Civilization is entering an exciting chapter with AI taking centre stage. The fine line between machine intelligence and human cognition is blurring by the day. Creative public policies must pave the way in shaping a digital governance architecture that is global in its implementation capacity, driven by fundamental democratic norms and principles, and intrinsically rights-based.
The objective is simple: To circumvent sleepwalking towards a chaotic information ecosystem where technology, in the absence of robust policy safeguards, becomes a dangerous vehicle to get away with human rights violations and suppressing civilian populations.
In this context, the US and China are engaged in a geo-political duel increasingly framed as a strategic rivalry on multiple policy fronts. Predictably, both countries are striving to secure unrivaled hegemony in global statecraft and international relations.
A US government report described this competition as an innate battle between contrasting political values. Amid differing visions for the future of technology, China has emerged as a policy trend-setter and norm entrepreneur, leading in the conceptualization, design, and promotion of digital governance toolkits.
Beijing is positioning AI and cutting-edge tech as instruments to promote networked authoritarianism: A political approach defined by a policy ecosystem rooted in centralized control and digital surveillance. This very philosophy forms the underlying core of the governance models that China exports to other nations.
Going hands-on
Beijing adopts a hands-on approach to regulating its digital realm, leveraging technology to construct a robust surveillance network that constantly monitors Chinese citizens under the guise of national security.
With more than half of the world's surveillance cameras, China has nurtured a sophisticated and unmatched state surveillance apparatus. Along with tech-driven tools like its social credit system, this apparatus exerts unprecedented oversight over the lives of Chinese citizens.
Digital authoritarianism has unfolded through a plethora of additional tools: Facial, voice, and gait recognition technologies are linked to sweeping biometric databases. Facial recognition scanners keep a keen eye on public spaces, while security checkpoints monitor cell phones 24/7. Wi-Fi sniffers, license plate readers, and police cloud computing centres complement software which spy on citizens. Targeted identification systems keep minority and other communities under close supervision.
Then there is the social credit system, a one-stop-hub that arbitrates people's behaviour, trustworthiness, and loyalty to the state, organizing databases, scoring mechanisms, and blacklists to reinforce the regime's grip.
The most severe implementation of this system is in Xinjiang. Disguised under the pretext of promoting a safe society and advancing "smart" urban development, Beijing has employed digital resources to far more tendentious ends..
Beyond these, technology's role extends to areas other than national security. In recent years, China has prioritized investments in AI within its financial, retail, and high-tech industries, enhancing the country's overarching appeal to emerging economies.
Despite varied ownership models, over 70% of private domestic enterprises host outlets of the ruling party, outlets which frequently nudge private companies to pursue commercial goals in support of Beijing's foreign policy agendas.
In particular, strategic partnerships with tech firms like Alibaba and Huawei have been a game-changer for Beijing, leading to three strategic outcomes: reinforcing China's political ambitions for regional influence, anchoring technology as a tool to promote political illiberalism, and establishing Beijing as a global economic juggernaut.
Under the overarching umbrella of its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is also intensifying its Digital Silk Road efforts, propelling its corporate giants into the heart of emerging markets.
This strategy extends beyond simple macroeconomic goals. More accurately, it is a manifestation of China's blueprint for the future. By investing in and deploying state-of-the-art resources China is doing more than just innovating -- it is popularizing a tech-based policy environment aimed at civic control.
The bottom line being that Beijing aims to maintain, and in fact strengthen, the neoliberal economic foundation that catalyzed its rise, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for an illiberal political world order.
China's partners, featuring a combination of autocratic and hybrid regimes, are assimilating draconian digital governance regulations towards their respective legal frameworks.
Concurrently, Chinese tech firms, each connected with Beijing to varying degrees, are supplying critical telecommunications, e-commerce, and surveillance technologies to countries notorious for their controversial human rights records.
Nations like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Belarus, Hungary, Egypt, and Uganda -- all of which can be best described as competitive authoritarian actors -- are being aided in embedding digital authoritarian norms within their respective constitutional frameworks.
The result: A global erosion of democratic culture propelled by the exploitation of technology.
China's influence extends beyond bilateral partnerships. High-profile presence of seasoned diplomats across organizations that set technological benchmarks, provides a channel to cement Beijing's regulatory standards, surveillance practices, and digital toolkits across global platforms.
Certainly, undemocratic countries regard Chinese technologies and standards as pathways to digital sovereignty and embrace the idea of a closed digital ecosystem as a solution to prevent losing control over their data and technology.
