Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Digital Destinies: Geopolitics, Division and Cohesion
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO21146 | Digital Destinies: Geopolitics, Division and Cohesion
    Amalina Anuar

    04 October 2021

    download pdf

    SYNOPSIS

    Thanks in part to geopolitics, the digital economy is leading towards less, not greater, integration, connectivity and connection. Defusing tensions by redesigning technology to work for cohesion will be pivotal to reversing this trend.


    Source: Designed by Freepik

    COMMENTARY

    DESPITE THE potential for technology to usher in more equitable economic globalisation and social connection, the digital economy has more often been seen instead as a source of wealth concentration and division.

    Much of this can be attributed to escalating geopolitical tensions in this space, though non-state actors are likewise complicit in eroding cohesion. Shifting the focus away from geopolitics and monopoly will be crucial to putting the world back on track to a digital future that is both more connected and less divisive.

    Building Blocs

    Historically, geopolitics has skewed technology away from cohesion and towards division. The digital economy is no different. Governments have been vying for some time now to write the rules, export the infrastructure, and control the actors critical to securing wealth and the keys to power in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

    In some ways, the pandemic has brought digital geopolitics to a boil. Beijing has placed a renewed focus on the Digital Silk Road because COVID-19 stalled Belt and Road projects. In the meanwhile, the US has doubled down to deter the adoption of Chinese technologies and standards.

    If there were hopes that the pandemic would compel countries to find common ground among divergent digital trade and data governance models, these were not wholly realised. Accelerated digitalisation and the skyrocketing value of technology companies has underscored the market dominance of US and Chinese businesses.

    This has reinforced thinking, such as in the European Union (EU), on digital sovereignty. The logic behind it is to reduce dependencies on either the US or China, the protection of infant industries, as well as to enable — and prohibit— access to data troves given that around 92% of data in the West is stored on US-owned servers.

    The Rise of Techno-Nationalism?

    This turn towards entrenched techno-nationalism could make it harder to mend rifts among allies and rivals alike, dampening chances at closing multilateral agreements and using technology to improve collective fortunes.

    Moves in lessening digital vulnerabilities and regulating Big Tech — however fairly or unfairly — to address issues of monopoly and disinformation, among others, are read as attempts to undercut companies of certain nationalities and forcibly share proprietary resources.

    To be sure, not all divisions in the digital economy are attributable to geopolitical jostling. Big Tech companies have given caustic rhetoric and polarising beliefs — such as on racism, extremism, and anti-vaccination — a platform to go viral, and have been reluctant to change their division-enabling business models where profit is concerned.

    Facebook is a prime example: it has blocked states and social actors from accessing and better understanding its algorithms and data where relevant to tackling disinformation.

    Third Way Across the Great Divide

    This divisive turn is understandable, even if not agreeable. With power and prosperity on the line, it can be tempting to think that building exclusive blocs and market dominance is the only path forward. But substantive issues and serious risks bedevil this strategy.

    First, a focus on geopolitics short-changes development. Even limited decoupling increases business costs, while monopoly leads to inequalities. This would be especially taxing for small and medium enterprises, and could add to economically induced social frictions and therefore incohesion.

    Meanwhile, rather than choosing sides, the world may benefit more from a ‘third way’ between differing visions for digital governance that better incorporates the strengths and minimises the flaws of all the options on the table — including policies from smaller, digitally savvy economies like Singapore and South Korea.

    Second, unnecessarily hostile framing and communication frustrates international and domestic cooperation. Narratives — on techno-Orientalism and fundamentally different values, among others — shift the negotiable issues of different wealth distribution preferences and industrial policy levers into the non-negotiable territory of national security threats and a clash of civilisations.

    It also makes diplomatic environments less conducive, emboldens hard-line nationalists on all sides, and amplifies racism, impacting social cohesion on the home-front. Case in point, Sinophobic rhetoric has contributed to hate crimes against Asian Americans.

    By defaulting on cohesion, governments could be giving malicious political actors ammunition and opportunity to exploit social schisms and spread misinformation in their COVID-strained societies.

