Workshop 2: The Interplay Between Digital Sovereignty and Development

Summary

This EuroDIG workshop examined the complex relationship between digital sovereignty and development, featuring three expert perspectives on how Europe can balance autonomy with global interconnectivity. Sofie Schönborn opened by explaining that digital sovereignty lacks a universal definition and represents an ongoing negotiation process among different actors across various technology layers. She emphasized that Europe faces a paradox of seeking reduced dependence while maintaining openness to international networks and partnerships, noting that territorial models of sovereignty no longer adequately address digital governance challenges.

Konstantinos Balictsis provided a government perspective, outlining Europe’s economic security strategy and the need to protect critical infrastructure while promoting competitiveness. He highlighted significant challenges facing Europe, including insufficient digital infrastructure deployment, limited startup ecosystems, and heavy reliance on third-country technologies, with only 3 out of 50 leading global ICT companies being European. He stressed the importance of implementing existing regulations effectively while reducing administrative burdens that hinder innovation and growth.

Marilia Maciel brought a development-focused viewpoint, warning against neo-mercantilist approaches that prioritize state interests over individual rights and economic cooperation. She advocated for digital sovereignty projects that empower individuals and promote sustainability while building partnerships with the global majority rather than retreating into protectionism. The discussion revealed several critical gaps, including Europe’s lack of major AI language models and the cultural-linguistic dimensions of digital sovereignty.

Participants agreed that Europe must define digital sovereignty more inclusively, encompassing infrastructure, regulation, human rights, cultural diversity, and collaborative development approaches that don’t leave regions or communities behind.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Defining Digital Sovereignty**: The discussion revealed that digital sovereignty lacks a universal definition and varies by region. European approaches emphasize rights-based, citizen-centric models (like GDPR), while other regions focus more on state control over digital infrastructure and data flows. The concept encompasses multiple technology layers from subsea cables to applications and data.

– **Europe’s Digital Challenges and Dependencies**: Significant concerns were raised about Europe’s digital dependencies, including that 80% of technologies needed for digital transformation are designed/manufactured in third countries, EU platforms capture only 5% of global market value, and most European data is stored overseas (particularly in the US) at costs comparable to energy import bills.

– **Innovation and Competitiveness Gaps**: A critical discussion emerged around Europe’s lack of major tech companies and AI capabilities, particularly the absence of competitive large language models except for Mistral. Despite having strong research, education, funding, and a large consumer base (450 million people), Europe struggles to create the entrepreneurial ecosystem that produces global tech leaders.

– **Balancing Openness with Autonomy**: The tension between maintaining open, interconnected digital systems while building strategic autonomy was a central theme. Speakers emphasized the need to avoid protectionism while reducing strategic vulnerabilities, particularly through smart partnerships and diversified supply chains rather than isolation.

– **Cultural and Linguistic Sovereignty**: The importance of protecting cultural and linguistic diversity in digital sovereignty was highlighted, particularly in the context of AI systems. Concerns were raised about how to ensure European languages and cultures are represented in global AI models and digital platforms.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore the interplay between digital sovereignty and development from multiple perspectives – academic, governmental, and developmental. The goal was to examine how Europe can build digital autonomy while maintaining global connectivity, fostering innovation, and supporting both internal development and international partnerships, particularly with developing countries.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, analytical tone throughout, characterized by constructive concern rather than alarmism. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges facing Europe’s digital sovereignty ambitions, the tone remained solution-oriented and collaborative. There was a notable shift from theoretical framework discussions at the beginning to more practical, policy-focused conversations toward the end, with increasing emphasis on concrete actions like procurement policies, partnership strategies, and implementation challenges. The tone became more urgent when discussing Europe’s competitive disadvantages but remained optimistic about potential solutions through better coordination and strategic partnerships.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Karen Mulberry** – Workshop moderator and facilitator

– **Moderator (Daniel)** – Remote moderator for Zoom participants during the session

Р**Sofie Sch̦nborn** РPh.D. student and lecturer at the Technical University of Munich, specializing in governance of digital infrastructure, cloud technology and cloud adoption in governments, particularly in the context of digital sovereignty discourse

– **Constantinos Balictsis** – Senior expert from the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission, speaking from personal capacity on government perspective regarding digital sovereignty

– **Marilia Maciel** – Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at the Diplo Foundation, focusing on development perspective and partnerships with developing countries and least developed countries

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions and made comments during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Anton Barberi** – Works for the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie based in Geneva, focusing on cultural and linguistic aspects of digital sovereignty

– **Unnamed speaker** – Identified as Minister of Science and Education, Republic of Croatia, who raised concerns about Europe’s lack of generative AI models and large language models

# Digital Sovereignty and Development: Balancing European Autonomy with Global Connectivity

## Executive Summary

This EuroDIG workshop examined the relationship between digital sovereignty and development, featuring perspectives from academia, government, and development organizations. The discussion explored Europe’s digital dependencies, challenges in building technological capabilities, and approaches to maintaining global connectivity while pursuing greater autonomy. Key themes included Europe’s reliance on third-country technologies, the absence of major European tech companies, cultural and linguistic dimensions of sovereignty, and the importance of rights-based approaches. The workshop highlighted ongoing tensions between reducing dependencies and maintaining openness to international partnerships.

## Opening Framework: Digital Sovereignty as Development Tool

**Karen Mulberry**, the workshop moderator, opened by explaining that digital sovereignty and development are “very closely linked activities” where “sovereignty empowers regions and states to move forward and develop.” She noted the workshop would examine how Europe can build digital autonomy while remaining globally connected.

**Sofie Schönborn** from Technical University of Munich established that digital sovereignty lacks a universal definition and represents an ongoing negotiation process. She framed Europe’s challenge as “seeking increased or less dependence, creating strong, innovative rights-based ecosystems without disconnecting from international networks.” Schönborn emphasized that digital sovereignty encompasses the entire technology stack and that territorial models of sovereignty inadequately address digital governance challenges. She stressed that partnerships would be “key and essential to not go into isolation and harm economies, societies, and probably also our political systems, but really also to stay competitive.”

## Government Perspective: Europe’s Digital Reality Check

**Konstantinos Balictsis**, speaking in personal capacity, provided detailed statistics on Europe’s digital position. He revealed that only 8% of EU GDP relates to intra-EU trade in services compared to 25% for goods, and that 80% of technologies needed for Europe’s digital transformation are designed and manufactured in third countries. EU platforms capture only 5% of global market value, with just 3 out of 50 leading global ICT companies being European.

Balictsis outlined Europe’s digital infrastructure gaps: only 64% of households have fiber access with 18.5% gigabit uptake, and most European data is stored overseas, particularly in the United States, creating costs comparable to energy import bills. He referenced the 2021 letter from four EU leaders to the European Commission president as a key policy moment driving current sovereignty discussions.

He detailed the European economic security strategy’s three main steps: promoting competitiveness and innovation, protecting against risks to economic security, and partnering with like-minded countries. Balictsis noted that Europe faces a fundamental question: “Why is it that despite having demand, despite having education, despite having research centers, despite having funding, we don’t have the companies that drive innovation?”

## Development Perspective: Rights-Based Approaches and Global Partnerships

**Marilia Maciel** provided a critical development-focused analysis, warning against neo-mercantilist approaches. She argued: “The political project of liberalism is being overridden by a neo-mercantilist political agenda, which puts the interests of the state above the interests of economic actors.”

Maciel presented three main challenges: the securitization of digital sovereignty leading to decreased democratic control, the risk of digital sovereignty benefiting only states or domestic champions rather than individuals, and the danger of protectionist approaches. She offered three practical actions: socially anchoring decision-making processes, building partnerships with the “global majority,” and using public procurement strategically.

She criticized the term “like-minded countries,” arguing it excludes much of the world, and provided a specific example of European Parliament procurement choosing a US provider over European options, questioning whether this supports European digital sovereignty goals.

