Digital Infrastructure as Foreign Policy: The New Great Game

How the battle for digital infrastructure is reshaping global power dynamics and creating new forms of influence

In the 19th century, the original "Great Game" saw Britain and Russia vying for influence across Central Asia through a complex web of territorial expansion, diplomatic maneuvering, and infrastructure development. Today, a new Great Game is unfolding—not across the steppes and mountains of Central Asia, but through the fiber optic cables, data centers, and wireless networks that form the backbone of our digital world.

This new battleground for global influence isn't marked by military bases or colonial outposts, but by who builds, controls, and sets the rules for the digital infrastructure that increasingly powers every aspect of modern life. As nations become more dependent on digital technologies for economic growth, national security, and social stability, the providers of this critical infrastructure gain unprecedented leverage and influence.

The stakes couldn't be higher. Digital infrastructure isn't just about technology—it's about power. The country or bloc that establishes dominance in providing digital infrastructure gains the ability to shape technical standards, influence regulatory frameworks, access critical data, and potentially even control the digital lifelines of other nations. This reality has transformed what might once have been purely commercial or technical decisions into matters of high geopolitics and national strategy.

China's ambitious Digital Silk Road, America's Clean Network initiative, and Europe's digital sovereignty efforts represent competing visions for how the global digital landscape should be structured—and who should benefit from it. Behind the technical specifications and financing arrangements lie fundamentally different conceptions of how the internet should function, how data should flow, and how digital technologies should be governed.

For countries caught in the middle of this competition—particularly emerging economies in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America—these are not abstract concerns. Their choices about which digital infrastructure to adopt carry profound implications for their economic development, national security, and even political sovereignty. The pressure to align with one technological ecosystem or another is creating new forms of dependency and influence that will shape international relations for decades to come.

In this analysis, we'll explore the contours of this new Great Game—examining the competing infrastructure models, analyzing where the battle lines are being drawn, uncovering the hidden battlefield of technical standards, evaluating the difficult tradeoffs between security and economic benefits, and assessing whether multilateral cooperation might offer a way beyond zero-sum competition. By understanding the dynamics of digital infrastructure as foreign policy, we can better grasp how technology is reshaping global power in the 21st century.

The Digital Silk Roads - Competing Visions

When China unveiled its Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, few anticipated how quickly its digital component would emerge as perhaps the most consequential element of this massive infrastructure push. The Digital Silk Road, as it came to be known, represents Beijing's vision for extending its technological reach across the developing world through a comprehensive package of digital infrastructure investments—from fiber optic networks and data centers to smart city systems and e-commerce platforms.

China's approach is distinctive in several ways. First, it offers a comprehensive, end-to-end solution that integrates hardware, software, and services. Chinese companies don't just build the physical infrastructure; they provide the applications that run on it, the platforms that manage it, and often the financing that makes it possible. Second, Chinese digital infrastructure typically comes with attractive financial terms—low-interest loans, generous grace periods, and minimal conditions regarding economic reform or governance. Third, the Chinese model emphasizes state sovereignty in cyberspace, with infrastructure designed to accommodate government control over data flows and online content.

The United States, alarmed by China's growing digital influence, launched the Clean Network program in 2020 as a direct counter to the Digital Silk Road. The American approach emphasizes security, transparency, and alignment with democratic values. Rather than offering a comprehensive package, the U.S. focuses on creating a trusted ecosystem of vendors and operators who adhere to certain principles—particularly regarding data security and privacy. American digital infrastructure initiatives typically involve private sector companies operating with government support, rather than state-owned enterprises executing a centralized strategy.

European efforts, meanwhile, reflect the continent's distinctive priorities and constraints. The EU's digital sovereignty agenda seeks to carve out a third path—neither fully embracing the Chinese state-centric model nor completely aligning with the American private sector-led approach. European digital infrastructure initiatives emphasize regulatory compliance, data protection, and adherence to human rights standards. The EU has been particularly active in setting rules for the digital domain, with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) becoming a de facto global standard in many contexts.

