Likeminded and authoritarian states compete to influence the so-called ‘middle ground’ states in global cyber diplomacy. The outcome of this competition will shape the laws, norms and principles that underpin cyberspace. But who are the ‘middle ground’ states and what do they actually want?
In this series of papers for Carnegie’s Technology and International Affairs programme, Russell Buchan and Joe Devanny explore the development of cyber strategy in states commonly seen as being in the pivotal ‘middle ground’ of global cyber diplomacy. There is already an active competition to influence the positions taken by these states, but this series takes a step back and explores how cyber strategy is made in each of these states. It introduces the key actors, major milestones and most significant challenges facing middle ground states in cyber diplomacy.
Debates in cyber diplomacy are often described as a competition between two camps: a group of ‘like-minded’ states – which are bound together by a mutual respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – comprising the United States and other liberal democracies; and a group of authoritarian states, most notably including China and Russia. These two camps have different visions for the future of Internet governance, digital freedoms, and the development of norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
Most states do not fit into one of these two camps. They have been described as inhabiting a diplomatic ‘middle ground’ in which both camps seek to increase their influence and shape the future of cyber norms and digital governance. But the ‘middle ground’ label obscures the agency and diversity of the states to which it is applied. If these states are to be properly understood – a necessary condition for effectively influencing them – they need to be assessed individually and on their own merits.
Some states in this group – such as Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and India – are perceived as being more influential than others. They have therefore become the targets of focused lobbying. Beginning with Brazil and South Africa, this series explores the domestic debates that have shaped national cyber strategies in these countries, the wider foreign policy context of their cyber diplomacy, and each state’s views about the applicability of international law to cyberspace.
The series – based in part on the authors’ research as British Academy Innovation Fellows – draws out the relevant policy implications for the United States and other like-minded states, identifying both the limits of their influence in middle ground states and the most favorable areas for diplomatic engagement and cyber capacity building. It emphasizes that although states can be grouped together – as the ‘middle ground’ or as members of BRICS or the Global South – they need to be understood as autonomous actors in their own right, facing a different set of challenges and opportunities in cyber diplomacy.
In this series of papers for Carnegie’s Technology and International Affairs programme, Russell Buchan and Joe Devanny explore the development of cyber strategy in states commonly seen as being in the pivotal ‘middle ground’ of global cyber diplomacy. There is already an active competition to influence the positions taken by these states, but this series takes a step back and explores how cyber strategy is made in each of these states. It introduces the key actors, major milestones and most significant challenges facing middle ground states in cyber diplomacy.
Debates in cyber diplomacy are often described as a competition between two camps: a group of ‘like-minded’ states – which are bound together by a mutual respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – comprising the United States and other liberal democracies; and a group of authoritarian states, most notably including China and Russia. These two camps have different visions for the future of Internet governance, digital freedoms, and the development of norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
Most states do not fit into one of these two camps. They have been described as inhabiting a diplomatic ‘middle ground’ in which both camps seek to increase their influence and shape the future of cyber norms and digital governance. But the ‘middle ground’ label obscures the agency and diversity of the states to which it is applied. If these states are to be properly understood – a necessary condition for effectively influencing them – they need to be assessed individually and on their own merits.
Some states in this group – such as Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and India – are perceived as being more influential than others. They have therefore become the targets of focused lobbying. Beginning with Brazil and South Africa, this series explores the domestic debates that have shaped national cyber strategies in these countries, the wider foreign policy context of their cyber diplomacy, and each state’s views about the applicability of international law to cyberspace.
The series – based in part on the authors’ research as British Academy Innovation Fellows – draws out the relevant policy implications for the United States and other like-minded states, identifying both the limits of their influence in middle ground states and the most favorable areas for diplomatic engagement and cyber capacity building. It emphasizes that although states can be grouped together – as the ‘middle ground’ or as members of BRICS or the Global South – they need to be understood as autonomous actors in their own right, facing a different set of challenges and opportunities in cyber diplomacy.
