The United States and Russia are jockeying for leadership of one of the world’s largest technological bodies. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency responsible for global telecom regulation, is holding a conference in Romania this Thursday to elect its next secretary-general. The event sits squarely at the intersection of geopolitics and diplomacy, with the two powers presenting distinct visions for the future of global connectivity.
In the United States corner, Doreen Bogdan-Martin is put forth as a leading candidate. She has served as one of the institution’s presidents and would, if elected, break new ground as the first woman to hold the role. The United States has led the ITU since the 1960s. Russia counters with Rashid Ismailov, a former deputy minister of telecommunications and a veteran executive with experience at major tech firms. His bid is framed around a different approach to internet governance and network standards.
The vote matters. Every four years, the ITU’s 193 member countries come together with industry players to decide strategies and priorities that shape the rules governing communications technologies. These decisions influence how networks are built, how services are delivered, and ultimately how people stay connected around the world. Since its founding in 1865, the ITU has established principles and policies that touched telegraph networks, radio communication, telephone systems, and the Internet. Much of today’s global communication infrastructure was shaped by the outcomes of these historic gatherings.
digital printing
Russia’s candidacy naturally raises questions about internet governance. Since the internet emerged in the 1970s, its underlying standards were designed to enable open information flow. Yet in recent years, some autocratic states, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, have explored forms of internet separation and tighter state control. These trends aim to monitor citizens, curb dissent, and extend governmental influence over digital life.
Observers wonder whether the Kremlin would use ITU leadership to steer governance in a way that aligns with more centralized or restrictive models. While the ITU is a pragmatic body where decisions are typically made by consensus and the secretary-general’s powers are limited, the choice on the table does reflect broader strategic preferences. In 2012, Russia helped push a proposal seeking greater government control over cyberspace and the ability to block websites; the effort did not succeed, even with backing from China and a group of allied states.
Russia’s record on internet policy has been controversial. Critics point to intensified digital suppression and limits on free expression, while supporters claim that the state is simply safeguarding security and national interests. The Kremlin has argued it is committed to universal and reliable internet access, even as it has restricted certain platforms and introduced laws seen by many as punitive toward dissenters. The debate touches on fundamental questions about how open, inclusive, and interoperable the global network should remain.
In recent months, both the United States and Russia have engaged in quiet diplomatic efforts to win support for their candidates. For instance, a high-ranking official from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission visited key cities to build broader alliances. Observers suggest that the final ballot could hinge on how convincingly delegations from Europe, Asia, and Latin America line up behind a preferred leadership vision. The ultimate outcome remains uncertain, but the contest is widely seen as a proxy for broader strategic alignments in global technology governance.