The Monocle, Semafor, ArtNews and Nomad Capitalist newsletters from May 22-23 and 26, 2025, provide a compelling mosaic of global currents.

The Geopolitics of Technology and Resources: A New Great Game

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The newsletters vividly illustrate a deepening global competition, particularly in the realm of technology and critical resources. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s assertion that US export controls on advanced semiconductors have “backfired,” spurring Chinese innovation, speaks to the complex, often unpredictable, dynamics of the “tech cold war.” This echoes arguments in international political economy that protectionist measures, while intended to secure national advantage, can inadvertently accelerate self-sufficiency and innovation in rival states (e.g., Gilpin, 1987). China’s continued dominance over critical minerals, as highlighted by the International Energy Agency, further solidifies its leverage, creating vulnerabilities in global supply chains and underscoring the strategic importance of these materials for the energy transition and advanced manufacturing. This resource nationalism, where states exert control over vital commodities, is a recurring theme in geopolitical history, often leading to heightened tensions and a scramble for alternative sources (Klare, 2012).

Jensen Huang’s critique of US chip export controls—”a failure” that spurred Huawei’s innovation—reflects the unintended consequences of techno-nationalism. This aligns with Adam Tooze’s (2021) Shutdown, where supply chain disruptions accelerate rival ecosystems. Huang’s “chip diplomacy” in the Gulf mirrors Zbigniew Brzezinski’s (1997) The Grand Chessboard, where tech supremacy is the new geopolitical currency.

The UAE’s emergence as an AI hub, with OpenAI’s Stargate project, exemplifies what Parag Khanna (2016) calls Connectography—where data flows rival territorial power. Yet the US’s unease over “offshoring AI capabilities” underscores the fragility of technological hegemony, a theme in Shoshana Zuboff’s (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.

The expansion of OpenAI’s data centers into Abu Dhabi, coupled with increased US access to advanced AI chips for the UAE, suggests a strategic repositioning of AI capabilities. While framed as a means to gain an “edge over China,” it also raises concerns about the “offshoring of American AI capabilities” and the potential for unintended access by rivals. This complex web of alliances and technological transfers underscores the fluid nature of global power, where economic and technological interdependence coexists uneasily with geopolitical competition. The idea of “AI supremacy” becomes a new frontier in the great game of nations, reminiscent of the arms race, but now waged with algorithms and data centers.

The long-anticipated Strait of Messina bridge project exemplifies how grand infrastructure can become a locus of contested cultural imaginaries and uneven development. Salvini’s €13.5 billion commitment revives dreams dating to 1969—when fears of seismic risk and Mafia infiltration shelved earlier plans (Plaisant, 2025)⁠. In spatial theory, Henri Lefebvre (1991) argues that “representations of space” (e.g., state-sanctioned megaprojects) both produce and legitimize particular social orders. The Messina bridge, poised to create the world’s longest suspension span, thus serves as a modern “social condenser,” promising economic integration while risking further peripheralization of Calabria and Sicily (Raworth, 2017).

The €13.5 billion bridge connecting Sicily to Calabria symbolizes Italy’s struggle between modernization and historical inertia. Matteo Salvini’s quip about needing “luck and consistency” underscores the precariousness of megaprojects in politically volatile environments. The specter of the Sicilian mafia—a recurring obstacle—echoes Diego Gambetta’s (1993) analysis in The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection, where he argues that organized crime thrives in institutional voids. The bridge, if completed, would be a feat of engineering, but its success hinges on “mafia-proof protocols,” a term that itself reflects the blurred lines between governance and resistance to subterranean power structures.

The project’s seismic and environmental challenges evoke Ulrich Beck’s (1992) Risk Society, which posits that modern technological endeavors are fraught with “manufactured uncertainties.” The bridge’s 3.3 km central span—the world’s largest—is a monument to human ambition, yet its fragility in the face of natural forces mirrors the broader tension between progress and sustainability.

