From Huawei to Helium: Why Nations Are Building Tech Stacks They Can Control

At 3:00 AM in a quiet Canadian suburb, a telecom engineer reluctantly removes Huawei 5G equipment, complying with a government mandate to secure the nation’s digital backbone. This isn’t just a technical operation; it’s symbolic of a broader global truth we can no longer ignore: the era of a borderless digital utopia is ending. Openness without geopolitical alignment has become politically untenable.

Just a decade ago, tech idealists dreamed of a seamless, globally connected internet: open, borderless, and free. But today, from Huawei’s exclusion in North America and Europe to TikTok’s battles in the U.S., that vision collides with a stark geopolitical reality. Nations increasingly view open, unaligned technologies as strategic vulnerabilities.

As it turns out, trust matters more than openness.

Canada’s complex journey since 2022 to phase out Huawei and ZTE underscores how geopolitical distrust rapidly undermines technology ecosystems. The government’s recent failure to pass Bill C-26 further complicates matters, leaving telecom companies in regulatory uncertainty, directly impacting national security. This isn’t isolated—it’s symptomatic of a global recalibration toward digital sovereignty.

In the U.S., similar anxieties drive semiconductor policy. The ongoing Section 232 investigation launched in 2025 marks a fundamental shift from global supply chain efficiency to strategic resilience. Chips, once symbols of global cooperation, are now viewed as critical national assets. Nations no longer trust global markets alone; they stockpile and secure vital technologies domestically.

And it is clear to see that this distrust has been extending toward other intersections of society. For example, open-source communities, typically seen and celebrated as collaborative havens, now face increased scrutiny. While RISC-V’s recent adoption by several nations highlights its strategic value, it also exposes vulnerabilities when openness becomes intertwined with geopolitical power plays. You see, that is because nations wary of empowering rivals are reassessing their stance on open-source technologies, transforming them from neutral tools into contested spaces.

These hurdles are not just limited to centralised technologies, because decentralized technologies like Helium look to be confronting similar hurdles. Despite settling regulatory issues with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2025, Helium’s broader struggles with national regulations reveal the uncomfortable truth that decentralized platforms must inevitably align with national interests to survive.

Digital identity infrastructure intensifies these geopolitical tensions. The emerging “wallet wars,” driven by Europe’s eIDAS 2.0 initiative set for deployment by 2026, demonstrate how governments and corporations battle fiercely for control of personal data.

Digital wallets, once mere convenience tools, are now essential to national security strategies, becoming the frontline in the fight for digital sovereignty. For example, we see Europe pushing forward with Gaia-X, aiming for a federated yet sovereign digital ecosystem, while the U.S. champions platforms like OpenAI under American control. China’s tightly integrated approach illustrates a stark alternative, while nations like India and Brazil blend these models into unique hybrids. In these cases, we can see how governments are increasingly portraying technological self-reliance not merely as a strategic necessity, but as a matter of national pride and identity. Control over digital infrastructure is now framed as essential for preserving societal values, cultural integrity, and national dignity, thus turning technological sovereignty into an emotionally charged issue that resonates deeply with citizens, far beyond cold geopolitics.

Though fragmented, this landscape fosters innovation. China’s rapid advancements in digital payments and Europe’s stringent privacy standards showcase how nationalized tech stacks can drive progress. Investors increasingly favor companies adept at navigating multiple regulatory frameworks, acknowledging that relying solely on a single geopolitical framework is increasingly risky. Even global standards-setting bodies like ISO, ITU, and IETF have become subtle arenas for geopolitical influence, shaping not just technology but global power dynamics.

Looking ahead, we face a potential future of fragmentation, whether it’s a “Patchwork Planet,” a crisis-induced “Bloc Collapse,” or a dynamically adaptive “Sovereign Mesh.” Regardless, it’s clear: openness without geopolitical alignment is unsustainable. Ultimately, this intersection of openness, trust, and national alignment is important to understand for us as individuals navigating this new digital landscape. In other words, informed vigilance will eventually become our strongest defense.

Because geopolitics today isn’t abstract; it defines who we are, how we communicate, and how freely we live. Therefore, we must recognize this reality and assert our autonomy within it. After all, geopolitics isn’t distant, it’s profoundly personal.

Source