Samir Saran

Once cradled by global ideals, the multistakeholder community that manages the global commons of cyberspace must now be nurtured by local realities.

Photo: Eric Bridiers/CC BY-ND 2.0

The inclusion of “civil society” — an umbrella group of activists, advocates, not-for-profit organisations, and even the academia — in Internet governance ranks among the most significant achievements of this decade in international relations. For a while, it appeared the “global, multistakeholder community” that drove normative processes like the 2014 NetMundial conference in Brazil, would stitch together rules for managing the global commons of cyberspace.

So, if states and strongmen have reclaimed political authority over national governance, why would they allow digital economies to function outside their remit? What’s more, these popular political leaders have discredited the private sector, which was expected to underwrite the global expansion of digital networks.

Today, companies have neither the appetite nor the legitimacy to incubate such governing platforms. Instruments of globalisation like the Trans-Pacific Partnership were supported by big technology corporations, but as the TPP’s demise shows, the mood across much of the world appears to favour protectionism over expanded trade. If the private sector recedes, multistakeholderism loses its most powerful advocate.

The inclusion of “non-state” actors in global governance itself emerged from a political context, which no longer exists. A world bruised by the global financial crisis mistrusted governments, and created a network of institutions that would not be managed by states alone.

The formation of the G20 (and its sister groupings for businesses and civil society like B20 and C20), short-lived government-bank partnerships, and the renewed focus on cross-border trade all, but ensured that the private sector and non-governmental organisations were seated at the high table of international politics.

Digital spaces benefited immensely from this geoeconomic moment. Whether to widen their consumer base, sustain their fledgling online presence, or ensure connectivity, businesses and governments realised they needed the Internet. Digital networks, therefore, became the conduit for globalisation.

Ironically, digital spaces also sowed the seeds of the current anti-globalisation mood. By shrinking geographies, social media platforms brought divergent, often conflicting voices in proximity to each other. Such online polarisation spilled over into the real world, pitting communities in a zero-sum game.

Majoritarian movements unleashed across the world threw up political strongmen, who in turn renewed the mandate of a strong nation-state. Governments today are more powerful than ever, enforcing protectionist policies, limiting migrants, micromanaging currency supplies, and engaging in widespread surveillance.

“Multistakeholderism 1.0” reflects a sharp bias towards transnational corporations, and powerful, omnipresent civil society actors, while constituents from the global South have had their voices hijacked.

As the plethora of cyber policy conversations at the 2017 Munich Security Conference demonstrated, matters of the Internet are essentially a dialogue between white males shouting across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, the biggest technology giants have woefully under-invested in local talent, resources and needs.

This model is synonymous with the absence of government from governance, and relied mostly on the benevolence of markets. This is unsustainable, and will prompt state agencies to step into the governance vacuum created by continuing market failures.

What is the solution to this crisis of conscience and confidence for the multistakeholder community? First, the role of the state should be reviewed in multistakeholder processes. State-led institutions still hold political appeal, especially in democracies, and Internet governance must work with this real and popular mandate of governments.

The state in developing countries continues to guarantee the security of digital infrastructure and networks as a public good, a role that must be acknowledged in multistakeholder platforms. Second, domestic multistakeholder conversations on Internet governance need to be strengthened to ensure marginalised communities that do not have the wherewithal to participate in global dialogue are uniquely represented.

Finally, the thrust of multistakeholder Internet governance itself requires reformation. So far, such processes have sought to promote the openness and freedom of digital spaces and conversations, a laudable goal in which civil society plays an important role. But little energy has been spent on ensuring affordable digital access, and in conceptualising how the next billion will engage with digital platforms.

Will first-generation Internet users in the Asia-Pacific and Africa rely entirely on mobile devices, triggering new conversations on platform security? Are digital policies equipped to handle the proliferation of local language content across devices? Are emerging Internet of Things ecosystems interoperable? Will new Internet users be discouraged from digital spaces by subversive activity online? Will insurance hurdles and cyber-risk ratings retard the growth of digital economies in some regions? These are complex questions that should be confronted by “Multistakeholderism 2.0”.

