View previous stories
	Control the platforms on which modern economies run, and you control the economies themselves by Rafal Rohozinski SecDev Flashnotes Canada   Nov. 2025   The headlines focused on what they always focus on: the rhetoric about immigrants, the dismissiveness toward European allies, the muscular nationalism that plays well in certain domestic constituencies. But while pundits dissected the predictable provocations of the Trump Administration’s new National Security Strategy, the document’s most consequential passages slipped past largely unnoticed. The real revolution is buried in the fine print. It concerns not borders or battalions, but bytes and bandwidth.   What the NSS articulates, with remarkable candour for a strategic document, is a fundamental reimagining of the global order. Not the reimagining that critics expected, a retreat from international engagement, but something far more ambitious: the explicit subordination of allied sovereignty to American digital dominance.   The document announces what might be called a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, positioning the Western Hemisphere as a zone of exclusive American economic and strategic influence. The United States will, it declares, “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”   Read that carefully. “Strategically vital assets” in 2025 no longer means military bases or shipping lanes. It means cloud infrastructure, AI platforms, and the digital arteries through which modern economies flow. The language is aimed primarily at China, but its logic applies universally, extending to any power, including European allies, that might challenge American technological preeminence in Washington’s backyard.   “The terms of our agreements, especially with those countries that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage, must be sole-source contracts for our companies.”   That sentence, buried in the strategy’s economic provisions, deserves to be read and reread. It is perhaps the most honest articulation of American strategic thinking in decades. Countries within the American sphere (and Canada sits at the very centre of that sphere) are expected not merely to cooperate with American firms but to preference them exclusively. The document pairs this expectation with an instruction to “make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region,” extending explicitly to “cyber communications networks” and technology infrastructure.   Here is where the document’s internal contradictions become not merely philosophical but practically consequential. The NSS premises its entire strategic logic on the primacy of national sovereignty. Nations, it insists, must “put their interests first and guard their sovereignty.”   This is the animating principle behind every critique of multilateral institutions, every withdrawal from international agreements, every insistence that America will no longer subordinate its interests to global consensus.   Yet the same document that celebrates sovereignty as the foundational principle of international order proceeds to systematically circumscribe the sovereignty of America’s closest allies. The Hemisphere is defined as an American zone of prerogative. Technology procurement is expected to favour American vendors.   Partnership benefits become “contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence,” language elastic enough to encompass European technology partnerships, Asian supply chains, or any collaboration that might dilute American market dominance.   This is not hypocrisy in the conventional sense. It is something more coherent and more troubling: a worldview in which sovereignty exists in concentric circles, with American sovereignty absolute and allied sovereignty conditional.   The United States reserves for itself the right to determine which external influences are “adversarial” and which partnerships are permissible. Sovereignty, in this framework, is not a universal principle but a privilege that flows downward from Washington.   For countries like Canada, the implications are stark. Between 64 and 70 percent of Canadian internet traffic already routes through American territory. All thirteen trans-Pacific fibre-optic cables land on the American west coast; none terminate in Canada. Over 61 percent of Canadian businesses store critical data on American cloud services.   The digital economy that increasingly defines Canadian prosperity runs on infrastructure neither owned nor controlled domestically. The NSS transforms this dependency from an inconvenience into a lever, a mechanism of influence more effective than any tariff.   But the Canadian case merely illustrates a global dynamic. We are entering a zero-sum world where allies and partners are transient and transactional, where relationships are measured not in shared values but in commercial advantage.   The concentration of power within the emerging global digital economy, particularly its commanding heights in AI and cloud infrastructure, means that technological dependency translates directly into political subordination. Control the platforms on which modern economies run, and you control the economies themselves.   This is, in many ways, more consequential than the NSS’s more inflammatory provisions. The disparagement of immigrants will generate outrage and resistance. European leaders will bristle at their diminished status and find ways to push back. These are visible conflicts that will play out in diplomatic exchanges and newspaper editorials.   But the quiet restructuring of digital dependency, the transformation of technological dominance into instruments of statecraft, operates below the threshold of public attention. It reshapes the architecture of power while everyone argues about the furniture.   The question this strategy forces upon America’s allies is not whether to resist American influence (that ship has largely sailed) but whether to accept a future in which sovereignty becomes a formality, a flag to be waved while decisions of consequence are made elsewhere. For countries that have built their prosperity on American-controlled digital infrastructure, the choice may already be constrained.   For those with time and foresight to act, the NSS should serve as a clarifying document: a roadmap of the future Washington envisions, and a warning about the costs of dependency in an age when data is power and platforms are territory. It is always important to read the fine print. In this case, the fine print is not merely important. It is the strategy itself. Everything else is theatre.   * Rafal Rohozinski is the CEO of the Secdev Group, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), and co-chair of the Canadian AI Sovereignty and Innovation Cluster.
