---

The modern world depends on an infrastructure system that most people will never see. Beneath the oceans, thousands of miles of fiber-optic cables connect continents, carrying the data behind international banking, cloud computing, digital communications and global commerce.

Although satellites often dominate conversations about connectivity, submarine cables remain the foundation of international data transmission. According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), these systems carry more than 99 percent of international data flows. Their importance extends beyond technology: they have become strategic assets linked to economic security, national resilience and geopolitical influence.

The Hidden Infrastructure of the Global Economy

Undersea cables transmit information through optical fibers using pulses of light. Their high capacity and relatively low latency make them essential for moving enormous volumes of data between continents.

Everyday activities depend on this infrastructure. International financial transactions, video calls, cloud platforms, corporate networks and digital services frequently rely on connections that cross the ocean floor.

The growing importance of artificial intelligence is adding another layer of demand. AI development requires enormous computing resources and constant exchanges of information between data centers, technology companies and users across different regions.

As a result, submarine cable investment is becoming closely connected to the expansion of cloud computing and the global AI economy.

Why Governments Consider Cables a Strategic Asset

The importance of undersea cables is not limited to their economic value. Their routes, landing stations and ownership structures can have significant implications for national security.

Countries that depend on a limited number of cable connections may face serious disruptions if several systems fail simultaneously. Islands and geographically isolated economies can be particularly vulnerable because alternative international routes may be limited.

The strategic importance of these connections became especially visible in April 2026, when tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz raised concerns about the submarine cables crossing the region. These networks connect parts of Asia, the Gulf and Europe, supporting telecommunications, financial services and expanding digital infrastructure.

The situation demonstrated how maritime security and digital connectivity can overlap. A disruption in a strategically important maritime corridor could affect more than shipping and energy markets.

The Growing Risk of Disruption

Submarine cables face several physical threats. Fishing equipment, ship anchors, underwater landslides and earthquakes can damage the infrastructure. Deliberate interference and sabotage are also security concerns, although they should not be confused with the more common causes of cable faults.

The International Telecommunication Union has identified physical exposure, geographic concentration and delays in repair operations as important challenges to cable resilience.

The Internet Society has also highlighted that most cable disruptions result from natural events or human activities rather than confirmed hostile actions. This distinction matters: protecting the network requires better prevention and monitoring, not simply treating every incident as a geopolitical attack.

Repairing damaged cables can be a complicated operation. Specialized vessels, trained crews, suitable weather conditions and regulatory permissions are often required. In areas affected by conflict or diplomatic tensions, access and repair operations can become even more difficult.

Technology Companies Are Reshaping the Cable Network

The ownership of submarine cable infrastructure is also changing. Traditionally, telecommunications operators and international consortia played a central role in financing and managing these systems. Today, major technology companies are increasingly investing in their own global connectivity networks.

According to the OECD's 2026 Digital Economy and Society Outlook, large technology companies accounted for nearly 75 percent of global bandwidth demand in 2024. They also owned or co-owned more than 60 percent of new submarine cables expected to enter service between 2024 and 2027.

This shift reflects the growing importance of data centers, cloud platforms and AI services. Greater private investment can expand capacity and create new routes, but it also raises questions about market concentration, infrastructure governance and the influence of private companies over critical international networks.

International Cooperation Is Becoming Essential

Protecting submarine cables requires coordination between governments, telecommunications companies, maritime authorities and international organizations.

In February 2026, the International Telecommunication Union and the International Cable Protection Committee brought together representatives from more than 70 countries at the Submarine Cable Resilience Summit in Porto, Portugal. The discussions emphasized preparedness, faster repairs, investment and cooperation between public and private sectors.

In July 2026, the International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience approved a set of recommendations intended to strengthen the protection of this critical infrastructure.

These initiatives reflect a growing recognition that cable security cannot be managed by individual countries alone. International routes cross multiple jurisdictions, while the consequences of a disruption can extend across entire regions.

The Future of Global Connectivity Depends on Resilience

The expansion of artificial intelligence, digital finance and cloud computing will continue to increase demand for international data capacity. New submarine cables will be essential to connecting emerging markets, supporting data centers and diversifying existing routes.

However, building additional infrastructure is only part of the challenge. Governments and companies must also invest in monitoring systems, alternative connections, specialized repair capabilities and stronger international coordination.

Undersea cables may remain largely invisible to the public, but their strategic importance is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. In a connected world, control over digital infrastructure is closely linked to economic competitiveness, national security and international influence.

The countries and companies capable of keeping these networks secure, accessible and resilient will help shape the future of the global digital economy.