Multistakeholderism 2.0 requires a democratisation of the process of Internet governance and pluralism in uncovering the universality of the so-called “core values” that influence policy conversations. Recent political developments in the US and Europe suggest the sanguine belief of the existence of a “global civil society” — rallying around common values or ethics — will be tested in the days to come. Therefore, the success of Multistakeholderism 2.0 will be contingent on bringing local communities, businesses and leadership to the forefront of Net politics. As commentators like Latha Reddy argue, countries like India will not only have the obligation to speak for the second largest constituency of Internet users, but also the largest population of unconnected citizens. To serve them, multistakeholderism, cradled by global ideals, must now be nurtured by local realities.

This commentary originally appeared in Live Mint.

Samir Saran

The keynote speeches by three world leaders at the Raisina Dialogue stood out for their pronouncements on globalisation.

Photolabs@ORF

In many ways, the Raisina Dialogue hosted by Observer Research Foundation and the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, set the tone for the year’s momentous developments in geopolitics. 2017 is yet to complete fifty days, but the events of the last few weeks will have a lasting impact on our times. The Raisina Dialogue, in particular, highlighted the clash between liberal “internationalism” and the radical movements that threaten to upend it. Keynote speeches by three leaders at Raisina stood out for their pronouncements on globalisation. The first, by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sounded a note of caution about the “gains of globalisation” being at risk. “Economic gains are no longer easy to come by,” said PM Modi, who went on to cite the “barriers to effective multilateralism.” The Prime Minister’s message was direct and simple: that globalisation needs new inheritors who can help promote the projects, regimes and norms of the 20^th century. This responsibility would invariably fall on the shoulders of a class of nations that we have come to know as “emerging powers.”

A second perspective on globalisation came from former Canadian PM Stephen Harper, who highlighted the role that religion plays in these turbulent times. Mr. Harper noted the role that Pope John Paul II, a Pole, played in providing “anti-communists in Poland effective leadership outside the country” in their struggle against the Soviet Union. PM Harper was hinting at the capacity of a religious leader whose tacit support of the Western ethos ensured resistance to entrenched nation-states. In this respect, religion returned to world politics (to destroy the Soviet Empire) in the eighties, long before the rise of the Islamic State. Can tendencies driven by religious sentiment today — whether through the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS, or through the counter-movements against migration in Europe — defeat the globalisation project driven by states?

And finally, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson offered yet another take on globalisation, in balancing his full-throated defence of Brexit with his call for greater economic cooperation with Britain. The “selective” or “a la carte” globalisation that Secretary Johnson pushed for at the Raisina Dialogue reflects the desire of many Western states to preserve its economic benefits while assuaging “nativist” tendencies at home.

What do these three speeches at the recently concluded global conclave tell us about the world today? For one, they concede that globalisation of a certain kind has run its course. This was a globalisation spurred by Western leadership in the 20^th century, promoting ideas and institutions to salvage economies that had been devastated after two great wars. The urgency and desire to create those linkages no longer exist in the trans-Atlantic universe, so this period is witnessing selective de-globalisation.

Second, the leaders’ speeches acknowledge that globalisation is a victim of its own success. In true Hegelian fashion, the “idea” has been destroyed by its “actualisation.” Globalised economies today promote the free and rapid flow of information, bringing communities, societies and peoples together. These connected networks are by no means homogenous. They are miscellaneous groupings that often have little in common, by way of political heritage or intellectual traditions. As a result, they begin to sense their respective differences quickly and conspicuously. To be sure, the world was just as polarised or opinionated before the Information Age. But digital spaces have made distances shorter, and differences sharper.

