AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Geopolitical technology analysts argue that the global digital order, contrary to the idealized vision of a “borderless space of innovation”, has become an arena of intense great-power competition, where data, infrastructure, and digital platforms function as instruments of political and economic leverage.
Within this context, the concept of “digital regionalism” is emerging among countries in the Global South as a defensive and pragmatic strategy. Its stated objectives include reducing technological dependence, safeguarding national sovereignty, and strengthening bargaining power within an asymmetric global system.
Concentration of Digital Power in the Global North
The foundational layers of the digital economy, from semiconductors and cloud infrastructure to core internet protocols and dominant platforms such as search engines, social media networks, and e-commerce, are largely controlled by companies based in the United States and China.
This concentration of power has fostered a form of structural dependence for countries in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, which are often described as exporters of data and importers of technology. Citizens’ data in these regions is frequently processed by foreign firms, while critical infrastructure relies on hardware and software that could enable external surveillance or political pressure.
Experts describe this situation as a direct challenge to national sovereignty, warning that control over digital services, information flows, and access to sensitive data can be transformed into tools of political influence.
Digital Regionalism as Risk Mitigation
In response, several regional blocs in the Global South are seeking to pool regulatory capacities in areas such as data governance, cybersecurity, and platform oversight. The African Union’s Data Policy Framework, ASEAN’s Digital Masterplan, and regional groupings such as CELAC and the Pacific Alliance in Latin America are cited as examples of this approach.
The primary objective of these initiatives is to harmonize regulations and increase the cost of non-compliance for major technology firms. By negotiating as unified regional markets rather than fragmented national entities, smaller states aim to avoid bilateral pressure and enhance collective bargaining power.
Analysts stress that this approach does not entail rejecting foreign technology outright, but rather conditioning its entry and operation on domestic development and security priorities.
U.S.–China Rivalry: Competing Models of Influence
U.S. technology companies operate within a framework closely linked to American national security structures, while China promotes a model centered on “non-interference” and South–South cooperation.
Some analysts contend that Chinese data utilization is primarily geared toward commercial consolidation and gradual political influence, whereas U.S. control over digital systems may carry greater potential for sudden political pressure or sanctions. From a realist perspective, certain governments in the Global South factor these differences into their cost–benefit calculations.
Infrastructure Self-Reliance: From Data Centers to Submarine Cables
Digital regionalism extends beyond regulation to the development of independent infrastructure. Reliance on submarine cables owned by Northern consortia, data centers operated by firms such as Amazon and Microsoft, and international payment systems like SWIFT is viewed by some analysts as a source of vulnerability.
Accordingly, regional initiatives are exploring the establishment of shared data centers, regional internet exchange points, and even alternative financial messaging systems. Within frameworks such as BRICS Plus, discussions have also emerged regarding independent financial mechanisms.
Internal Constraints and External Pressures
Despite these efforts, digital regionalism faces significant obstacles. The U.S.–China technology rivalry is reflected within regions themselves, with member states often aligning according to their economic and political dependencies.
Moreover, limited technical and human capacity to implement advanced data protection regulations presents an additional challenge. Experts warn that without substantial investment in education, research and development, and support for local startups, such initiatives risk becoming symbolic displays of sovereignty rather than substantive transformations.
Latin America: Between Washington and Beijing
In Latin America, countries such as Brazil and Mexico are considered key actors. Brazil’s data protection laws and the Pacific Alliance’s digital agenda represent attempts to establish common regulatory frameworks. However, political instability and infrastructure gaps have slowed integration.
China’s investment in regional digital infrastructure, including 5G networks and data centers, has expanded Beijing’s influence and intensified competition with the United States.
Africa: A Laboratory for Digital Transformation
In Africa, rapid mobile penetration and urgent development needs have created momentum for digital convergence. The African Union’s Digital Transformation Strategy and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aim to coordinate digital trade and cybersecurity policies.
China is widely regarded as a leading infrastructure partner on the continent, with numerous projects in fiber-optic cables and smart cities. Meanwhile, the United States and the European Union have introduced initiatives emphasizing “trusted technology.”
Eurasia: Toward an Autonomous Digital Bloc
In Eurasia, Russia and China are pursuing the creation of a digital bloc centered on “internet sovereignty” and reduced dependence on Western platforms. Institutional frameworks such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union underpin this cooperation, which is described as an effort to build a sanctions-resistant digital environment.
Conclusion
Overall, digital regionalism has emerged as a strategic response to the concentration of technological power in the hands of a limited number of states. Its proponents frame it as a means to reduce vulnerability, strengthen bargaining capacity, and create alternatives to global digital dominance.
Experts emphasize that the success of this approach will not be measured by the creation of a perfectly unified market, but by the degree to which countries in the Global South achieve strategic depth and preserve a minimum level of digital sovereignty in the twenty-first century, a trajectory that may shape the region’s digital future.
**************
End/ 345A