These competing models aren't just technical alternatives—they reflect fundamentally different visions of how the internet should function and who should control it. The Chinese approach facilitates a more controlled internet where governments can easily monitor and manage information flows. The American model prioritizes openness and interoperability, though with increasing emphasis on security considerations. The European vision attempts to balance openness with strong regulatory guardrails to protect individual rights and prevent market concentration.

For countries considering their digital infrastructure options, these choices come with implicit and sometimes explicit conditions. Chinese financing may not demand governance reforms, but it often requires the use of Chinese vendors and technologies, creating long-term dependencies. American support typically comes with expectations regarding market access, intellectual property protection, and alignment on security issues. European partnerships generally require adherence to stringent data protection standards and regulatory frameworks.

The competition between these models is intensifying as digital infrastructure becomes increasingly central to economic development, national security, and social stability. Countries that might once have made these decisions based purely on technical or financial considerations now find themselves navigating complex geopolitical calculations. The infrastructure choices they make today will shape not just their technological capabilities, but their international alignments and dependencies for decades to come.

Case Studies - Where the Battle Lines Are Drawn

The abstract competition between digital infrastructure models becomes concrete in specific regions and countries, where governments must make tangible choices with long-lasting consequences. Southeast Asia has emerged as perhaps the most intense battleground in this new Great Game, with its strategic location, growing economies, and position between major powers making it a priority target for competing infrastructure initiatives.

Indonesia provides a particularly illuminating case study. As the region's largest economy with a population of over 270 million, Indonesia represents a massive digital market still in its formative stages. Chinese companies have made significant inroads, with Huawei building much of the country's 4G infrastructure and positioning itself as a key provider for 5G networks. Alibaba and Tencent have invested heavily in local tech champions like Tokopedia and GoJek, while Chinese-backed data centers are sprouting up across the archipelago. Yet American and allied companies maintain strong positions as well, with Google and Facebook dominating the digital advertising market and Japanese and Korean firms playing significant roles in telecommunications.

The Indonesian government has attempted to chart a middle path, accepting Chinese infrastructure investments while maintaining security partnerships with the United States and economic ties with Japan and Australia. This balancing act reflects a broader trend across Southeast Asia, where countries are reluctant to exclusively align with any single digital ecosystem. Vietnam, despite political similarities with China, has actively diversified its digital infrastructure partners, partly due to historical tensions with its northern neighbor. Malaysia has embraced Chinese smart city technologies while maintaining openness to Western cloud providers. The Philippines has strengthened security ties with the U.S. while accepting significant Chinese digital investments.

In Africa, the dynamics are somewhat different but equally complex. China established an early and dominant position in telecommunications infrastructure across the continent, with companies like Huawei and ZTE building an estimated 70% of Africa's 4G networks. Chinese firms have also been instrumental in laying the fiber optic backbone connecting African nations and linking the continent to global networks. The Digital Silk Road has found fertile ground in Africa, where the financing terms offered by Chinese entities often prove more attractive than Western alternatives.

Yet this dominance is not unchallenged. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation has increased its focus on digital projects in Africa, while European initiatives like the EU-Africa Digital Economy Task Force seek to promote European approaches to connectivity and regulation. African governments increasingly recognize the strategic implications of their infrastructure choices and are becoming more sophisticated in navigating competing offers. Countries like Kenya and Rwanda have developed explicit digital strategies that allow them to engage with multiple partners while maintaining some degree of autonomy.

Latin America presents yet another variation on this theme. The region's proximity to the United States creates different geopolitical calculations, with security considerations often weighing more heavily in decision-making. Nevertheless, Chinese digital infrastructure has made significant inroads, particularly in countries seeking to diversify their international relationships. Brazil, the region's largest economy, has resisted U.S. pressure to exclude Huawei from its 5G networks, while embracing Chinese investments in data centers and smart city technologies. Chile, despite its free-trade orientation and close ties to the United States, has welcomed Chinese cloud providers and e-commerce platforms.