## Cultural and Linguistic Dimensions

A significant intervention came from an audience member identified as a Minister from Croatia’s Ministry of Science and Education, who asked: “How can we have a digital sovereignty when we don’t have our large language models? Our large language models that should eventually protect also our cultural languages. So this is the issue with digital sovereignty. You have to produce something first in order to really have sovereignty.”

**Anton Barberi** from the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie expanded on this theme, noting that sovereignty debates often overlook cultural and linguistic aspects. He mentioned the Global Digital Compact and multilingual lobbying efforts, arguing that protecting cultural and linguistic diversity should be central to European sovereignty efforts.

## Key Challenges and Questions

The discussion revealed several unresolved challenges:

**Innovation Gap**: Despite having demand, education, research centers, and funding, Europe lacks major tech companies driving innovation. This structural problem extends beyond regulatory frameworks.

**AI Capabilities**: Europe’s absence from the generative AI landscape, with only Mistral representing European interests but not ranking in the top 10 globally, raises questions about technological sovereignty.

**Data Dependencies**: The massive outflow of European data stored overseas creates dependencies comparable to energy import costs.

**Democratic Governance**: How to prevent the securitization of digital sovereignty from undermining democratic participation in decision-making processes.

## Audience Engagement and Additional Perspectives

The workshop included several audience questions that highlighted practical concerns. One participant asked about data privacy and individual rights over personal communications. An online question from Vittorio Bertola explored the tension between European autonomy and partnerships with the Global South.

These interventions demonstrated that digital sovereignty discussions must address both high-level policy frameworks and practical implementation challenges affecting individuals and organizations.

## Implementation Focus

A recurring theme was the need to focus on implementing existing frameworks rather than creating new policies. Balictsis emphasized that Europe has sufficient regulatory frameworks but needs consistent implementation and enforcement. He also mentioned specific initiatives like quantum technologies and the IRIS-II satellite program as examples of European technological development efforts.

Maciel similarly argued that the challenge lies not in policy design but in ensuring that existing tools serve broader development and rights-based goals rather than narrow state or corporate interests.

## Synthesis and Conclusions

Moderator Karen Mulberry concluded by noting the speakers’ emphasis on “collaborative environments around digital sovereignty” that ensure inclusive growth. The discussion revealed that while speakers approached digital sovereignty from different angles, they shared concerns about balancing autonomy with beneficial interdependence.

The workshop highlighted that digital sovereignty cannot be achieved through technical or regulatory measures alone but requires addressing fundamental questions about innovation ecosystems, cultural preservation, and international cooperation. The path forward involves not choosing between autonomy and interdependence, but developing approaches that address both through strategic partnerships and rights-based frameworks.

The discussion demonstrated that European digital sovereignty remains a work in progress, with significant challenges in translating regulatory frameworks into competitive technological capabilities while maintaining democratic governance and international openness. The emphasis on cultural and linguistic dimensions added important complexity to predominantly technical and economic discussions of digital sovereignty.

Karen Mulberry: Good morning everyone. It’s that magical hour. It’s time for us to start our workshop. I’d like to welcome you to the workshop on the interplay between digital sovereignty and development. Now, before we get started, we have some instructions on the operation of the session along with the remote participation. So I will turn it over to our experts to guide us in how we’re supposed to approach this. Thank you. For the people on Zoom, welcome to the session on the interplay between digital sovereignty and development.

Moderator: My name is Daniel and I’ll be the remote moderator in the session. More information about the session and speakers is available on the EuroDIG wiki. We encourage you to raise your hand if you would like to present a question, but if you’d like me to ask the question for you, please write Q in front of the question. And about the session rules, please enter your full name and to ask a question, raise your hand using the Zoom function. You’ll be unmuted when the floor is given to you. And when speaking, switch on the video, state your name and affiliation and do not share links to the Zoom meetings, not even with your own colleagues. Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: Thank you very much. Hopefully everyone caught our instructions so you understand how we’re going to be operating. So again, I’d like to welcome you to our workshop, looking forward to a very lively discussion this morning. Now when you look at digital sovereignty and development… They really are very closely linked activities. Sovereignty empowers, and especially regions and states, to move forward and develop. Well, development actually strengthens the foundation of what they’re trying to offer. Now today, we’ve got some key experts who will provide different perspectives on the topic of digital sovereignty and what that might mean. Let me introduce our speakers. We have Sofie Schönborn, who is participating online, who is joining us. Thank you very much. She will be our first speaker. And then Konstantinos, and I’m not sure I can pronounce your last name. Speaking from his expertise with a personal government perspective. And then we have Mariela, who is looking at the trade and the economics behind digital sovereignty. So Sofie, let me turn it over to you to get us started and provide

