The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. Credit: ITU/Rowan Farrell
Artificial intelligence holds vast potential but poses grave risks, if left unregulated, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on September 24.
By Chimdi Chukwukere
ABUJA, Nigeria, Oct 14 2025 (IPS)
Recent research from Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI warns that bias in artificial intelligence remains deeply rooted even in models designed to avoid it and can worsen as models grow. From bias in hiring of men over women for leadership roles, to misclassification of darker-skinned individuals as criminals, the stakes are high.
Yet it’s simply not attainable for annual dialogues and multilateral processes as recently provisioned for in Resolution A/RES/79/325 for the UN to keep up to pace with AI technological developments and the cost of this is high.
Hence for accountability purposes and to increase the cost of failure, why not give Tech Companies whose operations are now state-like, participatory roles at the UNGA?
When AI Gets It Wrong: 2024’s Most Telling Cases
In one of the most significant AI discrimination cases moving through the courts, the plaintiff alleges that Workday’s popular artificial intelligence (AI)-based applicant recommendation system violated federal antidiscrimination laws because it had a disparate impact on job applicants based on race, age, and disability.
Judge Rita F. Lin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in July 2024 that Workday could be an agent of the employers using its tools, which subjects it to liability under federal anti-discrimination laws. This landmark decision means that AI vendors, not just employers, can be held directly responsible for discriminatory outcomes.
In another case, the University of Washington researchers found significant racial, gender, and intersectional bias in how three state-of-the-art large language models ranked resumes. The models favored white-associated names over equally qualified candidates with names associated with other racial groups.
In 2024, a University of Washington study investigated gender and racial bias in resume-screening AI tools. The researchers tested a large language model’s responses to identical resumes, varying only the names to suggest different racial and gender identities.
The financial impact is staggering.
A 2024 DataRobot survey of over 350 companies revealed: 62% lost revenue due to AI systems that made biased decisions, proving that discriminatory AI isn’t just a moral failure—it’s a business disaster. It’s too soon for an innovation to result in such losses.
Time is running out.
A 2024 Stanford analysis of vision-language models found that increasing training data from 400 million to 2 billion images made larger models up to 69% more likely to label Black and Latino men as criminals. In large language models, implicit bias testing showed consistent stereotypes: women were more often linked to humanities over STEM, men were favored for leadership roles, and negative terms were disproportionately associated with Black individuals.
The UN needs to take action now before these predictions turn into reality. And frankly, the UN cannot keep up with the pace of these developments.
What the UN Can—and Must—Do
To prevent AI discrimination, the UN must lead by example and work with governments, tech companies, and civil society to establish global guardrails for ethical AI.
Here’s what that could look like:
Working with Tech Companies: Technology companies have become the new states and should be treated as such. They should be invited to the UN table and granted participatory privileges that both ensure and enforce accountability.
This would help guarantee that the pace of technological development—and its impacts—is self-reported before UN-appointed Scientific Panels reconvene. As many experts have noted, the intervals between these annual convenings are already long enough for major innovations to slip past oversight.
Developing Clear Guidelines: The UN should push for global standards on ethical AI, building on UNESCO’s Recommendation and OHCHR’s findings. These should include rules for inclusive data collection, transparency, and human oversight.
Promoting Inclusive Participation: The people building and regulating AI must reflect the diversity of the world. The UN should set up a Global South AI Equity Fund to provide resources for local experts to review and assess tools such as LinkedIn’s NFC passport verification.
Working with Africa’s Smart Africa Alliance, the goal would be to create standards together that make sure AI is designed to benefit communities that have been hit hardest by biased systems. This means including voices from the Global South, women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups in AI policy conversations.
Requiring Human Rights Impact Assessments: Just like we assess the environmental impact of new projects, we should assess the human rights impact of new AI systems—before they are rolled out.
Holding Developers Accountable: When AI systems cause harm, there must be accountability. This includes legal remedies for those who are unfairly treated by AI. The UN should create an AI Accountability Tribunal within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to look into cases where AI systems cause discrimination.
This tribunal should have the authority to issue penalties, such as suspending UN partnerships with companies that violate these standards, including cases like Workday.
Support Digital Literacy and Rights Education: Policy makers and citizens need to understand how AI works and how it might impact their rights. The UN can help promote digital literacy globally so that people can push back against unfair systems.
Lastly, there has to be Mandates for intersectional or Multiple Discriminations Audits: AI systems should be required to go through intersectional audits that check for combined biases, such as those linked to race, disability, and gender. The UN should also provide funding to organizations to create open-source audit tools that can be used worldwide.
The Road Ahead
AI is not inherently good or bad. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it. If we are not careful, AI could lengthen problem-solving time, deepen existing inequalities, and create new forms of discrimination that are harder to detect and harder to fix.
But if we take action now—if we put human rights at the center of AI development—we can build systems that uplift, rather than exclude.
The UN General Assembly meetings may have concluded for this year, the era of ethical AI has not. The United Nations remains the organization with the credibility, the platform, and the moral duty to lead this charge. The future of AI—and the future of human dignity—may depend on it.
