The Shift in Global Internet Governance
The global internet is witnessing a significant shift as the United States, traditionally a leader in internet governance, steps back from its influential role. Domestic polarization, a narrowed strategic vision, and increasing corporate influence have led to a profound vacuum in leadership. In this context, authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia are seizing the opportunity to redefine the internet, promoting models that prioritize state control, surveillance, and sovereignty.
Europe’s Potential as a Counterweight
In this evolving landscape, Europe stands at a critical juncture. The European Union (EU) possesses some of the world’s most progressive digital regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Artificial Intelligence Act. These frameworks embody a rights-based approach to technology governance, contrasting sharply with the laissez-faire attitude of Silicon Valley and the coercive measures promoted by authoritarian states.
Despite its internal regulatory progress, Europe has yet to translate this ambition into a coherent external strategy. In pivotal international forums, where the future of internet governance is up for debate, the EU’s presence is notably scant. While its officials may participate in side events or publish position papers, these efforts often lack substance, coherence, and sustained political backing.
Authoritarian Models Taking Center Stage
As Europe flounders, authoritarian powers advance their agendas unfazed. China, for example, actively uses forums like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to embed its political ideologies into the technical framework of the internet. Initiatives such as the “New IP” and proposals for “Future Vertical Communication Networks” are designed not only to enhance technical capabilities but also to ensure greater centralization and state oversight—a political maneuver cloaked in technical jargon.
Similarly, Russia has strategically sought to frame the international narrative around “digital sovereignty.” Its efforts, primarily executed through the United Nations system, aim at defining cybersecurity norms and cultivating an environment that legitimizes censorship while undermining civil liberties under the guise of public safety.
The Risks of Inertia
Europe’s fragmented and reactive approach to these developments represents a significant strategic vulnerability. The lack of a unified stance on digital diplomacy raises the specter of a global paradigm shift toward norms that contradict European values. If the EU does not assertively advocate for its digital rights model, it risks being sidelined in favor of illiberal frameworks that may eventually encroach upon its own legal regulations.
This vulnerability is glaringly evident within the United Nations system, which serves as a battleground for competing visions of digital governance. In crucial discussions surrounding the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 review, Europe’s contributions often lack political weight and technical depth—unlike the coordinated, consistent approach adopted by countries like China.
The Need for Strategic Cohesion
The EU’s inability to project a unified external agenda is not merely a missed opportunity; it is a strategic shortfall that could undermine its regulatory leadership. As countries across the Global South look toward the UN for guidance on digital policy, Europe’s absence from critical discussions forfeits its influence and allows authoritarian regimes to fill the void with infrastructure projects that prioritize state control over individual freedoms.
To reclaim its stature, Europe must recognize that it possesses the legal frameworks and democratic legitimacy required to lead on global digital issues. What is lacking is a coherent vision and the political will to follow through.
A Call for Leadership
The EU should proactively cultivate a global digital diplomacy strategy that aligns its robust internal regulations with its foreign policy objectives. This necessitates appointing dedicated envoys, establishing clear mandates for the European External Action Service, and investing in diplomatic infrastructure to align its regulatory ambitions with a proactive international presence.
Moreover, investment in rights-respecting digital infrastructures and fostering partnerships worldwide—especially in the Global South—is essential. Europe must strive to offer an alternative to the authoritarian models emerging from China and Russia while forming strategic alliances with other democratic nations to shape global norms and advocate for multistakeholder governance.
Conclusion: A Geopolitical Asset
In an era where the competing forces of authoritarianism are increasingly defining the parameters of the internet, Europe must no longer remain passive. It needs to treat internet governance as a central pillar of its foreign policy. By decisively engaging in the international arena, Europe can defend the values it espouses at home and ensure it plays a pivotal role in shaping the future landscape of the internet.
If the EU aspires to sustain an open and rights-respecting internet, it must act with urgency and conviction, recognizing that the internet constitutes a geopolitical asset—a reality that its adversaries are already leveraging to cement their influence.