Davos 2019 - The Rise of Techno Nationalism

good afternoon welcome to this issue briefing on techno nationalism techno nationalism is a term that we're thinking about when we in the World Economic Forum talk about industrial revolutions the fourth Industrial Revolution but also technology is driven military revolutions and so when you think about that in the context of present trends in international relations like sharper competition and rivalry between nations then you get interesting effects at this interface between commercial world the defense world the security world and strategic issues so intellectual property can become state-secrets foreign investment can be seen as a national security threat and so to help us understand this a little bit better and build on these definitions we've got two experts with us here today starting just on my left with General John Allen president of the Brookings Institution but a retired US Marine Corps four-star general with experience as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and also on the global coalition against Isis among many other roles turning again to my to my far left Avril Haines with a background in legal affairs but then building towards very high-level roles in the White House as the deputy national security adviser under President Obama and also Deputy Director CIA so if I may start with General John Allen how can we define techno nationalism well first thank you for the invitation to participate in this briefing I think it's it's a very important moment and to be on the panel with a dear friend and someone who has contributed so much to global national security or global security Averell is a real honor first the fourth Industrial Revolution I think is a is a very important concept and I think in that context techno nationalism is also an emerging concept that that really deserves a lot of a lot attention it comes from the capacity the the increased capacity and recent times of big data analytics supercomputing access to data that we could never have imagined just a few years ago and what that has done is it has not just created I think a concept for techno nationalism where states will feel a nationalist view on its technology and the development of its technology and the marketing of it second technology I believe we're going to see eventually a sense of techno sovereignty as well where the protection of the data the personal data of citizens the protection of our cyber networks etc will cause us to think more holistically about the digital environment the technical techno environment if you will as an entire sphere of sovereignty in and of itself and you know one of the things we've looked at at Brookings of late has been something that we call the rise of digital governance which in the West comes from the anachronism if you will or the paradox perhaps of as our digital entities our techno entities as they gain capacity economic capacity increased markets more more capacity for investment etc they began to become digital entities almost state like entities unto themselves given the amount of the population in the world that they can influence at any given moment we use the term digital citizen because there are people in the world that feel more digitally more aligned moment to moment with a digital entity than the sovereign government 500 miles away that just preys on them so this whole world deserves a lot of attention techno nationalism techno sovereignty the digital governance in the West it looks like the rise of digital capacity in the private sector and a substantial imbalance in capacity of government and governance to stay in line with it and I've got some one thoughts about the military side of that as well because I think we're getting terribly out of balance in that regard with the potential in the west of potential surprise so those are some thoughts I think Thank You April yeah I well first of all thank you as well for inviting me and I'm I'm not sure I'm the right expert I thought about this and you know coming from the different pieces of national security and foreign policy we look at technology in the sense through a particular lens and I think that colors how I think about things and brings me very much into alignment with General Allen who who I've seen amass an enormous amount of information and think about things in a very deep way on these issues I I'll just add a few things maybe to build on what General Allen said I think that one of the most challenging things about this is actually trying to understand what's happening so I think from my perspective the one conclusion I've come to is that we are at an inflection point that there really is a significant number of things that are changing and how we think about society about variety of different trends that we're facing right now that are accelerating in different ways but what I don't know yet is what this looks like in you know 50 years essentially going out and and I do think that you know one of the issues noted is we do have new realms as a consequence of technology through which we exercise our national power in effect and the internet is an obvious example of that so is space there are a whole variety of places where we're we're you know space that's been around for a long time but we are far more active in it it's a country we are seeing other countries be active in it and we're trying to figure out what are the rules of the road for the long term that makes sense in light of the ability to develop it and work in it and there's a national security and foreign policy component to that obviously in the context of the Internet as you know you know it is a long trend but one that is accelerated by the intranet that military power is not the only metric for national security and power in effect we saw it the economy it's been decades that we've seen other forms of power but the reality is cybersecurity and the internet provides a whole nother level of influence and activity through which you might measure power and also significant vulnerabilities in that context that are really quite challenging to think through and you know figure out what should the rules of the road be and then a second trend that I think is also very challenging to think through in an effective way but is critical is is also highlighted I think by what Geralyn said which is just the way I think about it is in effect through the empowerment of the individual which has happened a lot through technology right we see more actors that are capable of posing threats but also actors that are becoming more powerful in other ways and from an intelligence community perspective we would talk about non-state actors having greater opportunities to spoil government action and that wasn't just about terrorist groups that was also about larger balls of companies and multinational entities that are really extraordinarily powerful sometimes more powerful the governments and so understanding how that affects power and diffusion of power through the world is a critical issue and then finally the last thing I'd say to be a little provocative is I think that in many respects a trend that we're seeing is that we are organizing ourselves as human beings through social media and technology in