Across all these regions, local factors significantly influence which infrastructure models gain traction. Countries with stronger state capacity and clearer digital strategies—like Singapore, Rwanda, or Chile—have generally been more successful at maintaining autonomy while benefiting from competing offers. Nations with weaker governance or more pressing financial constraints often find themselves with less bargaining power and more vulnerability to dependency. Political factors matter too; changes in government can lead to dramatic shifts in digital infrastructure priorities, as seen in Malaysia following the 2018 election or Brazil under President Bolsonaro.

The real-world impacts of these infrastructure choices extend far beyond the digital realm. Countries that align predominantly with Chinese digital infrastructure often find themselves adopting Chinese approaches to internet governance and data sovereignty as well. Those that embrace Western infrastructure typically maintain more open digital ecosystems, though not without their own forms of influence and dependency. These technological choices increasingly shape diplomatic relationships, trade patterns, and even security alignments. As digital and physical infrastructure become more deeply intertwined, the consequences of these decisions will only grow more profound.

The Hidden Battlefield - Technical Standards

Beneath the visible competition over cables, towers, and data centers lies a less obvious but equally consequential battleground: technical standards. These seemingly arcane specifications determine how digital technologies function, interoperate, and evolve. While they may appear technical and apolitical, standards increasingly represent a critical arena for exercising influence and advancing strategic interests in the digital domain.

The relationship between physical infrastructure and technical standards is symbiotic. Countries and companies that build infrastructure gain advantages in setting the standards that govern it, while those who influence standards can shape the evolution of infrastructure in ways that benefit their technologies and approaches. This dynamic creates powerful incentives for major powers to pursue both simultaneously as part of a coherent strategy.

China's growing role in international standards bodies illustrates this strategic approach. Having established itself as a leading provider of digital infrastructure through the Digital Silk Road, China has systematically increased its participation and leadership in organizations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). Chinese companies and government representatives now chair numerous technical committees and working groups, submit a growing share of technical proposals, and advocate for standards that align with Chinese technological strengths and regulatory preferences.

This standards engagement isn't merely technical—it reflects broader strategic objectives. Chinese standards proposals often embed assumptions about network architecture, data management, and security that align with China's vision of "cyber sovereignty" and state-centric internet governance. Proposals for technologies like New IP (a potential alternative to the current Internet Protocol) would create network architectures more amenable to centralized control. Standards for facial recognition, smart cities, and surveillance technologies often reflect Chinese approaches to public security and social management.

The United States and its allies have belatedly recognized the strategic importance of this standards competition. After years of treating standards development as primarily a private sector responsibility, Western governments are now more actively coordinating their approaches to key standards bodies. The U.S.-led "Clean Network" initiative explicitly addresses standards as a component of digital security, while the EU's digital strategy emphasizes standards as essential to technological sovereignty. Japan, South Korea, and other technologically advanced democracies are similarly increasing their strategic focus on standards development.

5G provides perhaps the clearest example of how infrastructure and standards intertwine in strategic competition. Beyond the highly visible battle over Huawei's role in 5G networks worldwide, a less visible but equally important contest has played out in standards bodies. Chinese companies have dramatically increased their influence in 5G standards development, with Huawei alone holding the largest number of essential patents for the technology. This standards position reinforces China's infrastructure advantages, creating a virtuous cycle from their perspective—and a concerning dependency from the Western viewpoint.

Cloud computing represents another critical standards battleground. As more countries adopt cloud-first strategies for government services and critical infrastructure, the standards governing cloud security, interoperability, and data management take on greater importance. Chinese cloud providers like Alibaba Cloud and Tencent Cloud are expanding globally while advocating for standards that accommodate China's distinctive approach to data governance. Western cloud giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google promote alternative standards that emphasize different security models and governance approaches.

