What’s Wrong with the Global Digital Compact?

At the Summit of the Future held in New York on September 22–23, 2024, UN Member States adopted the GDC as one of the annexes to Pact for the Future. The GDC addresses Internet governance, bridging the digital divide, international rules for social media platforms and regulation of artificial intelligence, as well as a range of other related issues.

Despite the importance and urgency of the issues, the principles formulated in the GDC are biased and unbalanced. The document overestimates the role of non-state actors in Internet governance, contributing to the erosion of the intergovernmental nature of the UN, emphasizes the importance of a Western interpretation of human rights, and does not take into account the principle of state sovereignty. The GDC, which equalizes the roles of state, civil society and businesses—using a Western approach to human rights and a gender narrative—primarily strengthens the Global North which already leads in the said areas. On the other hand, the Global South focuses on digital sovereignty and bridging the digital divide, combating digital neo-colonialism and data neo-colonialism to make the digital space truly inclusive, placing these issues as its top priority. Not wishing to politicize the dialogue, many global South countries joined the Pact with the GDC as its annex, expressing solidarity with the Secretary-General in his effort to overcome the UN systemic crisis, especially since the Pact is non-binding.

Russia did not support the GDC, distancing itself from the consensus, while its own text received predominantly negative assessments in Russian society, both at the level of officials and among the expert community. For Russia, a pioneer in the discussion of information security and digital sovereignty, a fair and inclusive system of global governance in the digital space holds top priority. However, despite the obvious shortcomings of the GDC, the issues it raises need to be carefully analyzed. In the context of widespread and rapid digitalization, these are among the main priorities on the UN agenda.

A further discussion of digital cooperation within the UN is needed, with a greater emphasis on the positions and interests of the Global South. Cooperation developments within the UN as a universal intergovernmental organization will help to preserve the global nature of the internet and develop fair rules for regulating artificial intelligence in the interests of the entire international community.

At the Summit of the Future held in New York on September 22–23, 2024, UN Member States adopted the GDC as one of the annexes to Pact for the Future. The GDC addresses Internet governance, bridging the digital divide, international rules for social media platforms and regulation of artificial intelligence, as well as a range of other related issues.

Despite the importance and urgency of the issues, the principles formulated in the GDC are biased and unbalanced. The document overestimates the role of non-state actors in Internet governance, contributing to the erosion of the intergovernmental nature of the UN, emphasizes the importance of a Western interpretation of human rights, and does not take into account the principle of state sovereignty. The GDC, which equalizes the roles of state, civil society and businesses—using a Western approach to human rights and a gender narrative—primarily strengthens the Global North which already leads in the said areas. On the other hand, the Global South focuses on digital sovereignty and bridging the digital divide, combating digital neo-colonialism and data neo-colonialism to make the digital space truly inclusive, placing these issues as its top priority. Not wishing to politicize the dialogue, many global South countries joined the Pact with the GDC as its annex, expressing solidarity with the Secretary-General in his effort to overcome the UN systemic crisis, especially since the Pact is non-binding.

Russia did not support the GDC, distancing itself from the consensus, while its own text received predominantly negative assessments in Russian society, both at the level of officials and among the expert community. For Russia, a pioneer in the discussion of information security and digital sovereignty, a fair and inclusive system of global governance in the digital space holds top priority. However, despite the obvious shortcomings of the GDC, the issues it raises need to be carefully analyzed. In the context of widespread and rapid digitalization, these are among the main priorities on the UN agenda.

A further discussion of digital cooperation within the UN is needed, with a greater emphasis on the positions and interests of the Global South. Cooperation developments within the UN as a universal intergovernmental organization will help to preserve the global nature of the internet and develop fair rules for regulating artificial intelligence in the interests of the entire international community.

Digital Issues on the UN agenda

Andrey Kortunov:
UN Summit of the Future: from a Sketch to a Picture

As has already been mentioned, Russia did not support the GDС and has distanced itself from the international consensus.

The Russian delegation notably proposed an amendment to the Pact, according to which this document represents the UN intervention in matters that fall under the internal jurisdiction of any sovereign state. Russia was supported by Belarus, DPRK, Iran, Nicaragua, Sudan and Syria, while 15 other nations abstained from voting. However, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Pact for the Future” with all its annexes, including the Global Digital Compact, as 143 states voted in its favor.

The importance of digital cooperation at the UN level is undeniable, but the GDC has caused diplomatic controversy. One of the key areas of concern was the role of non-governmental actors, as well as the problem of respecting state sovereignty in the digital space. However, in the initial stages of the discussion at the UN, the importance of digital cooperation was never questioned.

Work on the GDC began in 2018, when UN Secretary-General António Guterres established the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The given panel was co-chaired by Melinda Gates and Jack Ma and consisted of 20 members, including a Russian representative, who served in their personal capacity. As a result, a report was prepared, “The Age of Digital Interdependence”, outlining areas of international cooperation: building an inclusive digital economy, protecting human rights in the digital world, as well as ensuring trust and security in the digital realm. The report recommended that the UN Secretary-General organize a consultation process and, “as an initial goal, mark the 75^th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020 by the development of a Global Commitment on Digital Cooperation”. As a follow-up to this process, the Secretary-General created a post, Envoy on Technology, which increased the bureaucratic influence of the UN secretariat on the process of developing principles for digital cooperation. Amandeep Singh Gill, an Indian national, was appointed to the post.

