US Tech Diplomacy and the Future of the Internet

The Evolving Relationship Between Technology and Global Politics

The TechCrunch Global Affairs Project investigates the increasingly complex connection between the technology sector and the international political landscape.

A New Alliance for the Internet?

Following its recent Democracy Summit, the United States has proposed the formation of a new “Alliance for the Future of the Internet,” intended to unite “like-minded democracies” in upholding open and liberal online values. This initiative represents the latest in a series of collaborative efforts and holds promise for achieving meaningful progress. However, its current structure carries the risk of falling short of its goals.

With disagreements among officials currently causing delays in its launch, the U.S. has a crucial opportunity to reassess its approach.

The Sound Logic Behind the Alliance

The fundamental reasoning supporting the Alliance remains valid. Globally, internet freedoms are facing increasing threats. Governments are actively competing to establish their authority over the digital sphere, and the long-standing, voluntary governance system is beginning to show its age.

As Tim Wu, a tech policy advisor to the Biden administration, recently stated, “we are on the wrong trajectory.” Consequently, a new initiative dedicated to promoting and safeguarding open, liberal values in the digital age is urgently needed.

The Pitfalls of Exclusivity

However, the U.S. emphasis on collaboration solely with “like-minded democracies” may inadvertently hinder its own objectives. Securing the future of the open internet will not be achieved through a limited group of democracies engaging in self-discussion, nor through the application of coercion alone.

Instead, any successful Alliance must embrace a more inclusive strategy, prioritizing the establishment of appropriate economic and security incentives from the outset to foster a broad and enduring coalition for the long term.

A Shift Towards Internationalism

This approach would signify a more internationalist perspective on internet policy than the U.S. has historically adopted. For decades, America’s substantial jurisdictional influence has underpinned the open internet model.

Despite only 7.1% of global internet users residing in the U.S., the nation hosts 61% of the core infrastructure services essential to the global internet. This dominance has fostered a model of permissionless innovation, interoperable networks, and “dumb pipes”—infrastructure incapable of discerning the content it transmits—generating significant economic and social benefits.

Only China, with 19% of global internet users, possesses comparable geopolitical influence.

The Erosion of U.S. Hegemony

However, the U.S. can no longer reliably depend on its hegemonic position to maintain a free internet. Many nations are reaching a critical juncture in their approach to internet governance, with authoritarian internet models—including censorship, surveillance, and shutdowns—gaining rapid traction.

Currently, 3.7 billion people remain without internet access.

As connectivity expands, the developing nations where the majority of these individuals reside will ultimately determine the internet’s future—and presently, they are more likely to receive the necessary funding from China than from any other source. The transition to a multipolar internet is inevitable, but its direction—open or closed, liberal or authoritarian—remains uncertain.

Beyond “Like-Minded” Partners

Focusing exclusively on cooperation among existing democracies amounts to prioritizing an increasingly smaller segment of the internet. Furthermore, organizing solely around values highlights areas of disagreement among traditional allies, such as the EU and U.S. on various internet regulations.

For any alliance to succeed, it must move beyond the conventional notion of “like-minded partners” and adopt a dual strategy—prioritizing both economic and security incentives alongside commitments to internet openness, such as a prohibition on internet shutdowns—to encourage a wider range of countries to participate.

Addressing the Needs of Developing Nations

This strategy will be particularly crucial in persuading nations increasingly considering more restrictive internet policies. For instance, since 2015, 31 out of 54 African countries have imposed some degree of restriction on access to social media.

While some of these shutdowns have been motivated by outright repression and warrant a strong international response, others have stemmed from less ideological concerns. When problematic online content has raised concerns about public safety, a combination of unclear policies, limited state capacity, and insufficient investment in content moderation by major social media platforms has led to regrettable actions that could have been avoided with greater support.

A Path Forward

It is not too late to reverse this trend and safeguard fundamental internet freedoms. However, such efforts will not succeed through coercion alone.

While combating authoritarianism is essential, framing every debate as a polarized “democracies versus authoritarians” conflict can actually hinder cooperation, accelerating restrictions and fragmentation. The detrimental effects of this divisive rhetoric are already evident in Africa, where the West often views states as mere proxies in a larger U.S.-China “cold war.” Neither of these perspectives is constructive.

China as a Complex Actor

China is not a monolithic entity; it functions as a partner, competitor, and adversary to the West simultaneously. The U.S., EU, and other nations cannot force China out of the global internet infrastructure market, nor should they attempt to do so.

Africa, the U.S., and China would all benefit from a competitive global market for internet infrastructure, where no single state monopolizes provision or bears the entire financial burden.

The Economic Imperative

Furthermore, African countries have their own distinct political priorities and challenges, and providing support is often in the West’s own economic interests. Connecting the 3.7 billion people currently without internet access would cost only 0.02% of the gross national incomes of OECD nations—including the U.S., UK, Korea, and Japan—while generating a substantial 25x return.

The Need for Concrete Action

Despite launching the “Build Back Better World” project this year to compete with China’s infrastructure initiatives, the G7 has not allocated any new funding. Moreover, there has been limited effort to reform World Bank and IMF development programs—which the U.S. could influence—despite their bureaucratic inefficiencies, risk aversion, and high costs for many African leaders facing fragile development pathways and urgent job-creation demands.

A Reset with the Alliance

For years, we have lacked the necessary political leadership and ambition for a program of this scale. However, the Alliance for the Future of the Internet has the potential to provide a much-needed reset.

To succeed, it must demonstrate that prosperity and core internet freedoms are mutually reinforcing, while also offering the appropriate guidance and incentives to encourage a different approach. While some countries may never join, these strong incentives could persuade many “swing states”—such as Indonesia, Kenya, or Brazil—to participate.

Only by building broad, internationalist coalitions that align with the economic and security interests of all stakeholders can the open, global internet be truly protected for the long term.