many respects in ways that are an increasing tension with our political structures and I think that's something you know I just as an example but I think the variety of different ways we are part of communities in effect that extend well beyond our geographic basis we do that more on a personal and professional level than we ever have before and yet our political structures are very much geographically based and a whole series of things where I think our organizing of you know the way in which we interact and so on is changing and our political structures are not necessarily keeping up with that in a sense thank you what do you what have you been thinking about on that side of some kinds of gap opening up perhaps between our conventional notions of sovereignty based on territory and these communities that the on a different level over those boundaries Averell hid it very well I spend a lot of time in the last several years dealing with the Islamic state and had before that dealt with al-qaeda and before that with other groups what was different about the Islamic state and I think it will be characteristic of virtually every major terrorist organization we see in the future is the capacity for global networking on the Internet of Things using encrypted capacity so we will see to april's point exactly she talked about systems or methods of organization we will see those methods of organization either have a direct national security threat to our interests or be completely alternative systems of organization that fly in the face of the Westphalian form of government that we've had I said a moment ago that that we see technology taking off with an exponential capacity for good potentially but for bad if not if not carefully watched but the system of governments moving along basically a linear pace and unless we're able to find flexibility and agility in our system of government that can keep pace with the enormous networking capacity you know there's there are more than three networked capable devices for every person on the planet today that everybody has any but most people are now networked in ways that we've never seen before let me just take another second to to talk about on the military side that I worry about this a lot I spent a lot of time studying this in the context of history conflict is a balance between what we call the nature of war which is the human understanding and the wielding of technology and the character of war which is the technology itself when we are at our best we have an understanding at the human level the nature of war of how to wield the technology but when the technology gets out of balance either it is inefficient or as archaic or antiquated it doesn't mean ever to how good the people are you're probably not going to win more but differently if the people don't understand what the technology now brings to the equation but your opponent does there's a real potential here for problems and we have seen this over and over again in history where the what we call the equilibrium between the nature and the character of war gets out of balance I think we are there now Averill is exactly right we are at an inflection point where we're looking at this at Brookings and spending a lot of time looking at this is the the confluence between the emergence of big data analytics and artificial intelligence and biotechnology those two influences alone are going to profoundly change the 21st century how we in the West think about this how we in the West are willing to legislate it legislate with respect to it create regulatory measures etc and have government be an active participant with the private sector in this process then we'll remain in balance if however the biotechnology capabilities with artificial intelligence community and the supercomputing capacity if all of that moves away from the capacity of governance to be relevant I think we've got a problem now that's in the liberal democracies mm-hmm we're seeing a different activity in the liberal states or the authoritarian States where there is actually a confluence of the private sector if it actually is a private sector and state-supported research and development and state activities so there's a very interesting dichotomy which is emerging here Thank You April do you have thoughts having having been inside the machinery of government and trying to connect policy across different functions how how do you feel about that idea that we might be on the cusp of falling behind in our capacity to keep on top of that yeah I think one thing that general said that I think gets to the heart of this question maybe with a variant on your point is this confluence of biotechnology and artificial intelligence which I absolutely agree is critical to what's going to happen is also I think a reflection of the fact that the technology is outstripping I believe our ability to manage it effectively and and I think you see that in a whole series of different ways that the decision cycle has become so short essentially for making very challenging important decisions and we know that psychologically we make different decisions when we've got very short times within which to make those decisions you know but that's just one example of a whole series of things I personally feel as if I am outstripped by my technology when I think about how to manage email and you know the variety of other issues that that one has to deal with on a constant basis I it feels you know when when we talk about the advances in biotechnology I remember a scientist when saying to me you know when I was asking about well but how do you think about computer science in this context and as you you know put it up against biotechnology any sense the most adaptive effective systems in the world are biological systems right these are the systems that really can adapt the most quickly in our known world in a sense and and so the idea of combining that with narrow AI right like is really an extraordinary thing it's almost as if you are creating a form of general AI in that context right but it's it's a remarkable idea that maybe through biotechnology we could actually enhance ourselves I think it's sort of when you think about the promise of what this could lead to and you're not you know staying up at night thinking about all of the possible horrors for which there are many could we actually get smarter and how we manage our technology could we use our thinking in these ways in order to actually bring it full circle and be capable of managing the technology and using it more effectively in the ways that we want to use it without destroying ourselves which is you know certainly a huge piece of the puzzle and I am constantly sort of challenged you know certainly from the national security perspective to think through what are the paradigms through which we can begin to get a handle on some of the threat issues that we face a society while not making it impossible for us to realize the promise of what these technologies offer because it really it has to be hand in hand we have to be able to develop and and recognize the value that's there while at the same time managing the threats that can also be there thank you that's a great starter I like to open it out to the audience now in