Network Session: Digital Sovereignty and Global Cooperation | IGF 2023 Networking Session #170

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

John Tshinseki

The issue of digital sovereignty versus digital cooperation in African countries is prominent, with African leaders often prioritising their own sovereignty over the benefits of digital cooperation. This mindset of protecting their sovereignty for power and control within their own countries tends to hinder progress and collaboration in the region.

One of the main arguments is that African leaders manipulate laws and regulations to suit their needs and maintain their hold on power. This often leads to a violation of human rights, as these rulers tweak laws and regulations to suppress opposition voices. This infringement on human rights is perceived as a means for leaders to maintain their grip on power.

Furthermore, existing laws such as the Cyber Crimes Act in Zambia or the Data Protection Act are designed in a way that grants more control to the ruling government. These laws often contain draconian clauses, which are excerpts from international documents like the General Data Protection Regulation. The intention behind these laws is to suppress opposition voices, undermining the principles of free speech and democracy.

The analysis indicates that the sentiment surrounding this issue is largely negative, as it highlights the detrimental effects of prioritising sovereignty over cooperation. The arguments put forth suggest that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa cannot be completely eradicated due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders.

John, who holds this belief, suggests that global discussions and agendas have minimal impact on the local decisions made by African leaders. This further reinforces the notion that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa are deeply rooted in the mindset and priorities of the ruling leaders.

In conclusion, African leaders prioritise digital sovereignty over digital cooperation, hindering progress in the region. This is reflected in the manipulation of laws to suppress opposition voices and the violation of human rights. The analysis suggests that the tensions surrounding this issue cannot be completely resolved due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders. It is evident that a shift in priorities and a stronger commitment to cooperation is needed to effectively address these challenges.

Audience

In the digital cooperation landscape, there is extensive discussion surrounding the tension between cooperation and sovereignty. Some argue for the possibility of cooperation between sovereign entities, and the European Union’s initiative to create data spaces exemplifies that cooperation and sovereignty can indeed coexist. The EU aims to foster cooperation while maintaining national sovereignty, particularly in the area of data. This approach suggests that a balance can be struck to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, the term “digital cooperation” is viewed by some as vague, encompassing complex international digital policy issues. It covers aspects such as digital trade, encryption, online privacy, data protection, online payments, and surveillance. Due to the complexity and diversity of these issues, there is an ongoing debate about whether the term adequately captures the nuances and challenges involved in digital cooperation.

The tension between cooperation and sovereignty also arises from the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration. While nations seek to maintain control over digital policies and regulations, there is a growing recognition that collaboration is necessary to effectively address global challenges. This tension becomes particularly apparent in discussions about digital sovereignty and global cooperation, highlighting the struggle to strike a balance between national interests and the collective pursuit of common goals.

Furthermore, the current structure of global governance, including the United Nations, may not be efficiently equipped to handle digital cooperation issues. Some argue for a re-evaluation of the United Nations’ structure, proposing the renaming of the organization to the United People to better focus on the choices and needs of individuals. This viewpoint suggests that there is room for improvement in the global governance system, particularly in addressing the complexities of digital cooperation.

Moreover, there exists a notable rift between global and national level discussions on digital sovereignty and global cooperation. Global discussions may not align with the political landscape and requirements of individual countries. People may adopt a dual stance, expressing support for both cooperation and sovereignty, which can lead to conflicting perspectives between the global and national levels.

The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies depending on the context and perspective of different groups or nations. Within the “Five Eyes” group, comprised of five English-speaking countries with an intelligence-sharing alliance, no tension appears to exist regarding surveillance. However, tensions arise when considering surveillance practices outside of this group. The nature of the tension depends on one’s location or the political stance of the sovereign nation.

In conclusion, the tension between cooperation and sovereignty in the digital cooperation landscape is a complex and multi-faceted issue. While the European Union’s data spaces demonstrate that cooperation and sovereignty can coexist, there are differing opinions regarding the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the term “digital cooperation.” Additionally, the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration adds another layer of complexity. The current global governance structures may not effectively handle digital cooperation issues, and there is a significant rift between global and national level discussions. The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies based on context and perspective. Overall, balancing cooperation and sovereignty requires careful consideration of diverse perspectives, locations, and the specific challenges posed by the digital landscape.

Jamal Shahin

Digital sovereignty has become a highly contested topic, particularly within the European context, and its usage has been steadily increasing since 2019. Various stakeholder groups have differing interpretations of digital sovereignty, highlighting the importance of understanding its implications for policy debates.

