What I’ve seen since I returned to the State Department three and a half years ago is that the world of technology and everything that’s going on in cyberspace is becoming increasingly central to our foreign policy.
Over the past few years, a near-perfect combination has happened. Several major developments have propelled this to the forefront of our efforts and what we need to do. First, we have a new generation of foundational technologies that are literally changing the world at the same time: AI, quantum, microelectronics, biotechnology, and communications. These are having huge impacts and are increasingly converging and influencing each other.
Second, we know that the boundaries between the digital and physical worlds are disappearing. Cars, ports, hospitals have effectively become giant data centers. These are huge vulnerabilities. At the same time, we also have more scarce materials that are essential to technology and vulnerable supply chains. In each of these areas, the Department is taking action.
We need to look at everything in terms of the “stack”: the hardware, the software, the people, and the norms, rules and standards by which this technology is used.
Besides creating a new Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, the Bureau really is the foundation of our department. We’ve trained over 200 cybersecurity and digital officers. They are true experts. Every embassy around the world will have at least one person who is truly well-versed in technology and digital policy. My goal is to ensure a foundational literacy — ideally fluency — across the department, and ultimately proficiency. All of this, as I said, to ensure that this department is fit for purpose across the information and digital space.
Your time here at Foggy Bottom coincided with the collapse of the global internet dream. We’re starting to see that dream fragment into separate spheres: the European regulatory web and the authoritarian regimes that are using the internet as a surveillance tool. And of course, we’re seeing this in U.S. policy toward Huawei and TikTok.
Ideally, that split wouldn’t happen, and that’s certainly desirable. We’ve actually done a lot of things to move in a different direction, to create broad consensus on how we use technology. Let’s take an example with AI. The White House has done a great job of developing ground rules with the foundational companies. They did a voluntary effort, and the State Department has worked to internationalize it. We developed a G7 Code of Conduct, the major democratic economies of the world, all agreeing to ground rules that are focused on safety.
We were able to pass the first-ever resolution on artificial intelligence at the United Nations General Assembly. 192 countries have also signed onto the Core Principles on Security and a focus on using AI to advance Sustainable Development Goals like health, education and climate. And more than 50 countries have signed onto the Core Principles on Responsible Military Use of AI.
The goal here is not to create a divided world in any way. It’s to bring everybody together. That being said, as you say, of course there are areas where we are in intense competition with other countries. If we can’t come together on rules that enhance the good and minimize the bad, then we have to make sure that we defend our own values and interests.
For example, when it comes to cutting-edge technology, say, cutting-edge chips, we want to make sure that a country like China can’t get hold of that and put it directly into their military programs. They’re currently engaged in a major expansion of their nuclear program, which is very opaque. It’s not in our interest for them to have cutting-edge technology.