case we have any questions on on how to go deeper into this I think there's a gentleman at the back if you wouldn't mind introduce yourself and Africa platform that's the nonprofit best out of marabi I think I've got two questions learn how to ask them it was last year in the same same room there was a discussion about the big fall and how certain tech companies have completely rocked around rogue but no it is ranked rogue they become too powerful even for governments and the government's feels who most feels powerless and it wasn't until the u.s. came up with the regulations or securities when you realize are actually know if government's really want to control that they actually do control it is just that the power appears to be almost like given and so the question I'm wondering that in the midst of all these discussions are there anything that the governments feel they need to do to get power away from these tech companies that right now fully control everything and sometimes they go through Congress and they behave as if Congress can do nothing to them revitol I think that's just the first question these the second questions come to what you of what what what what your mission and that is the the disparity between what happens in some countries and sometimes dessert these are good to do with their with loss I'll give an example of of my country Kenya where I can bridge analytic adidas act with the same thing that they did in the United States it was extremely easy to hold them to account in the United States but almost impossible to do the same in Kenya because the government was their accomplice and so sometimes the question was that is there a particular global norm that we need to set that tells a company it does not matter where you are you cannot be having double standards simply because the rules are different thank you very much well I think to the second point it's very important first of all from my perspective much of the rest of the century is going to be all about Africa and Africa can be one of the great success stories of the century or it can be one of the great sources of instability not just on the continent but outside the comment so in so many ways from my perspective the intersection of artificial intelligence big data analytics biotechnology has the capacity to do enormous good across the 52 countries of Africa what we have to do as a community of nations is to begin to focus ourselves and to commit ourselves to that end there there has to be a global norm I don't think we can continue this process of the pillaging of countries that don't have the legal regimes in place to defend themselves from inherently extractive entities and so here we have I think the challenge that has emerged between very different development models that have become obvious development models that are pursued by the West in general versus China for example those development models are very different and how technology a part of those models over time this goes to techno sovereignty when the when the sovereign package of development is delivered into a country and part of that package of development is a technological package which looks very different than the technological package that a Western development enterprise might seek to deliver then we have if you will a bifurcated system of Technology appearing on the ground and disadvantaging the countries and the peoples that are struggling obviously with their well-being and their quality of life to Europe to your other point and I'm sorry I will jump in to your other point the Congress our Congress has got to become more involved in this because we we cannot afford to have us move forward of a system of government that is too slow to appreciate the the potential for the technological environment in which we're moving or the threat of the technical ah djegal environment in that process and we can't move in parallel we need to move together and some aspect of that and I think it was very instructive when when Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Senate last year just about the only senator who really talked about where all of this might go between a Westphalian government and digital governance was Lindsey Graham who said at what point must we the Congress begin to regulate you in order for us to have a common vision of where this could all go and I think that is emblematic of the dilemma that you have laid out and I think it is certainly important for us in the United States in particular to understand what regulatory what legislative and what policy action must be taken by the government in order to keep the digital dimension of our economy in line with the needs of the people and in line with our system of government yeah I absolutely agree with that I think one of the challenges in this space in that context is that there's a kind of a a lowest-common-denominator that ends up ruling in many of these scenarios I think and so you know you have tech companies that basically Facebook for example I think 85% of their users are outside of the United States and and yet I think many Americans think of Facebook as an American company even though I think Facebook may not think of itself as an American company which is a whole nother level of some of the issues associated with techno nationalism but but as a consequence they're dealing with the rules in all of these different places and they can use each of the rules in these different places to great effect as they're arguing to a Senate well we can't you know comply with X Y or Z because we have to deal with all of these other jurisdictions and if you want the benefit of essentially you know social media that stretches across these boundaries then you're gonna have to deal with the fact that we're you know position to only do certain bare minimum issues in this context and I think we and others have to step into the breach and basically create the kind of norms that general and noted across the board and it has to be something where we're working with other countries and other actors that you know to create that essentially we should very we should look work very closely with the Chinese on this issue if we have common norms that is good for everybody but if we have permitted ourselves to drift apart on the ideas of common dorms at the ground level where the implementation of this goes then then we're gonna be we're gonna be dealing with competing systems of nationalism that's that's no good for anybody so if I if I if I may just out at the point before taking another question if sovereigns governments are taking back some of that power how do we protect also the other beneficiaries of technology in terms of sharing information on research scientific research some of the commercial benefits that that spread around the world because of Technology how do we have the institutions that we need to get that balance right when you say we talk to China other are the institutions that we have up to that task at the moment or is that something that needs to be built on I think they can be mature just as we find in the Westphalian forms of government that there needs to be a metamorphosis of those systems of government to be able to operate within the digital environment or the technical techno