The Transformation of Global Digital Governance: From Multilateral Tech Diplomacy to American Techno-Nationalism

Introduction

The global digital landscape is fundamentally transforming as the United States shifts from multilateral cooperation toward a more unilateral, competitive approach to technology governance. 

The framework of tech diplomacy that emerged over the past decade.

This framework was characterized by collaborative efforts in artificial intelligence safety, coordinated export controls, and Gaza or national dialogue between governments, the private sector, and civil society.

FAF, Washington.Forum analyzes the new American strategy, prioritizing technological dominance and national security imperatives over collective problem-solving.

This could create a more fragmented and competitive global digital order that could undermine long-term innovation and stability while accelerating the rise of techno-nationalist policies worldwide.

What is techno-nationalism

Techno-nationalism is an ideology and policy approach that directly links a nation’s technological innovation and capabilities to its national security, economic prosperity, and social stability.

It is characterized by the belief that a country’s success and global standing depend on its ability to develop, control, and deploy advanced technologies, often with the explicit goal of advancing national interests and reducing reliance on foreign technology.

Key Features of Techno-Nationalism

Technology as National Power

Techno-nationalism views technology as a tool for economic growth and a critical element of national power and identity.

Governments may prioritize domestic research and development (R&D), protect critical technologies, and seek to foster innovation ecosystems that are nationally controlled.

Policy and Governance

States may enact policies to promote domestic technology industries, restrict foreign technology imports, and regulate cross-border technological exchanges to safeguard national interests.

Examples include investment screening mechanisms, export controls, and subsidies for strategic sectors like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and 5G networks.

Geopolitical Competition

Techno-nationalism is closely tied to geopolitical competition, as seen in the US-China rivalry over technological leadership in areas such as AI, quantum computing, and telecommunications.

This competition often leads to efforts to set global standards and norms that reflect national values and interests.

Economic and Social Implications

By emphasizing technological self-sufficiency, techno-nationalism can reshape global supply chains, international trade, and patterns of innovation.

It can also intensify de-globalization and decoupling as nations seek to minimize vulnerabilities to foreign technological influence or control.

Traditional techno-nationalism focused on using technology to upgrade local economies and industries, often welcoming globalization to access and integrate foreign technologies.

In contrast, new techno-nationalism is more protectionist, emphasizing national security and seeking to limit technological interdependence, particularly with rival states.

Examples

United States

The CHIPS and Science Act aims to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

China

The “Made in China 2025” initiative, designed to make China a global leader in advanced manufacturing and technology. DeepSeek is another example. Beijing declared it a national treasure.

Singapore

The Smart Nation initiative, leveraging smart technology to enhance national connectivity and data access.

In short, techno-nationalism is the strategic linking of technology policy to national interests, with the belief that technological strength underpins a nation’s security, prosperity, and global influence.

It is shaping a new era of international relations, marked by competition, protectionism, and efforts to achieve technological self-sufficiency.

The Evolution and Decline of Multilateral Tech Diplomacy

The concept of tech diplomacy emerged as governments recognized the need for new forms of international engagement to address the complex challenges posed by rapidly advancing technologies.

According to Brazil’s Deputy Consul General and Tech Ambassador, Eugenio Vargas Garcia, tech diplomacy encompasses “the conduct and practice of international relations, dialogue, and negotiations on global digital policy and emerging technological issues among states, the private sector, civil society, and other groups.”

This approach represented a significant departure from traditional state-centric foreign policy, acknowledging that effective technology governance requires coordination between multiple stakeholders beyond government agencies.

The institutionalization of tech diplomacy began in earnest when Denmark appointed the first tech diplomat to Silicon Valley in 2017.

This move signaled the importance of direct engagement with technology companies and innovation centers.

This initiative proved influential, with approximately 20 formal or acting tech envoys now operating among the more than 70 consulates in the Silicon Valley area.

The proliferation of these diplomatic positions reflected a broader recognition that technology policy could no longer be effectively managed through traditional diplomatic channels alone, requiring specialized expertise and direct engagement with the private sector actors driving technological development.

The World Economic Forum’s partnership with the Technology Diplomacy Network to launch a platform for informal exchange, trust building, and collaboration in San Francisco represents the type of multilateral institution-building that characterized the previous era of tech diplomacy.

This community of tech diplomats was designed to share best practices, enhance collaboration, and bring conceptual clarity to the emerging field of technology governance.

Such initiatives demonstrated how international cooperation was evolving to address the challenges posed by rapidly advancing technologies that transcend traditional national boundaries and regulatory frameworks.

However, the emergence of more nationalist and competitive strategies is now challenging this collaborative approach to technology governance.

The shift represents a change in policy emphasis and a fundamental reorientation of how nations conceptualize their relationship with technology and international cooperation.