Third, their utterances indicated globalisation is in need of new torchbearers, who may not be able to project strength or underwrite stability in the same vein as the United States or Europe, but will preserve its normative roots regionally. These torchbearers will emerge from Asia, Africa and Latin America: they may not be connected by a lingua franca but their political systems will share a common commitment to free expression and trade. Their rise will be neither smooth nor inevitable. If disruptors today find the cost to destabilise the global system rather low, its custodians realise it is expensive to fix the mess they leave behind.

Prime Minister Modi astutely observed at the RaisinaDialogue that the dust has not yet settled on what has replaced the Cold War. Russian Parliamentarian Vyacheslav Nikonov, one of the speakers at the Dialogue, went one step further: “We may not be the number one military in the world,” he said, “but we [Russia] are not No. 2 either.” With the traditional leadership of Western powers giving way to the rise of regional powers, it is anyone’s guess if they will emerge as preservers or destroyers.

Above all, the speeches by Mr. Modi, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Harper at the Dialogue reflect their desire to couch globalisation in normative terms. The Washington Consensus was not solely about free markets, but also untrammelled expression and political dissent. The room for promoting such norms, for all the reasons mentioned above, is considerably limited today. The rise of China presents perhaps the biggest challenge to an ideas-based global order. Beijing has pursued with transactional vigour and single-minded ambition the setting up of regional financial architecture to bankroll its infrastructure projects. These initiatives place little regard for notions held sacred in the international order.

At the Dialogue, PM Modi highlighted the importance of these norms for the continued execution of the globalisation project. “Only by respecting the sovereignty of countries involved, can regional connectivity corridors fulfil their promise and avoid differences and discord,” said PM Modi.

It should be clear then that there is only one legitimate inheritor to the global liberal order of any consequence: India. New Delhi alone can pursue the expansion of regional and global economic linkages while staying true to the ideals that drive them. The Raisina Dialogue itself was an example of how a global platform can be forged in India, bringing together contradicting opinions and voices from across the world. As the steward of the process, the Prime Minister cited the Rig Veda, inviting “noble thoughts […] from all directions.” The future of the globalisation project is intimately tied to India’s modernisation and rise. There is no growth without ideas, and conversely, no innovation without prosperity. India is the world’s best shot and perhaps the last shot at achieving both in these turbulent times.

Samir Saran

The Indian example and its democratic choices are persuasive and much needed in the world.

Historian and sociologist Krzysztof Zalewski sits down for a Q&A with ORF Vice President Samir Saran.

Krzysztof Zalewski: India is a large country, both in terms of its population and its land area, with a fast-growing economy. It is perceived as a major new player on the global stage. What would the world order look like if co-organised by India?

Samir Saran: India’s impact on the world order is already significant, but it is a ‘work in progress’ at the same time. It is significant, because it is a telling story of a poor, developing country adopting robust democracy as the principle political instrument to improve the lives of its people. While India’s peers have fiddled with democratic and liberal ambitions, the Indian example and its democratic choices are persuasive and much needed in the world generally and in its own neighbourhood particularly. This story is a source of India’s soft power.

It is still a work in progress because a few concrete ideas need to crystallise. Over the next couple of years India needs to articulate its view of the world and on the principles of managing world affairs. What could be our proposition? Will it be based on key Indian realities like its democratic experiences, high-tech industry, expanding service sector, and agrarian transformation? India will need to arrive at an internal consensus on what is the Indian proposition.

KZ: So what would be the nature of India’s influence in the world?

SS: We need to answer a few questions internally first. Will India be seeking to replace old powers with a new face? Or is it going to change the ethos of how we manage our affairs collectively? As a country that will rise from the third world to soon become the third largest economy of the world, I am sure there would be expectations that the inclusive governance frameworks, which have been sought by India from the time of its first Prime Minister Nehru to its current Prime Minister Modi, must be what the Indian proposition should be based on. It will still take India another two decades to get to this point and this time should be spent on building up domestic debate and participating in conversations on the subject.