Sofie Schönborn: the context for our interactive discussion. Thank you. Thank you so very much. It’s a pleasure to be here. Let me just really briefly try and share my screen. Now you’re seeing the speaker view. Could you please just briefly confirm that you’re seeing my slides? Yes, I can see your slide. I think it’s being displayed in the room. Wonderful. Thank you so much. And thanks again, also for the introduction. It’s a pleasure to be here. And really, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the session. I’m really sorry not to be there in person. My name is Sofie. I’m a Ph.D. student and lecturer at the Technical University of Munich, and my research revolves around governance of digital infrastructure, and I focus on cloud technology and cloud adoption in governments, especially in the context of the discourse around digital sovereignty. So I’ve now spent a couple of years looking into the literature, and this will be my main contribution today, trying to give a brief overview of what has been discussed regarding digital sovereignty, especially from an academic side of things maybe, and then of course focusing on Europe to begin with in this European forum. So where are we coming from when talking about digital sovereignty? Of course it has moved to the center of policy debates, not only within Europe but really across countries. We are living in a time where digital systems, digital infrastructure, digital applications have become core to not only industry but also to state functions and to our individual lives, somewhat omnipresent and now in times of rising geopolitical tensions, increasing mistrust, distrust maybe towards certain actors, be them states or corporate actors, or the technologies in themselves. We have seen these increased calls for digital sovereignty, evoking digital sovereignty as either a goal to be achieved or a capability, a capacity to be had, and in that of course different interests are to be weighed. On the one hand, participating in global efforts and open, for example, internet and governance, but then at the same time building robust and resilient and And when we look at our understanding of what digital sovereignty is, we can look back at what we call the Westphalian model, core to our European identity, actually, because it was built on, or we refer to it, based on the Treaty of Westphalia, which was in the 17th century, a treaty among European states back then, establishing the principle that the states hold superior power or authority over their territory. And that was a peace treaty that really calmed down quarrels of religious, political, and other conflict within Europe. And now, as technology transcends borders, but also we have moved to more forms of international governance with supranational bodies, with fora, multi-stakeholder institutions like IGF and EuroDIG, state power is not only mediated or curtailed by private actors, but also, for example, international institutions. So really, the aspiration of territorial control has in a way partially broken down because there’s also many other actors that can influence and govern in our context, digital realities. And I mean, I’m speaking to internet governance community. So many of these topics are what has been discussed over the past decades already. And so it will probably also not be new to many of you that we don’t have a universally agreed concept or idea of what digital sovereignty really is supposed to be. What has been identified, of course, is that there is different regional perspectives and priorities, while in European discourse, we often see a rights-based, citizen-centric emphasis with also things like the GDPR, digital rights, and many legislative efforts or governance efforts. In contrast, maybe Chinese or Russian attempts or claims over cyber sovereignty, or what has been called internet sovereignty already in the early 2000s, is more focusing on asserting control over national digital infrastructure, but also national data flows. And so we see there’s regional differences based on cultural, political, economic contexts. And of course, not every country comes with the same capacity, be it from human capital, financial resources, or others. But even within Europe, we don’t yet really see a single understanding of what we want as digital sovereignty. From my own research and example, cloud sovereignty, we have sovereign cloud offerings emerging across European countries. With Luxembourg working together with Google Cloud, and then France and Germany, of course, having different offerings becoming available, but really the European clear vision on just a subtopic cloud sovereignty may still be missing. We have initiatives, of course, like GAIA-X, and now a Eurostack proposal. So those are topics currently being developed. To make it even more ambiguous, what can be understood as digital sovereignty, many times people are talking about different aspects regarding what is the digital and what is the sovereign. On the digital, I think we are through the whole technology stack now with some authors, for example, focusing on certain layers and others trying to give the complete overview. But really, digital sovereignty includes debates about subsea cables, data centers, DNS protocols, so logical layer, all the way up to applications and data, data sovereignty as also its own very broadly discussed concept. And then also when we look at the side of the sovereign, while of course, the government or the state would be the classic entity of considering a sovereign, there’s recent discourse about functional or corporate sovereignty, so actually big technology companies curtailing the power of the state. And with that, having their own sovereignty over certain things, we may, to be debated, what we understand is that, but then also different communities exerting sovereignty or building sovereignty, especially when we look at indigenous sovereign data sovereignty models, for example, Maori have built those. So this may also differ depending on what we’re talking about and which context. I think what all of this really shows is that sovereignty really is not one defined technical, well, either technical model or technical definition, but it can be negotiated among different actors. Of course, it’s contested and we are talking about different technology layers, which may actually warrant different governance approaches, for example. Looking at the time, a brief timeline here of key sovereignty moments. from my perspective, who, of course, I was born in the 90s. I’m sure that there were other waves of this debate about power and control in the digital sphere before. But really, key moments were the Snowden revelations in 2013, which really exposed global surveillance networks, and lacking the word, but it started mistrust, not only against corporate actors, but also in certain technology. And responses to that were many fold. Brazil, for example, announced their own subsea cable to Europe to bypass the US subsea cable, and then many different policy responses. And now more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted for many dependencies on digital services in general. There was a big letter by Angela Merkel, Hannah Martin, and two other heads of state to Ursula von der Leyen and her presidency at the time to really urge more policy initiatives for digital sovereignty, and now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And at the very latest, the second Trump administration have even furthered those kind of debates. And what Europe but also, I guess, many, many democratic countries are now facing is kind of that tension between rationales of openness and sovereignty, not to say that they conflict each other. But there are different rationales behind that desire to increase cybersecurity resilience control over critical infrastructures, but then at the same time, retain openness, access to international markets participation, engaging in International Collaborative Pursuits in the development context. And that means that Europe is on a way to strike a path here to balance out different aims at the same time. I’m sorry, I’m over time already. This brief introduction was really just to emphasize that right now, territorial models of sovereignty cannot anymore account for the struggles of a sovereignty of different states in the digital world. Digital sovereignty is not a defined concept or a fixed state, but really a process of negotiation of different actors across different layers. We may be facing a paradox, even if it’s not a paradox, of really seeking increased or less dependence, creating strong, innovative rights-based ecosystems without disconnecting from international networks. And for that, of course, partnerships will be key and essential to not go into isolation and harm economies, societies, and probably also our political systems, but really also to stay competitive. Yes, that’s so far.

Karen Mulberry: All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your introduction to the concept. Now I’m going to turn to Konstantinos, who is a senior expert from the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission, and he will be speaking from his personal capacity on views from the government

