European leaders seek 'digital sovereignty' over tech infrastructure
1 of 3 | Jensen Huang, founder and chief executive officer of NVIDIA, unveils the latest RTX 5070 laptop processors on stage during the 2025 International CES at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas on January 6. File Photo by James Atoa/UPI | License Photo
June 21 (UPI) -- Leaders of many European nations say they need to do more to develop technological infrastructure to ensure digital sovereignty instead of relying on services from global tech firms.
A recent forum discussion on the market dominance of global corporations assessed the "blurring of the boundaries between economic and political control" among European nations by tech firms.
A consensus of attendees at the ongoing Berlin Summit 2025 agreed European nations need to coordinate their efforts to develop infrastructures to "avoid path dependencies and long-term dependence on global platform players," Forum New Economy reported on Friday.
"European countries are highly dependent on companies from the USA and China in a variety of technological infrastructures, from cloud services and social media to generative artificial intelligence," Forum New Economy reported.
Such companies dominate European markets and are increasing their control of digital infrastructures, innovation networks, supply chains, data flows and research agendas.
An example is Microsoft earlier this year suspending the business email account for International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan.
The action occurred within months of the ICC issuing a warrant for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although the tech firm suspended Khan's ICC email account, Microsoft officials said it still is providing services for the ICC.
The company also announced their intent to support the digital sovereignty of European nations.
"We've operated in Europe for more than 40 years, and we have been and always will be a steadfast partner to Europe," Microsoft Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella said in a social media post on Friday.
Microsoft is supporting European sovereignty and that of its respective nations with several existing and new tech offerings, Nadella said.
The services include Microsoft Sovereign Cloud, Data Guardian, External Key Management and Sovereign Private Cloud.
The existing and new offerings "bring digital sovereignty to all European organizations" and"unlock new sovereign ways to run private sovereign clouds," Nadella said.
"These new offerings build on decades of pioneering work in sovereign cloud solutions by ourselves and to our partners," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Carney travelling to Europe for security, defence talks with EU, NATO
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Mark Carney will depart for Europe on Sunday for back-to-back summits where he is expected to make major commitments for Canada on security and defence. Carney will be joined by Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, Defence Minister David McGuinty and secretary of state for defence procurement Stephen Fuhr at the EU and NATO summits, where military procurement and diversifying supply chains will top the agendas. The international meetings come as Canada looks to reduce its defence procurement reliance on the United States due to strained relations over tariffs and President Donald Trump's repeated talk about Canada becoming a U.S. state. Carney will fly first to Brussels, Belgium, starting the trip with a visit to the Antwerp Schoonselhof Military Cemetery where 348 Canadian soldiers are buried. He will also meet with Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. At the EU-Canada summit, Anand and McGuinty are expected to sign a security and defence agreement with the EU in what one European official described Friday as one of the most ambitious deals Europe has ever signed with a third country. The agreement will open the door to Canada's participation in the ReArm Europe initiative, allowing Canada to access a 150-billion-euro loan program for defence procurement, called Security Action for Europe. An EU official briefing reporters on Friday said once the procurement deal is in place, Canada will have to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the European Commission to begin discussions with member states about procurement opportunities. A Canadian official briefing reporters on the summit Saturday said the initial agreement will allow for Canada's participation in some joint procurement projects. However, a second agreement will be needed to allow Canadian companies to bid. At the EU-Canada summit, leaders are also expected to issue a joint statement to underscore a willingness for continued pressure on Russia, including through further sanctions, and call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. After Brussels, Carney heads to The Hague in the Netherlands for the NATO leaders' summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. There, Carney will meet with the King of the Netherlands and later with leaders of Nordic nations to discuss Arctic and transatlantic security. At the NATO summit, Carney will take part in bilateral meetings with other leaders. The summit agenda includes a social dinner hosted by the king and queen of the Netherlands and a two-and-a-half hour meeting of the North Atlantic Council. NATO allies are expected to debate a plan to hike alliance members' defence spending target to five per cent of national GDP. NATO data shows that in 2024, none of its 32 members spent that much. The Canadian government official who briefed reporters on background says the spending target and its timeline are still up for discussion, though some allies have indicated they would prefer a seven-year timeline while others favour a decade. Canada hasn't hit a five- per- cent defence spending threshhold since the 1950s and hasn't reached the two per cent mark since the late 1980s. NATO says that, based on its estimate of which expenditures count toward the target, Canada spent $41 billion in 2024 on defence, or 1.37 per cent of GDP. That's more than twice what it spent in 2014, when the two per cent target was first set; that year, Canada spent $20.1 billion, or 1.01 per cent of GDP, on defence. In 2014, only three NATO members achieved the two per cent target — the U.S., the U.K., and Greece. In 2025, all members are expected to hit it. Any agreement to adopt a new spending benchmark must be ratified by all 32 NATO member states. Former Canadian ambassador to NATO Kerry Buck told The Canadian Press the condensed agenda is likely meant to 'avoid public rifts among allies,' describing Trump as an 'uncertainty engine.' 'The national security environment has really, really shifted,' Buck said, adding allies next door to Russia face the greatest threats. 'There is a high risk that the U.S. would undercut NATO at a time where all allies are increasingly vulnerable.' Trump has suggested the U.S. might abandon its mutual defence commitment to the alliance if member countries don't ramp up defence spending. 'Whatever we can do to get through this NATO summit with few public rifts between the U.S. and other allies on anything, and satisfy a very long-standing U.S. demand to rebalance defence spending, that will be good for Canada because NATO's good for Canada,' Buck said. Carney has already made two trips to Europe this year — the first to London and Paris to meet with European allies and the second to Rome to attend the inaugural mass of Pope Leo XIV. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 22, 2025.
