI hub initiative aims to create an
autonomous technological hub in collaboration with Egypt, Kenya, and ten other
African countries. Promoted as a tool to reduce the global digital divide, it
unfolds within a context of growing competition among technological blocs (West
vs. China).
3.2 Empirical Data
Investments : €450 million allocated by the G7.
Participants : 12 African countries involved; 8 selected
research centers.
Technologies used : NVIDIA Cloud, Oracle software, limited
open-source models.
Digital Literacy :
Italy: 54% of the population has basic digital skills
(Eurostat, 2023).
Sub-Saharan Africa: only 19% (Afrobarometer, 2022).
3.3 Internal Contradictions
Interviews reveal a series of tensions:
While Italy promotes transparency in Africa, serious gaps
exist in public consultation on national AI strategies (Ministry of Innovation,
2023).
Most of the technologies used in the hub are controlled by
multinational companies (NVIDIA, Oracle), raising doubts about actual
independence.
Only 12% of interviewed experts believe the initiative
guarantees real knowledge transfer and intellectual property rights to African
partners.
4. Key Findings
4.1 Redefining Digital Sovereignty
Sovereign AI is not just a technical issue but a means to
redefine state sovereignty in terms of data control, autonomous
decision-making, and public information management. As Crawford and Joler
(2018) show, every AI system incorporates epistemological and moral assumptions
that reflect the cultures and elites that produce them.
4.2 Digital Colonialism and North-South Divide
Interviews and collected data confirm that the African hub
risks replicating historical dynamics of technological dependence. Despite
promises of cooperation, strong Western influence remains over access criteria,
governance, and benefit distribution.
4.3 The Italian Paradox: External Rhetoric vs. Domestic
Practice
The lack of participatory processes in Italy makes it
difficult to sustain moral leadership in global AI governance. Innovation laws
are often approved without civic consultation, while digital education remains
marginal in school curricula.
5. Discussion: Symbolic Power, Opacity, and Global
Asymmetries
Findings indicate that Sovereign AI represents a form of
symbolic power capable of redefining social hierarchies, cultural values, and
power relations. However, its global application is hindered by:
Technological Fragmentation : absence of global standards
for AI governance.
Informational Asymmetries : low digital literacy in the
Global South.
Decisional Opacity : lack of transparency in technological
choices both in Italy and international projects.
As Couldry and Mejias (2019) argue, the use of AI by
dominant actors risks perpetuating an “extractive logic,” where data is
extracted without returning value to origin communities.
6. Conclusions and Future Perspectives
The challenge of Sovereign AI is twofold:
Technological : building truly autonomous infrastructures.
Political : ensuring that projects like the African hub do
not replicate asymmetric power dynamics.
But there is a third, often neglected dimension:
Anthropological : understanding that each technological
system is a form of culture, which must be respected, interpreted, and made to
dialogue.
Without an anthropological approach, Sovereign AI risks
becoming a new tool of domination. With it, however, a season of intercultural
cooperation could emerge, where technology and humanity meet to build a truly
shared future.
Future Research Lines
Longitudinal study of the social impact of the African hub
over time.
Comparative analysis of different conceptions of
“algorithmic ethics” in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Development of frameworks for participatory governance of
Sovereign AI.
Appendix: The G7 Paradox – Tool of Global Governance or
Theater of Anachronistic Power?
1. Strategic Fracture: Values vs. Realpolitik
The Trump effect in 2025 reveals the absence of a common
vision: his threats of universal 10% tariffs expose an internal crisis within
the G7. Europe seeks defensive autonomy (strengthened ESDP), while the US
pushes for transactional logics (“pay-to-play NATO”).
Key Divisions:
Climate : Italy and Japan vs Canada and USA on fossil fuel
subsidies.
AI Ethics : Germany proposes binding rules; the US opposes
to avoid hindering innovation.
2. The Machine of Opportunism: Structured Clientelism
Elites survive credibility crises through cross-clientelist
networks:
Cross Recommendations
Energy CEOs appointed to AI task forces
Privatization of public policy
Emergency Narrative
“Hybrid war requires less transparency”
Suspension of democratic oversight
Selective Distraction
Focus on migrants vs. global debt
Obscuring North-South inequalities
3. The Great Silence: Why Opacity Kills the Future
Institutional opacity proves to be an effective political
weapon:
Agreements on quantum encryption and military AI classified
as “defense secrets.”
The multinationals' tax negotiation text (15%) modified
under lobbyist pressure without public trace.
The Binary Illusion
The rhetoric of “West vs. Autocracies” hides complex
realities:
68% of G7 AI investments in Africa go to firms registered in
tax havens (Tax Justice Network data).
Critical supply chains (rare earths, chips) intertwine China
and the West in an inseparable way.
4. Toward Collapse? Three Possible Scenarios
Fragmentation
60%
G7 reduced to G4 (USA, UK, Japan, Canada); EU creates a
separate, weak Technology Parliament.
Authoritarian Turn
30%
Establishment of a “Cyber NATO”; mass surveillance justified
by the “hybrid threat.”
Revival
10%
Radical reform with mandatory transparency, a randomly
selected Global Citizens Assembly, and sanctions for those who violate declared
values.
“The real nerve isn’t the absence of unity, but the will to
maintain it fictitiously. Every summit is a ritual where the future is
sacrificed on the altar of political immediacy.”
Final Conclusion
Transforming the G7 from a power club into a laboratory of
coherence is possible, but requires:
An independent ethical tribunal to evaluate every decision.
An open-source platform for real-time negotiations.
A non-regression clause : no agreement can violate
fundamental rights.
Without these steps, global AI governance will continue to
mask inequalities and colonialisms hidden under the guise of technological
progress.
Bibliography
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural
Dimensions of Globalization . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Amnesty International. (2016). “This Is What We Die For”:
Human Rights Abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Power the Global
Trade in Cobalt . London: Amnesty International.
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AFR6231832016ENGLISH.PDF
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing Without
Knowing: Limitations of the Transparency Ideal and Its Application to
Algorithmic Accountability. New Media & Society , 20(3), 973–989.
Aytes, A. (2012). Return of the Crowds: Mechanical Turk and
Neoliberal States of Exception. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital Labor: The Internet
as Playground and Factory (pp. 75–88). London: Routledge.
Bank of the South (Banca del Sur). (2024). Report on
Technology and Conflict Prevention . UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs.
Crawford, K., & Joler, V. (2018). Anatomy of an AI
System: The Amazon Echo as an Anatomical Map of Human Labor, Data and Planetary
Resources . SHARE Lab, SHARE Foundation and The AI Now Institute, NYU.
https://anatomyof.ai
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of
Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for
Capitalism . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Deibert, R. (2020). Reset: Reclaiming the Internet for Civil
Society . Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
Eurostat. (2023). Digital Skills and Competences in the EU .
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans
and Situated Actions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World Bank. (2024). Digital Dividends and AI Governance in
Sub-Saharan Africa .