The Global Implications of Network Dependency: A Call for Digital Sovereignty

Beyond Borders: The Universal Risk of Digital Dependence

The global implications of network dependency are far-reaching and extend well beyond the borders of Myanmar. Nations that rely heavily on foreign-owned digital infrastructure, such as undersea cables and cloud services, are increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical maneuvering. What was once seen as a purely economic or social tool—connectivity—has now become a battleground for global power plays. Governments worldwide are waking up to the realization that their digital infrastructure, often controlled by external entities, can be weaponized to exert influence or even disrupt entire societies.

This vulnerability is not unique to Myanmar, where the military junta’s shutdown of the internet during the 2021 coup crippled the resistance movement. It is a risk shared by many countries, especially those in the Global South, where reliance on foreign technology and infrastructure is often a necessity due to resource constraints. The digital lifelines that connect people, enable commerce, and facilitate governance can be severed at the whim of external actors.

The Power Play: Technology as a Tool of Geopolitical Leverage

The United States has already demonstrated its willingness to use technology as a geopolitical tool. The restrictions and tariffs imposed on the semiconductor industry serve as a stark reminder of how critical technologies can be weaponized to exert control over other nations. If similar strategies are applied to satellite internet services or other digital infrastructure, the consequences could be dire. Populations that depend on these services for communication, information, and economic survival could be left in limbo, their digital lifelines severed by political decisions made thousands of miles away.

This is particularly concerning for resistance movements and marginalized communities that rely on digital tools to organize, communicate, and resist oppression. In Myanmar, the junta’s ability to shut down the internet underscored the fragility of connectivity in authoritarian contexts. For resistance groups, the lesson is clear: reliance on centralized, foreign-controlled infrastructure is a liability that can be exploited by those in power.

The Case of Myanmar: A Cautionary Tale

Myanmar’s experience serves as a stark illustration of the risks of network dependency. When the military junta seized power in 2021, one of its first moves was to shut down the internet, effectively cutting off the resistance movement from its primary means of communication and organization. This was not just a technical disruption; it was a strategic attempt to silence dissent and maintain control.

The junta’s actions had far-reaching consequences. Without access to the internet, activists struggled to coordinate their efforts, share information, and mobilize support. The global community watched as Myanmar’s resistance movement was forced to operate in the dark, their ability to resist severely hampered by their dependence on a centralized, vulnerable infrastructure. This is a cautionary tale for any country or movement that relies too heavily on foreign-owned or centralized digital systems.

Decentralized Solutions: Rethinking Digital Infrastructure

To mitigate these risks, countries and resistance movements must rethink their approach to digital infrastructure. Diversification is key—redundant systems, alternative technologies, and decentralized networks can help reduce reliance on any single point of failure. For resistance groups, this requires a deeper understanding of communicative modalities and a willingness to think creatively.

One promising solution is the use of localized mesh networks, which allow devices to communicate directly without relying on centralized internet providers. These networks operate independently of traditional infrastructure, enabling communication even in the absence of cellular signals or internet access. Projects like The Serval Project and the Open Mesh Project have already demonstrated the potential of such technologies. Launched after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, The Serval Project created a disaster-proof wireless network that enabled cellular-like communications in the aftermath of the disaster. Similarly, the Open Mesh Project seeks to provide open and free communications to citizens facing digital repression.

The Responsibility of the International Community

The international community also has a critical role to play in addressing the global implications of network dependency. Allowing a small number of private actors to control critical digital infrastructure in conflict zones sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, this concentration of power could undermine internet freedom and digital sovereignty worldwide.

Governments, international organizations, and tech companies must work together to promote decentralized technologies and support countries in building resilient digital ecosystems. This includes investing in alternative infrastructure, fostering open-source innovation, and advocating for policies that prioritize digital sovereignty. The stakes are high—failure to act could leave millions vulnerable to digital repression, economic disruption, and political manipulation.

The Future of Connectivity: Power, Sovereignty, and Freedom

Connectivity is power, and when that power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it becomes a liability for many. As Myanmar’s resistance groups and citizens navigate their digital futures, they must recognize the perils of placing their communication lifelines in foreign hands. In an era where politics can dictate who stays connected and who is left in the dark, the need for sovereignty over digital infrastructure has never been more urgent.

The path forward is clear: diversification, decentralization, and a commitment to digital sovereignty. Resistance movements must adopt alternative technologies and think creatively about how they communicate and organize. Governments must invest in resilient infrastructure and advocate for policies that protect their citizens from digital repression. And the international community must recognize the stakes of allowing private actors to control critical infrastructure in conflict zones.

Ultimately, the fight for digital sovereignty is not just about technology—it is about ensuring that the tools of communication and governance remain in the hands of the people, not a select few. As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of network dependency, the lessons from Myanmar serve as a powerful reminder of what is at stake. The future of connectivity must be built on the principles of freedom, resilience, and collective empowerment.