Constantinos Balictsis: perspective. Konstantinos. Thank you, Karen. Thank you for the invitation and your kind introduction. As Karen said, I will express my personal views on not necessarily my employer. Digital sovereignty, well, if we go back to 2021, the infamous letter that the four leaders of the European member states have sent to the president of the EEC, they talked about fostering the digital single market, about innovation and entrepreneurship. They talked about safeguarding competition and market access, critical infrastructure technologies, which need to become more resilient and secure, and digitalization of the government in order to spare more demand-side pull forces. Digital sovereignty is about building on EU strengths and reducing potential strategic weaknesses in the EU and not excluding others or take a protectionist approach. They proposed more or less three steps, identify critical technologies and strategic sectors to clarify the EU strengths and strategic weaknesses, to strengthen and refine EU’s approach to critical technologies and strategic sectors with a view to open markets and supply chains, and then, of course, to establish an evaluation system to see how we are doing that is permanent, repetitive, based on a wide social, scientific, and economic basis. Closely related is the concept of European economic security strategy. The EU has, especially in today’s turbulent days, they want to have a comprehensive strategic approach to economic security de-risking and then promoting its technological edge. Technological edge, it’s not only, it’s, of course, based on cloud and infrastructure, electronic communications, network infrastructure, but takes a lot of other technologies that are either enabled or enabling all this digital world that we’re all living in. We have adopted as Europe a communication which aims to protect the EU’s economic security, the resilience of the bloc economy, and maintain growth of the technological edge. The EU thrives, I hope we agree on that, on open and rules-based trade and investment and secure and cross-border intra and interconnectivity. via the electronic communications networks and collaboration on research and innovation. So some of the priorities of this strategy is to promote the EU competitiveness and there we hear some buzzwords like deepening the EU single market, invest in human capital, re-skilling up, skilling training again, foster R&D especially in certain critical technologies like advanced semiconductors, quantum computing, biotech and other technologies, protect the EU from economic security risks using all the tools that are available like trade defence, foreign subsidies, 5G, 6G security and also take particular care or dual use technologies that can be used both for civilian and military use. And then partner with the broadest possible set of same-minded collaborators, countries throughout the world in order to promote common interests and strengthen the international rules-based economic order and multilateral institutions. The private sector is an invaluable asset and it needs to join forces with the public sector in order to, because they are already also in the process of de-risking for their own purposes. And among the risks that Europe seems to face, four have been identified and have been promoted, resilience of supply chains including energy security. One that is closer to my interests are physical and cyber security of critical infrastructure and then we are talking about undersea cables and electronic communications network. 99% of intercontinental traffic transits through undersea cables and you can understand the disruption in the economic activity let alone the social activity of everybody that can happen if some of them are not resilient enough. Therefore you need to use the complementary nature of networks of terrestrial and non-terrestrial like mobile satellite and undersea cables in order to to secure the resilience and the security of this communication infrastructure. And then some other risks include also technology security and technology leakage, especially for dual use technologies, and weaponization of economic dependencies and economic coercion. The new European Commission that just started its work, its term, in its program has already made clear that they want Europe to move more united, more bold moves, to be simpler, faster and more supportive of companies and people. And having said that, they are embarking into making business easier and deepen the EU single market. And that entails consolidating the single market, because that creates the fertile environment for companies, especially SMEs, to grow to scale, which is of paramount importance. Competition policy needs to be more supportive of companies, and perhaps merger assessment should fully consider innovation and resilience. Simplify, consolidate and codify legislation. It’s not only enacting legislation and then enforcing it in a coherent manner, because that creates regulatory burden among the stakeholders that are involved and eventually falls on the consumer, on the citizen. We have to collectively follow up on enforcement and implementation in a coherent manner. Boost productivity in the digital tech. There is an insufficient diffusion of digital tech and there are ample indices that show that, especially beyond the large urban areas, there is less of a diffusion of digital tech, which nevertheless is very important to develop new service and business models and eventually the app economy. Focus on the implementation and enforcement of adopted legislation like the DSA, like the DVMA. Invest in frontier technologies like the supercomputing, the semiconductors, Internet of Things, quantum space. strive to become a global leader in AI and exploit the untapped potential of data without which AI cannot thrive. You have to invest, increase spending in research and innovation, boost investments. It may not be stressed enough. I mean, it is very important to see again the public procurement, because it amounts to about 40% of EU’s GDP. And it’s a great lever in order to promote European products in certain very critical areas that are important for the EU. And it seems to me that this is one of the topics that the new commission will undertake. Overcome the skills and labor shortages, which is a big problem in Europe, and we’ll see later on how we are doing in Europe, and then invest in research capacity for strategic and dual-use technologies. Again, further facilitate the cross-border provision of services and goods, which is not to the point where it should have been in Europe. Address issues that affect EU startups and scale-ups, like access to finance and infrastructure, facilitate entrance into new markets, updating data and attracting talent, which is more difficult than it sounds. The precondition, there are a lot of interventions that are planned. One of them is the so-called Digital Network Act that aims to facilitate cross-border network operation and service provision, and enhancing industry competitiveness and improve spectrum coordination, which is another area where Europe is very focused on. And there are a lot of other interventions that are planned, like the Cloud and AI Development Act, the AI Continent Action Plan, Apply AI Strategy, Quantum Strategy, Quantum Act. There is a lot of emphasis in quantum technologies because they affect potentially encryption, they affect security of the networks. And there are lots of efforts regarding quantum key cryptography and quantum key distribution in order to, together with the European Space Agency and the IRIS-II initiative, in order to build safe communications infrastructures in Europe. If Europe has already adopted and measures its core card by the Digital Decade Policy Programme, along four main axes. Skills, secure and sustainable digital infrastructure, digital transformation of businesses and digitization of public services. We have collectively adopted targets in these four overarching areas to be accomplished by the EU bloc by 2030. For example, we need to have 20 million ICT specialists in Europe by 2030 with gender convergence. We need to have gigabit for everyone and 5G everywhere in Europe by 2030. We have to have 10,000 climate highly secure edge nodes in Europe by 2030. And 75 of EU companies need to have adopted cloud, AI and big data, among other things. If we look back, we see that in the previous term, the Commission has already adopted an assertive digital policy framework regarding data, service and platforms, resilience and cybersecurity. However, now is the time to focus more on consistent and coherent implementation and enforcement, which balances innovation and regulatory burden, especially for SMEs. An SME, which deals with producing a prototype, which will attract investment in order to make a product that will be demanding and create a viable business, does not have… spare capacity or funds in order to invest for regulatory compliance. So the regulatory framework should foster the growth of the SMEs because they are the future big techs, should that be the case in Europe also. The EU has invested more than 205 billion euros for digital transformation and it has adopted a number of actions. You’ve already heard about the CHIPS Act, the important projects of common European interests, industrial alliances, the AI innovation package and a host of other interventions. However, if we see overall how we are doing, there is insufficient progress and then there is significant fragmentation among the member states. The full potential of the digital market remains untapped after so many years of efforts. Only 8% of GDP is related to intra-EU trade in services versus 25% of trade in goods. 80% of the technologies and services needed for Europe’s digital transformation are designed and manufactured in third countries and EU platforms barely capture 5% of the global market value and only the presence of EU firms among the world’s leading ICT companies is minimal, 3 out of 50. This says that something is not right. EU has a strong position in high-performance computing and perhaps in quantum. However, only 64% of households have access to fiber and the uptake of gigabit connectivity, the consumers that they actually subscribe for gigabit is 18.5% in Europe. Coverage of high-quality 5G extends to 50% of the European territory and it’s not end-to-end 5G. The backbones are older mobile technologies. So you cannot enjoy the full benefits of a full 5G end-to-end network, like low latency services applications. Significant investments are needed, in excess of 200 billion euros, even more than that. And in order to borrow that money, you have to go to banks, you have to show a viable business model. That means that you have to convince them that there is a business case in order to support you financially. The situation is even harder for startups and scale-ups. The edge node deployment is insufficient. It’s more research and testing oriented. The business uptake of digital technologies is anemic. The business sector in Europe, the cloud adoption has increased by only 7%. And there is no noticeable improvement in AI. And the same happens for data analytics. And I can go on and on. The startup ecosystem in Europe is rather underdeveloped. As far as digital skills is concerned, we will barely reach 12 million at the current trend of ICT specialists by 2030 versus the 20 million target that we have set collectively. And only 55% of EU population, as of the latest report, has at least basic digital skills in Europe. The cyber security landscape continues to be strongly impacted by geopolitical events, and the cyber attacks are on the rise. And there is a very limited spread of digital tech beyond large cities. So you see a re-emerging digital divide, which has become a social divide as time goes on, where major population centers concentrate investments, human capital, and digital infrastructure versus the small cities, remote and rural areas, where they face also demographic challenges. So all these problems point towards recommendations. Simply implement and enforce the established regulatory framework and mitigate unnecessary administrative burden, which is very important in order to let loose the creative forces of the private sector. Foster collaboration will reduce as much as possible and streamline processes that create regulatory burden for the private sector. Increase investments and address obstacles to the single market. Ensure reliable and fast and secure collaborative connectivity and computing networks, not only cloud, which is of paramount importance, but offer all other technologies that can create the next wave of innovation in Europe. Mobilize both public and private investments to foster innovation. Bridge the digital divide. You need more investments. Perhaps also activate the startup ecosystem. It’s of paramount importance. I think that the Eurostack that has been mentioned has promoted such proposals. Create software chips and chips that meet sustainability and security standards and make a true capital markets union. You need to find enough funds to invest in the private sector. Funny as it sounds, even the prudential rules for insurance companies and banks may create disincentives in order to promote and invest in the digital sector in Europe. Foster the international cooperation and let’s teach each other by sharing best practices as much as possible. And I should finish by just saying that the connectivity infrastructure in Europe converges with cloud and edge computing and more functionality moves into the cloud and the edge. However, therefore, the equipment sector itself, where Europe is quite strongly actually, is rapidly transforming and it’s being affected by the cloudification and the virtualization of the networks, and of course, of open architectures. However, the EU connectivity infrastructure cannot meet the challenges of a data-driven society. And that’s why you see lots of interventions regarding promoting very high capacity networks like optical networks to the end user in Europe, because as soon as you deploy this agnostic bandwidth, limitless infrastructure, you can actually launch as many services to the consumer from any point in Europe and create cross-national entities that work throughout Europe. The European Union has already stated that we do not have a common market in digital communications. We have more or less a sum of 27 markets along the national borders, where we have different supply and demand conditions, different network architectures, different deployments of very high capacity networks. That creates a lot of challenges still after so many years of efforts. Network and service neutrality should be strictly adhered to. However, the emphasis now in Europe is deploying very high capacity networks, optical networks that reach all the way to the entrance of multi-dwelling buildings or to the base stations of the next generation networks. And with that, I should perhaps stop. I have some final considerations, but I think we can wait if that’s interesting for the

Karen Mulberry: audience. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we turn to our final speaker, who is Mariel, Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at the Diplo Foundation. kind of closing perspective for our discussion.