	The commodification and privatisation of water by UN Special Procedure Holders   Oct. 2025   Social protection is our most effective tool for eradicating poverty - UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter.   The rolling back of protections for people living in poverty has created fertile ground for far-right movements across the world, warned the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter, in a new report presented to the United Nations General Assembly today.   “Welfare reform in the name of austerity and efficiency has alienated millions of people living in poverty and played into the hands of a far right looking to exploit discontent,” De Schutter said.   “Government restructuring of welfare systems has led to increasingly harsh conditions linked to receiving benefits and the ramping up of digital surveillance. Programmes once designed to provide basic security to all in times of need now shame and punish the very people they are meant to support.”   The report details how, rather than reducing poverty or cutting public expenditure, modern welfare systems stigmatise claimants, forcing them into unsuitable jobs under the threat of sanctions, subjecting them to algorithms that falsely flag fraud, and even penalising families by removing children when poverty is misclassified as ‘neglect’.   “These punitive welfare systems increase economic insecurity, erode trust in public institutions and leave millions feeling humiliated and abandoned by mainstream politics,” the expert said, citing a study that found that a one-point increase in income inequality corresponded almost exactly to a one-point increase in support for populist parties.   “It is in this void that far-right populists thrive, presenting themselves as champions of those left behind by the ‘elite’,” he said. “But their agenda is not to empower people in poverty – it is to further dismantle protections for their own gain. Once in power, they work to maintain the privileges of the very economic elite they denounce in their speeches, slashing food assistance, healthcare and other life-saving services, and further deepening poverty and exclusion.”   The report highlights deep cuts to social spending in countries ranging from Argentina to the United States, depriving millions of basic healthcare or income support, even as tax cuts shift wealth from the poorest households to the richest.   “These are the politics of exclusion: a deliberate decision to cut off lifelines to the poor while rewarding the richest echelons of society, often in the name of protecting public budgets from ‘outsiders’ or the so-called ‘undeserving poor’,” De Schutter said.   The Special Rapporteur called on governments to shift away from narrowly targeted benefit schemes and towards investing in universal, rights-based social protection to counter the rise of the far right. He urged governments to reframe the welfare state not as a cost to be reduced, but as part of a strategy that has been proven to deliver security and wellbeing for all.   “Social protection is our most effective tool for eradicating poverty. It is not charity, nor is it a favour granted under strict conditions; it is a human right that should be provided to all willingly and with respect,” the expert said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80138-far-right-populism-and-future-social-protection-report-special http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/10/01/far-right-populism-and-the-future-of-social-protection/ http://docs.un.org/en/A/80/138 http://thewire.in/communalism/global-rise-of-right-wing-populism-olivier-de-schutter-un-special-rapporteur   UN expert deplores continued targeting of health workers and medical facilities   A UN expert today deplored continuing attacks on health care and warned that peace is a fundamental pre-condition for human social and economic development.   “I regret that attacks on healthcare, the destruction of facilities, the killing of health and care workers and large-scale displacement in conflict affected areas continues”, said Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health. “A functioning health system, which encompasses the protection of health and care workers is vital to the enjoyment of the right to health.”   In her report to the UN General Assembly, Mofokeng focuses on health and care workers as oath takers and defenders of the right to health and explores the essentiality of the right to health for the realisation of peace, security and sustainable development.   Putting the right to health into practice is essential for a life of dignity, Mofokeng said, highlighting the key role that health and care workers play in making this right a reality.   “Health and care workers have been the target of violence, and perpetrators of these attacks are not held accountable,” the Special Rapporteur said. “The practice of medicine is not a crime.”   Mofokeng said that States must ensure people have access to basic health facilities, goods, and services, especially in areas affected by ongoing or past conflict, constant military presence, or occupation.   “Health facilities, goods and services should be in line with medical ethics, including the principle of medical impartiality in the treatment of the wounded, as mandated by international humanitarian law,” the expert said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-deplores-continued-targeting-health-workers-and-medical-facilities   Administrative measures to counter terrorism must respect human rights: UN expert   Governments must stop the rampant abuse of administrative counter-terrorism measures, including where they are weaponised to stifle civil society, human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents, a UN expert warned today.   “Administrative measures, from security detention to listing individuals and groups as “terrorist”, are proliferating globally. They profoundly affect many human rights and often have fewer due process and judicial protections than under the criminal law,” said Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.   “Without essential safeguards, they are ripe for abuse in democratic and authoritarian States alike. Their abuse also counter-productively undermines national security by fuelling grievances and alienation.”   In his report to the General Assembly this week, Saul recommended best practices to protect human rights while using administrative measures.   The report sets out general principles to guide their responsible use before focusing on four common measures: (1) restrictive orders, such as limits on movement, communication and association, (2) listing of individuals and organisations as terrorist, to seize assets or criminalise behaviour, (3) administrative security detention, and (4) compulsory preventive interventions to reform behaviour.   “Given the risks involved, such measures should be only used exceptionally and where strictly necessary to prevent terrorism and proportionate to that aim, and applied on a non-discriminatory basis,” the Special Rapporteur said.   “The grounds for issuing them must be clearly defined in law and based on an underlying definition of terrorism that meets international standards. Measures must also be time limited,” he said.   The report calls for rigorous procedural safeguards, including adequate disclosure of evidence, accessible judicial review, and prompt and effective remedies, including compensation where rights have been violated.   “Administrative measures should not normally substitute for criminal prosecution where feasible or be misused to circumvent the stronger protections of criminal trials,” Saul said.   The Special Rapporteur cautioned against imposing administrative measures based on unreliable risk assessment tools, including those powered by artificial intelligence.   The special needs of vulnerable groups must be taken into account, including persons with disabilities or mental health conditions, victims of terrorist groups and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Measures should only be exceptionally applied to children.   “Administrative security detention is particularly dangerous, since it can too easily enable arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and arbitrary deprivation of life,” the expert said. “Recent abuses of administrative detention in armed conflicts are testament to these risks.”   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/administrative-measures-counter-terrorism-must-respect-human-rights-un   Repression of climate activists undermines a just transition: UN expert   The climate crisis is a human rights crisis and those calling for their governments to mitigate its impacts must be protected as human rights defenders, a UN expert told the UN General Assembly today, urging States to end the consistent pattern of attacks against those calling for climate action.   “In their struggle to keep control of the narrative around climate action, States are repressing the voices of the exact people they should be working alongside. Journalists, women human rights defenders, indigenous and traditional peoples are at particular risk, including those in the communities feeling the brunt of climate impacts so far,” said Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.   In her report to the UN General Assembly, Lawlor urged States to take radical action on climate change to avoid a human rights catastrophe. “People all around the world have been calling for climate action for decades. As they have been ignored, and the climate crisis has spiralled, they have found new ways to organise and advocate, including through civil disobedience.”   The expert said that instead of engaging constructively, States have resorted to criminalisation, repressive laws, police violence, and surveillance.   “We are seeing a backlash in every region of the world, with the repression particularly prevalent in historically high-emitting States and places where fossil fuel infrastructure is being expanded,” she said.   The Special Rapporteur highlighted the role human rights defenders play in fighting deforestation and ensuring the transition from the fossil fuel economy does not come at the expense of human rights, particularly the rights of those already most discriminated against in our societies.   She called on States to work for a transition that respects, protects and preserves the possibility of the true realisation of human rights for a   “There will be no ‘just transition’ if the current extractive model of energy production is copied and pasted onto the shift from fossil fuels,” the expert said.   “Human rights defenders are calling for the change we need, a turn towards respect, protection and realisation of all human rights for all,” she said.   Lawlor called for the safe and meaningful participation of human rights defenders in the Conference Of Parties (COP) on climate, detailing the litany of abuses defenders have faced when trying to intervene at the conference in the past, and highlighting the particularly repressive environment in recent years.   “What we are seeing is completely unsustainable,” the Special Rapporteur said. “There must be change, and that change must have human rights and human rights defenders at its core. There is far too much to lose.”   