An interview with FAU cultural geographer Prof. Dr. Georg Glasze
The term “digital sovereignty” emerged in the mid 2010’s to signify a move away from the boundless digital utopia of the 80’s and 90’s and has influenced political debates ever since. But what does digital sovereignty mean and why is it increasingly playing a geopolitical role? Researchers from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have explored this question together with the French research group “Geopolitics of the Datasphere”. They have now published their findings in the collective volume “Geopolitics of Digital Sovereignty”. In our interview, one of the editors of the collective volume, Prof. Dr. Georg Glasze, Chair of Geography (Cultural and Political Geography) and member of the FAU Cluster of Excellence “Transforming Human Rights,” explains the findings, what the term “digital sovereignty” actually means, and why this is relevant for all people.
Prof. Glasze, what is digital sovereignty?
In recent years, digital sovereignty has become a central buzzword of digital policy, but it is understood differently by different people. At its core, it deals with the ability to take a self-determined approach to digital transformation, in other words to shape and use digital technologies, data and infrastructure in such a way that political, economic and societal aims can be pursued independently.
And what is the collective volume about?
The book shows that digital sovereignty is not a fixed concept, but rather a debated political leitmotif at the intersection between control and freedom, the state and the individual, democracy and authoritarianism. It calls for a critically reflective approach: Digital sovereignty is always embedded in power relationships, infrastructure and historical experiences. An understanding of this diversity is crucial before you are able to shape digital politics democratically, safely, and sustainably.
What is the aim of your book – and why is it important?
Our aim was to compile a comparison of the global debates about digital sovereignty in one place for the first time, transcending disciplines and global regions. The book shows the different ways the concept is understood and implemented across the globe, and how strongly intertwined it is with geopolitical interests, territorial logics and digital infrastructure. The volume makes it clear that digital sovereignty is always created in specific historical, political and spatial contexts, and that this can lead to central questions for Europe’s own digital future. It should act as a source of inspiration for how democratic societies can act autonomously, responsibly, and resiliently. We wanted to demonstrate that digital sovereignty is not an abstract term, but rather that it is visible in specific political and spatial practices.
(Image: FAU/David Hartfiel)
Which role does digital sovereignty play in the currently changing geopolitical circumstances?
Digital sovereignty has become a key element of geopolitical power. Those who are in possession of data, platforms and networks are increasingly responsible for dictating economic and political dependencies. The Ukraine war, the tension between USA and China or the debates about artificial intelligence show: Nowadays, digital infrastructure is a strategic resource, rendering it a core object of global rivalries.
Which differences are there in the regional understanding of digital sovereignty?
The understanding varies widely across the globe: In Europe, the focus is on protecting basic rights, but increasingly also on geoeconomical and geopolitical issues. In China or Russia state control is top of the agenda. In India or Iran, digital sovereignty is closely connected to efforts to gain national independence. These differences have a lot to do with political systems, historical experiences and technological dependencies.
Is digital sovereignty not always positive?
Not automatically. The general principle of digital sovereignty can strengthen self-determination – but it can also lead to control and seclusion. Even in democracies, protectionist, security policy or technonationalist agendas can hide behind this buzzword. The concept tends to be ambivalent, and neither “good” or “bad” per se. It depends how and with which objectives it is implemented politically.
Is there a European or German-French perspective on digital sovereignty?
Yes, Germany and France put the topic on the political agenda early on. Both countries connect digital sovereignty with the idea of an independent, democratically regulated digital order that combines technological independence with social responsibility. At the same time, economic, geoeconomic and, especially in recent times, security and geopolitical considerations are increasingly playing an important role.
How do these perspectives differ from those of other stakeholders?
For a long time, the USA backed open markets and innovation in the private sector. Under Trump’s second presidency, however, Washington is taking a much more imperial approach, with new alliances between big tech and a government that is assuming an authoritarian position. This development is considerably shrinking Europe’s scope for action. At the same time, China is pursuing a strongly state-controlled digital strategy driven by power politics. Europe is positioned between two increasingly power-conscious digital empires.