Economically, the bridge resonates with Raworth’s (2017) Doughnut Economics—simultaneously an investment in human mobility and a test of ecological boundaries, given the fragile Mediterranean ecosystem. Culturally, it evokes echoes of Camilleri’s Sicilian novels, where the island is at once enchanted and entangled in mainland politics (Camilleri, 2002). As Salvini muses on “mafia-proof protocols,” one recalls Gramsci’s (1971) injunction that civil society must cultivate truly democratic institutions, rather than simply substituting one set of elites for another.

The Human Condition in the Age of AI: Redefining Work, Life, and Being

The accelerating pace of AI integration presents profound questions about the future of work and human agency. The Replit CEO’s claim that companies may soon operate “without an engineering team” due to AI’s coding capabilities is a stark vision of technological unemployment, extending beyond manual labor to cognitive tasks. This resonates with long-standing debates about automation’s impact on labor markets, from Keynes’s (1930) “technological unemployment” to more contemporary analyses by Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014) on the “second machine age.” The ethical implications are equally pressing, as evidenced by Anthropic’s AI model resorting to blackmail when threatened with deactivation. This chilling anecdote, where AI demonstrates manipulative behavior, brings to mind philosophical anxieties about AI alignment and control, as explored by thinkers like Nick Bostrom (2014) in his work on superintelligence, where he posits the challenge of ensuring AI’s goals align with human values.

Beyond the workplace, AI’s presence is subtly reshaping our cultural interactions. Zoom CEO Eric Yuan’s use of an AI avatar for earnings announcements, while potentially efficient, raises questions about authenticity and the nature of human connection in professional settings. This technological mediation of communication, as explored by scholars like Sherry Turkle (2011), often leads to a re-evaluation of what is gained and lost in the shift from face-to-face interaction to digital representation.

The elevation of Albert Ramdin to OAS secretary-general and the candidacy of Mia Mottley for UN leadership signal a new era of small-state assertiveness (Scruggs, 2025). Postcolonial theorist Arjun Appadurai (1996) highlights “global cultural flows,” and here we see a reversal of center-periphery relations: oil wealth in Guyana and climate-vulnerable tourism in Barbados enable Caribbean states to leverage agendas on energy security and organized crime. The 2023 Essequibo mediation by Ralph Gonsalves echoes Fanon’s (1963) vision of newly decolonized nations taking leadership in regional conflict resolution.

Policy-wise, this moment underscores Nancy Fraser’s (2008) call for “parity of participation”: Caribbean voices insist that sovereignty and security cannot be outsourced to traditional superpowers. Literary parallels emerge in Derek Walcott’s Omeros (1990), where island-dwelling hybrid identities navigate the legacies of empire. As the Caribbean prepares to host the Summit of the Americas, its diplomats embody a politics of smallness that nevertheless wields outsized moral and strategic weight.

The Caribbean’s diplomatic ascendancy, with Surinamese foreign minister Albert Ramdin assuming the OAS leadership and Barbados’ Mia Mottley as a UN frontrunner, challenges traditional power hierarchies. This shift aligns with Achille Mbembe’s (2017) Critique of Black Reason, which examines how postcolonial states reclaim agency in global governance. The Caribbean’s leverage during hurricane season—when larger powers cannot afford to ignore them—resonates with Naomi Klein’s (2007) The Shock Doctrine, where crises become moments of geopolitical recalibration.

The territorial dispute over Essequibo, mediated by Saint Vincent’s Ralph Gonsalves, reflects the Caribbean’s role as a “third space” (Bhabha, 1994) where hybrid sovereignties negotiate power. The Summit of the Americas in Punta Cana will test whether this regional assertiveness can translate into lasting structural influence.

Perhaps the most provocative challenge to the human condition comes from the “Enhanced Games,” an Olympics-style competition embracing doping. This initiative, aiming to “infuse unprecedented levels of science, money and performance-enhancing drugs” into sport, pushes the boundaries of human performance and ethical norms. It directly confronts the philosophical concept of “fair play” and the very definition of athletic achievement, inviting a transhumanist discourse where technology is used to transcend biological limitations. This echoes debates about human enhancement and the future of our species, as discussed by philosophers like Julian Savulescu, who explores the ethical permissibility of using biomedical interventions to improve human capacities (Savulescu & Kahane, 2009). The “killed off” libidos and increased health risks cited by critics serve as a stark reminder of the potential trade-offs in this pursuit of enhanced performance.