The long-term implications of standards fragmentation could be profound. The internet has historically functioned as a relatively unified system based on common protocols and standards. A world of competing and incompatible standards could lead to a "splinternet" divided along geopolitical lines, with different regions operating on fundamentally different technical architectures. Such fragmentation would raise costs for businesses operating globally, complicate international communication and cooperation, and potentially reinforce authoritarian control in some regions.

Yet standards competition doesn't necessarily lead to complete fragmentation. Technical necessity often drives compromise, as truly incompatible systems impose costs on all parties. The challenge for the international community is to maintain sufficient common standards to enable global interoperability while accommodating legitimate differences in regulatory approaches and values. Finding this balance requires recognizing that standards are not merely technical specifications but expressions of how societies believe technologies should function and be governed.

The Security-Economy Balancing Act

For countries navigating the digital infrastructure landscape, perhaps no challenge is more difficult than balancing economic benefits against security concerns. Digital infrastructure decisions that might once have been made primarily on technical and financial grounds now involve complex calculations about national security, strategic autonomy, and geopolitical alignment. Finding the right balance has become a defining challenge for policymakers worldwide.

The economic benefits of digital infrastructure are substantial and increasingly central to national development strategies. High-quality digital connectivity enables participation in the global digital economy, supports the growth of local technology ecosystems, and enhances productivity across all economic sectors. Countries with limited fiscal resources face particular pressure to accept the most financially attractive infrastructure offers, which often come from Chinese providers offering favorable financing terms, lower upfront costs, and faster deployment timelines.

Yet these economic benefits must be weighed against a range of security considerations that have gained prominence in recent years. Concerns about backdoors, data exfiltration, and foreign surveillance have transformed telecommunications infrastructure from a primarily commercial matter into a national security priority. The potential for foreign control over critical digital systems raises questions about sovereignty and autonomy in crisis situations. Dependencies created through digital infrastructure choices can constrain future policy options and create vulnerabilities to economic coercion.

The actual security risks of different infrastructure approaches remain contested and difficult to quantify. Western governments, particularly the United States, have raised alarms about the security implications of Chinese-built networks, citing concerns about the Chinese government's ability to compel cooperation from nominally private companies like Huawei. Chinese officials and companies vigorously dispute these claims, arguing that they reflect political motivations rather than technical realities. Independent security researchers offer varying assessments, with some identifying genuine vulnerabilities in Chinese equipment and others suggesting that risks can be mitigated through proper network design and monitoring.

What's clear is that security-driven decisions carry real economic costs. Excluding certain vendors from infrastructure projects typically reduces competition and raises prices. Ripping and replacing existing equipment imposes substantial transition costs. Delays in infrastructure deployment while security concerns are debated can slow digital transformation and economic development. For many countries, particularly those with limited resources, these economic costs must be carefully weighed against sometimes abstract or speculative security benefits.

Different countries have adopted varying approaches to this security-economy balancing act. The United Kingdom initially planned to allow Huawei limited participation in its 5G networks while implementing strict security controls, before ultimately reversing course under U.S. pressure. Germany has pursued a more technically-focused approach, establishing detailed security requirements that apply to all vendors regardless of national origin. India has increasingly prioritized security considerations in its digital infrastructure decisions, particularly following border tensions with China. Vietnam, despite political similarities with China, has diversified its digital infrastructure partners partly due to security concerns.

For many emerging economies, the ideal solution would be finding middle paths that balance economic and security considerations. Some have adopted hybrid approaches that use different vendors for different parts of their networks, separating more sensitive core functions from less sensitive edge components. Others have implemented enhanced security monitoring and testing regimes that apply to all equipment regardless of origin. Multilateral security certification frameworks could potentially provide a more objective basis for assessing risks while maintaining vendor diversity and competitive pricing.