KZ: Every new power tries to formulate its ideological appeal when it is rising. We know what the American Dream is; in the last few years we have heard much about Chinese attempts to formulate the Chinese Dream. So what would be the Indian Dream in your personal view?

SS: Any Indian dream would not be too different to the ones of our founding fathers or even those of our current leaders. It has to be one that envisions a result in the eradication of poverty, disease and despair. In other words, the challenge is to integrate into global economic processes the approximately 500 million Indians who were born in the last 25 years and about four times that number born globally in the same period. They all want to have jobs, they all have dreams, they all have aspirations. Many were denied their dreams because of the colour of their skin, because of the place they call home, or because incumbents have refused to allow them a fair share of this world. India must attempt to find space for them in the global order.

KZ: Here in India I find many people are fascinated by the Chinese example and are sometimes a bit frustrated both by the slow decision-making process, normal for a democratic society, and the very complicated Indian federal system. So is it possible that Indian society will find the Chinese model increasingly attractive?

SS: Yes and no. To answer the first part of your question, many of us, and perhaps the vast majority, imagine ourselves as open, liberal and democratic people. We are far more comfortable with the values enshrined in the liberal order. India, in the second half of the century, will be one of the largest contributors to and defenders of the liberal order. In a sense, we will inherit the responsibility of serving these values, just as the Americans have been doing since the second half of the 20^th century. In my opinion, it will be impossible for international liberalism to survive unless India takes the baton by then. The rest of the big international players will not necessarily have the affinity to Western European and American models of global governance.

While we do criticise our complex decision-making processes, which delay and sometimes deny development, in my mind, this criticism is not directed at the foundations of the political system that we have chosen and that we are governed under. While we admire the Chinese, we also admire the Germans and the Japanese. There is a greater allusion to China because it has been a fellow developing country and it offers us a real target to chase.

KZ: One of the instruments India has developed to become more visible as a global player is the BRICS group. In the Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy you have recently written a wonderful article on what BRICS is for India. From this I conclude that the BRICS grouping is a bit like a train with passengers leaving it at different stations.

SS: I am not speaking for the government of India, and I am certainly not speaking about the ambitions of China, South Africa, Brazil or Russia. I would argue that BRICS is a transitory vehicle for India. For a long time we were heading the global trade union, we were the driving force behind G-77 and Non-Aligned Movement, we were the energy which created third world institutions. Now we are a power that needs to contribute towards growth, peace and sustainability, and we will need to bear the costs of these as well. India will need to become a net provider in the global development architecture.

BRICS will help move India from the position of a global trade union leader to that of a global manager. We must do this carefully. We have to leave our erstwhile partners in this process, and it is more palatable if we part company in favour of BRICS than the OECD, given current realities.

KZ: So what does BRICS bring India in concrete terms?

SS: We are learning how to build new institutions of global governance, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to manage liquidity and currency crises in the BRICS countries. We are also thinking of creating a credit rating agency, and about strengthening the WTO. We have also established security and energy working groups under the national security advisors within the forum of BRICS.

BRICS is important for the messaging it provides to India’s domestic audience. It motivates Indian citizens to be part of something bigger, to contribute to global challenges and realise greater responsibility, such as through the BRICS fund put to disposal during the eurozone crisis few years ago.

KZ: You mentioned the New Development Bank. In Asia a number of institutions of global economic governance are emerging, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How do you see the division of labour between these two institutions?

SS: The AIIB is exactly what the name suggests: it is a bank that focuses on Asian needs in developing infrastructure, in which India is the second biggest equity holder. The NDB has different goals and a different structure, which is novel, as every participant has equal rights. It will help finance not only infrastructure, but also place emphasis on social goods, such as advancing healthcare and stimulating small and medium enterprises. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the previous head of the World Bank, has argued that the world needs many more such institutions. Indeed, AIIB and NDB are only two of the many more institutions which need to emerge in order to transfer global savings into investments in developing countries.