It is the highly influential role of the UN bureaucracy, along with the declining intergovernmental component in decision-making on the GDС, that proved most vulnerable and susceptible to criticism in this document. However, since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the importance of digitalization has been at its peak, with the negotiation process only maintaining momentum. In 2020, the UN Political Declaration was adopted as part of the organization’s 75^th anniversary, reaffirming commitments to improving digital cooperation: “A shared vision for digital cooperation and a digital future must remain at the top of the agenda...”.

The UN Secretary-General’s report “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation: Implementing the Recommendations of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation” was also presented in 2020. Although most of the themes presented in the document are well intentioned—achieving universal Internet connectivity by 2030, promoting digital public goods for a more equitable world, assuring digital inclusion, building digital capacity, ensuring the protection of human rights in the digital environment, supporting global cooperation on artificial intelligence, building trust and security in the digital environment—it was an important prerequisite for the launch of the GDC.

Harmonizing the GDC: Problematic Areas in Negotiations

In 2021, as part of the “Our Common Agenda” program, Mr. Guterres proposed to negotiate a Global Digital Compact by the Summit of the Future. In many ways, the need for a global digital compact was driven by the UN’s attempt to overcome the organization’s systemic crisis, as well as by the rapid pace of development and ubiquitous penetration of digital technologies. Since the pandemic broke out, artificial intelligence technologies evolved rapidly and need to be properly regulated.

The Concept Note for Our Common Agenda, “Global Digital Compact: An Open, Free and Secure Digital Future for All”, points out that the GDC is essential to the multilateral action required to bridge the digital, data and innovation divides, and to achieve the kind of governance required for a sustainable digital future.

However, already during GDC text negotiations—three drafts were submitted in total—the contradictions between countries on the principles of governing the global digital space became apparent. Negotiations on the draft treaty were very complex, with disagreements between Russia and developing countries representing the G77 on the one hand, and between Russia and Western nations, on the other.

Russia and other like-minded nations have advocated for a stronger intergovernmental component in the current Internet governance system, calling for measures to address the digital divide and to eradicate the practices of digital neocolonialism. Currently, the technical management of the Internet infrastructure is carried out by ICANN’s US-registered subsidiary Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), giving Washington the ability to influence significant political and economic decisions related to Internet governance—primarily, the control over the domain name system and the allocation of IP address blocks.

Elena Zinovieva, Bai Yajie:
Digital Sovereignty in Russia and China

Russia consistently proceeds from the need to adapt the UN to the current realities of a multipolar world, including in the digital space. This implies, among other things, the internationalization of Internet governance. Russian diplomacy has repeatedly emphasized the central role of the UN in ensuring international information security, combating criminal use of ICTs, developing ethical norms to regulate artificial intelligence technologies, bridging the digital divide, and legally enshrining the principle of digital sovereignty. In the sphere of regulating digital platforms, Russia also proceeds from the need to respect state sovereignty and develop relevant rules on an intergovernmental basis.

However, the non-transparency and bureaucratization of the negotiation process led to the dismissal of several significant Russian proposals that were not included in the text of the GDC. As pointed out by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “it is necessary to come to terms in an honest way, with all UN members involved, not in the way the Pact for the Future had been prepared—without a single plenary round of talks attended by representatives of all nations. Instead, the work was carried out under the control of Western manipulators”.

GDC: Purpose, Objectives and Priorities

The overarching goal of the GDC is “an inclusive, open, sustainable, equitable, just, safe and secure digital future for all”. In order to achieve this goal, the broadest possible range of objectives was designated to cover all international policy aspects of ICTs, including bridging the digital divide, enhancing the opportunities for participation in the digital economy, creating an inclusive digital space where human rights are protected, developing equitable approaches to data management, and strengthening international regulation on artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.

Despite the significance and relevance of the global governance agenda set out in the GDC, political bias can be traced as early as at the level of the terminology used. In the text of the Pact for the Future, the word “gender” is used 35 times, while “sovereignty” appears only 4 times and “intervention”—only once. In a sense, the GDC repeatedly addresses digital cooperation from a gender equality perspective. In particular, gender equality is identified as one of the cross-cutting principles of the GDC. Multi-level cooperation between governments, business and other stakeholders is mentioned only twice among the principles, without emphasizing the special role of governments as bearers of sovereignty or their special competencies and functions in the field of security.