---

For decades, global diplomacy has largely been shaped by the decisions of the world's most powerful countries. The United States, China and Russia have influenced international security, trade and political institutions through their economic resources, military capabilities and diplomatic reach. However, a changing international landscape is creating new opportunities for countries that traditionally occupied a secondary position in global affairs.

Known as middle powers, these nations are increasingly using regional partnerships, international institutions and diplomatic coalitions to influence decisions that extend far beyond their borders. As competition between major powers intensifies, their ability to build bridges and coordinate international responses is becoming an important feature of global diplomacy.

What Makes a Country a Middle Power?

There is no universally accepted definition of a middle power. The term generally describes countries with significant economic, political or regional influence, but without the resources required to dominate the international system.

Countries such as Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Korea, South Africa and Türkiye are frequently discussed in this context. Their interests and political systems differ considerably, but they share an ability to influence international discussions through diplomacy, trade relationships, regional leadership and participation in multilateral institutions.

Their influence does not necessarily come from military strength. Instead, it often depends on their ability to build partnerships, negotiate agreements and bring different governments together around specific objectives.

Coalition Building Is Becoming a Strategic Tool

One of the defining characteristics of middle-power diplomacy is the ability to cooperate without depending entirely on traditional alliances. Rather than aligning exclusively with one major power, these countries can develop partnerships with different governments depending on the issue.

Brazil and South Africa, for example, have used their participation in international forums to bring development, economic inequality and climate priorities into global discussions. India has expanded its diplomatic relationships across different regions while maintaining strategic partnerships with both Western countries and other emerging economies.

This approach allows middle powers to create flexible coalitions around specific issues, including energy security, international trade, climate finance and technological development.

Research from the Council on Foreign Relations highlights how these countries can use international organizations to amplify their influence and help maintain cooperation during periods of major-power competition.

Regional Leadership Can Become Global Influence

Middle powers often gain international relevance through their regional positions. Their geographic location, economic relationships and diplomatic networks can make them important partners in negotiations involving neighboring countries and global institutions.

Indonesia, for instance, occupies a significant position in Southeast Asia and plays an important role within ASEAN. Its diplomatic engagement reflects the importance of regional cooperation in managing economic, security and territorial challenges.

Türkiye also demonstrates how regional influence can translate into international diplomatic relevance. Its relationships with Europe, the Middle East and other regions provide opportunities for engagement across several geopolitical discussions.

Similarly, Brazil's leadership in Latin America gives it an important platform in debates concerning development, environmental protection and global economic cooperation.

The Limits of Middle-Power Diplomacy

Despite their growing visibility, middle powers face significant structural limitations. Their economic and military resources remain smaller than those of major powers, and their ability to influence international decisions can depend heavily on cooperation with other countries.

They also do not necessarily share the same priorities. India, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Korea may all be considered middle powers in certain analytical frameworks, but their foreign policies, security interests and approaches to international governance are different.

These differences can make sustained cooperation difficult. A coalition may agree on the need for institutional reform but disagree over trade policy, military partnerships or the treatment of regional conflicts.

There is also the risk that major powers may disregard initiatives that do not align with their strategic interests. Diplomatic influence therefore does not automatically translate into the ability to enforce international agreements.

Reforming Global Institutions

International institutions remain one of the most important platforms through which middle powers can exercise influence. The United Nations, G20, World Trade Organization and regional organizations provide opportunities for countries to participate in negotiations that would otherwise be dominated by a smaller group of powerful states.

However, questions surrounding representation and decision-making continue to challenge the legitimacy of existing institutions. Middle powers have increasingly called for reforms that reflect changes in the global distribution of economic and political influence.

A February 2026 report from United Nations University examined how middle powers can contribute to development cooperation through financial engagement, institutional capacity and international partnerships.

Their participation could help connect established donors, emerging economies and developing countries, particularly in areas such as infrastructure, sustainable development and climate finance.

A More Distributed Future for Global Diplomacy

The growing role of middle powers does not mean that major powers are losing their influence. The United States and China will continue to shape many of the world's most consequential economic, technological and security decisions.

However, international challenges increasingly require cooperation that extends beyond the traditional centers of power. Climate change, global health, artificial intelligence, supply chain security and development finance all involve interests that cannot be managed by a handful of countries alone.

Middle powers may not determine the future of global diplomacy independently, but their ability to organize coalitions, connect competing interests and sustain international cooperation could significantly influence its direction.

The emerging diplomatic landscape may therefore be less about replacing established powers and more about expanding the number of countries capable of shaping international decisions. In that environment, influence will depend not only on the resources a nation possesses, but also on the partnerships it can build and the agreements it can help deliver.