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/repression-climate-activists-undermines-just-transition-un-expert   UN expert calls for model law on neurotechnologies to protect right to privacy.   Regulation of neurotechnologies is vital to ensure an ethical approach and protect the right to privacy in an increasingly digital age, a UN expert said today.   In a report to the UN General Assembly, Ana Brian Nougreres, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, called for the development of a model law on neurotechnologies and neurodata processing from the perspective of the right to privacy.   “Rapid development of neurotechnology poses challenges to physical and mental integrity and the safeguarding of human rights,” Brian Nougreres said. “The international community needs to develop a set of recommended guidelines for applying the existing human rights framework to the conception, design, development, testing, use and deployment of neurotechnologies.”   The report acknowledges the advances in neurotechnologies and their impact, both positive and negative, on society and identifies key fundamental pillars that are important to consider when developing a regulatory framework, taking into consideration the right to privacy and human dignity.   “A robust national legal framework that guarantees the right to privacy including the principles of informed consent, ethics in design, the precautionary principle and non-discrimination is crucial to ensure a balance between technological innovation and the protection of human rights,” the Special Rapporteur said.   To ensure the proper treatment of neurodata, which is highly sensitive personal information, the expert stressed that there is an urgent need to establish guidelines taking into consideration ethical practices and to oversee such practices, preventing any misuse that could compromise privacy or lead to discrimination.   “We need greater awareness and education on the risks associated with neurotechnologies to enable people to better understand their impact, make informed decisions about their neurodata, and demand respect for their rights in this new technological era,” Brian Nougreres said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-calls-model-law-neurotechnologies-protect-right-privacy   UN expert demands global action to democratise water governance and protect human rights. (OHCHR)   Governments must abandon market-driven models and embrace democratic, rights-based approaches that recognise water as a common good essential to life, dignity and social cohesion, a UN expert said today.   In a report to the UN General Assembly, Pedro Arrojo Agudo, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, called for a “paradigm shift” in global water governance.   “We are not facing a crisis of scarcity that can be resolved with technology alone,” said Arrojo Agudo. “We are facing a democratic crisis. Billions of people are not simply lacking water—they are impoverished and marginalised, living near rivers or polluted aquifers, while powerful interests exploit their water sources.”   The report challenges the commodification and privatisation of water, warning that financialisation strategies, such as public-private partnerships and speculative water markets, undermine human rights and environmental sustainability.   “Managing water through speculative futures markets puts human rights at risk,” Arrojo Agudo said. “Water must be governed as a common good, accessible to all but not appropriable by anyone.”   He said water governance must be rooted in the principles of equality, non-discrimination, participation, accountability, sustainability, and legality. He calls for the recognition of customary and Indigenous water tenure and for the empowerment of communities—especially women—as central actors in water management.   “Democratic governance must be participatory and non-discriminatory,” he said. “It must promote the equal participation of women and respect the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and peasants.”   The report also addresses the climate emergency, advocating for a “water transition” to complement energy transition strategies. This includes restoring aquatic ecosystems, protecting aquifers and wetlands, and implementing inclusive hydrological and urban planning to reduce vulnerability to droughts and floods.   “Aquifers are the water lungs of nature,” the expert said. “They store 30 times more water than surface flows and are vital for managing the extraordinary droughts that climate change is making increasingly frequent.”   The Special Rapporteur called for targeted public subsidies and soft financing mechanisms to ensure affordability and sustainability, especially in rural and impoverished areas.   “The scarcity of water or public funds does not justify ignoring or relegating the priority of guaranteeing human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation,” he said. “Governments must prioritise these rights in their budgets. The priority for women from the poorest families is bringing water to their homes. Governments should follow their example.”   The expert called on states, multilateral institutions, and civil society to reject the commodification of water and embrace democratic governance models that protect both people and ecosystems.   “The billions of people without guaranteed access to safe drinking water do not represent a business opportunity,” he said. “They represent a global democratic challenge.”   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-demands-global-action-democratise-water-governance-and-protect Visit the related web page
	View more stories