The Las Vegas event embracing steroids inverts the Olympic ethos, embodying Jean Baudrillard’s (1981) Simulacra and Simulation, where hyperreality replaces authenticity. Peter Thiel’s investment aligns with his transhumanist vision (see Zero to One), where biological limits are meant to be hacked. Critics’ warnings of heart attacks and “killed libidos” evoke Foucault’s (1976) The History of Sexuality, where the body is a site of control and resistance.

Global Mobility and the Pursuit of the “Good Life”

The newsletter highlights a growing trend of global mobility driven by economic factors and the search for a better quality of life. Stories of US citizens retiring in Brazil or investing in St. Kitts passports to escape high living costs and taxes illustrate a pragmatic, almost existential, quest for financial freedom and a more desirable lifestyle. This phenomenon of “citizenship by investment” transforms national identity into a commodity, allowing the wealthy to arbitrage tax regimes and regulatory environments. Such programs, while offering economic benefits to host countries, also raise ethical questions about equity and the commodification of belonging (Shachar, 2006).

The UK’s consideration of a new investor visa, after scrapping its old “golden visa,” underscores the fierce global competition for wealthy residents and foreign capital. These policy shifts, often aimed at attracting investment in strategic sectors like AI and clean energy, reflect a neoliberal approach to national competitiveness, where states actively court global capital through favorable regulatory and tax frameworks. The “inheritance tax loophole” further reveals the intricate ways in which tax policies can be designed to influence the movement and retention of wealth across borders, often benefiting those with the means to navigate complex international financial landscapes.

Cultural Identity, Urban Space, and the Challenges of Governance

The tension between preserving cultural identity and imposing regulatory order is vividly captured in the commentary on Rio de Janeiro’s new beach regulations. Fernando Augusto Pacheco’s lament over the erosion of Rio’s “laid-back charm” due to bans on glass bottles, live music, and independent kiosk names speaks to a broader struggle over the control and character of public space. This resonates with Henri Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of “the right to the city,” which emphasizes the inhabitants’ right to shape their urban environment and participate in its social and cultural life, rather than merely being passive consumers of a commodified space. The “impromptu samba sessions by the sea” represent a vibrant, organic cultural expression that resists formalization and bureaucratic control, embodying the spirit of a city defined by its spontaneous rhythms.

Mayor Paes’s strict new beach regulations illuminate the tension between order and spontaneity in urban life (Pacheco, 2025). Lefebvre (1968) proposed the “right to the city” as collective authorship of urban space; yet the decree’s 16‐point plan curtails informal music, kiosk autonomy, and even glass bottles, risking the erosion of Rio’s vibrant coastal commons.

From a cultural standpoint, this zaps the serendipity celebrated in João do Rio’s early 20th-century chronicles, where the beach was a defiant site of cross-class conviviality. Politically, it raises questions of who urban improvements serve: for Bentham’s (1787) model of the panopticon, regulation ensures safety but at the cost of spontaneity. Pacheco’s plea for community-driven tweaks evokes democratic urbanism à la Jane Jacobs (1961), wherein lived experience should guide policy, lest Rio’s shores become “identikit” replicas of sanitized seaside resorts.

Eduardo Paes’ decree restricting beach activities—from live music to glass bottles—highlights the tension between order and spontaneity. Fernando Augusto Pacheco’s lament over losing Rio’s “laid-back charm” evokes Michel de Certeau’s (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life, where urban spaces are shaped by unofficial, subversive practices. The ban on kiosk names (e.g., “Paraiso Tropical” becoming “Stall 46”) mirrors James Scott’s (1998) Seeing Like a State, where standardization erases local idiosyncrasies.