Marilia Maciel: Thank you very much, Karen, and good morning to all. I’m going to be brief. DIPLO is an organization that works with research and capacity building, and our main target audience is developing countries and least developed countries based in Geneva and also that work in capitals. So I’d like to mainstream this development perspective, which is also in the title of our session. And I think perhaps it demands a little bit more attention in our discussion today. And I’d like to structure my contribution by focusing on three challenges that we face when discussing digital sovereignty today and three practical actions that we can take in this context. First of all, I think that the first challenge that we face is that the political project of liberalism is being overridden by a neo-mercantilist political agenda, which puts the interests of the state above the interests of economic actors. Nevertheless, in the present context, the state is not necessarily being strengthened to promote a rights-based approach, to cater to social needs or to protect the weaker, as was the European project mentioned by Sofie. The precedence that is given to the state today in discussions about digital sovereignty is mostly seen as a necessary condition to hedge against external threats, to promote national regional security in a world that is increasingly seen as a menacing space. In addition, we have another complication, which is the democratic backsliding that we face in developed and developing countries alike, which is marked by the erosion of democratic pillars, by the growth of the disinformation industry and by the advancement of a far-right, extremist agenda that is clashing with human rights and freedoms. And thirdly, during the last decades, reports produced by several different organizations, the World Bank, the Internet Society, UNCTAD, The World Economic Forum have shown that we are facing a concentration of wealth in the context of the digital economy. The sharing of benefits that was promised to us some years ago did not come to be, and we see that countries both in the global north and in the global south are in the position of becoming de facto digital colonies today, and that is very concerning. And because we face this conflation of different factors, it’s important that we frame our projects of digital sovereignty very carefully, and that we ground them very well in a few practical considerations. I think the first of them relates to what we mean by digital sovereignty. As we saw, there are different ways of defining it, different ways of answering the question whose sovereignty are we seeking to promote. But instead of trying to present one common definition, which is still a topic of vivid academic debate, perhaps it’s more important to define which goals our project of digital sovereignty should promote. A project of digital sovereignty that does not contribute to the autonomy and empowerment of individuals, or that does not contribute to the sustainability of our planet, is not a project of digital sovereignty that fulfills our needs today and the needs of the future generations either. Secondly, the decision-making and governance of policies that are now being adopted under the banner of digital sovereignty must be socially anchored and socially driven. And this means actively creating and promoting governance mechanisms to ensure that sovereignty does not only benefit our states or some domestic champions that we choose. We should avoid replicating here in Europe models that have created inequality and stolen the autonomy of individuals here in Europe and elsewhere as well. And I think this is extremely important in a scenario in which, in both sides of the Atlantic, We are securitizing the issue of digital sovereignty. We’re framing it as a security issue. And from other policy areas, we know that when we frame an issue as a security issue, there is a decrease in democratic control over decision-making over these issues. And this is particularly concerning in a context in which we face democratic backsliding and mounting nationalism. Finally, fighting inequalities remains as urgent as ever. So, in doing this, Europe should try to strike partnerships to substitute or to complement the partnerships that are traditional but have become a bit unreliable today. So, in order to foster digital sovereignty, building partnerships is key, not only across stakeholders in Europe, but especially with the global majority. And in order to achieve that, it is important to make sure that digital sovereignty projects here align and do not forget Europe’s historical commitment to supporting development in other regions as well. Developing countries do not want to continue to contribute only as providers of raw materials or engage in labor-intensive steps of the production of technologies. They want to move up the value chain as well. And they do not want to be tooted about being like-minded as well. I think this expression has created a lot of confusion in international discussions on digital policy issues. And it doesn’t make sense in our transatlantic alliance anymore. It makes sense to be rallied around concrete projects that reverberate some values, but like-minded has created a polarization that should not exist today. The withdrawal of some countries from development cooperation creates a window of opportunity for Europe to grow, but not only to grow, but also to do good in the world, not only in terms of regulation, good regulation, but also in terms of rights, respect. and sustainability strengthening technology. And I think that this is the type of leadership that we need to see in the world today. And this is the type of partnership that we should celebrate with others. Thank you very much. Now you’ve heard from three experts from three different

Karen Mulberry: perspectives. We’ve heard that there’s technical challenges. We’ve heard that there are some economic and regulatory aspects related to digital sovereignty. We’ve also heard that there’s a delicate balance between autonomy and global interconnectivity. So now I’m going to turn over to questions. We have one over there. Yes, sir.

Audience: If I’m talking about data, we talk about big data. We have big tech companies that take shown as natural all data from all communications, all private communications in their communications systems. And no one reclaim a right of the individual to have a control about this kind of algorithm. Use the big tech concerns like to get about and with our data. I think it’s important that every private communication is not only a big data for some big tech companies, it’s also an individual thing where I have a human right to protect and to own my data. Thank you very much for those comments.

Karen Mulberry: Do we have any other questions? We have a question online, please.

Moderator: We have a question online from Vittorio Bertola. I don’t understand how we could solve the foreign independence problem Europe has with US and China by adopting products from the global south. The point is reaching at least some degree of European autonomy.

Karen Mulberry: Sofie, please. Yes, maybe I just briefly respond to that if that’s okay and if the others want to

Sofie Schönborn: take it up from there. I think for me the question would be to what end or why do we want autonomy? For what kind of products, for what kind of services, for what kind of infrastructures? Because just bland isolation or autonomy, of course, is not what we’re looking for. So to really have a look at why and what and how. And I think that also became very, very interestingly clear from the previous speaker. I think we’re discussing so many different aspects of digital governance under the umbrella of digital sovereignty right now. I’m sometimes wondering whether this is only a new buzzword or whether we’re really at an infliction point where we’re just presented with so many crises and issues and really also geopolitical shifts that we are really right now rather renegotiating and thinking about the principles and the values of our digital governance in itself, be it rights-based, but really not only about the policy formulation within Europe, at least I think we’ve done quite a lot, but then also, as my co-panellists said, also thinking about the implementation and the enforcement and the evaluation to make sure, for example, data rights are being upheld to allow for the individual to at least regain some form of control about data. So for me always the question would be, for what kind of technologies, for what kind of purposes are we actually striving for increased self-reliance or autonomy if we have to?

Karen Mulberry: Thank you very much. Are there any other points that anyone wants to make? I mean, it sounds like to me that when you look at the definition of digital sovereignty, it needs to be a little more inclusive in terms of both the physical network infrastructure, the regulatory process that goes with it, and then anything related in terms of really developing that infrastructure and who it touches and how it touches. Yes, sir.

Audience: Hello. , Minister of Science and Education, Republic of Croatia. Well, I would like to address the elephant in the room, which is generative AI models. Europe doesn’t have any except Mistral, and Mistral is not in the top 10 regarding the quality. So how can we have a digital sovereignty when we don’t have our large language models? Our large language models that should eventually protect also our cultural languages. So this is the issue with digital sovereignty. You have to produce something first in order to really have sovereignty. Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: So what you were saying is that in order to really better define digital sovereignty for the EU, for Europe, it really needs to look at how it’s going to encourage innovation, in particular, using emerging technology like AI and the variety of, you know, aspects around AI. I mean, because large language models is just one portion. I mean, the list of how they define AI continues to grow. I think I’ve seen about 100 different names underneath AI, you know, genitive AI. I mean, it just, it has different, very unique aspects as it’s developed. There is a global definition of AI, also used in AI Act, used in

Audience: the Convention of the Council of Europe. It’s a definition done by OECD, Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee. So there is one universal definition of AI.

Constantinos Balictsis: I just may comment on both of the previous questions. The gentleman in the beginning talked about the privacy issues in regards to autonomy, saying that, more or less, Fran said correctly that we are not secure in our communications or our data are being used. So my question is, would that imply that all the arsenal that we have enacted in the, from the platform side, the DSA and the DMA, and from the security and resilience side, like the Digital Government Act, Digital Resilience Act, all these do not, the GDPR, of course, they are not up to the task of safeguarding the interests and the security of the European citizen. Because if this is the case, then indeed we have a problem. There are issues regarding security and resilience. As far as the cloud is concerned, I’m not an expert on that, but I know that most of our European data, they are being stored overseas, especially in the US. And the numbers that I have read yesterday actually are just staggering. They are more or less comparable to the bills that we pay for importing energy in Europe. That means that something is not right here in Europe, because we don’t have a very vibrant European-based cloud. community that can support the demand that already exists in Europe. Now, I’m sure that there are innovators and there are big companies that can make that task, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least nowadays. And there is a need for that to change. And I think the Eurostark is is aiming at such a target. Now, in regards to AI, in Europe, we regulate, we have the AI Act. Unfortunately, we do not have the open AIs in Europe. Why? I don’t have an answer either. But at the same time, we don’t have the Googles, we don’t have the Metas, we don’t have the Apples, we don’t have lots of other companies. And we missed a lot. So this is another question that needs to be answered collectively in Europe. However, we should not get away from the efforts that are being done collectively in Brussels, in Europe, and by the 27 member states themselves. They are talking now very loudly about spurring scale ups and startups, because they may be potentially, how quickly, I don’t know, you can dictate innovation, you can nurture and foster innovation, you cannot dictate it. You have to somehow create the fertile environment for them to grow. Because it seems that there is a basic demand side, we are 450 million customers here, at the high level of standard of living, we have demand, we have excellent higher education, we have research centers, lots of funding, there’s nothing missing. But at the end result, one has to see, okay, where are the companies that create the next wave of innovation that creates employment, that creates sustainable growth, that creates the next industries, and it can solve all kinds of problems regarding security, resilience, climate change. I mean, you can use technology, now there are no borders between technology, you can use AI, not for LLM. but you can use it in biotech, you can use it in pharmaceutical industry, of course in the defense industry, you can use it all over the world. Okay, so the question is, how come and we don’t end up having a vibrant economy and entrepreneurship and you know we have innovation but we don’t have the entrepreneurship that can create these big companies that can facilitate economic growth in Europe. That is something that I can also personally not answer.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, please.

