IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022 - 96

Commentary
risks and expresses this in terms of the trust, ethical
principles, and fundamental rights. On the other
hand, there is a strong focus on developing market
leadership for the EU in the wider geopolitical
economy of AI technology production. Of course,
this agenda is also closely linked to ideological and
security concerns about changing international relations
that position the EU between the United States
and China (mirroring the EU's normative and security
positioning between the United States and the
Soviet Union in the post-World War II period). The
role of France and other EU countries-along with
Canada, in particular-in pushing for regulation of
AIT use via the Global Partnership for AI, exhibits
this tension especially strongly.
Indeed, some observers argue that the swift
development of a regulatory framework signals " an
increased awareness of ethical and value-based concerns
surrounding applied AI " in the Union [39], [52].
This awareness certainly responds to the substantial
and numerous concerns of institutions such as the
UN [1], the Council for Europe [15], [16], and the
European Parliament [25] about the transparency
and accountability of algorithmic decision-making.
This has centered on the protection of fundamental
human rights, but also the use of AIT in law enforcement,
the judicial system, and social welfare. The
Commission, in its 2018 strategy paper, expresses
the wish to " ensure an appropriate ethical and legal
framework " which will include product liability rules,
safety standards, ethics guidelines, and the " empowerment "
of users and citizens vis-à-vis AIT-based data
extraction and decisions [23]. It seems plausible then
that scholars assert the EU Commission's main goal
is the development of a " human-centered approach "
to AI systems where humans should " be the baseline
upon which these systems should improve "
and where these systems should abide by the " same
requirements " as we usually put on people when regulating
their behavior [39].
And yet, the EU's approach to regulating AI and
automated decision-making has, from the very beginning
in 2018, been underpinned by market development,
competition, and security considerations.
The need to protect this was highlighted by a key
position paper by 14 member states [18]. The Commission
explains the " strong political endorsement "
of 24 member states and Norway to work together
on regulating and promoting AITs first and foremost
with the requirement of " significant efforts to ensure
96
that Europe is competitive in the AI landscapes with
bold investments that match its economic weight. "
Ethical considerations rank second and third and
are expressed in ways that mask agendas that also
enhance those investments: " no one is left behind
in digital transformation " and " new technologies
are based on values " [23]. The proposed regulation
argues that it " aims at strengthening Europe's competitiveness
and industrial basis in AI " [27].
Myth continued: The common AI
market as a force for peace and
prosperity?
This specific narrative on the EU's AI regulatory
efforts taps into a hard-wired and encompassing narrative
of the drivers of European integration and policymaking
since the Treaties of Paris and Rome: the
six founding members would have come together in
the Coal and Steel Community and then the European
Economic Community to ensure peace and
prosperity in Europe after two devastating wars.
Robert Schuman's famous Declaration of 1950
singles out " world peace " as a key driver for uniting
Europe, arguing that " solidarity in production " will
" make it plain that any war between France and Germany
becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially
impossible " [28]. Economic integration will
also lead to prosperity, namely the " modernization
of production and the improvement of its quality,
the supply of coal and steel ... to the markets of ...
member states ... the development in common of
exports ... [and] the equalization and improvement
of the living conditions of workers " [28]. The EU's
contemporary self-representation explicitly builds
on Schuman's publicized vision: " As of 1950, the
European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite
European countries economically and politically in
order to secure lasting peace. "
The framing of the EU's rationale for AIT regulation
reflects this favored historical narrative. What is
missing is Schuman's hidden rationales for a united
Europe-and especially his colonial views on
" developing Africa, " thereby " revitalizing " an " old
Continent " [28], [33]. This is despite-or perhaps
because-of the ongoing relevance of these ideas to
the framing of many of the Union's policies: including
development, technology, science, security, and
migration. The emphasis on creating a normative
market leadership between the United States and
China disguises this significant colonial dimension
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022