KZ: The NDB has five member states with equal voting rights despite the vast difference of economic power within the BRICS. But it is open to other participants.

SS: 49% of the ownership can go to entities outside of BRICS member countries. It already envisages that other international institutions and maybe even countries can contribute. And I think over the next 2-3 years we will see that happening. The largest percentage of shares will be held by the BRICS countries, the rest can be owned by different states and institutions. It is important for the bank to have Americans, Scandinavians, and other Europeans on board. It will improve the bank’s rating, which means the cost of capital will go down.

KZ: If one wanted to encourage the Polish government to participate, what kind of arguments should be used?

SS: I would use two kind of arguments. Firstly, there is a huge disparity between development needs and the available capital. If Poland believes development infrastructure is an important area, the NDB is a useful vehicle for global economic development. Secondly, the NDB is a new bank, so if you come in early, you can still co-create this institution and have a say in the decision-making processes of the bank.

KZ: The NDB is just a part of the BRICS agenda for a change in global economic governance. But in my country it is sometimes perceived as a rival to the geopolitical order we generally support, a rival of the US. How would you convince people that you would like to contribute to the world order and not to fundamentally challenge it?

SS: The way you perceive BRICS’ contribution depends on where you are sitting. If you control global institutions, you will always look at newer constructs providing similar services to the global community with a certain degree of scepticism. BRICS is often accused of undermining the established international financial institutions, such as the World Bank or IMF, which is not true. I think BRICS does not have the capacity to be adversarial even if it wanted to play such a role. BRICS offers complimentary institutions in financial security and in other fields. It will deliver these services to those who need them most, that is, the underdeveloped countries. And it will do it in a manner different from what the OECD countries have done so far. So if it can lend money without the same conditions the World Bank does, and it can lend money directly to the sectors which will create jobs in Asia and Africa, it is contributing to creating solutions in these countries, and this will give it credibility in Asian and African countries. If the only difference between the NDB and the World Bank are the ethnicities of its managers, we would only be replacing one set with another and business will continue as usual. The credibility of BRICS will be assessed by the quality of the institutions it offers. Can the member countries create a credible BRICS rating agency, can they create secure digital economies, can they create an effective energy agency? So the challenge is really to create institutions.

KZ: Commenting on the BRICS summit in Goa last autumn, the media tended to focus on Indian attempts to isolate Pakistan. What should be done in order to prevent current political issues from dominating the BRICS agenda?

SS: We must not allow bilateral politics to define the narrative of these institutions; they must be bigger than the individual members.

We need to create a comfortable arms-length distance between bilateral relations of BRICS member states with third parties and the agenda of the grouping as such. If you look at the outcome document, Pakistan is not mentioned. Principles are mentioned. As long as you can discuss (within BRICS) principles of countering terrorism, it is helpful. If you try to shame and blame, you make cooperation weaker. BRICS should, however, continue to focus on strengthening economic cooperation.

This interview originally appeared in CSPA.

Samir Saran| Vivan Sharan

Samir Saran

Cyber insecurity is now a global risk no different from the warming climate or forced displacement. Is such insecurity a business risk or a “public bad”?

Courtesy: Gresham College

Crimes in cyberspace, by one estimate, now cost the global economy $445 billion a year. Cyber insecurity is now a global risk no different from the warming climate or forced displacement. Is such insecurity a business risk or a “public bad”? If the security of digital infrastructure is viewed as a business risk, who should mitigate it? Should states be responsible for the integrity of networks and data within their territories, failing which they will be classified as “risky” to do business in in the digital economy? Were cyber insecurity treated as a “public bad”, governments could justifiably conclude that vulnerabilities in one device or platform affect an entire ecosystem, and create a liability regime that shifts the burden on the private sector.