The security-economy tradeoff extends beyond telecommunications to other forms of digital infrastructure. Cloud computing raises questions about data sovereignty and foreign access to sensitive information. Smart city technologies create potential vulnerabilities in critical urban systems. Payment infrastructure involves considerations about financial security and monetary sovereignty. In each domain, policymakers must weigh immediate economic benefits against longer-term security implications, often with limited information and under significant political pressure.

For business leaders and investors, understanding these tradeoffs is equally important. Companies operating globally must navigate an increasingly complex landscape of security requirements, vendor restrictions, and geopolitical sensitivities. Investment decisions in digital infrastructure must account for regulatory and political risks that can change rapidly as security concerns evolve. The most successful firms will be those that can help their customers navigate these tradeoffs rather than forcing binary choices between economic and security priorities.

Is Cooperation Possible? Multilateral Governance Options

As digital infrastructure competition intensifies, an important question emerges: Is a purely competitive approach inevitable, or might there be pathways toward more cooperative governance models? The current trajectory suggests a world of competing digital blocs, with all the inefficiencies and tensions that implies. Yet there are also countervailing forces pushing toward greater coordination, interoperability, and shared governance frameworks.

Existing multilateral institutions have struggled to effectively address digital infrastructure challenges. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN agency most directly responsible for telecommunications, has become itself a battleground for competing visions rather than a forum for resolving them. The World Trade Organization (WTO) lacks updated frameworks for digital trade and infrastructure. Regional organizations like ASEAN or the African Union have developed digital strategies but lack the technical capacity and financial resources to implement them independently.

This institutional deficit has led to proposals for new multilateral approaches specifically designed for digital infrastructure governance. The EU's proposed "Digital Connectivity Fund" aims to coordinate European investments in global digital infrastructure while promoting European values and standards. The G7's "Build Back Better World" (B3W) initiative includes a significant digital component intended to offer an alternative to China's Digital Silk Road. The "Clean Network" program initiated by the United States seeks to establish a coalition of countries and companies committed to certain principles regarding digital infrastructure security.

International financial institutions are also adapting to play larger roles in digital infrastructure development. The World Bank has significantly increased its digital infrastructure portfolio and developed new frameworks for assessing digital economy readiness. Regional development banks like the Asian Development Bank and African Development Bank have created specialized digital infrastructure financing facilities. These institutions could potentially serve as neutral intermediaries, helping to establish common standards and practices while providing financing that doesn't come with the same geopolitical strings as bilateral arrangements.

More ambitious proposals envision entirely new governance frameworks for digital infrastructure. Some advocate for a "Digital Stability Board" modeled after the Financial Stability Board created following the 2008 financial crisis—a body that would coordinate national policies and develop common standards for critical digital infrastructure. Others propose sector-specific governance mechanisms for particularly sensitive areas like submarine cables, internet exchange points, or cloud computing infrastructure. These proposals recognize that different types of digital infrastructure may require different governance approaches based on their strategic sensitivity and technical characteristics.

Confidence-building measures could provide a starting point for reducing zero-sum competition even in the absence of comprehensive governance frameworks. Greater transparency about infrastructure investments and their terms could help address security concerns and reduce suspicions. Technical standards for security assessment and certification could be developed jointly, allowing for objective evaluation of different vendors and technologies. Agreements on principles for data flows and localization requirements could prevent the most disruptive forms of digital protectionism while respecting legitimate security and privacy concerns.

Despite these possibilities, significant obstacles to multilateral cooperation remain. The technological competition between the United States and China reflects deeper strategic rivalry that extends far beyond digital infrastructure. Different value systems and governance models create genuine disagreements about how digital technologies should function and be regulated. Commercial interests and national security imperatives often push in different directions, complicating efforts to develop coherent international approaches.

Yet there are also areas where cooperation seems both possible and mutually beneficial despite broader competition. Cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure protection serve everyone's interests, as cascading failures can cross borders and ideological lines. Digital inclusion initiatives to connect underserved populations offer potential for collaboration even among geopolitical rivals. Environmental sustainability standards for digital infrastructure could address shared challenges while establishing common technical frameworks.