Where tech diplomacy sought to build bridges and establish common frameworks, the new approach prioritizes national advantage and technological supremacy as core strategic objectives.

The Rise of American Techno-Nationalism

Techno-nationalism, as defined by contemporary analysis, “ties technology and technological innovation to national identity, security, economic prosperity, and social stability” and “describes the way different countries approach technology governance and how the countries use technology to influence power in the global market.”

This concept represents a fundamental shift from the collaborative principles underpinning earlier tech diplomacy efforts, instead emphasizing national competition and technological self-reliance as primary policy drivers.

The emergence of techno-nationalism is driven by several interconnected factors that reflect broader geopolitical tensions and technological developments.

Governments increasingly desire digital sovereignty to maintain separation between their technology ecosystems and those of other nations, leading to policies and regulations prioritizing national control over technological infrastructure and data flows.

Market protectionism and the development of incompatible technology standards that fragment the global digital ecosystem further reinforce this desire for autonomy.

Business and commercial practices are adapting to this new landscape, with companies increasingly required to navigate competing national requirements and technological standards.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, advances in artificial intelligence, big data, and biomedical technology have amplified governments’ reliance on technology, making technological capabilities increasingly central to national economic, political, and social standing.

This heightened dependence creates powerful incentives for nations to secure technological advantages and reduce reliance on foreign systems, particularly in critical areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and telecommunications infrastructure.

The result is a more competitive and fragmented approach to technology development that prioritizes national advantage over global coordination.

Under this new paradigm, authoritarian and democratic governments may rely on “national champions,” single companies given preferential treatment and support to compete in global markets.

This approach contrasts sharply with the market-driven and multilateral frameworks that characterized earlier periods of technological development, instead emphasizing state direction and support for domestic technology capabilities.

Such policies reflect broader concerns about technological dependency and the strategic implications of relying on foreign technology providers for critical infrastructure and capabilities.

Implications for Artificial Intelligence Safety and Global Cooperation

The shift toward techno-nationalism poses significant challenges for international cooperation on artificial intelligence safety. Given the global nature of AI development and deployment, collaborative approaches have been critical in this area.

AI safety research focuses on “ensuring that artificial intelligence systems are safe, reliable, ethical, and beneficial to humanity.” It requires coordination between researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders across national boundaries to address fundamental challenges such as alignment, robustness, and the unpredictability of advanced AI behavior.

The complexity of AI systems presents particular challenges for national approaches to regulation and oversight. These systems “often involve intricate algorithms and large amounts of data, making it difficult to fully predict, understand, and control their behavior.”

The global nature of AI development, where research advances and technological breakthroughs rapidly cross national boundaries, makes unilateral approaches to AI safety potentially counterproductive.

When countries develop incompatible standards or restrict information sharing, it becomes more challenging to identify and address safety risks that could affect all nations regardless of where AI systems are designed or deployed.

International cooperation has been essential for addressing AI safety challenges, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the Global AI Safety Summit hosted by the United Kingdom in 2023, which brought together “researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders from 28 countries to discuss and address challenges in AI safety”.

This forum provided “a platform for sharing the latest research, best practices, and strategies in AI safety” while fostering “a global approach to addressing these challenges.”

Such collaborative efforts enable sharing technical expertise, coordinating research priorities, and developing common standards that enhance safety across national AI ecosystems.

The move toward techno-nationalist approaches threatens to undermine these collaborative frameworks by incentivizing countries to restrict information sharing, limit research cooperation, and develop incompatible safety standards.

When nations prioritize technological advantage over collective safety, addressing risks that require coordinated international responses becomes more difficult.

The unpredictability of advanced AI behavior, vulnerability to attacks such as training dataset poisoning or prompt injection, and the challenge of ensuring alignment between AI goals and human values all require sustained international cooperation that may be incompatible with purely nationalist approaches to technology governance.

Trade, Export Controls, and Technological Fragmentation

The shift toward techno-nationalism has significant implications for international trade and export control regimes traditionally managed through multilateral frameworks and institutions.

The World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 establishes a general principle of eliminating export restrictions, stating that “no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party.”

However, this framework also includes various exceptions that members have relied upon to justify export restrictions, particularly in national security and public safety.

The increasing use of export controls and restrictions on technology transfer represents a significant departure from the liberal trade principles that have governed international technology flows in recent decades.

While WTO members have traditionally utilized “a wide range of measures, such as prohibitions, export licenses, regulations, and other controls, to assist in risk management and to regulate” sensitive goods, the scope and intensity of these restrictions have expanded significantly as technological capabilities become more central to national security considerations.

This expansion reflects broader concerns about technology transfer, industrial espionage, and the strategic implications of technological dependence.

