The premise of the Global Affairs Project was that technology is increasingly intertwined with global affairs and that we should examine what that means for both. I hope we've done that from climate to defense procurement.
Tech industrial policy is increasingly in favor, as I can see from the many pieces we have published over the last few months. The emerging tech is top of mind. China isn't setting the pace, but it isn't far behind.
The U.S. has made remarkable strides in meeting these challenges, but it still lags behind when it comes to navigating the increasing fusion of geopolitics and technology. If the U.S. is to succeed in the 21st century, it needs more than just new agencies. An industrial strategy is not enough.
America needs a doctrine about technology.
What do I mean by doctrine? Technology policy can be seen in two different ways. A new security domain is the first. Billions of dollars have been spent by the public and private sectors to improve our cyber capabilities to protect our civil and military networks. Many of our networks are woefully vulnerable, but we know the challenges and are making strides to shore up our defenses.
The second thesis is that the future will be won by whichever country controls the most advanced technologies. Tech policy becomes a function of broader economic competition. This is where the current debate on emerging tech like 5G, quantum or artificial intelligence begins. Are our supply chains safe? What regulatory edge can we give American tech companies? How can we work with our allies?
These two aspects of technology policy are worth the attention paid to them in this series and elsewhere. Russia has been cut off from Western tech supply chains and software updates because of its invasion of Ukraine.
I hope we have raised this part of tech's role in geopolitics here as well. Tech is an asset. Tech can be a leverage point that gives policymakers clever ways to further foreign policy interests. We have not thought about how to protect or wield this power.
Our rivals are not so diffident. As with many asymmetric capabilities, the authoritarian regimes are unconcerned by scruples over such things as human rights or the rule of law, that have pioneered creative and effective tech strategies.
Scott Carpenter warned about the baleful trend of dictators shutting down the internet to deprive their citizens of information. Matthew Hedges and Ali Al-Ahmed wrote about how countries like Israel have exported this technology to lubricate their own diplomacy. Russia and China use social media to spread misinformation that hurts the West. China uses data it collects to acquire intelligence around the world.
Law, custom and democratic accountability would most likely prevent these practices from being mimicked by democracies. Tech companies can't be made arms of the state by the U.S. and its allies. Questions about where technology fits in American statecraft are raised by them.
The last two decades have seen American tech companies dominate the landscape with a simple strategy: growth at all costs. Tech has been allowed by the U.S. government to do just that, essentially ceding the regulatory space until recently.
Growth is too blunt a tool for that to remain the goal moving forward. Is tech supremacy an expression of American soft power? Is it for economic position? As a way to beat our rivals? Or because it can be weaponized?
We need a new framework that reconciles what tech can do with what it should do.
Even if we agree that U.S. interests are served by technological dominance, there is still a question of how tech should be used.
Western technology export controls on Russia were put in place in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Thomas McInerney described how Washington could be even more creative by using emerging technology to bolster U.S. dollar dominance.
America is most effective when it plays to its strengths, such as alliances, networks and the rule of law. Vera Zakem said that it might mean using technology to expand democracy, as Australia did, or working with Apple and Google to protect dissidents. Lessons from the creative information campaign against Russia should be taken by the U.S.
Liberal values in emerging technologies would be a better strategy than trying to dictate outcomes. Growing its tech sector is not enough if it doesn't also set the rules of the road. It has become very successful at dominating the global fora that set new technology standards. It's not just a question of writing rules that benefit Chinese companies, if authoritarian regimes are able to hide their repressive values in the rules and norms around critical emerging technology, it could pose a problem. The U.S. and its allies have to do a lot of hard work to push back on technical diplomacy.
A proper tech doctrine would recognize limits. It would be foolish to think that the U.S. can impose its will on its allies. Americans can't achieve internet freedom by wishing it so, and should accept that not every country's internet needs to be the same for a free and open internet to succeed. There is no reason why democratic governments shouldn't have different regulatory regimes in their own countries.
Americans have grown used to having everything. Tech policy will not be made in a vacuum as technological supremacy becomes more important. Silicon Valley doesn't have to like all of Washington. Politics is the art of making choices. The global ambitions of American tech firms are no longer tenable if they clash with our values and interests.
What might that mean? Western tech firms have shown that they can choose sides, either by voluntarily leaving Russia or by not violating their principles by censoring their content. Meta and Musk are heroes in Ukraine, the former for allowing users to call for the death of Putin and Russians, and the latter for using his StarLink platform to ensure Ukraine stays online.
Should Apple andTesla give up their Chinese factories? Should the US force Chinese tech firms to leave? These are realistic scenarios that Washington might consider, and that Silicon Valley must plan for.
When American tech priorities conflict with diplomatic agendas, what happens? Should the U.S. government stand up for its tech companies or ally with the EU on antitrust? When the interests of the tech sector conflict with stability in Taiwan or progress on climate change, what happens? These are questions that are still unanswered.
National security planners have to consider that we are once again in a great power war. The Ukraine conflict has surprised many with its conventionality, but it has also proven a testing ground for new tech like drones. We are seeing a war play out in a fully online society for the first time, and it is thanks to social media. Is it possible that Western support would be so strong without Kiev's online presence?
I asked how tech factored into foreign policy a year ago. America is a better place than it was. Foreign affairs and national security agendas are being taken care of by technology.
If the U.S. is to maintain its leading global role, it must do more than just foster innovation and develop new capabilities. Failing to do so doesn't just risk strategic confusion, but also wasting America's greatest assets: its entrepreneurial and scientific excellence. American power, prestige and prosperity are at stake.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
