In a recent blog post, I stated that, “the degree to which the world will be rules-based or power-based matters more than whether it is bipolar or multipolar.” Nowhere does this apply more than in the digital space – for three reasons.  

The delicate balance that governs the Internet under threat 

First, because the delicate balance that governs the Internet is under threat. Some states want to replace the agreed, multi-stakeholder framework with “might is right”. They are pushing for states to decide alone what happens on the Internet. So far, the governance of the Internet has been a mixture of various stakeholders, all contributing to sustain the online world in which we live and work.  

This model of pluralism has been behind the Internet’s success, but some powers want to change it. They are often the same countries who want to overturn the global order in other areas. Just a few days before Russia started its full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China released a joint declaration that claimed the “sovereign right to regulate national segments of the Internet”.  

“The idea that the Internet should be the tool of states leads to the Internet as a tool for control of populations, rather than a source of innovation and free speech.” 

This idea that the Internet should be the tool of states leads directly to the Internet as a tool for control of populations, rather than the source of innovation and free speech that we know today. The EU and its partners are right to resist this approach and must continue to do so.  

The online world needs rules that are accepted and supported by all 

Second, the online world needs rules that are accepted and supported by all. Chat-GPT and other similar models have put Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the public eye. Governments, companies and individuals around the world are seeking to harness these technologies for different purposes and their potential to boost innovation is enormous. But there are also well-founded data and privacy protection concerns, prompting some government and businesses to ban staff from using them. Some authoritative voices from inside the tech industry are even warning us about possible “existential risks,” and that AI could cause people to be “harmed or killed”. Obviously, Artificial Intelligence has enormous strategic and security implications.  

Not so long ago we were told that any attempt by the EU to think about rules for Artificial Intelligence was simply a bunch of bureaucrats intent on killing innovation. Thankfully, that discourse has shifted and many – also in Silicon Valley - are now awaiting the entry into force of the EU’s AI Act.  

Third, to be a rule setter, Europe must indeed be a tech leader. We are used to saying that Europe lacks tech champions and talk of the rare crown jewels like ASML, Schneider or SAP. But did you know that 2 of the top 5 Supercomputers in the world are Lumi in Finland and Leonardo in Bologna? Both are the result of concerted European action involving the EU, its member states and the private sector in a partnership known as EuroHPC to develop the kind of computing capacity that we need to work on climate change or make breakthroughs in the fight against pandemics.  

European companies produce also already a significant part of the plumbing of the digital world: from undersea cables to 5G mobile equipment. They are globally competitive and present in key markets, from Jordan to Costa Rica. Our partners want trusted providers of connectivity, sustainable in terms of energy use and quality, not posing security risks, and where the price is right.  

It is fashionable to say that EU rules and the EU’s defence of multilateral approaches are doomed because we lack the industrial firepower of China or the US. However, we are getting closer to a joined-up European policy on digital where we don’t simply rely on regulation – the famous “Brussels effect”. We also are pushing the investment we need in the real digital economy.  

Last Monday we discussed with EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs the far-reaching geopolitical implications of AI and other digital diplomacy issues. As said, digital technologies can shift the balance of power and as such must become a critically important component of the EU’s foreign policy.  

“Digital technologies can shift the balance of power and as such must become a critically important component of the EU’s foreign policy.” 

Ministers agreed that we must move fast to protect our strategic interests and promote our human-centric approach. We decided to increase our engagement in international fora and empower the EU as a shaper of the global digital rulebook. We will focus on both innovation and regulation, taking into account our economic security.  

The “battle of offers” in the digital domain 

Already last year, I pointed out that in the world today there is not only a battle of narratives but a “battle of offers”. And indeed, as EU we are adjusting our digital offer to better respond to the requests from partners for investment. The goal here is to facilitate digital trade, regulatory convergence and support for the deployment of infrastructures and services at scale with concrete, targeted projects as part of Global Gateway. Under this banner, the EU is working to support governments to close the digital divides and bring the benefits of a human-centric digital transformation to their population. We do this in close cooperation with EU member states with a “Team Europe” approach. 

In the first batch of Global Gateway projects in Africa or Latin America and Caribbean for example, we have included new submarine and landline fibre-optic cables, digital and green data centres, and a new bi-regional Digital Alliance with Latin America and the Caribbean. These sit alongside our global network of tech partnerships across East and South Asia and North America, which extend the reach of the EU’s human-centric and human-rights based approach.  

Promoting a fair model for data processing 

In our relations with partners in Africa we are promoting a fair model for data processing. Just like with our critical raw materials partnerships, we are not aiming simply to grab the data produced in Africa and get value from it back home. Our European model is about helping develop the kind of digital economy that will support local innovation and add value for our African partners. 

In a competitive geopolitical context, we will continue to do what we can to safeguard the current multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. We want to avoid a “splinternet”, with an open, human-centric model on one side and a model with strong state-led control on the other.  

“We want to avoid a “splinternet”, with an open, human-centric model on one side and a model with strong state-led control on the other.” 

In this fight, we are far from alone in thinking that multilateral digital policy is a game worth playing. The United States has finally acknowledged this by deciding to return to UNESCO, which is increasingly involved in pushing rules for artificial intelligence, technology education or for the behaviour of big tech platforms.  

Many challenges lie ahead. We need to update our thinking and policies to make the EU fit for the digital era, not just at home but also beyond our borders. Only then will we be a real global digital player and help to shape a rules-based digital future.