Audience: Yes, good morning. I could not support more the comment made by the gentleman of Croatia. I’m Anton Barberi and I work for the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie based in Geneva and I say hello to Marilia. When we look at the debate on sovereignty, it’s true that we overlook the cultural and linguistic aspect of it. We look at it from an infrastructure point of view, from a regulatory point of view and we completely forget the cultural and linguistic dimension. If Europe wants to protect its sovereignty, maybe it should start thinking about how to protect its cultural and linguistic diversity. In the Global Digital Compact, the Francophonie has made some joint lobbying activities with a group of Spanish-speaking countries and a group of Portuguese-speaking countries in order to convince delegates to introduce in the Global Digital Compact some mention of cultural and linguistic diversity and how to protect it, especially in the context of AI generative models. So I take advantage… First of all, by Vittorio, I think that perhaps you missed my point.

Marilia Maciel: My idea is not to substitute providers that Europe has today by providers in the global south. I do see the point of reinforcing sovereignty and strategic autonomy in Europe. However, I am against two things. First of all, that we accept rather uncritically the narrative of weaponization of global value chains that we have today. I was kind of shocked to see a month or so ago a piece of news in The Economist, which is kind of a very liberal magazine, just telling Europe, if Trump goes ahead and he puts in place the tariffs that he’s promising, you can retaliate and this is how you do it. And then several points were related to the digital economy in ways that I think, yes, it will hurt the US, but it will hurt Europe as well. And we should not forget all the benefits that we took from interdependence that we have built all these years with liberalization. The prices have fallen, including the prices of ICT services that we need to build our data centers today. We have agreements that have lowered these prices. We have increased partnerships. We have open markets. Perhaps we could have been doing that more smartly and building resilience and strategic autonomy in the region. But there were benefits that we should not throw away. What I mean is that when a country or a region puts in place economic statecraft, and nowadays economic statecraft is becoming technology statecraft, because countries are using technology to put in place their geopolitical goals, to achieve their geopolitical goals, we should choose our partners carefully. And this is the point in which I think we should diversify partnerships more. And there are developing countries that present themselves as good partners, reliable partners, but they also want to be… helped to move up the value chain, as I mentioned. So if we use this window of opportunity smartly, and there’s a lot of space to be occupied now in terms of development cooperation, I think that that creates an opportunity too. And why China and the US sat in Geneva a couple of days ago? Because China was strong enough not to completely crash under the pressure of the tariffs that were put in place, because it has been building partnerships in the Global South through the Belt and Road initiatives. We may have all the criticism, but they have been doing that. And Europe needs to do that smartly as well. In terms of the comment on AI, that I think connects with the idea of data sovereignty, I agree very much as well. I think that we should use our data smartly too. I saw a comment from France saying, okay, if the tariffs continue, then we will put a blocking and we will not allow French data to flow into US AI systems. I don’t think this is a very good idea, because we will have global AI that is not representative of French culture, French diversity, and that will alienate the French. So we need to be very smart when we think about these things. One thing that we could use more is procurement in Europe. Why do we continue to do procurement without giving priority to European providers? A few days before the Eurostack proposal came out, there was a procurement from the European Parliament to put in place some curation of a database of cultural materials for the Parliament, and they chose a US provider instead of a European provider. So why do we continue to do that? We need to use more smartly, I think, the skills that we have, the tools that we have in our hands.

Karen Mulberry: Thank you very much. We are getting towards the close of our workshop. I would like to turn this over to our, I forget what we should call you, the person who has been taking notes and capturing what our critical comments are, and he will present those, and hopefully we can reach consensus on the output from this discussion that we can then move forward with. Vance, Marianne Walker-Dwyor,legend of 17 and then move forward through the EuroDIG process, please. Oops, sorry. Um, I mean, one of the things that I think that we need to do is agree on some critical points to move forward to the EuroDIG discussion. It sounds like to me, you know, one of the biggest messaging coming from this workshop is how do we define an approach, digital sovereignty for Europe? What does that all entail? Is it, I mean, you know, does it support human rights? Does it support cultural aspects? Does it actually contribute to the economic benefits within Europe? I mean, those are all important aspects that need to be considered as digital sovereignty is defined and put in place. An aspect of that then becomes, how do you develop and nurture that culture? It goes to some points made for developing countries. They’re developing regions within Europe that could use assistance. So how do you create that collaborative environment around digital sovereignty to grow the principles that you are defining and putting in place for Europe? So that it’s, you know, it’s that you don’t leave anyone behind, that you actually grow together. And because of that, you will encourage other aspects to evolve, could lead to some better economic proposals and opportunities, it could lead to more infrastructure and better infrastructure within Europe to make it a little more resilient to things that happen elsewhere in the world, because you’ve collaborated, you’re innovative, and you have partners. I mean, so to me, those were the messages that I heard. I don’t know if anyone else has any other points that we could add to what are the outcomes from our discussion today. Well, I’m not hearing anything else, so I would like to thank everyone for your participation, for your comments, your suggestions, and your insights on this very interesting topic, and I look forward to further discussion and debates around this, and including opportunities within Europe that deal with digital sovereignty and partnerships and development. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you.

Agreement points

Digital sovereignty requires partnerships and international cooperation rather than isolation

Speakers

РSofie Sch̦nborn
– Marilia Maciel
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Europe should build partnerships with the global majority rather than relying on traditional but unreliable partnerships

Collaborative environments and partnerships are essential for growing digital sovereignty principles without leaving anyone behind

Summary

All three speakers agree that digital sovereignty cannot be achieved through isolation but requires strategic partnerships and international cooperation while maintaining openness to global networks and markets.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Implementation and enforcement of existing regulations is more critical than creating new policies

Speakers

РSofie Sch̦nborn
– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Focus should shift from policy formulation to consistent implementation and enforcement of existing regulations

Europe should use public procurement more strategically to prioritize European providers

Summary

Speakers agree that Europe has sufficient regulatory frameworks but needs to focus on consistent implementation, enforcement, and strategic use of existing tools rather than creating new policies.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Cultural and linguistic diversity protection is essential for meaningful digital sovereignty

Speakers

– Marilia Maciel
– Audience

Arguments

Cultural sovereignty requires representation in AI systems to avoid alienation of local populations

Digital sovereignty discussions overlook cultural and linguistic aspects, focusing mainly on infrastructure and regulation

Europe should protect its cultural and linguistic diversity, especially in the context of AI generative models

Summary

There is strong agreement that digital sovereignty must include protection of cultural and linguistic diversity, particularly in AI development, rather than focusing solely on technical and regulatory aspects.

Topics

Sociocultural | Multilingualism | Cultural diversity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that digital sovereignty policies should support broader economic and social development rather than benefiting only large corporations or state interests, with particular attention to SMEs and inclusive governance.

