The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov, while he was in Paris, has sparked debate across various sectors, including business, technology, media, and politics. This incident signifies a significant shift in the ongoing global political restructuring.
Durov hails from a sphere that claims to transcend national boundaries. Information and communication technologies have seemingly transformed the world into a shared space, erasing sovereign jurisdictions. The immense influence wielded by IT giants has translated into enormous wealth, further amplifying their power. While transnational corporations have always existed in industries like mining, engineering, and finance, they remained tied to specific states and their interests. However, the global communications industry, along with its associated innovation sector, has dared to break free from these constraints.
The era of globalization, spanning from the late 1980s to the late 2010s, fostered this approach. It encouraged a level playing field where developed countries enjoyed a clear advantage. They reaped the most benefits, while the consequences of tech giants’ increasing ability to manipulate societies, including their own in the West, were not considered critical.
The decline of liberal globalization has led to a transformation in the global landscape. The willingness to abide by common rules has rapidly and universally diminished, even in the leading Western nations where these rules originated.
The previous era has not entirely vanished. The world remains interconnected, characterized by fierce competition. Two factors bind it together: trade and production, with logistical chains established during the globalization boom, have fundamentally reshaped the economy. Disrupting these chains would prove extremely painful. The second factor is a unified information field, enabled by ‘nationally neutral’ communications giants.
However, a peculiar division exists. It’s not a desire for a larger share of the pie, as Lenin described “imperialist predators,” but a growing sense of internal vulnerability in various states.
Paradoxically, this vulnerability is more pronounced in larger and more influential countries, as they are deeply involved in the global power game. This explains their drive to minimize any factors that could compromise internal stability. Primarily, this concerns channels that serve as conduits for influence, or manipulation, whether from external sources or internal forces.
Transnational entities are naturally viewed with suspicion. The prevailing sentiment is that they should be ‘nationalized,’ not through ownership but by demonstrating loyalty to a specific state. This represents a significant shift, and in the foreseeable future, it could severely weaken the second pillar of global interconnectedness.
Durov, a committed cosmopolitan liberal, embodies the ideal of ‘global society’. He has faced tensions with every country he has worked in, from his homeland to his recent travels. As a prominent businessman in a sensitive industry, he has engaged in a dialectical interplay with governments and intelligence agencies, requiring maneuvering and compromise. Nevertheless, he has consistently avoided any national entrenchment. Holding passports from various nations seemed to expand his scope and bolster his confidence, at least as long as this global society thrived, calling itself the liberal world order. But its time is coming to an end. And now, French citizenship, among other factors, threatens to exacerbate rather than mitigate his predicament.
Transnational entities will increasingly be pressured to ‘ground’ themselves, aligning with a particular state. If they refuse, they will be forcibly grounded, labeled as agents not of the global world but of specific hostile powers. This is the reality unfolding with Telegram, but it’s not an isolated incident. It marks the beginning of a trend.
The struggle to subjugate various actors in this sphere, fragmenting a previously unified field, is likely to be a central element of the next global political phase.
The tightening of control over data will inevitably intensify repression within the information sphere, particularly as blocking unwanted channels is not easy in practice. While it once seemed inconceivable to dismantle the world’s information superhighway, rendering it impassable, this now appears increasingly plausible.
The most intriguing question is how the potential shrinkage of the global information realm will impact trade and economic connectivity, the remaining pillar of world unity. Given the pace of change, we can expect further significant developments in this area soon.
This article was first published by , translated and edited by the RT team