The most realistic path forward may involve "competitive cooperation"—a model where strategic rivals maintain their competition in some areas while establishing bounded cooperation in others where mutual interests align. This approach acknowledges the reality of geopolitical competition while creating space for pragmatic collaboration on specific challenges. It requires identifying concrete issues where cooperation produces clear benefits for all parties, rather than pursuing grand governance frameworks that may be unattainable in the current geopolitical climate.

For countries caught in the middle of great power competition, supporting multilateral approaches offers a strategy for maintaining autonomy and reducing dependency on any single provider. By advocating for transparent standards, neutral financing mechanisms, and inclusive governance frameworks, these nations can potentially shape the evolution of digital infrastructure in ways that serve their interests rather than simply choosing between competing blocs.

Conclusion

The new Great Game of digital infrastructure represents one of the defining geopolitical contests of our time. As we've explored throughout this analysis, the competition to build, control, and govern digital infrastructure has profound implications for global power dynamics, economic development, and even the future of the internet itself.

Several key insights emerge from our examination of this complex landscape. First, digital infrastructure decisions are no longer merely technical or commercial—they have become deeply political, reflecting broader strategic competition between major powers with different visions for the digital future. The choices countries make about their digital infrastructure increasingly shape their international alignments, economic trajectories, and domestic governance models.

Second, this competition plays out differently across regions and countries, influenced by local priorities, capacities, and historical relationships. While some patterns are emerging—China's strong position in Africa, America's continued influence in Latin America, Europe's regulatory leadership—the situation remains fluid, with many countries actively seeking to maintain autonomy by diversifying their digital partnerships rather than aligning exclusively with any single bloc.

Third, the visible competition over physical infrastructure is matched by a less visible but equally consequential battle over technical standards, governance frameworks, and regulatory models. These "soft" aspects of digital infrastructure may ultimately prove more important than the hardware itself in determining who exercises influence in the digital domain.

Fourth, countries face genuine and difficult tradeoffs between economic benefits and security concerns when making digital infrastructure decisions. There are no simple solutions to these dilemmas, particularly for developing nations with limited resources and pressing connectivity needs. The most successful approaches will likely be those that find pragmatic middle paths rather than forcing binary choices.

Finally, while competition dominates the current landscape, there remain possibilities for more cooperative approaches to digital infrastructure governance in specific domains. Multilateral frameworks, international financial institutions, and confidence-building measures could potentially mitigate the most destabilizing aspects of infrastructure rivalry, even if they cannot eliminate the underlying strategic competition.

Looking ahead, the digital infrastructure landscape will likely continue to evolve rapidly as technologies advance, geopolitical dynamics shift, and countries refine their approaches. The emergence of new technologies like satellite internet constellations, edge computing, and quantum communications will create new arenas for competition while potentially disrupting existing advantages. Climate considerations will increasingly shape infrastructure decisions as the environmental impact of digital technologies receives greater attention. And the lessons learned from current infrastructure deployments will inform more sophisticated approaches by both providers and recipients.

For policymakers navigating this complex terrain, several principles may prove useful. Maintaining optionality and avoiding excessive dependency on any single provider or ecosystem should be a priority. Developing domestic technical capacity to evaluate different infrastructure options is essential for making informed decisions. Separating genuine security concerns from geopolitical positioning requires rigorous and objective assessment frameworks. And engaging with multilateral governance initiatives, however imperfect, offers opportunities to shape rules rather than merely following them.

The digital infrastructure decisions being made today will shape power relationships, economic opportunities, and even social structures for decades to come. By understanding digital infrastructure as foreign policy—as the new Great Game of our era—we can better navigate these choices and their far-reaching implications. The countries, companies, and citizens that grasp this reality will be better positioned to advance their interests and values in the digital age that is still unfolding before us.