A new digital regulation

The U.S.’s signal of a huge digital shift

America’s withdrawal from its centerpiece digital trade positions at the WTO now gives developing countries a good opportunity to shape effective digital regulation

When Thomas L. Friedman

1 declared in 2005 that the world was flat, with the opportunities having been equalised globally, it was considerably premised आधारित on new digital developments.

2  This new geopolitical and geo-economic ideology was led by the United States, home to most of the world’s Big Tech. 

3 It first redefine development through the field of ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development), 

and then herald a new dawn for democracy globally, most characterised by colour revolutions in East Europe and the so-called Arab Spring.

और फिर वैश्विक स्तर पर लोकतंत्र के लिए एक नई सुबह की शुरुआत हुई, जिसकी सबसे बड़ी विशेषता पूर्वी यूरोप में रंग क्रांतियां और तथाकथित अरब स्प्रिंग थीं।

Prempting digital regulation

अमेरिका दुनिया को कैसे बदल रहा ?

1 digital colonisation 

Behind it , was a new plan 

 to employ the global reach of digital tentacles जाल , and later data-enabled controls, for economic expansionism. Some called it digital colonisation, due to its extractive nature. 

2 effective future regulation of Big Tech

It devised / creat  a set of digital trade proposals seeking binding commitments from countries to essentially prevent any effective future regulation of Big Tech. 

3 For some years now, such digital trade proposals have been the hottest agenda at various plurilateral trade negotiations and at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

 Countries such as India and South Africa, and some other developing ones, have  resisted the U.S.-driven digital trade agreements juggernaut.

अमेरिका ने क्या गलत किया ?

1  the world was shocked to hear the U.S. withdraw, in late October, from its centerpiece digital trade positions at the WTO — those about data flows/localisation, access to source code, and location of computing facilities.

2  The declaration represents a watershed moment about how the global digital economy and society will evolve going forward. 

3 motive is the realisation that the U.S. needs domestic policy space to regulate Big Tech and AI, for which data and source code could be important leverage points.

4  Having employed this as a major reason for opposing global digital trade agreements, developing countries can feel vindicated. 

5 However, they also had strong economic reasons; an uncontrolled remit of the Big Tech would not allow domestic digital industrialisation.

From flat to a split digital world

अमेरिका के कदम का मुख्य कारण ?

1 But a major (perhaps the main, unstated) reason for the U.S. declaration is the China factor.

2 वो क्या चाहता है ?

world was a happy place for the U.S. when it meant its singular digital hegemony over it. 

But with China fast on the heels of the U.S. towards digital superpower-hood, the situation has become more complex. 

The digital trade negotiations at the WTO and china factor

are open to all countries, and China grasped the opportunity to participate in them.

 China had leveraged its accession to the WTO in 2001 to become the ‘world’s factory’, 

thereby taking its economic development, and subsequently geopolitical status, to an entirely new level. 

A free digital trade agreement

1 — with free data flows, without the need to share the source code of digital products, 

2 and allowing remote computing facilities — could similarly be employed globally by China to now outsmart चतुरता में मात देना the U.S. digitally.

3  It could help bring China on an equal footing with the U.S. in accessing global digital markets, and in driving and controlling the world’s digitalisation, in all sectors. 

4 Apart from the economic challenge, the U.S. also considers any pervasive Chinese digital presence globally as a major security threat.

reason behind the U.S. declaration as the stated one of preserving policy space

1 Such Cold War-like economic and security-related exclusions, and blocs building, may at least be as important a reason behind the U.S. declaration as the stated one of preserving policy space. 

2 Even though having withdrawn from these all-important positions in the WTO digital trade negotiations, where China cannot be excluded,

 the U.S. may still push for data flow, source code, and facilities location, related provisions in regional digital trade deals, in some form or the other. Such deals will be led by the U.S., and, significantly, be limited to its allies. 

3 The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity (APEP) 

🌺 are two such initiatives by the U.S. 

🌺 It is pursuing similar interests through bilateral trade and technology councils, for example with the European Union (EU) and India.

The historic declaration by the U.S. can, therefore, be seen in two different lights

 At one level, it signals a full global acceptance that saving national policy space around 

🌺data flows, 

🌺source code, 

🌺and location of computing facilities is key to all-important digital regulation. 

This is a most welcome development.

 But at another level, here  splitting of the global digital space, structures and value-chains into two competing blocs — one led by the U.S. and other by China. This is already happening, but could now pick up a new momentum.

Resisting digital dependencies

What does this mean for developing countries such as India? 

They should make the most of the new global consensus on the need for

🌺 strong digital regulations to rein in Big Tech and

🌺 manage AI, 

🌺including through policies related to data, source code, and location of computing facilities. 

The U.S.’s statement is like abnegation अस्वीकार  by the king, with the EU already employing data and source code related laws in its domestic regulation which are beginning to look quite contrary to its positions at global digital trade forums. 

Developing countries should grasp this opportunity with both hands to urgently shape new paradigms for national digital regulation.

But, at the same time, developing countries must stoutly resist a new trap of a digital Cold War, whereby they get bound into digital dependencies either with the U.S. or China. 

A new digital regulation paradigm should combine with strong digital industrial policies to bolster domestic digital industry. 

Countries should aim at creating globally open standards, open protocols, and open digital public infrastructures.

 All these together could mean complete and genuine global-scale interoperability. This would enable open global digital value chains, allowing easy switching across global digital trade partners — suppliers or consumers — whether from the U.S., China, or elsewhere.

Source the hindu