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Regulatory frameworks should foster SME growth by reducing administrative burden while maintaining innovation support

Decision-making for digital sovereignty policies must be socially anchored and driven to avoid benefiting only states or domestic champions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers advocate for a comprehensive, balanced approach to digital sovereignty that considers multiple dimensions and avoids extremes of either complete openness or complete isolation.

Speakers

РSofie Sch̦nborn
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Digital sovereignty requires an inclusive approach encompassing physical network infrastructure, regulatory processes, and development considerations

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both identify significant gaps in European digital competitiveness and innovation capacity, particularly in emerging technologies like AI, despite substantial investments and regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Audience

Arguments

Europe faces insufficient progress in digital transformation with significant fragmentation among member states

Europe lacks major AI models like large language models, with only Mistral not ranking in top 10 globally

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Unexpected consensus

Critique of securitization approach to digital sovereignty

Speakers

– Marilia Maciel
– Constantinos Balictsis

Arguments

Securitization of digital sovereignty issues leads to decreased democratic control over decision-making

Digital sovereignty is about building on EU strengths and reducing strategic weaknesses without excluding others or taking protectionist approach

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (development-focused vs. government), both speakers unexpectedly agree on rejecting overly securitized or protectionist approaches to digital sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of maintaining openness and democratic governance.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Importance of individual data rights within digital sovereignty frameworks

Speakers

– Audience
– Marilia Maciel
РSofie Sch̦nborn

Arguments

Individual data rights and privacy protection are essential components of digital sovereignty

Digital sovereignty should be grounded in goals that promote individual autonomy, empowerment, and planetary sustainability

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different speaker types (audience, academic, policy expert) that individual rights and autonomy should be central to digital sovereignty, rather than focusing primarily on state or corporate interests.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Privacy and data protection

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key principles: digital sovereignty requires international partnerships rather than isolation, implementation of existing policies is more important than creating new ones, cultural and linguistic diversity must be protected, and individual rights should be central to sovereignty frameworks. There was also agreement on the need for inclusive approaches that support SMEs and broader social development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and approaches, with speakers from different backgrounds (academic, government, development, audience) converging on similar viewpoints. This suggests a mature understanding of digital sovereignty that moves beyond simplistic nationalist or protectionist approaches toward more nuanced, rights-based, and internationally cooperative frameworks. The consensus has significant implications for European digital policy, suggesting broad support for balanced approaches that maintain openness while building strategic autonomy.

Different viewpoints

Approach to international partnerships and dependencies

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Most European data is stored overseas, particularly in the US, creating dependency issues

Europe should build partnerships with the global majority rather than relying on traditional but unreliable partnerships

Summary

Constantinos emphasizes the problematic nature of Europe’s current dependencies, particularly data storage overseas, suggesting a need to reduce these dependencies. Marilia advocates for diversifying partnerships with the global south rather than completely eliminating dependencies, arguing against uncritical acceptance of weaponization narratives.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Development

Prioritization of regulatory implementation versus innovation support

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Focus should shift from policy formulation to consistent implementation and enforcement of existing regulations

Decision-making for digital sovereignty policies must be socially anchored and driven to avoid benefiting only states or domestic champions

Summary

Constantinos focuses on technical implementation and enforcement of existing regulations with emphasis on reducing administrative burden for businesses. Marilia emphasizes the need for democratic participation and social anchoring in policy-making processes to ensure broader societal benefits.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Scope and definition of digital sovereignty

Speakers

РSofie Sch̦nborn
– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Digital sovereignty is about building on EU strengths and reducing strategic weaknesses without excluding others or taking protectionist approach

Digital sovereignty should be grounded in goals that promote individual autonomy, empowerment, and planetary sustainability

Summary

While all speakers agree on the importance of digital sovereignty, they emphasize different aspects: Sofie focuses on technical balance between openness and security, Constantinos emphasizes economic competitiveness and EU strengths, while Marilia prioritizes individual rights and sustainability goals.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of securitization in digital sovereignty

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Europe faces insufficient progress in digital transformation with significant fragmentation among member states

Securitization of digital sovereignty issues leads to decreased democratic control over decision-making

Explanation

While Constantinos presents digital sovereignty challenges primarily through a technical and economic lens focusing on infrastructure and competitiveness, Marilia raises concerns about the securitization of digital sovereignty reducing democratic oversight. This represents an unexpected philosophical divide about whether digital sovereignty should be approached as a technical/economic issue or as a democratic governance issue.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Treatment of cultural and linguistic dimensions

Speakers

– Audience
– Constantinos Balictsis

Arguments

Digital sovereignty discussions overlook cultural and linguistic aspects, focusing mainly on infrastructure and regulation

Europe faces insufficient progress in digital transformation with significant fragmentation among member states

Explanation

The audience member’s emphasis on cultural and linguistic sovereignty as essential components contrasts with Constantinos’s primarily technical and economic focus. This reveals an unexpected gap between policy implementation perspectives and cultural preservation concerns in digital sovereignty discussions.

Topics

Sociocultural | Multilingualism | Cultural diversity

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the scope and approach to digital sovereignty, with speakers emphasizing different priorities: technical/economic competitiveness, democratic participation and rights, or cultural preservation. There are also disagreements about international partnership strategies and the role of securitization in policy-making.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of European digital sovereignty, their different emphases could lead to conflicting policy approaches. The disagreements suggest a need for more comprehensive frameworks that integrate technical, economic, democratic, and cultural dimensions rather than prioritizing one aspect over others.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that digital sovereignty policies should support broader economic and social development rather than benefiting only large corporations or state interests, with particular attention to SMEs and inclusive governance.

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Marilia Maciel

Arguments

Regulatory frameworks should foster SME growth by reducing administrative burden while maintaining innovation support

Decision-making for digital sovereignty policies must be socially anchored and driven to avoid benefiting only states or domestic champions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers advocate for a comprehensive, balanced approach to digital sovereignty that considers multiple dimensions and avoids extremes of either complete openness or complete isolation.

Speakers

РSofie Sch̦nborn
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Digital sovereignty requires balancing openness with security and resilience without disconnecting from international networks

Digital sovereignty requires an inclusive approach encompassing physical network infrastructure, regulatory processes, and development considerations

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both identify significant gaps in European digital competitiveness and innovation capacity, particularly in emerging technologies like AI, despite substantial investments and regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Constantinos Balictsis
– Audience

Arguments

Europe faces insufficient progress in digital transformation with significant fragmentation among member states

Europe lacks major AI models like large language models, with only Mistral not ranking in top 10 globally

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Key takeaways

Digital sovereignty lacks a universal definition and must be conceptualized based on specific goals that promote individual autonomy, empowerment, and sustainability rather than just state control

Europe faces significant digital infrastructure and competitiveness challenges, with 80% of needed technologies designed outside Europe and insufficient progress in digital transformation across member states

Cultural and linguistic dimensions of digital sovereignty are often overlooked in favor of infrastructure and regulatory perspectives, but protecting cultural diversity is essential for true sovereignty

Decision-making for digital sovereignty policies must be socially anchored and democratically driven to avoid benefiting only states or select domestic champions

International partnerships, particularly with the Global South, are crucial for achieving digital sovereignty without falling into isolation or protectionism

Implementation and enforcement of existing regulations should be prioritized over creating new policies, with focus on reducing administrative burden while fostering innovation

Individual data rights and privacy protection are fundamental components of digital sovereignty that require stronger enforcement

Resolutions and action items

Define a European approach to digital sovereignty that encompasses human rights, cultural aspects, and economic benefits

Develop collaborative environments around digital sovereignty to ensure inclusive growth and avoid leaving regions behind

Use public procurement more strategically to prioritize European providers and strengthen domestic capabilities

Focus on consistent implementation and enforcement of existing digital regulations rather than creating new ones

Build partnerships with developing countries to diversify dependencies while supporting their movement up the value chain