At the same time, it is impossible not to note the many positive benchmarks of digital development that were outlined in the document that are significant for the world. However, they do not exclude a certain political bias that favors the West. The key priority of the GDC is overcoming the digital divide and achieving sustainable development goals. This topic is undeniably important for the global community. However, the GDC addresses the digital divide only in terms of connectivity and capacity buildup. The paper does not address the problems of “digital neo-colonialism” or “data neo-colonialism”, where a narrow circle of large Western IT companies resists the emergence of competition, restricts technology transfer and creates asymmetric interdependence relationships in data, technology and innovation, thus eroding the sovereignty and technological independence of developing nations.

The GDC emphasizes that digital technologies must be energy efficient and conducive to environment conservation. The relevance of the environmental agenda will be soaring in the near future. However, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), data centers cause serious environmental damage: the used electronics require huge amounts of raw materials. In addition, the microchips needed for artificial intelligence require rare earth elements, which are often mined in environmentally harmful ways. The cooling of data centers calls for huge amounts of water. Additionally, data centers consume extremely large amounts of energy.

In the context of Internet governance, the GDC underscores that “Internet regulation should remain inherently global” with the participation of governments, the private sector and civil society, as well as other stakeholders. This broad formulation does not explicitly address the internationalization of Internet governance that Russia insists on, leaving the West, and particularly the US, the room necessary to maintain its leading role in Internet governance through the previously mentioned ICANN and its subsidiary PTI.

The GDC also stresses the importance of combating misinformation and the spread of false information, including through the use of artificial intelligence. The recommendation on mandatory content labeling by artificial intelligence seems timely. However, in the context of international information security, of which the above-mentioned problems are an integral part, it would be appropriate to mention the special role of states as subjects of international law and legitimate guarantors of security, which was underlined in World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) documents of 2003 and 2005.

Alexander Ignatov, Elena Zinovieva:
BRICS Agenda for Digital Sovereignty

In the area of Internet governance and AI regulation, a number of important institutional decisions were made, which seem to be necessary steps in the sphere of global digital space governance, supported by the expert community of Russia. An important step was the GDC support of the Internet Governance Forum. The next forum will be held on December 15-19 in Riyadh. Issues such as human rights and inclusiveness in the digital age, the contribution of digital technologies to the world, sustainable development, innovations and risks in the digital space will be discussed.

As for the regulation of artificial intelligence, the GDC points to “the need for a balanced and risk-based approach to the governance of artificial intelligence” with equal representation from all nations and the full participation of all stakeholders. At the same time, based on the GDC, the plan calls for establishing an interdisciplinary independent international research panel on AI at the UN level, and the initiation of a Global Dialogue on AI within the UN, with the participation of governments and all stakeholders.

Thus, the GDC sets many important tasks and directions for global cooperation in the field of digital international relations. However, some points in this document raise questions, as they show a desire to strengthen the positions of only Western nations. In particular, overestimating the role of NGOs, academic community and business, as well as the actual alignment of their rights with sovereign states in the system of global digital space management is a lot more advantageous to the countries of the collective West. Much academic and journalistic literature has been written on the topic of criticizing the role of Western NPOs and business in global governance. For example, it is noted that NPOs from the Global South, to be included in global governance institutions, need organizational and financial assistance, which they cannot get without the support of the Western global governance agenda. In terms of businesses, Western digital giants have repeatedly been criticized for their aspiration to monopolize global markets and exploit the labor, resources, and data of developing nations. All these assertions are undeniable with regard to global governance of the digital space, with both Russian and foreign researchers highlighting this problem at the earliest stages of the Internet Governance Forum. Subsequently, during the discussion of the initial GDC drafts, China and G-77 representatives noted the importance of the intergovernmental nature of global cyberspace governance. However, as was then pointed out in the Global South Alliance’s statement on the GDC and the Pact for the Future, bridging the digital divide is a critical issue for developing nations, and that’s why most of them decided to support the GDC. Moreover, the GDC was presented as one of the annexes to the Pact for the Future, so not voting in favor of this document would have meant the refusal to support the Pact for the Future, which was presented as one of the key documents aimed at bringing the UN out of its long systemic crisis. This conditioned support for the proposed document, but did not make it possible to remove the political contradictions embedded therein, including those affecting the issues of digital sovereignty, protection of rights and freedoms in the digital space, equitable and inclusive development of digital technologies in the interests of all members of the world community—developing nations in the first place.

Conclusion

The Global Digital Compact, despite its progressive goals, has become the subject of controversy in the international arena. The debate centers on the balance between the participation of businesses and civil society in global coordination, as well as the sovereignty of national states in the digital sphere. Furthermore, the GDC is overloaded with a Western approach to human rights and gender issues.

Russia and its partners advocate for a greater emphasis on respect for state sovereignty, fighting neocolonialism and the dominance of Western social media platforms. Russia has repeatedly emphasized its readiness to work with its partners to effectively regulate a digital space that is based on the UN Charter and the principles of international law—above all, the respect for state sovereignty.

It is necessary to further discuss the issues of digital cooperation within the UN framework, taking into account the positions and interests of the Global South. Developing cooperation within the UN as a universal intergovernmental organization will help preserve the global nature of the Internet and develop fair rules for regulating artificial intelligence in the interests of the entire international community.