Engagement and conversation with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community play a crucial role in comprehending digital sovereignty. The IGF community has actively discussed this topic, signifying its significance in global discussions.

However, a significant distance often exists between national politics and global agendas in relation to digital cooperation and sovereignty. National leaders in developing nations tend to implement laws and regulations that enable them to maintain power and control, sometimes at the expense of infringing upon human rights. This divergence between national and global perspectives creates a complex landscape for effective digital governance.

To address this complexity, it is essential to break down the discussion on global cooperation versus digital sovereignty into different functional areas. The current broad question allows individuals to take either or both stances simultaneously. Suggestions have been made to create a list of policy fields where global cooperation or digital sovereignty might manifest, in order to provide a more focused analysis. Dividing the discussion based on different functional areas will facilitate more nuanced and productive debates.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of different governance mechanisms on the digital sphere. There is a fear that these mechanisms may lead to fragmentation, thereby impeding the development of a cohesive digital environment. The importance of specific institutions, products, or policy fields in shaping digital cooperation and sovereignty has been emphasized.

Finally, when discussing digital sovereignty, it is crucial to consider the global, regional, national and subnational dimensions. Different groups hold diverse tensions and perspectives on surveillance and data sharing. Understanding these varied viewpoints is essential for developing effective digital governance strategies.

In conclusion, digital sovereignty has emerged as a contentious and complex issue, with various stakeholders offering diverse interpretations. Engaging with the IGF community and considering different dimensions, functional areas and viewpoints are pivotal in developing comprehensive and equitable policies for digital sovereignty and cooperation. This extended analysis provides deeper insights into the multifaceted nature of the topic.

Justine Miller

During the discussion, the speakers explored the contradiction between digital concepts, specifically digital contradiction and digital compatibility. They noted that while these concepts may seem to conflict on paper, they are not completely exclusive in the digital realm. This suggests that there is potential for overlap and coexistence.

To further understand the dynamics of power balancing within a country, the nature of the country itself was highlighted as a crucial factor. The distinction between a dictatorship and a non-dictatorship was emphasized as it plays a significant role in determining how power is distributed. It was noted that power distribution in a dictatorship may be more top-down, with a strong central authority controlling various aspects of society, including technology regulations. On the other hand, in a non-dictatorship, power distribution may involve more checks and balances to ensure a fair and just system.

The speakers suggested that in order to achieve an effective power balance, certain measures should be considered. One approach highlighted was the need to grant more power to civil societies and companies. By empowering these entities, there is the potential for a more decentralized and diversified distribution of power. Additionally, the regulation of tech companies was deemed as an influential factor in power distribution. This implies that through careful monitoring and control of technology companies, there is an opportunity to shape power dynamics in a way that aligns with societal goals and values.

It is important to note that while the speakers presented a neutral stance on these matters, they provided evidence and supporting facts to substantiate their claims. By acknowledging the complexities of the digital landscape and recognizing the role of different types of countries, the discussion sheds light on the potential avenues for achieving power balance in the digital age.

In conclusion, the speakers highlighted the contradiction between digital concepts and emphasized that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. The nature of a country, such as whether it is a dictatorship or not, plays a crucial role in power balancing. Furthermore, empowering civil societies and companies, alongside regulating tech companies, can be instrumental in shaping power distribution. This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights into the complex dynamics of power and technology in today’s digital world.

Sophie Hoogenboom

Sophie Hoogenboom, a Ph.D. student, is conducting an in-depth research on digital sovereignty. Her aim is to understand the various dimensions and implications of this topic. Sophie’s research has revealed that there is no universally defined understanding of digital sovereignty. Different individuals have varying interpretations and ideas about its importance. This finding challenges the assumption of a shared perception of digital sovereignty.

Sophie’s research on digital sovereignty is not limited to academic research but also has implications for sustainable development, particularly related to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). This highlights the relevance and significance of understanding and addressing digital sovereignty issues within the broader context of fostering sustainable development.

In her research and panel discussions, Sophie has encountered diverse definitions and viewpoints on digital sovereignty. This suggests that digital sovereignty is a complex concept influenced by individual factors such as cultural background, educational level, and professional experience. The various interpretations highlight the need for comprehensive dialogue and collaboration to establish a shared understanding of digital sovereignty.

In conclusion, Sophie Hoogenboom’s research sheds light on the diverse perceptions and lack of a universal definition of digital sovereignty. Her findings emphasize the need for further exploration and collective effort to address this multidimensional issue. By acknowledging and addressing these variations in understanding, we can work towards a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to digital sovereignty.

Speakers