environment I would say that the multilateral organizations the development banks etc need to be looking very closely to see if they're organized in ways that provide both the flexibility and agility in this very high-speed environment of technical development so that they can react and be partners really and frankly not a dead weight to them we should be organizing in ways that facilitates the goodness that comes out of technology not attempting to contain it because we're afraid of it yeah I just what I would add to that is I think one of the great challenges that you do experience is the one that you've described in the general and just now which is just that if I'm looking at almost any critical national security issue that has a technology or scientific component you're constantly trying to balance essentially so for example how much do you classify in that space because once you classify it is very hard for other departments and agencies who are traditionally the ones that support the kind of scientific inquiry that you're describing to actually use it and to operate in that space because a lot of them are not cleared for that type of thing so there's all sorts of things that you are looking at and basically do we do it perfectly definitely not but but it's a work in progress and I think it's one of those things that you constantly have to be working at in a way which I think was part of what general I was saying I the second piece though that I think is very interesting in this area is that when you look at things like artificial intelligence where one of the key limiting factors for our progress is data sort of really quality large datasets and you think about you know the discussion that's being had about the fact that we tend to be fairly open about data and so it's actually quite easy to suck up our data right but when it comes to China for example they're relatively closed and they have enormous sets of data and whether or not the fact that it's more homogeneous than our data or other things like that create different you know it's maybe not as concerning you know people would say from a competitive perspective but but I think one of the issues that it highlights is that you really do need to think through these things with other state actors and you need need to promote norms that you believe are going to help you essentially achieve the scientific progress that you can from these phases thank you I think requires statements of vision the Chinese after the 19th Party Congress declared some very clear vision where they wanted to go in that direction we still are struggling with how to create a vision on this thank you yeah we're gonna take let's see if we can quickly take the two questions at once and then a response my name is I'm metal and I'm with the European Commission of Brussels my question to you is it's the current set up of technology essentially incompatible with democracy and I asked us because we see and I'm not insinuating that of course that the United States is not a democracy but a de facto in the u.s. digitalization oftentimes meets privatization I mean this is essentially what you're talking about for actually the power sits with the private sector if I look to China you have what I would describe as digital authoritarianism mass surveillance etc so looking at it from a European perspective my question is do you see a world where perhaps in the future technology standards will be developed together among democracies to essentially have a framework that allows us to to exercise our democracy and I think you were insinuating or going into that direction and the second question is around digital infrastructure because in the world what you described IOT essentially the digital infrastructure will determine everything I mean the the vulnerabilities will increase exponentially and it has at least here in Europe led to a discussion around Chinese 5g and if you could just say something about that how you see that would be very interesting thank you thank you very much and then sir if you could make your question brief we'll try and cover both with a response from the panel absolutely thank you mmm so do a global shaper from San Francisco and so you talked about digital citizens and there's today a lot more common points between younger and professional in San Francisco Paris London than there is between him and a farmer in the valley in California do you see a future where technology brings this these communities and my generation with international context closer to each other as opposed to dividing them and how that you should look like and I'm afraid I must ask you to have around 30 seconds each yeah both of these questions are very similar I don't I hope democracy is not a risk but the emergence of the digital entities in the context of the private sector seem to create attention with the traditions of democracy we have got to think differently about this it doesn't mean we throw out our democratic principles or the values we stand for which is really what liberal democracies are all about we have to embrace those values now we have to think differently I think about what the digital world now means for us in the context of our traditional system of liberal democracy I don't have an answer for that because it's still new but we better start thinking about that before the drift goes like this and we are in a real political crisis that we're seeing actually in Europe and the United States right now yeah I so I would second that and only add to it the fact that I think we have seen it divide more than unite obviously and and the reality is that we want to see the kind of structure that you were just alluding to that I also believe in but but I do think then hope that another crisis is not necessary in order to create the environment in which we can actually achieve that and I think it's worth recognizing that it takes you know law is just in a sense of reflection of culture and you know is a mechanism for influencing behavior and effectively it takes many hundreds of years to develop the culture within a society that promotes it in the cyber realm we have a lot of catching up to do I think in this space and that's a place where I think it's both culture and law and regulation don't think about it and democracies move very slowly as you know in reaction to outside stimulus authoritarian regimes can move very quickly and when they are actually supported by strong digital infrastructure and the capacity as you say for enormous surveillance then it looks like they're getting out ahead of us in some ways but once democracies get moving I think they're they're irresistible and so we've just got to think about it a lot and we've got to think about it more generally I think thank you both very much for moving us forward a couple of steps in our understanding of techno nation ilysm and thank you also to the audience's of excellent questions thanks for donations thank you

Channel: World Economic Forum

Views: 3,003

Keywords: World Economic Forum, Davos, Davos 2019, politics, finance, economy, news, leadership, democracy, education, 4IR, technology, tech, AI, automation, work, future, WEF2019

Id: wDpg0d_m_6c

Length: 30min 48sec (1848 seconds)

Published: Sun Feb 10 2019