From Oil to Algorithms: Why AI is the Geopolitical Fuel of the 21st Century

 

Excerpt:
In the twentieth century, oil shaped the balance of global power. Today, algorithms driven by artificial intelligence (AI) have assumed that role. Nations, corporations, and even non-state actors now compete not for barrels, but for bytes. Understanding this shift is key to making sense of the new geopolitical landscape.

Introduction: A New Era of Global Power

For much of the last century, oil was the lifeblood of geopolitics. Wars were fought over it, alliances were forged to secure it, and national economies rose or collapsed depending on access to energy. In the twenty-first century, however, the resource commanding global attention is not oil but algorithms, the data-driven engines that power artificial intelligence (AI). AI has become what some scholars call the "new strategic resource," shaping military capabilities, trade competitiveness, and even cultural influence (Allison, 2021).

From Washington to Beijing, Brussels to Lagos, AI is now at the heart of national strategies, corporate agendas, and international rivalries. The geopolitics of the future will not be determined solely by who drills the deepest oil well, but by who designs the most powerful algorithms.

Realism and the AI Arms Race

Realist scholars of international relations argue that states are driven by survival and the pursuit of power. In the context of AI, this is evident in the U.S.-China competition. Both countries see AI as a decisive factor in military innovation, cyber capabilities, and intelligence gathering (Horowitz, 2018). The Chinese government’s Next Generation AI Development Plan explicitly positions AI as a national security priority, aiming to overtake the United States by 2030.

Just as oil once fueled tanks, ships, and jets, algorithms now fuel drones, autonomous weapons, and surveillance systems. This technological race reflects the same logic that drove the nuclear arms competition during the Cold War an intense quest for strategic advantage.

Liberalism: AI as a Tool for Cooperation

While realism highlights conflict, liberalism emphasizes cooperation through institutions and trade. Here, AI becomes both a challenge and an opportunity. Institutions such as the OECD and UNESCO have already adopted ethical guidelines for AI use, advocating fairness, transparency, and accountability (UNESCO, 2021).

Moreover, global corporations Google, Microsoft, Huawei, and OpenAI often cooperate across borders, pooling research talent and sharing innovations. These partnerships mirror the logic of liberal institutionalism: that interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict. For instance, European and African research collaborations in AI for agriculture and climate resilience highlight how technology can bridge divides rather than deepen them.

Still, liberalism also acknowledges limits. Just as global trade once failed to prevent World War I, cooperation in AI may falter under the weight of mistrust and strategic rivalry.

Constructivism: Narratives and the Meaning of AI

Constructivist scholars remind us that power is not only material but also ideational, shaped by narratives, norms, and shared meanings. In the AI debate, different regions construct AI in very different ways.

(a) In the U.S., AI is framed as a driver of innovation and free-market competition.

(b) In China, AI is often embedded in narratives of state-led modernization and social control.

(c) In the EU, the narrative emphasizes ethics, human rights, and regulation.

(d) In Africa, AI is increasingly framed around leapfrogging development challenges, from health diagnostics to digital finance.

These competing stories shape not only policy but also public perception of AI’s role in society. In this sense, algorithms are not just technical tools; they are deeply embedded in cultural and political imaginaries.

The New Resource Curse?

If oil once produced the “resource curse,” where dependence on oil revenues destabilized economies, AI may pose its own version of this dilemma. Countries rich in data but poor in governance capacity may find themselves vulnerable to exploitation by global tech powers.

For instance, African nations are rich in demographic data, mobile usage patterns, and consumer behavior metrics, yet they often lack the regulatory strength to protect digital sovereignty. This creates a dynamic where foreign corporations extract value without necessarily building local capacity. The risk, as some scholars warn, is a new kind of digital colonialism (Couldry & Mejias, 2019).

Big Tech as New Diplomatic Actors

In this AI-driven world, multinational technology companies increasingly resemble sovereign actors. Their decisions, whether on data privacy, algorithm design, or platform governance, affect millions globally, sometimes more than the policies of states.

Consider Apple and Google’s recent collaborations on AI-powered services. These corporate alliances function much like international treaties, binding competitors together for shared gain. In this sense, Big Tech has become a parallel layer of diplomacy, one that often operates faster and with fewer bureaucratic hurdles than traditional foreign ministries.

Implications for the Global South

For countries in the Global South, including much of Africa, the rise of AI brings both promise and peril. On the one hand, AI offers opportunities to bypass traditional stages of industrialization—using mobile platforms for financial inclusion, AI diagnostics for rural healthcare, and predictive analytics for climate adaptation.

On the other hand, without deliberate strategies, these countries risk deepening dependency on external powers. Just as oil wealth once locked many economies into extractive traps, a failure to invest in local AI ecosystems could consign regions to perpetual technological subordination.

Conclusion: From Barrels to Bytes

The shift from oil to algorithms signals more than a change in resources; it marks a fundamental transformation in the architecture of global power. AI is not simply a tool it is a geopolitical fuel that shapes military strength, economic competitiveness, and cultural influence.

For policymakers, this means rethinking strategy. For corporations, it means recognizing their quasi-diplomatic role. And for societies everywhere, it means grappling with the ethical, cultural, and political meanings of algorithms that increasingly shape daily life.

In the twentieth century, nations that mastered oil shaped the world order. In the twenty-first century, it will be those who master algorithms. The geopolitics of tomorrow will not be about drilling wells, but about designing codes.

****** By Brandford S. A

References

1. Allison, G. (2021). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

2. Baldwin, D. A. (2020). Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton University Press.

3. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press.

4. Horowitz, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Texas National Security Review, 1(3), 36–57.

5. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.