Chimdi Chukwukere is an advocate for digital justice. His work explores the intersection of technology, governance, Big Tech, sovereignty and social justice. He holds a Masters in Diplomacy and International Relations from Seton Hall University and has been published at Inter Press Service, Politics Today, International Policy Digest, and the Diplomatic Envoy.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Oct 14 2025 (IPS)
Global South cooperation arrangements must evolve to better respond to pressing contemporary and imminent challenges, rather than risk being irrelevant straitjackets stuck in the past.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Southeast AsiaThe creation of Malaysia had led to problems with the Philippines and Indonesia, while Singapore had seceded from the new confederation in August 1965.
ASEAN was not a Cold War creation in the same sense as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), one of several regional security arrangements established by the Americans in the early 1950s, the only significant one remaining being NATO.
ASEAN’s most significant initiative was to declare Southeast Asia a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1973, two years before the end of the Indochina wars.
Regional economic cooperation
The region has since seen four major economic initiatives, with the first being the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).
AFTA was established at the height of the trade liberalisation zeal in the early 1990s. Beyond the initial ‘one-time’ trade liberalisation effects, there has been little actual economic transformation since then.
Trade liberalisation mahaguru Jagdish Bhagwati’s last (2008) book, Termites in the Trading System, saw preferential plurilateral and bilateral FTAs as ‘termites’ undermining the WTO promise of multilateral trade liberalisation.
While seemingly mutually beneficial, such FTAs are akin to termites that surreptitiously erode the foundations of the multilateral trading system by encouraging discrimination, thereby undermining the principle of non-discrimination.
Naive enthusiasm for all FTAs has thus actually undermined multilateralism, also triggering pushback since the late 20th century.
Following the 2008-09 global financial crisis, the G20’s developed economies all raised protectionist barriers, confirming their dubious commitment to free trade.
Meanwhile, US trade policies since the Obama presidency, and especially this year, have made a mockery of the WTO’s commitment to the multilateralism of the 1994 Marrakech Declaration.
Asymmetric financialization
The 1997-98 Asian financial crisis should have served as a wake-up call about the dangers of financialization, but the West dismissed it as simply due to Asian hubris.
Under Managing Director Michel Camdessus, IMF promotion of capital account liberalisation even contravened the Fund’s own Articles of Agreement.
When Japanese Finance Minister Miyazawa and Vice Minister Sakakibara proposed an East Asian financial rescue plan, which was soon killed by then US Treasury Deputy Secretary Larry Summers.
Eventually, the Chiang Mai Initiative was developed by ASEAN+3, including Japan, South Korea, and China as the additional three. Ensuring bilateral swap facilities for financial emergencies have since been multi-lateralised.
ASEAN+3 later led the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), still conceived mainly in terms of regional trade liberalisation.
Non-alignment for our times
Developing relevant institutions and arrangements in our times requires us to pragmatically consider history, rather than abstract, ahistorical principles.
2025 marks several significant anniversaries, most notably the end of World War II in 1945 and the 1955 Bandung Asia-Africa solidarity conference, which anticipated the formation of the non-aligned movement.
The world seems to have lost its commitment to creating the conditions for enduring peace. Despite much rhetoric, the post-World War II commitment to freedom and neutrality in the Global North has largely gone.
The world was deemed unipolar after the end of the Cold War. However, for most, it has been multipolar, with the majority of the Global South remaining non-aligned.
As for peace-making, the US’s NATO allies have increasingly marginalised the United Nations and multilateralism with it. Already, the number of military interventions since the end of the Cold War exceeds those of that era.
While ASEAN cannot realistically lead international peace-making, it can be a much stronger voice for multilateralism, peace, freedom, neutrality, development, and international cooperation.
East Asian potential
The world economy is now stagnating due to Western policies. Hence, ASEAN+3 has become more relevant.
Just before President Trump made his April 2nd Liberation Day unilateral tariffs announcement, the governments of Japan, China, and South Korea met in late March without ASEAN to coordinate responses despite their long history of tensions.
ASEAN risks becoming increasingly irrelevant, due to the limited progress since the Chiang Mai Agreement a quarter of a century ago. Worse, ASEAN’s regional leadership has rarely gone beyond trade liberalisation, now sadly irrelevant in ‘post-normal’ times.
Rather than risk growing irrelevance, regional cooperation needs to rise to contemporary challenges. Working closely with partners accounting for two-fifths of the world economy, ASEAN countries only stand to gain from broader regional cooperation.
President Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ tariffs and Mar-a-Lago ambitions clearly signal that ‘business as usual’ is over, and Washington intends to remake the world. Will East Asia rise to this challenge of our times?
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Le ministère du Commerce intérieur et de la Régulation du marché national a lancé sept mesures opérationnelles pour freiner la hausse des prix des fruits […]
L’article Baisse des prix à la consommation : l’État déploie 7 mesures clés pour réduire les tarifs est apparu en premier sur .
La Directrice générale de l’Agence Nationale de Gestion du Microcrédit (ANGEM), Souad Ben Djamil, a révélé le lancement d’un programme visant à créer mille micro-entreprises […]
L’article L’ANGEM accorde jusqu’à 1 000 000 DA de prêts sans intérêt pour ce type de projets : détails est apparu en premier sur .
Déjà qualifiée pour la Coupe du monde 2026, l’équipe d’Algérie affrontera l’Ouganda ce mardi au stade Hocine-Aït-Ahmed de Tizi-Ouzou, dans le cadre de la 10e […]
L’article Algérie – Ouganda : A quelle heure et sur quelles chaines voir le match ? est apparu en premier sur .