    Taking Steps Towards Cohesion

    Working together hence makes sense for the digital economy. How then can countries move towards cohesion?

    The digital economy must be re-designed to facilitate less division and dominance. In regulatory terms, this means tweaking the business models that facilitate wealth concentration and social conflict rather than relying on other solutions, such as antitrust, that do not address how monopoly and division is enabled in the digital economy.

    But any technological, political-economy solution to foster connection, rather than just connectivity, must be complemented by a willingness to better understand, communicate, and work together with different societies.

    Dialling down on inflammatory and racist rhetoric in policy circles is necessary. States should also advocate for their governance models and chosen technologies more constructively, such as by focusing on leadership by example: the provision of digital public goods can be done without excessively undermining other countries, and governments can unilaterally remove barriers to digital trade and data.

    Relatedly, stakeholders — especially policymakers — must keep socialising across ideological aisles. These interactions could help keep biases in check, while facilitating engagement until wider consensus can be achieved.

    From a Boil to a Simmer

    Taking these first steps to pivot away from thinking, models and practices that sow division is crucial to forging a more sustainable modus vivendi between diverse societies. It could divert political energy to more pressing questions (such as what technology can reasonably deliver  for societies or how social contracts might be updated in the post-COVID digital age), as well as create more politically and socially stable environments for the digital economy.

    By choosing cohesion, businesses would meanwhile burnish their environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials, making them harder to side-line in a post-pandemic era more concerned with social awareness.

    The long-term prospects of the digital economy hence benefit from better informing people of differences and diversity, and building bridges in multicultural societies. States and businesses can both lead the charge, by crafting policy and technologies that foster connection respectively — in turn strengthening resilience in multicultural societies and contributing to purposeful co-existence. Ultimately, while the digital economy may be divisive, division need not be destiny.

    About the Author

    Amalina Anuar is a Senior Analyst with the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This is part of an RSIS Series.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security / Singapore and Homeland Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
    comments powered by Disqus
    "Digital Destinies: Geopolitics, Division and Cohesion" by Amalina Anuar
    In this podcast, Amalina Anuar, Senior Analyst at Centre for Multilateralism Studies, RSIS, discusses how geopolitical tensions have caused divisions in the digital economy.

    SYNOPSIS

    Thanks in part to geopolitics, the digital economy is leading towards less, not greater, integration, connectivity and connection. Defusing tensions by redesigning technology to work for cohesion will be pivotal to reversing this trend.


    Source: Designed by Freepik

    COMMENTARY

    DESPITE THE potential for technology to usher in more equitable economic globalisation and social connection, the digital economy has more often been seen instead as a source of wealth concentration and division.

    Much of this can be attributed to escalating geopolitical tensions in this space, though non-state actors are likewise complicit in eroding cohesion. Shifting the focus away from geopolitics and monopoly will be crucial to putting the world back on track to a digital future that is both more connected and less divisive.

    Building Blocs

    Historically, geopolitics has skewed technology away from cohesion and towards division. The digital economy is no different. Governments have been vying for some time now to write the rules, export the infrastructure, and control the actors critical to securing wealth and the keys to power in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

    In some ways, the pandemic has brought digital geopolitics to a boil. Beijing has placed a renewed focus on the Digital Silk Road because COVID-19 stalled Belt and Road projects. In the meanwhile, the US has doubled down to deter the adoption of Chinese technologies and standards.

    If there were hopes that the pandemic would compel countries to find common ground among divergent digital trade and data governance models, these were not wholly realised. Accelerated digitalisation and the skyrocketing value of technology companies has underscored the market dominance of US and Chinese businesses.

    This has reinforced thinking, such as in the European Union (EU), on digital sovereignty. The logic behind it is to reduce dependencies on either the US or China, the protection of infant industries, as well as to enable — and prohibit— access to data troves given that around 92% of data in the West is stored on US-owned servers.

    The Rise of Techno-Nationalism?