Is it fair to say there is an European or national geopolitical digital strategy?
Yes, that is increasingly the case. Programs such as Gaia-X, the AI regulation or the “Digital Services Act” are building blocks in a European digital strategy. Today, Europe clearly appreciates that digital technologies are a geopolitical field. However, a coherent overall strategy only crystallizes gradually and is becoming increasingly difficult in the context of neoimperial politics in Trump’s second term of office and the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.
To what extent do private sector decisions such as the sale of the German cloud provider Northern Data to Rumble correlate to the demand for more digital sovereignty? Should politicians not intervene?
Such cases demonstrate the fragility of digital sovereignty. If key infrastructure is transferred to foreign or politically problematic stakeholders, this leads to new dependencies. In this respect, politicians must define more clearly which infrastructures are strategically relevant and draft regulations that ensure a capacity to act in the long-term, without jeopardizing innovation dynamics.
Which role does digital policy play and to what extent does it influence normal politics?
Today, digital policy is at the heart of modern statehood. It affects the economy, security, education and democracy to an equal extent. Decisions about platform regulation, artificial intelligence or data protection have a direct impact on freedom, competitiveness and social solidarity. In this respect, digital policy ceased to be a niche topic long ago – instead it is the political arena of the 21st century.
Which trends are emerging in the digital political landscape, and how is Europe reacting?
The trend is certainly moving towards more regulation and the attempt to reduce technological dependency. Europe promotes values such as data protection, transparency and fairness. However, the geopolitical context is becoming more difficult: Both the USA and China are increasingly taking a neo-imperial stance, and Europe must find ways to maintain its scope for action in these surroundings.
So we are currently experiencing a shift in power in the digital space? If so, what does that mean and who are the protagonists?
We are experiencing how major digital concerns like Google, Amazon or platforms like TikTok have become global power players, sometimes with greater influence than many states. At the same time, new alliances are becoming established between governments and tech-companies. Today, digital power is not only exerted territorially, but predominantly through infrastructure – through data flow, algorithms and digital standards.
So we are talking about data colonialism – what is that and how does it influence geopolitics?
Data colonialism refers to when a few corporations – usually from the USA – control huge quantities of data and use this as a source of economic and political power. This leads to new dependency relations, similarly to the case with earlier empires fueled by a search for natural resources. For many countries, and for Europe, this poses a challenge to their digital independence and constitutes part of a new global shift in the division of labor in digital capitalism.
Can Europe set trends itself, or will it remain at the beck and call of other powers?
Europe is still dependent in a number of ways, but it is not without power. With its regulatory powers and its single market, it can shape global standards, in an effect known as the “Brussels effect”. This hope was justified before Trump’s second office, but currently, Europe is faced with the task of developing a more robust path towards digital sovereignty: a path that will become more independent of US providers when it comes to security policy. The alliances between US big tech and the Trump government are taking an increasingly aggressive approach towards independent European digital politics.
In conclusion: Which role does a geographical viewpoint play when it comes to digital sovereignty?
Firstly, a geographical viewpoint raises awareness for which spatial concepts and images of the world are linked to digitalization. In the 90’s, digital transformation was often linked to ideas of connectivity, a dissolution of boundaries and dematerialization. However, in the meantime, it is becoming ever more apparent that boundaries are also drawn, spheres of influence are staked out, and power relations are organized in a territorial manner in the digital space as well. Secondly, geography shows that digital power is always organized in a specific material and spatial way – via cables, computing centers, satellites and platform locations. Thirdly, it sharpens our perception of the various political, cultural and economic contexts in which digital policies are created. This perspective helps us understand why digital sovereignty is negotiated and implemented quite differently in Europe, China or India.
Further information:
Prof. Dr. Georg Glasze
Chair of Geography (Cultural and Political Geography)
georg.glasze@fau.de]]>