Building a Non-Aligned Technologies Movement

By Ingrid Schneider, Professor of Political Science, Department of Informatics, University of Hamburg

Seventy years after the Bandung Conference, digital power asymmetries call for a renewed commitment to sovereignty and non-alignment for shaping a fairer digital future. The Bandung Spirit is relevant for addressing challenges such as data colonialism and technological dependencies. In a world marked by digital geopolitical rivalry, one of the key questions is how a Non-Aligned Technologies Movement could be built, emphasising digital sovereignty and the preconditions for equitable digital alliances between Europe and the Global South.

The 1955 conference united 29 African and Asian countries opposing Cold War bloc politics. Today, the Cold War binary has been replaced by complex multi-ordering and multi-alignment. At the same time, some speak of a new digital Cold War between China and the United States, driven by their hegemonic ambitions. The two countries dominate the data economy with hyperscale data centres, the highest investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and the enormous market capitalisation of their digital giants. They compete over strategic resources like rare earths, high-performance chips, undersea cables, cloud services and other data infrastructures. Meanwhile, global digital governance is tense, which affects innovation paths and regulation, and middle powers pursue flexible, non-exclusive partnerships, navigating the polarised digital world where technological dependencies could deepen domination.

President Donald Trump has weaponised US tariffs to interfere with the sovereignty of other states. The United States has imposed tariffs on trading partners worldwide, not only to protect its domestic market and attract investment but also to force concessions and to advance its digital and political interests. For example, Brazil faces a 50 per cent tariff on its exports as well as demands to dismiss the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro and drop its social network regulations. Similarly, India is pressured to stop buying Russian oil. The United States also seeks to hinder enforcement of digital regulations in the EU and elsewhere, including through threats of retaliation, demanding the rollback of digital taxes and the weakening of laws like the EU’s Digital Market Act, Digital Services Act and AI Act. US pressure has led Indonesia to drop tariffs on software downloads, and India and Canada to respectively delay or abandon a digital services tax. With its close ties to Big Tech, the Trump administration also aims to weaken rules on content moderation, digital competition and AI.

Contrary to its intent, such measures may push the Global South closer to China, which would pose a different challenge. On the one hand, the United States promote liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation of global digital trade. It reframes digital regulations as non-tariff barriers and uses trade policy to support US digital behemoths that claim to provide services without having local operations, profit from unregulated cross-border data flows and establishing data centres, and extract data without paying taxes in host countries. US tariffs also aim to counter data localisation and competition policies. On the other hand, China shields its internet behind the Great Firewall, has developed its own platforms, and expands through the Digital Silk Road infrastructures, its standards and new global forums. Its approach has had positive effects, such as increased digital connectivity and enhanced e-commerce, but has also increased debt in some developing countries, which they repay through exports of minerals like lithium, copper and nickel.

A key question is whether Europe and the Global South must choose alignment with one of these digital superpowers’ approaches or whether they can forge a Third Way, as the EU already claims, to pursue their digital sovereignty. A Non-Aligned Technologies Movement (NATM), developed by Europe and Global South countries, could counteract domination and reckless uses of power by China and the United States. Digital non-alignment means neither fully aligning with major powers such as China and the United States nor rejecting cooperation with them entirely. Facing similar technological dominance provides strong reasons for like-minded countries from Europe and the Global South to build new alliances to escape.

An NATM would adapt Bandung’s spirit to the digital age, aiming to:

• Reclaim digital sovereignty by promoting local control over data, algorithms and infrastructures.
• Resist technological imperialism through open, interoperable and inclusive standards.
• Foster South-South and triangular cooperation in technology development, capacity-building and governance.
• Promote digital non-alignment, allowing countries to diversify IT partnerships and avoid dependencies on any single power or platform.

The digital transformation has created new forms of data colonialism, where a few global tech firms and powerful states extract and monetise data with little consent or benefit-sharing. This hampers countries’ ability to create their own innovative ecosystems and perpetuates inequalities everywhere. Major US tech giants pay minimal taxes globally, while disparities in connectivity, high broadband costs and limited digital skills hinder the Global South. Infrastructure asymmetries give Big Tech leverage over global data flows, shaping the digital economy’s rules and reinforcing economic and political subjugation.

In response to these entrenched forms of digital exploitation, an NATM would emphasise digital self-governance, advocating diverse models and cultivating techno-social spaces beyond profitdriven and authoritarian paradigms. Its goal would be to promote sustainable development as well as individual and collective autonomy in line with the Bandung principles of self-determination. Its key strategies would combine top-down regulation of large platforms with bottom-up development of alternative digital models.

