When Vietnam’s deputy prime minister, Le Thanh Long, met with senior Chinese officials at the China-hosted World Internet Conference in the city of Wuzhen in 2024, he said, according to state media reports, that he “highly identifies with the concept of jointly building a community with a shared future in cyberspace.” The Vietnamese leader’s appropriation of this catchphrase, a key component of China’s vision of internet governance globally, demonstrated one clear objective of the CCP leadership — to normalize the use of its own concepts on internet development and policy in the international context.
In recent years, China’s leaders have promoted the concept of a “community of shared future in cyberspace” (网络空间命运共同体) as an alternative vision of internet governance for the world, and have worked to enlist cooperation and legitimation of the concept from leaders across the world. In August 2021, for example, China launched the “China-Africa Initiative on Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace” at a forum attended by representatives from 14 African countries, outlining joint frameworks for digital infrastructure, security, governance, and economic development.
First proposed by Xi Jinping at the 2015 World Internet Conference in Wuzhen as a concept related to his broader foreign policy vision of a “community of shared future for mankind” (人类命运共同体), the phrase was more comprehensively defined in a 2022 White Paper issued by the State Council. At its core is the idea that cyberspace belongs to everyone, but that each state has the right to control its internet standards and infrastructure. Importantly, this idea underscores the assertion internationally that states, as opposed to multi-stakeholder groups including organizations and citizens, are ultimately responsible for the exercise of cyberspace governance and policy.
The formal framework of Xi’s “community of shared future in cyberspace” promotes four essential principles under the overarching state-centered approach, according to the State Council white paper: “improving global network infrastructure”(全球网络基础设施建设). “encouraging cultural interchange” (网上文化交流共享平台), “creating creative digital economies” (网络经济创新发展) and “maintaining network security” (网络安全).
China strategically promotes the concept by linking it with tangible technical assistance programs throughout the Global South, and around the world. This approach combines digital ideology with practical development aid, creating dependencies that advance China’s governance model. In Africa, China partners with the International Telecommunication Union on technical assistance projects to build “Digital Uganda”; in Southeast Asia, Chinese firms have developed ASEAN’s first 5G smart hospital; and in Latin America, China collaborates with Brazil and Ecuador on digital initiatives for Amazon rainforest protection. These projects, highlighted at the World Internet Conference, showcase how China bridges digital divides while simultaneously expanding its cyber governance framework in developing regions.
China’s vision reveals a dichotomy: while it promotes cyber sovereignty, peace, and an apparently open digital environment, China is effectively exporting its model of cyberspace governance to countries across Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Countries receiving Chinese digital infrastructure funding have implemented components of Beijing’s internet governance framework.
While promoting global partnerships and ostensibly respecting each country’s right to choose its internet governance, China is creating digital dependencies through initiatives such as the Digital Silk Road (数位丝绸之路), which embed governance frameworks prioritizing state authority over individual digital rights. For example, China has offered advanced surveillance technologies and digital infrastructure to Iran, allowing Tehran to strengthen state control over cyberspace while conforming with China’s idea of cyber sovereignty.
As this concept becomes more widespread, it represents more than just a framework for digital collaboration; it embodies a fundamental conflict over the internet’s future design. China’s strategic ambiguity — promoting shared governance while extending state control — advancing cyber standards without explicitly challenging existing ones.