Authoritarian regimes tend to exploit the ambiguous concept of digital sovereignty to control their citizens. This is evident in Beijing's proposals on defining global internet regulations.
Diplomats and private corporations are leveraged to promote their interests within the International Telecommunication Union. Central to this tactic is the promotion of technology, like Huawei's 5G infrastructure, in supporting resource-constrained nations, alongside efforts to integrate these technologies into global standards.
Establishing a global digital governance framework as a democratic imperative is non-negotiable. Countering China's authority in a borderless digital space is equally important.
Without an internationally co-created counter-strategy, Beijing will continue disseminating a dangerous template for the weaponization of technology to promote authoritarianism, furthering a trend towards more dictatorial governance systems.
The emergence of AI in this context underscores its dual potential: While it can enhance prediction, analyses, and automation, it can also be misused for surveillance, censorship, and manipulation of information. The appeal of digital authoritarianism is shifting the balance of power, increasingly favouring autocracies over democracies.
A question naturally arises: What steps should Western superpowers take in this environment?
First, liberal democracies need to align approaches to digital governance by achieving a policy consensus. The US and the EU face self-induced boundaries in synergizing their visions for cyberspace regulation. Despite their interest in embedding values like openness and freedom in digital governance frameworks, they diverge on a range of critical issues. Brussels favours a regulated, state-centric digital environment, starkly contrasting with Washington's laissez-faire policy stance, with the former being cautious of private corporations having more influence in digital decision-making than governments.
Out of concern
The concept of technical sovereignty plays a central role in the EU's strategy. This approach is motivated by concerns about lagging behind the technological dominance of the US and China.
The EU's commitment to digital independence, outlined in a high-profile report, represents a decisive move to establish its own leadership in the digital arena. While it ostensibly counters China's digital authoritarianism, it also signifies a clear departure from the US.
Harmonizing the approaches of Washington and Brussels on data governance and digital sovereignty is essential as a preliminary step, ensuring that the leaders of the democratic world are aligned in their collective policy vision.
It goes without saying: Western rights-based models are not without flaws. Their emphasis on individual dignity and protection can lead to conflicts between individual interests and legitimate societal or state needs.
Such tension becomes apparent when individual data rights conflict with collective benefits, for example when using data in AI systems for medical or research advancements.
The traditional scope of human rights which focuses on state-individual interactions also fails to account for the private sector's dominance in developing AI systems -- prompting legitimate questions about how human rights frameworks can apply in scenarios involving private actors.
The abstract nature of human rights, while offering adaptability in various cultural contexts, also presents problems. Different interpretations can lead to inconsistent protection levels for citizens, raising concerns about the capacity of human rights norms to provide a meaningful and uniform standard of protection.
The necessity for specific interpretations in each instance complicates the enforcement of adequate protection standards under international human rights law.
In countries with weak judicial systems, the practical applicability of rights-based governance frameworks is a relevant concern. Although such frameworks appear effective on paper, their global implementation is uncertain, as recent events in Gaza have clearly shown, often leading to selective applications.
Regulating the application of technology, its oversight mechanisms, the actions of technology companies, and the governmental use of technology pose complex challenges for democracies.
Their goal should be to stimulate commercial growth in the digital domain while ensuring that their governance models do not enable rights encroachments, a standard of conduct that China seems uninterested in, and frankly, is not expected to adopt in the foreseeable future, either in its policies or in its promotion to allies.
The message to the West is clear: Non-western democracies require more than a simple seat at the table. Their perspectives on digital governance must be given tangible weight. Imposing an international framework solely crafted by the EU or the US will not bear fruitful outcomes.
This approach merely sustains the archaic and ineffective tradition of top-down policy-making. While the path to a co-created and participatory global rights-based digital governance framework is expected to be time-consuming, rigorous, and demanding, it remains the most promising route.
Nations with divergent values will inevitably clash, and the journey will be fraught with frustration. Yet, adopting this strategy is central in countering China's digital authoritarianism.
It can present their erstwhile allies with an alternative vision for digital governance, one that not only empowers but also grants institutional agency to non-Western countries, enabling them to play a direct role in forging a truly global digital governance architecture.
Mir Aftabuddin Ahmed is a Toronto-based columnist for Dhaka Tribune. He serves as an Urban Fellow Researcher with the City of Toronto and is the co-founder of BacharLorai, a Canada-based not-for-profit social impact agency. He can be reached at: aftab.ahmed@alum.utoronto.ca. The views expressed by the author are entirely his own.