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has become the international gold standard for privacy regulation, with 167 countries adopting similar laws and 94 establishing data protection authorities. However, enforcement remains challenging. The EU’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act aim to limit the market power of digital gatekeepers, and to create a level playing field for small and medium-sized enterprises. Countries like Brazil, India and South Korea seek similar ex ante regulation of platforms. South Africa’s Competition Commission has conducted two inquiries into digital platforms, following regulatory measures in Australia, France, Canada, the EU and Indonesia that require platforms to compensate publishers for news content so as to fund quality journalism. The massive extraction of copyrighted works for training AI raises urgent questions about consent and compensation. Giants like Google and Meta temporarily halted news services in Australia, Canada and Spain to intimidate governments. Meta also threatened to exit Nigeria after receiving a 220 million US dollar fine. It is crucial that states remain undeterred by threats from Big Tech and enforce their regulations.

There is an urgent need for policy cooperation among countries willing to rein in Big Tech and resist its pressures. Germany and the EU should create policy forums, supported by think tanks, to analyse regulations, share best practices and assist countries in enforcement efforts. Triangular cooperation between Europe, the Global South and others can leverage mutual strengths and foster learning.

The US government is heavily investing in AI development while pressuring other countries not to regulate it. It is crucial to strengthen global AI governance initiatives such as the annual AI for Good Summit (2017), the Global Partnership on AI (2018), the OECD AI principles (2019), the UNESCO AI Ethics recommendations (2021), the G7 Hiroshima Process (2023), the UN high-level advisory body (2023) and Global Digital Compact (2024), the Council of Europe’s AI Convention (2024) and the BRICS AI Declaration (2025). Shaping AI aligned with fundamental rights, humanistic values and the common good is a vital impetus. Countries like South Korea have launched ‘sovereign AI’ plans, and many are implementing national AI policies – these efforts need to be integrated into global AI governance. Data governance should empower countries and communities to control their data, prevent exploitation and keep value within their economy.

To reduce technological dependencies, local research and development investments should be prioritised to build robust technical and scientific bases. Open-source software and digital public goods are key as they reduce reliance on proprietary technologies, lower costs, increase transparency, enable local customisation and ultimately strengthening digital sovereignty. Instead of pursuing larger generative AI models, smaller sector-specific ones based on quality data, consent, low energy and water use, and accessibility should be pursued. Care must be taken to prevent large players from capturing open-source technologies.

Bridging the digital divide involves improving connectivity, local infrastructure and South-South cooperation for digital transformation. Promoting shared global digital infrastructures based on open-source models helps democratise access and control. Digital Public Infrastructures like India Stack, Pix in Brazil and others supported by the United Nations Development Programme should be complemented by privacy laws and privacy-enhancing technologies. Regional efforts such as the African Union’s Digital Transformation Strategy, the RedCLARA network in Latin America and EU-African partnerships can reduce dependence on external providers and build collective resilience.

Public procurement policies will foster the development of local digital technologies, providing alternatives to Big Tech.

Digital technologies are not ends in themselves; they should promote human agency and address societal problems, not just serve technological fixes. They should be designed to meet social needs, promote inclusion and uphold human rights: by supporting vernacular languages, climate-efficient tools and innovations for public transport.

Strong political will combined with active involvement from civil society, academia and supportive private-sector actors is essential. Grassroots movements, open tech communities and transnational advocacy networks can democratise digital governance and ensure accountability. Digital sovereignty must also prioritise democratic empowerment and stay within planetary boundaries.

The EU’s 2030 Digital Compass recognises the need for a ‘comprehensive and coordinated approach to digital coalition-building and diplomatic outreach’. The EU has signed digital partnerships with Canada, Japan, Singapore and South Korea to promote sustainable and inclusive technology governance. These partnerships should be extended to like-minded Global South countries to increase global impact. The 2023 EU-Latin America and Caribbean Digital Alliance exemplifies bi-regional cooperation: similar initiatives should be developed with the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Europe must also move beyond paternalistic or extractive approaches, supporting genuine capacity-building, technology transfer and financial aid, while acknowledging colonial legacies and promoting dialogue and mutual development.

An NATM would mark a paradigm shift from digital dependency to self-determined, human-centric digital architectures. This echoes the Bandung principles of development and self-reliance. Leveraging South-North and South-South cooperation, and the principles of digital public goods, an NATM would foster a democratic and inclusive digital future.

An NATM could also unite countries in reclaiming their agency, resisting domination and building inclusive, interoperable and equitable digital systems. For Germany and Europe, establishing genuine partnerships with the Global South requires humility, solidarity and a willingness to share power and resources. Investing in joint rule-setting, shared infrastructures, and inclusive multilateralism can forge new alliances to attain digital sovereignty. Reimagining the Bandung spirit for the digital age offers inspiration for collective action toward a more just and equitable global digital order.