---

Artificial intelligence is becoming one of the defining geopolitical battlegrounds of the 21st century. Governments are competing to develop more powerful systems, secure access to advanced semiconductors and attract investment in computing infrastructure. But beyond technological innovation, a larger question is emerging: who will shape the rules governing artificial intelligence and influence how it is used around the world?

The competition is increasingly centered on the United States and China, although Europe and other emerging technology powers are working to establish their own positions. Their decisions could influence international security, economic competitiveness, digital sovereignty and the balance of global power for decades.

The United States and China Lead the Competition

Washington and Beijing recognize artificial intelligence as a strategic asset with implications far beyond the technology sector. Its applications in manufacturing, scientific research, cybersecurity, intelligence and defense make leadership in AI an important national priority.

The United States benefits from a powerful technology ecosystem, major private AI developers and access to advanced semiconductor companies. Its strategy has increasingly emphasized investment in computing infrastructure, technological partnerships and restrictions designed to limit China's access to certain advanced chips.

China, meanwhile, is accelerating domestic AI development while strengthening its semiconductor industry and expanding the international reach of its technology companies. Its approach combines government direction, industrial investment and the development of AI systems intended to compete in global markets.

Neither country is competing solely to produce the most capable models. Both are seeking influence over the infrastructure, standards and international partnerships that will determine how AI develops.

Semiconductors Have Become a Strategic Advantage

Behind every advanced AI system is a complex industrial supply chain. High-performance processors, advanced memory, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and specialized packaging technologies are essential to training and operating increasingly sophisticated models.

This has made semiconductor production a central element of international competition. Taiwan, particularly through its advanced manufacturing capabilities, occupies a strategically important position in the global technology ecosystem.

The pressure on this supply chain is becoming increasingly visible. In November 2026, investment in advanced chip packaging emerged as another major battleground, as companies expanded capacity to meet growing demand for AI processors. Taiwan's TSMC remains a leading supplier of advanced packaging technologies, while other manufacturers are exploring alternatives to reduce dependence on limited production capacity.

For governments, securing access to these technologies is no longer simply an industrial policy objective. It is increasingly connected to economic security and national defense.

Europe Wants to Shape the Rules

While the United States and China compete for technological leadership, the European Union is pursuing a different form of influence: establishing regulatory standards that shape how artificial intelligence is developed and deployed.

Europe's approach emphasizes transparency, accountability, risk management and the protection of fundamental rights. Through its regulatory framework, the EU aims to ensure that innovation develops alongside safeguards for individuals and society.

This strategy gives Europe an opportunity to influence international standards even when its technology companies do not match the scale of their American and Chinese competitors.

However, the challenge is maintaining a balance between regulation and innovation. Excessively complex requirements could make it harder for European companies to compete globally, while insufficient oversight could weaken public trust in AI systems.

The Global South Is Seeking a Greater Voice

The future of AI governance will not be determined exclusively by the world's largest economies. Countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are increasingly seeking access to computing infrastructure, investment, technical expertise and a meaningful role in international decision-making.

The debate is also becoming institutional. In July 2026, representatives from 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai to establish the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, a China-led initiative focused on international cooperation and AI governance.

Meanwhile, the United Nations has advanced its own global dialogue, bringing governments, researchers, businesses and civil society together. Its inaugural meeting in Geneva in July 2026 included participation from 163 countries.

These developments illustrate how emerging economies are becoming part of a broader competition over access, partnerships and international influence. Many countries are interested in cooperating with multiple powers rather than committing exclusively to one technological or political model.

AI Governance Is Becoming a Geopolitical Issue

As AI systems become more capable, governments face difficult questions about cybersecurity, misinformation, privacy, autonomous technologies and human oversight. These concerns cross national borders, making international coordination increasingly important.

However, cooperation remains complicated by strategic mistrust. Governments may agree that powerful AI systems require safeguards while disagreeing over who should establish those safeguards, how compliance should be verified and which technologies should remain accessible.

The United Nations is attempting to provide a more inclusive platform for these discussions, but competing national interests continue to shape the debate.

Whoever Sets the Standards Will Shape the AI Era

The global race to control artificial intelligence is ultimately a competition for influence over the next generation of economic and technological development. Leadership will depend not only on the sophistication of AI models, but also on access to semiconductors, computing infrastructure, international markets and trusted regulatory frameworks.

The United States and China remain central competitors, but Europe, emerging economies and international institutions will also influence the outcome.