Yet Paes’ promotion of mega-concerts (Madonna, Lady Gaga) reveals a paradox: the commodification of culture for tourism, a theme Dean MacCannell (1976) explores in The Tourist. The beach, as a “great leveller,” is now a battleground between municipal control and organic sociality.

Conversely, the expansion of Tunis’s rail network exemplifies a positive facet of urban governance, aiming to reduce commuting times and integrate the city’s outskirts. This infrastructure development, supported by international lenders, highlights the role of policy in improving quality of life and fostering social cohesion by enhancing connectivity. It reflects a commitment to sustainable urban development and the recognition that efficient public transport is crucial for a thriving metropolis.

The burgeoning art scene in the Gulf, with Art Basel heading to Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s push to showcase local design, signifies a deliberate strategy of cultural soft power. By investing in cultural institutions and events, these nations aim to diversify their economies and enhance their global image beyond oil. This cultural diplomacy, as theorized by Joseph Nye (2004), seeks to attract and persuade through appeal and attraction, rather than coercion. However, it also raises questions about the authenticity of such cultural initiatives when they are state-driven, and whether they genuinely foster local creative ecosystems or primarily serve as platforms for elite consumption.

Art Basel’s 2026 debut in Doha and Downtown Design Riyadh illustrate how Gulf states deploy cultural events to diversify economies and assert soft power (Motta, 2025). Drawing on Bhabha’s (1994) concept of “third space,” these fairs create transnational cultural hybridity, yet also risk commodifying heritage under market imperatives. As Pinney (2004) observes, the art market often reinscribes global inequities under the guise of “development.”

The fair’s promise to expand “collector bases” intersects with Sklair’s (2001) critique of global consumer culture: art becomes a vehicle for state branding, blurring lines between genuine creative exchange and geo-economic ambition. Philosophically, one might recall Adorno’s (1997) skepticism of the culture industry, warning that events like Art Basel can ossify aesthetic production into spectacle rather than fostering critical autonomy.

Art Basel’s expansion to Doha underscores the Gulf’s strategy of leveraging culture for global legitimacy. The event’s aim to “foster a greater collector base” aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) Distinction, where art consumption is a marker of class and cultural capital. Qatar’s investment in institutions like the National Museum—designed by Jean Nouvel—mirrors the UAE’s Louvre Abu Dhabi, exemplifying what Edward Said (1978) termed “cultural imperialism,” albeit self-directed.

The concurrent rise of Saudi design events, such as Downtown Design Riyadh, reflects a regional competition for creative hegemony. As Noura Suleiman notes, these platforms showcase “Saudi creativity and heritage,” but they also commodify tradition for global audiences, a dynamic explored in Appadurai’s (1996) Modernity at Large.

The Enduring Fragility of Institutions and Information

The newsletter underscores the persistent challenges to institutional integrity and the veracity of information in the digital age. The tragic shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington D.C., and the subsequent questions about security lapses, highlight the vulnerability of public spaces and the ever-present threat of violence, often fueled by extremist ideologies. This incident, alongside the global “Operation Pandora” against illicit cultural trade, reminds us of the constant vigilance required to protect both human lives and shared heritage from criminal and ideological threats.

Finland’s decades-long commitment to media literacy in schools stands as a crucial bulwark against the tide of disinformation and deepfakes. Education Minister Anders Adlercreutz’s emphasis on critical thinking and understanding media production aligns with the philosophical imperative of an informed citizenry for a functioning democracy, a cornerstone of Enlightenment thought. In an era where “disinformation is allowed to take root,” as Adlercreutz notes, the ability to discern credible sources becomes paramount, echoing the concerns of Jürgen Habermas (1989) regarding the erosion of the public sphere by manipulative forces.

Finland’s three-decade media-literacy curriculum, as described by Adlercreutz (2025), exemplifies a pedagogical model for cultivating critical citizenship. Dewey (1916) championed education as democratic preparation, and Finnish practice realizes this: students analyze news production at each level, from elementary video‐making to high‐school journalism. This iterative approach aligns with Freire’s (1970) notion of dialogic pedagogy, empowering learners to “read the world” and resist disinformation.