These issues are important to ponder as the Digital India programme and demonetisation encourage the rapid adoption of digital payments technologies. It is not only difficult to assess the “risk” of transacting in the digital economy, but also determine who such risks should be absorbed by. For instance, a high-end device may be able to offer security on the back of its tightly controlled supply chain, but what if an end user, by opening the door to a hidden exploit, compromised its operating system?

Three crucial trends will decisively influence the future of cyber security — the centralisation of data, the arrival of connected devices, and the rapid adoption of digital payments technologies. Centralised control over data can make access to databases easier and more vulnerable to attacks. The Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem is set to explode, with more than 24 billion devices expected to be connected to the Internet by 2019. The sheer scale, size and diversity of the IoT environment makes risk difficult to measure.

Read | The great 21st century data rush

Perhaps the most important factor is the scale and speed at which digital payments have been adopted across the spectrum of transactions. Payment gateways work the same for all users irrespective of the volume or commodities/services transacted, but they are accessed on devices that vary greatly in their ability to protect data. How would insurers gauge the risk inherent in such a diversified market? Consider then, these key questions and conundrums.

First, if cyberspace is a global commons, will the socialisation of “bad” follow the “privatisation of profits”?

Unlike the environment, the oceans or outer space, digital spaces are not discovered — they are created. Cyber insecurity has been made out to be a global threat but the fact remains that the economic gains from securing digital spaces still accrue to a few countries and corporations. Do developed markets have a common but differentiated responsibility to secure digital spaces? If it is the responsibility of all, can developing countries also get a share of the economic gains from electronic commerce?

Second, cybersecurity is a private service — how can we make it a public good?

Digital spaces are common to all, but the provision of their security is increasingly guaranteed by the private sector. This is in stark contrast to governance models in emerging markets, where the state underwrites law and order. How can the public and private sectors work together to provide this common good?

Third, India is moving towards security by identity, but many advanced economies believe security comes through anonymity. Are we on the wrong side of history?

Encryption is becoming the norm in advanced economies, as a result of which data is increasingly out of the reach of law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, India has moved towards biometric identification programmes that place a premium on identity. The “Aadhaar impulse” is driven by a requirement to target beneficiaries effectively, but without strong data protection regulations, the digital economy would be less than secure.

Read | Framing multistakeholder conversations on encryption

Fourth, if cash-based systems, ATMs and payment gateways are increasingly vulnerable to cyber-attacks, are “distributed ledger technologies” going to make governments adopt cryptocurrencies?

Fifth, cyber security is an expensive proposition in advanced economies, where the most sophisticated instruments are also assumed to be the safest. How can India apply its famed “frugal innovation” in this space, and protect the user while providing affordable access to the Internet?

The ICT supply chain in India is only as strong as its weakest link: the end user. If the user is from rural India, with a limited understanding of the devices and transactions she accesses, her device is a point of vulnerability. If the device itself is “low-end”, which places a premium on cost over security, this forms a lethal mix that endangers the security of all users in the ecosystem. India cannot afford a false separation between access and security in digital spaces, as the qualitative nature of access will determine ICT security for a billion people.

Sixth, who determines the risk of transacting on the Internet, and how?

If transactions in cyberspace will invariably carry an element of risk, who will guarantee them? The buyer, seller or intermediary? As in the case of shipping, will we see a form of cyber-insurance applied to cover the risk of malicious attacks online?

Developments in cyber security leads one to surmise that economies will soon be subject to a risk-assessment based on the integrity of their networks. Risk-based assessments offer predictive value and guarantees of stability to businesses, but they should not perpetuate inequities that exist offline.

Limited means to enhance cybersecurity in developing economies should not set back investments in the digital economy, which in turn create a vicious cycle rendering the overall ecosystem insecure. The international community must articulate ways in which such risks can be mitigated, and facilitate access in emerging markets to technology and finance that generate investments in cybersecurity.

This commentary originally appeared in Hindustan Times.