    This turn towards entrenched techno-nationalism could make it harder to mend rifts among allies and rivals alike, dampening chances at closing multilateral agreements and using technology to improve collective fortunes.

    Moves in lessening digital vulnerabilities and regulating Big Tech — however fairly or unfairly — to address issues of monopoly and disinformation, among others, are read as attempts to undercut companies of certain nationalities and forcibly share proprietary resources.

    To be sure, not all divisions in the digital economy are attributable to geopolitical jostling. Big Tech companies have given caustic rhetoric and polarising beliefs — such as on racism, extremism, and anti-vaccination — a platform to go viral, and have been reluctant to change their division-enabling business models where profit is concerned.

    Facebook is a prime example: it has blocked states and social actors from accessing and better understanding its algorithms and data where relevant to tackling disinformation.

    Third Way Across the Great Divide

    This divisive turn is understandable, even if not agreeable. With power and prosperity on the line, it can be tempting to think that building exclusive blocs and market dominance is the only path forward. But substantive issues and serious risks bedevil this strategy.

    First, a focus on geopolitics short-changes development. Even limited decoupling increases business costs, while monopoly leads to inequalities. This would be especially taxing for small and medium enterprises, and could add to economically induced social frictions and therefore incohesion.

    Meanwhile, rather than choosing sides, the world may benefit more from a ‘third way’ between differing visions for digital governance that better incorporates the strengths and minimises the flaws of all the options on the table — including policies from smaller, digitally savvy economies like Singapore and South Korea.

    Second, unnecessarily hostile framing and communication frustrates international and domestic cooperation. Narratives — on techno-Orientalism and fundamentally different values, among others — shift the negotiable issues of different wealth distribution preferences and industrial policy levers into the non-negotiable territory of national security threats and a clash of civilisations.

    It also makes diplomatic environments less conducive, emboldens hard-line nationalists on all sides, and amplifies racism, impacting social cohesion on the home-front. Case in point, Sinophobic rhetoric has contributed to hate crimes against Asian Americans.

    By defaulting on cohesion, governments could be giving malicious political actors ammunition and opportunity to exploit social schisms and spread misinformation in their COVID-strained societies.

    Taking Steps Towards Cohesion

    Working together hence makes sense for the digital economy. How then can countries move towards cohesion?

    The digital economy must be re-designed to facilitate less division and dominance. In regulatory terms, this means tweaking the business models that facilitate wealth concentration and social conflict rather than relying on other solutions, such as antitrust, that do not address how monopoly and division is enabled in the digital economy.

    But any technological, political-economy solution to foster connection, rather than just connectivity, must be complemented by a willingness to better understand, communicate, and work together with different societies.

    Dialling down on inflammatory and racist rhetoric in policy circles is necessary. States should also advocate for their governance models and chosen technologies more constructively, such as by focusing on leadership by example: the provision of digital public goods can be done without excessively undermining other countries, and governments can unilaterally remove barriers to digital trade and data.

    Relatedly, stakeholders — especially policymakers — must keep socialising across ideological aisles. These interactions could help keep biases in check, while facilitating engagement until wider consensus can be achieved.

    From a Boil to a Simmer

    Taking these first steps to pivot away from thinking, models and practices that sow division is crucial to forging a more sustainable modus vivendi between diverse societies. It could divert political energy to more pressing questions (such as what technology can reasonably deliver  for societies or how social contracts might be updated in the post-COVID digital age), as well as create more politically and socially stable environments for the digital economy.

    By choosing cohesion, businesses would meanwhile burnish their environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials, making them harder to side-line in a post-pandemic era more concerned with social awareness.

    The long-term prospects of the digital economy hence benefit from better informing people of differences and diversity, and building bridges in multicultural societies. States and businesses can both lead the charge, by crafting policy and technologies that foster connection respectively — in turn strengthening resilience in multicultural societies and contributing to purposeful co-existence. Ultimately, while the digital economy may be divisive, division need not be destiny.

    About the Author

    Amalina Anuar is a Senior Analyst with the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This is part of an RSIS Series.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security / Singapore and Homeland Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info