Global cooperation has historically led to “international agreements and conventions in a variety of areas, ranging from protecting the environment to safeguarding public health and promoting peace and security,” with many WTO members participating in conventions that include export regulations for controlled and sensitive goods.

However, the trend toward unilateral technology policies threatens to undermine these multilateral frameworks by incentivizing countries to impose restrictions outside established international agreements and coordination mechanisms.

The fragmentation of technology trade and export control regimes creates significant global innovation and economic efficiency challenges.

When countries impose incompatible restrictions and requirements, it becomes more difficult for companies to develop global supply chains and for researchers to collaborate across national boundaries.

This fragmentation can slow the pace of technological development while also creating opportunities for countries to develop alternative technology ecosystems that operate independently of existing international frameworks.

Challenges to International Institutions and Governance

The emergence of techno-nationalism poses fundamental challenges to the international institutions and governance frameworks that have managed global technology issues in recent decades.

The shift from multilateral tech diplomacy undermines the institutional foundations that enabled coordination between governments, private sector actors, and civil society organizations on technology policy issues.

When countries prioritize national technological advantage over collective problem-solving, addressing challenges that require sustained international cooperation and coordination becomes more difficult.

The institutional infrastructure for tech diplomacy, including initiatives such as the Technology Diplomacy Network and various international forums for dialogue and coordination, depends on shared commitments to collaboration and information sharing.

These institutions provide platforms for “sharing best practices and facilitating dialogue on technology strategy, governance, and policy,” enabling countries to coordinate their approaches to emerging technologies and address common challenges.

However, when countries adopt more nationalist approaches to technology policy, they may be less willing to participate in these collaborative frameworks or share information that could benefit other nations.

The challenge extends beyond formal diplomatic institutions to include the broader ecosystem of international cooperation on technology issues.

Technical AI safety research, for example, benefits from international collaboration that enables researchers to share findings, coordinate research priorities, and develop common standards and approaches.

When countries restrict such cooperation in the name of national competitiveness, it can undermine the collective effort to address safety challenges that affect all nations regardless of where they originate.

The fragmentation of international technology governance also creates opportunities for the emergence of alternative institutional frameworks that may not include all major technology powers.

When existing institutions become ineffective due to nationalist competition, countries may seek to develop new forums and frameworks that better serve their perceived interests.

This process of institutional proliferation can further fragment the global technology governance landscape and make it more difficult to address challenges that require truly global coordination.

Future Implications and Strategic Consequences

The transformation of global digital governance from multilateral cooperation toward techno-nationalism carries significant long-term implications for innovation, security, and international stability.

While nationalist approaches to technology policy may generate short-term competitive advantages for individual countries, they risk creating a more fragmented and less efficient global technology ecosystem that could ultimately undermine innovation and economic growth.

The historical record suggests that technological progress has been rapid when information, resources, and expertise can flow freely across national boundaries, enabling researchers and companies to build upon each other’s work and collaborate on addressing everyday challenges.

The fragmentation of global technology governance also creates new security risks and vulnerabilities that may be difficult to address through unilateral approaches.

Cybersecurity threats, AI safety risks, and other technology-related challenges often transcend national boundaries and require coordinated international responses to be effectively managed.

When countries develop incompatible systems and restrict cooperation, it becomes more challenging to share threat intelligence, coordinate responses to security incidents, and develop common standards that enhance overall security.

The competitive dynamics unleashed by techno-nationalism may also accelerate an arms race in critical technologies that could undermine global stability.

When countries view technological capabilities as zero-sum competitions rather than opportunities for mutual benefit, it creates incentives for aggressive competition that may lead to conflicts and tensions.

The semiconductor industry, artificial intelligence development, and telecommunications infrastructure have already become focal points for such competition, with countries implementing restrictions and policies designed to disadvantage competitors rather than enhance collective capabilities.

Conclusion

The shift from multilateral tech diplomacy toward American techno-nationalism represents a fundamental transformation in global digital governance that carries significant implications for innovation, security, and international cooperation.

While the collaborative framework that emerged over the past decade had limitations and challenges, it provided essential mechanisms for addressing shared technology challenges and managing the global implications of rapid technological change.

The move toward more nationalist and competitive approaches may generate short-term advantages for individual countries.

Still, it risks creating a more fragmented, less efficient, and potentially more dangerous global technology landscape.

The challenges posed by artificial intelligence safety, cybersecurity threats, and other technology-related issues require sustained international cooperation that may be incompatible with purely nationalist approaches to technology governance.

The complexity and global nature of these challenges suggest that countries will ultimately need to find ways to balance legitimate concerns about technological sovereignty and national security with the imperative for collective action on shared challenges.

The future of global digital governance will likely depend on whether countries can develop new frameworks that accommodate both competitive and cooperative elements, enabling them to pursue national interests while also addressing challenges that require international coordination and collaboration.