The tension between "digital sovereignty" and "internet freedom" has become a central debate in the age of cyberwar, and it's certainly fair to say that digital sovereignty is gaining significant prominence, often at the expense of traditional notions of internet freedom, particularly in the context of nation-state threats.

Here's why this shift is occurring and the implications:

What are "Digital Sovereignty" and "Internet Freedom"?

• Digital Sovereignty: Refers to a nation's ability to control, regulate, and protect its data, digital infrastructure, and digital resources within its borders, free from foreign influence, control, or cyber threats. It emphasizes state control, national security, and economic independence. Key aspects include:

  • Data localization (data must be stored within national borders).

  • National firewalls and internet filtering (e.g., China's Great Firewall).

  • Restrictions or bans on foreign tech companies.

  • Development of domestic technological alternatives.

  • Control over critical digital infrastructure (5G, cloud).

• Internet Freedom: Emphasizes the open, global, and interconnected nature of the internet, promoting free flow of information, freedom of expression, uncensored access to content, and individual privacy. It often advocates for a multi-stakeholder governance model, rather than state control.

Why Digital Sovereignty is Gaining Importance in the Age of Cyberwar:

1. National Security Imperatives:

   • Cyber Warfare and Espionage: Governments increasingly view cyberspace as a battlefield. State-sponsored cyberattacks (espionage, sabotage, disruption) directly threaten national security, critical infrastructure, and economic stability. Digital sovereignty is seen as a necessary defense mechanism to secure networks from foreign infiltration.

   • Misinformation and Foreign Influence: Cyber operations extend to information warfare, including disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in elections. States seek digital sovereignty to control information flows and protect their populations from malicious influence.

   • Supply Chain Risks: Dependence on foreign-made hardware and software (especially from geopolitical rivals) creates significant supply chain vulnerabilities. Digital sovereignty drives efforts to reduce reliance on foreign tech, promoting domestic alternatives to prevent backdoors or compromised components.

2. Economic Protectionism and Competitiveness:

   • Protecting Intellectual Property: Cyber espionage is rampant, with state actors stealing valuable intellectual property. Digital sovereignty aims to protect national industries and innovation from such theft.

   • Data as a Strategic Asset: Data is seen as the "new oil." Nations want to control where their citizens' and industries' data is stored, processed, and accessed, viewing it as a strategic economic asset that should not be exploited by foreign entities.

   • Boosting Domestic Tech: Digital sovereignty policies often encourage the growth of national tech champions, fostering local innovation and reducing economic dependency on foreign tech giants.

3. Reinforcing State Control:

   • Authoritarian Regimes: For authoritarian states (like China, Russia, Iran), digital sovereignty aligns perfectly with their desire to control information, suppress dissent, and maintain political stability. Their "cyber borders" are effectively digital extensions of their physical borders.

   • Democratic States (with caveats): Even democratic states are exploring aspects of digital sovereignty (e.g., the EU's GDPR and data localization efforts, France's focus on "strategic autonomy" in tech) out of security concerns, data privacy imperatives, and a desire to balance global tech dominance. However, they typically aim to do so while preserving democratic values and rights.

The Conflict and Implications:

The rise of digital sovereignty directly conflicts with the ideals of internet freedom.

• Internet Fragmentation ("Splinternet"): Increased digital sovereignty leads to national "cyber borders," data localization requirements, and divergent technical standards. This risks fragmenting the global internet into national or regional "bubbles," hindering cross-border communication, commerce, and innovation.

• Censorship and Surveillance: Measures taken in the name of digital sovereignty (e.g., national firewalls, mandatory data retention) can easily be leveraged for censorship, surveillance, and suppression of free speech, undermining human rights.

• Stifled Innovation: Restrictions on foreign technologies and data flows can stifle innovation by limiting access to global talent, markets, and technological advancements.

• Economic Disadvantage for Smaller Nations: Developing nations, in particular, may struggle to build robust domestic tech ecosystems and could become isolated if they fully embrace extreme digital sovereignty without the necessary resources.

Conclusion:

Yes, in the age of cyberwar, digital sovereignty is undoubtedly becoming more important for governments than raw internet freedom. The perception that an open, borderless internet makes nations vulnerable to cyberattacks, espionage, and foreign influence is driving this shift.

However, this does not mean internet freedom is irrelevant. The challenge for democratic nations, in particular, is to find a balance that allows them to build digital resilience and protect national interests without completely sacrificing the benefits of an open internet – innovation, global connectivity, and fundamental human rights like freedom of expression. Authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, are using the concept of digital sovereignty to justify and reinforce their existing control over the internet. The geopolitical struggle over these two concepts will continue to shape the future of cyberspace.