Digital Diplomacy and Power in the age of technological interdependence

Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.

In September 2025, the General Assembly on Defense, Space and Cybersecurity of the European Space Agency gathered delegates before electronic panels and digital screens. The meeting highlighted the centrality of the digital as a theme of security and international governance. Diplomacy, once restricted to face-to-face negotiations and printed documents, began to incorporate technical protocols and digital infrastructure as objects of debate. The conflict in Ukraine, the spread of disinformation in recent elections, and the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence consolidated this shift in the international agenda.

In this context, issues related to data protection, platform regulation, cybersecurity, and AI systems governance began to directly influence the distribution of power among states. As a consequence, the elaboration of norms ceased to be seen only as domestic regulation and came to function as an instrument of international projection.

Delegados durante la Asamblea General de la ESA sobre Defensa, Espacio y Ciberseguridad, septiembre de 2025. (Foto: Agencia Espacial Europea)

Competition among models of digital governance

The European Union consolidated its position as a regulatory reference. The Digital Services Act and the AI Act, in force since 2024, exemplify the transformation of domestic legislation into international standards. In addition to shaping the functioning of platforms within the bloc, these instruments have been incorporated by global companies seeking to maintain access to the European market. This capacity demonstrates how regulation has become a mechanism of normative power, projecting the influence of the European Union beyond its borders.

In contrast, the United States sustains its position through the centrality of major technology companies, which control strategic sectors such as semiconductors, cloud services, and social networks. Dominance in these critical chains provides the country with instruments to condition global flows of information and innovation. This structural power has been explicitly used in economic and political disputes, reinforcing interdependence as a strategic resource.

China and Russia, on the other hand, promote a model of digital sovereignty based on state control over data and the creation of their own infrastructures. In addition to domestic regulation, these countries export equipment and solutions to partners interested in reducing external dependencies. This strategy strengthens their sphere of influence, especially in developing countries where demand for alternatives in connectivity and digital services has been growing.

Taken together, the competition between the European regulatory model, the North American liberal model, and the Asian sovereigntist model defines the foundations of the emerging digital order. The competition involves legitimacy, the capacity to attract third-party adherence, and systems interoperability, with a direct impact on the international governance of the digital environment.

The place of the Global South

The G20 held in New Delhi in 2023 highlighted the importance of digital public infrastructure, recognizing its potential to broaden inclusion and reduce transaction costs. In this context, India approved the Personal Data Protection Act in 2023, strengthening domestic regulation and projecting credibility in international forums.

Brazil, although innovative with the Internet Civil Framework and consolidated a robust framework with the General Data Protection Law, still lacks an articulated digital diplomacy. The absence of coordination between ministries, regulatory agencies, and civil society makes it difficult to transform this normative heritage into effective influence in multilateral bodies.

South Africa concentrates its efforts on regional and multilateral coalitions, but its initiatives remain limited by a lack of resources and reduced technological scale. Thus, the position of the Global South continues to be marked by dependency: most of the time, these countries adapt to norms produced by the European Union, the United States, or China.

Digital diplomacy as an instrument of power

Digital diplomacy is not limited to communication on social networks. It is the ability to propose norms, negotiate commitments, and legitimize standards that structure global digital life. In this sense, seemingly technical decisions about routing protocols, cryptography, or digital identity have direct political implications. In addition, the approval in 2024 of UN General Assembly resolutions on safe and reliable artificial intelligence demonstrates that there are already minimum points of convergence at the multilateral level, such as transparency, security, and respect for human rights.

Technological interdependence, therefore, redefines the very nature of international power. These principles still need to be transformed into binding norms. The European Union, the United States, and China are advancing in this field, while countries of the Global South face the dilemma of either adapting to external rules or building capacity to propose their own norms. Technological interdependence thus redefines the very nature of international power.

References

BRADFORD, A. (2023). Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. Oxford University Press.

FARRELL, H., & NEWMAN, A. (2023). Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy. Macmillan.

G20 NEW DELHI LEADERS’ DECLARATION (2023). Disponível em: https://www.g20.org

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023).

Brasil. Lei nº 13.709/2018 – Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD).

DENARDIS, L. (2020). The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch. Yale University Press.

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Resolution A/RES/78/265: Promoting Safe, Secure and Trustworthy AI (2024).