Unresolved issues

How to encourage innovation in emerging technologies like AI and large language models within Europe when the region lacks major players in these fields

How to balance the need for strategic autonomy with the benefits of global interdependence and open markets

How to address the fundamental question of why Europe, despite having demand, education, research centers, and funding, fails to produce major tech companies that drive innovation

How to effectively protect individual data rights and privacy while maintaining competitiveness in the global digital economy

How to prevent the securitization of digital sovereignty from undermining democratic control over decision-making processes

How to address the massive outflow of European data stored overseas, particularly in the US, which creates dependency comparable to energy import costs

Suggested compromises

Strike a balance between territorial sovereignty models and the realities of digital governance that transcend borders through multi-stakeholder approaches

Pursue strategic autonomy in critical areas while maintaining openness to international collaboration and avoiding protectionism

Diversify partnerships beyond traditional allies to include Global South countries while maintaining existing beneficial relationships

Use economic statecraft and technology statecraft selectively and smartly rather than adopting blanket retaliatory measures

Combine rights-based approaches with security considerations to create a framework that protects both individual freedoms and collective resilience

We may be facing a paradox, even if it’s not a paradox, of really seeking increased or less dependence, creating strong, innovative rights-based ecosystems without disconnecting from international networks. And for that, of course, partnerships will be key and essential to not go into isolation and harm economies, societies, and probably also our political systems, but really also to stay competitive.

Speaker

Sofie Schönborn

Reason

This comment crystallized the central tension in digital sovereignty discussions – the need to balance autonomy with interconnectedness. It moved beyond simple definitions to identify the core strategic challenge facing Europe.

Impact

This framed the entire subsequent discussion around finding balance rather than choosing sides. It established partnerships as a key theme that other speakers built upon, particularly Marilia’s emphasis on Global South partnerships and Konstantinos’s focus on collaboration.

The political project of liberalism is being overridden by a neo-mercantilist political agenda, which puts the interests of the state above the interests of economic actors. Nevertheless, in the present context, the state is not necessarily being strengthened to promote a rights-based approach, to cater to social needs or to protect the weaker… The precedence that is given to the state today in discussions about digital sovereignty is mostly seen as a necessary condition to hedge against external threats.

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Reason

This comment provided a critical political economy analysis that challenged the assumption that state-centered digital sovereignty automatically serves citizens’ interests. It introduced the crucial distinction between sovereignty for security versus sovereignty for rights and development.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from technical and regulatory aspects to fundamental questions about whose interests digital sovereignty serves. It prompted deeper consideration of democratic governance and inequality issues, influencing the later discussion about cultural sovereignty and individual data rights.

How can we have a digital sovereignty when we don’t have our large language models? Our large language models that should eventually protect also our cultural languages. So this is the issue with digital sovereignty. You have to produce something first in order to really have sovereignty.

Speaker

Audience member (Minister from Croatia)

Reason

This comment cut through abstract discussions to highlight a concrete gap in European digital capabilities. It connected technological capacity directly to cultural preservation, adding a new dimension to sovereignty discussions.

Impact

This comment served as a reality check that energized the discussion. It prompted Konstantinos to acknowledge Europe’s innovation deficit and led to the cultural/linguistic sovereignty discussion. It shifted focus from regulatory frameworks to actual technological capabilities and cultural preservation.

Only 8% of GDP is related to intra-EU trade in services versus 25% of trade in goods. 80% of the technologies and services needed for Europe’s digital transformation are designed and manufactured in third countries and EU platforms barely capture 5% of the global market value and only the presence of EU firms among the world’s leading ICT companies is minimal, 3 out of 50.

Speaker

Konstantinos Balictsis

Reason

These stark statistics provided concrete evidence of Europe’s digital dependency, moving the discussion from aspirational policy goals to hard economic realities. The numbers were shocking and undeniable.

Impact

These statistics grounded the entire discussion in reality and provided empirical support for concerns about digital sovereignty. They influenced subsequent comments about the need for European innovation and the practical challenges of achieving autonomy.

When we look at the debate on sovereignty, it’s true that we overlook the cultural and linguistic aspect of it. We look at it from an infrastructure point of view, from a regulatory point of view and we completely forget the cultural and linguistic dimension. If Europe wants to protect its sovereignty, maybe it should start thinking about how to protect its cultural and linguistic diversity.

Speaker

Anton Barberi (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie)

Reason

This comment expanded the sovereignty discussion beyond technical and economic dimensions to include cultural preservation, highlighting an often-overlooked aspect of digital dependency.

Impact

This broadened the scope of the discussion and connected with earlier points about AI and language models. It reinforced the argument that digital sovereignty isn’t just about infrastructure but about preserving cultural identity and diversity in the digital age.

I was kind of shocked to see a month or so ago a piece of news in The Economist… telling Europe, if Trump goes ahead and he puts in place the tariffs that he’s promising, you can retaliate and this is how you do it… We should not forget all the benefits that we took from interdependence that we have built all these years with liberalization.

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Reason

This comment challenged the growing trend toward economic nationalism by reminding participants of the benefits of interdependence, providing a counterbalance to protectionist impulses in sovereignty discussions.

Impact

This comment brought nuance to the discussion by questioning whether retaliatory measures would ultimately benefit Europe. It reinforced her earlier point about smart partnership strategies and influenced the final synthesis about collaborative approaches to sovereignty.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a multidimensional exploration of digital sovereignty’s complexities. Sofie’s framing of the sovereignty paradox established the central tension, while Marilia’s political economy critique challenged assumptions about state-centered approaches. The Croatian minister’s pointed question about AI capabilities served as a crucial reality check, supported by Konstantinos’s stark statistics about European digital dependency. The cultural sovereignty perspective added another essential dimension often missing from such discussions. Together, these comments created a rich, nuanced conversation that moved beyond simple definitions to grapple with fundamental questions about power, culture, economics, and democratic governance in the digital age. The discussion evolved from abstract concepts to concrete challenges, ultimately converging on the need for collaborative, rights-based approaches to digital sovereignty that balance autonomy with beneficial interdependence.

How can Europe develop its own large language models and AI capabilities to achieve digital sovereignty when it currently lacks competitive generative AI models?

Speaker

Audience member from Ministry of Science and Education, Republic of Croatia

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap in European digital sovereignty – the lack of competitive AI models that could protect cultural languages and provide technological independence from US and Chinese AI systems.

Are current European regulations (DSA, DMA, GDPR, Digital Government Act) sufficient to protect citizen privacy and data autonomy, or do we need additional measures?

Speaker

Constantinos Balictsis (in response to audience privacy concerns)

Explanation

This questions the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks in actually protecting individual rights and data sovereignty in practice.

Why doesn’t Europe have major tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple despite having demand, education, research centers, and funding?

Speaker

Constantinos Balictsis

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental question about European innovation ecosystem and what structural barriers prevent the creation of major tech companies.

How can Europe better protect its cultural and linguistic diversity in the context of digital sovereignty, particularly with AI generative models?

Speaker

Anton Barberi from Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie

Explanation

This highlights an overlooked dimension of digital sovereignty that goes beyond infrastructure and regulation to include cultural preservation.

How can Europe use public procurement more strategically to support European digital sovereignty goals?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

This addresses the contradiction between sovereignty goals and continued reliance on non-European providers in government procurement decisions.

How can Europe balance the benefits of global interdependence with the need for strategic autonomy without falling into protectionism?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

This explores the tension between maintaining open markets and building resilience against economic weaponization of technology.

What specific governance mechanisms are needed to ensure digital sovereignty benefits individuals and society, not just states or domestic champions?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

This addresses the risk that digital sovereignty initiatives could concentrate power without democratic oversight or social benefit.

How can Europe create more effective partnerships with the Global South for digital development while building its own sovereignty?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

This explores how Europe can diversify partnerships and support development cooperation as part of its sovereignty strategy.