SIHR Submission to the First UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance

The first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance is set to convene in Geneva on 6-7 July 2026. It is being framed as a historic opportunity to shape the future of AI governance. But for communities across Southwest Asia and North Africa (SWANA) who are already living with the consequences of ungoverned AI, the question is not whether this Dialogue will be historic. The question is whether it will be honest. 

SIHR's submission to the Global Dialogue is grounded in what we have documented across the region over the past two years. AI-powered facial recognition deployed at protests to crush civic participation before it begins. AI targeting infrastructure integrated into military operations that have killed journalists and civilians. Biometric data extracted as a condition for accessing food, then linked to surveillance of the very people seeking aid. Platform algorithms that systematically erase Palestinian documentation of violations while amplifying incitement. And the same surveillance tools, Pegasus, Cellebrite, and facial recognition, cross borders freely across the region while accountability remains trapped within national frameworks that offer no remedy. These are defining features of AI governance failure in our region.

What we are asking the Dialogue to do

Our submission calls for binding commitments across the Dialogue's thematic areas. We are not interested in another round of aspirational principles that treat the harms we document as hypothetical risks. We outline specific demands.

On AI in conflict, we call for a ban on AI-powered targeting systems until binding international legal frameworks are established. On corporate accountability, we demand mandatory human rights due diligence for companies providing AI, cloud, and surveillance services to parties in armed conflict. On platform governance, we urge enforceable transparency requirements, including disaggregated content moderation data by language and region, because aggregated global figures continue to mask the systematic silencing of Arabic-language civic expression. On the surveillance trade, we call for coordinated governance of the export and deployment of tools like Pegasus and Cellebrite that are weaponized against defenders, journalists, and activists across the SWANA region.

We also draw attention to an important lesson from the 2025 AI for Good Summit in Geneva, held alongside the same summit where this Dialogue will convene. A keynote speaker was pressured to alter content addressing corporate involvement in AI-enabled harm. The Dialogue must learn from this experience and guarantee that participants can speak freely about corporate and state accountability. Open exchange is the foundation of any credible governance process.

Who is missing from the conversation

Our submission identifies the communities that are almost entirely absent from AI governance discussions. Palestinians subjected to AI-powered targeting and biometric surveillance at humanitarian sites. Women across the region facing AI-facilitated gender-based violence and enforced surveillance of their bodies and movements. Journalists in conflict zones whose colleagues have been killed through digitally enabled targeting. Human rights defenders and student activists targeted by cross-border surveillance technology.

These are not stakeholders to be "consulted." They are the people who know more about how AI governance has failed than anyone sitting in a conference room in Geneva. Their evidence must carry weight in this process, or the process is not worth having.

What comes next

The first Global Dialogue will set a precedent. If it produces binding commitments that match the scale of documented harm, it could mark a turning point. If it produces another set of voluntary frameworks, it will confirm what many in our region already suspect, that international AI governance is designed to protect the interests of those who build and sell AI systems, not those who bear their consequences.

We have submitted our evidence. The question now is whether anyone is willing to act on it.