The decisive advantage may belong to the countries that manage to combine technological innovation with reliable governance and international cooperation. In an increasingly AI-driven world, the power to shape the rules could become just as important as the power to build the technology itself.

---

Climate change is no longer exclusively an environmental issue. It is increasingly shaping international diplomacy, economic partnerships and the distribution of global influence. As countries face growing pressure to reduce emissions and prepare for extreme weather, one question is becoming central to international negotiations: who will pay for the transition?

Climate finance has emerged as a strategic instrument in global affairs. Funding for renewable energy, resilient infrastructure and climate adaptation can influence trade relationships, development priorities and diplomatic cooperation. For developing economies, access to affordable financing can determine how quickly they modernize their industries and respond to climate risks.

The Financial Divide Between Developed and Developing Countries

One of the central challenges in climate diplomacy is the unequal distribution of financial resources.

Developed economies have historically contributed a larger share of greenhouse gas emissions, while many developing countries face significant climate risks despite having fewer financial resources to address them.

According to the OECD, developed countries provided and mobilized approximately $136.7 billion in climate finance for developing countries in 2024, surpassing the long-standing $100 billion annual goal.

However, the broader financing requirements remain considerably larger. At COP29, countries agreed on a new collective climate finance goal aimed at mobilizing at least $300 billion annually for developing countries by 2035, alongside efforts to scale up financing from all sources to $1.3 trillion per year.

These figures have become central to negotiations over economic responsibility, international cooperation and the future of development assistance.

Climate Finance and the Politics of International Influence

Financial support can create lasting diplomatic and economic relationships.

Countries that provide funding for renewable energy projects, electricity networks and climate-resilient infrastructure can strengthen partnerships with emerging economies while expanding opportunities for their companies and financial institutions.

China, the United States, European countries and multilateral development banks all play important roles in the international financing landscape. Their investments and lending arrangements can influence which technologies are adopted, which infrastructure projects move forward and how developing economies structure their energy transitions.

Climate finance therefore operates within a wider geopolitical environment. Financial commitments can support cooperation, but they can also become instruments of strategic competition.

The Adaptation Funding Gap Is Becoming Harder to Ignore

While renewable energy investment attracts considerable attention, financing for climate adaptation remains a major challenge.

Developing countries need resources to strengthen water systems, protect agricultural production, improve infrastructure and prepare communities for floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The United Nations Environment Programme's 2026 Adaptation Gap Report estimates that developing countries will require approximately $305 billion annually by 2035 for adaptation. Yet international public adaptation finance reached only between $28.2 billion and $31.7 billion in 2024.

This difference highlights a major weakness in the international climate finance system. Funding for reducing emissions is important, but countries already experiencing severe climate impacts also need predictable resources to protect their populations and economies.

---

Why COP31 Matters for the Future of Climate Finance

The upcoming COP31 summit in Antalya, Türkiye, from November 9 to 20, 2026, will place climate finance among its central priorities.

Negotiations are expected to focus on implementing existing financial commitments, improving access to funding and strengthening cooperation between governments, international financial institutions and private investors.

Developing countries continue to seek more predictable support, while developed economies face domestic budget pressures and competing spending priorities.

The challenge will be translating previously agreed financial targets into practical projects and accessible funding. The debate is no longer simply about announcing ambitious commitments, but about determining how resources will reach the countries and communities that need them.

The Private Sector and the New Climate Investment Landscape

Public funding alone cannot meet the scale of global climate investment requirements. Private banks, institutional investors, development finance institutions and infrastructure funds are increasingly important participants.

Green bonds, blended finance structures and public-private partnerships are among the mechanisms being used to attract investment into renewable energy, sustainable transportation and climate-resilient infrastructure.

However, private capital does not flow equally to every market. Investors often consider political stability, currency exposure, regulatory frameworks and the expected financial returns of individual projects.

This creates another geopolitical challenge: countries with the greatest climate vulnerabilities are not necessarily those best positioned to attract international investment.

Climate Finance Will Shape the Next Phase of Global Cooperation

The future of climate diplomacy will depend partly on whether countries can establish financing systems that are credible, accessible and economically sustainable.

For developing economies, climate finance represents an opportunity to strengthen infrastructure, diversify energy systems and participate in emerging low-carbon industries. For major economies, it is also a way to build partnerships and influence the direction of the global energy transition.

As climate risks intensify and international competition continues, financial commitments are becoming inseparable from questions of economic security and diplomatic influence.

Climate finance is no longer just about funding environmental projects. It is increasingly about determining how the costs, opportunities and responsibilities of the global transition will be shared.