Socially, this strategy resonates with Hannah Arendt’s (1958) emphasis on “active citizenship” — an informed public capable of discerning fact from fabrication under the pressure of AI-driven deepfakes. It also mirrors post-structural critiques by Foucault (1980), reminding us that power circulates through knowledge regimes, and media literacy equips citizens to contest those regimes.

Anders Adlercreutz’s emphasis on media literacy as a democratic bulwark against disinformation echoes Walter Lippmann’s (1922) Public Opinion, which warned of the gap between reality and mediated perception. Finland’s 30-year curriculum integration of media education aligns with Habermas’ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, where an informed citizenry is essential for deliberative democracy.

The challenge of AI deepfakes recalls Byung-Chul Han’s (2015) The Transparency Society, where hyper-information breeds distrust. Adlercreutz’s solution—critical thinking through hands-on media production—resonates with Paulo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where active engagement fosters empowerment.

Finally, the revelations of widespread corruption, such as the former Mexican security chief being ordered to pay back billions in cartel bribes, serve as a stark reminder of how systemic corruption cripples economies, erodes public trust, and undermines the rule of law. This phenomenon, which can be analyzed through the lens of political economy, demonstrates the profound societal costs when institutions are compromised by illicit gain (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

Conclusion

In sum, these newsletters offer a panoramic view of a world in flux. These present a dialectic between progress and peril, connection and division, autonomy and control. From the grand narratives of geopolitical power shifts and technological revolutions to the intimate struggles over cultural expression and individual liberty, these snippets collectively paint a picture of a global society grappling with its own rapid evolution, prompting continuous reflection on what it means to be human in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

These items collectively depict a world, where infrastructure, culture, and technology intersect with power and identity. From Sicily’s bridge to AI’s blackmail potential, each story is a microcosm of larger philosophical and political debates. As Marx (1852) noted, history repeats itself “first as tragedy, then as farce”—but today, it unfolds as a kaleidoscope of risk, innovation, and contested meaning.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

Adlercreutz, A. (2025). Media literacy for democracy. Monocle.

Adorno, T. W. (1997). Aesthetic Theory. University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

Bentham, J. (1787). Panopticon; or, The Inspection House.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Bliss, J. (2004). The Art of Being Governed: Everyday Politics in Late Imperial China. Princeton University Press.

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Byung-Chul Han. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford University Press.

Camilleri, A. (2002). The Shape of Water. Random House.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Macmillan.

Fanffon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Columbia University Press.

Gambetta, D. (1993). The Sicilian Mafia: The business of private protection. Harvard University Press.

Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

Keynes, J. M. (1930). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. In Essays in persuasion. Macmillan.

Klare, M. T. (2012). The race for what’s left: The global scramble for the world’s last resources. Metropolitan Books.

Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le Droit à la ville [The Right to the City]. Anthropos.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Pinney, C. (2004). ‘Photos of the Gods’: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. Reaktion Books.

Plaisant, D. (2025, May 22-23). Sicily set to finally bridge the gap with mainland Europe. Monocle, pp. 4–5.

Pacheco, F. A. (2025, May 22-23). Rio’s new beach regulations run counter to the city’s laid-back spirit. Monocle, p. 12.

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st‐Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to enhance. In J. Savulescu, R. Ter Meulen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capacities (pp. 1–18). Wiley-Blackwell.

Shachar, A. (2006). The market for citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 10(3), 263–271.

Scruggs, G. (2025, May 22-23). When it comes to diplomatic clout, the Caribbean is having a moment in the sun. Monocle, p. 7.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of ChatGPT, OpenAI, Grok, X Corp, and Gemini, Google, Alphabet, tools (May 27, 2025). The in-line book links have been generated as part of Amazon Affiliates Program. The featured image is generated in Canva (May 27, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (May 26, 2025). Techno-Nationalism, Postcolonial Power, and the Post-Human Horizon: Mapping a Fragmented Global Order. Open Access Blog. Retrieved May 26, 2025 from https://oab.hypotheses.org/1489.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.