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran
Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Steven Katz: Israel's war against Iran is just
Israel is waging an existential fight for its survival as a Jewish state. And it is winning and fighting well. Now, it's apparent to most reasonable observers that Israel and Iran have been in a state of heightened hostilities since the Iranian-enabled Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In fact, prior to Israel's escalation early June 13, Iranian-armed, -funded and -directed proxy groups such as Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon have indiscriminately launched thousands of rockets at Israel's population centers — killing and injuring scores of civilian men, women and children. In addition, the Iranian regime directly launched hundreds of ballistic missiles toward Israel in April and October. Even the Iranian leaders have acknowledged that they are at war with Israel and seek its destruction. One must apply the appropriate just war standard 'jus in bello' to determine whether Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists, ballistic missile sites and military leadership is just. Since June 13, many experts have been debating whether the Israeli strikes were 'preemptive,' which is a normative exception allowing for military action prior to an imminent threat from materializing. In 1967, Israel had intelligence that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, and Israel preemptively destroyed 90% of Egypt's air force prior to the Six-Day War. Conversely, 'preventative' military action is forbidden as it allows for states to attack other states over remote concerns or potential future threats that could be years or decades away. However, what both standards have in common is that they are used when two countries are not in a state of hostilities. For this reason, these standards are inappropriate to gauge the justness of Israel's actions against Iran. What the world witnessed on June 13 was a continuation of ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran and its proxies. Whether Iran could assemble a nuclear bomb in weeks or months informed the urgency of the Israeli military strikes but has no bearing on whether the current flare-up is just or unjust. Therefore, the right questions we should ask to determine whether Israel's Operation Rising Lion is just is whether the Israeli military is striking targets that are necessary to achieve its military objectives — to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program; whether the strikes are proportional; whether Israel is targeting people and infrastructure that are not lawful, such as schools, homes and mosques that are not being used for a military purpose; and lastly whether Israel is taking measures to mitigate unintended harm to civilians. All credible reporting demonstrates that Israel is going after only military targets that directly support the Iranian nuclear program and enable the regime's ability to attack Israel. To date, Israel has eliminated six top Iranian generals and nine nuclear scientists, targeted and destroyed a third of Iran's missile launchers, and attacked and degraded critical uranium enrichment facilities such as the ones at Natanz and Isfahan. According to Iranian authorities, at least 224 Iranians have been killed, but like the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, this figure and its breakdown of civilians and combatants should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. Like Hamas, we should expect this figure to be both inflated and obfuscate combatant and civilian deaths. However, even if we accepted that most of the 224 Iranians killed were civilians, then it is still a comparatively low number given the hundreds of targets the Israeli military has engaged since June 13. For context, the U.S. military authorized up to 10 civilians killed per strike against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq. In addition to the Israeli military demonstrating distinction between military targets and civilians, the military is also taking active measures to protect Iranian civilians from strikes — saying on June 16 on X, 'In the coming hours, the IDF will operate in the area, as it has done in recent days around Tehran, to attack military structures belonging to the Iranian regime.' The account went on to say that 'citizens of Iran, for your safety and security, please evacuate the area.' Now, let's turn to the Iranian regime's grotesque conduct since June 13. Iran has indiscriminately launched approximately 400 ballistic missiles at Israel, zeroing in on population centers in Tel Aviv and Haifa. So far, all the Israelis killed have been civilians, and numerous residential apartment buildings have collapsed or have been declared uninhabitable. It should be no surprise that Iran's conduct and despicable tactics are no different from the terror groups it supports such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. To give Iran some credit, the Iranian military did tell Israelis to vacate the entire country, but this was obviously a threat and not to spare lives during future salvos: 'Warnings for you in the coming days: Leave the occupied territories, because, certainly, they won't be inhabitable in the future!' The Iranian regime would use any means to vacate the Jews from the land of Israel. They have made this point clear in the means and methods of their ballistic missile response. Iran is the aggressor and continues to contravene the laws of war. There is no doubt they would use nuclear weapons against the people of Israel if they had them. For this reason, Israel must stay the course to achieve a lasting, secure and just peace.
