Interview: Digital sovereignty yes – but without restriction to open source

The harsh US policy under President Donald Trump has intensified the debate about the extent to which German IT depends on US providers. Is the USA still a reliable partner at all? And what are the alternatives? The iX editorial team spoke about this with Oliver Grün, President of the Bundesverband IT-Mittelstand e. V., or BITMi for short. The BITMi is a German lobbying association for medium-sized IT companies and, according to its own information, represents around 2,500 companies from the German digital sector. The interview took place via email.

Mr. Grün, how dependent are the administration and companies in Germany on US providers?

A study by the University of Bonn places Germany in the group of countries that are the second most dependent on digital technologies from abroad and are therefore highly vulnerable. In addition to Chinese ICT products, we are particularly dependent on American information infrastructures such as cloud services, search engines and computer software, even in critical areas, as demonstrated by the use of Microsoft and Amazon cloud services by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the use of the AWS Cloud by Deutsche Bahn.

This dependency is particularly worrying now that the US is increasingly proving to be an unreliable partner and openly attacking EU regulations such as the Digital Services and Digital Markets Act. Against this geopolitical backdrop, it is the one-sidedness of this dependency that makes us particularly vulnerable. This creates the risk of blackmail. There is therefore an urgent need for action to secure our digital self-determination and resilience.

And what short-term measures should be on the roadmap for a changeover?

In the short term, the European provider market can be relied upon for the introduction of new solutions for the digitalization of public administration. To this end, the BITMi recommends a sovereignty clause in public procurement that ensures that the product that strengthens digital sovereignty and guarantees compliance with European law and data sovereignty is selected for the same scope of services. At the same time, openness in terms of technology is essential –. A restriction to certain technologies, such as open source, would exclude a large part of the domestic market. Given the urgency of the situation, we cannot afford this.

Another immediate measure is a two-year freeze on the introduction of new regulations at federal and EU level. After all, our domestic digital economy, which is the key to our digital sovereignty, is largely made up of small and medium-sized enterprises. These are disproportionately burdened by regulations and are therefore at a disadvantage compared to American tech companies, which can easily cope with compliance costs and bureaucratic burdens and are also subject to far fewer regulations in their home markets. In the medium to long term, in addition to a regulatory freeze, the dismantling of regulations would also be effective, for example through an exemption from the AI Act for SMEs.

Would German and EU providers even be in a position to replace US providers in terms of price and technical performance?

In the business-to-consumer sector, it is not very realistic to compete with established solutions because the market is already firmly divided here. In the business-to-business and business-to-government sectors, on the other hand, there are certainly competitive European products, such as business software, software for the digitalization of administration and cloud solutions. These offer the decisive advantage of compliance with European law and data sovereignty. In addition, EU providers are often characterized by their niche expertise and industry specialization, which means that their solutions offer better benefits for user SMEs in particular.

In the current situation, digital sovereignty naturally also means massive migration projects. What do you think the costs would be?

It would be a big step not to keep relying on solutions from overseas for upcoming projects or to exclude the majority of the domestic market economy through technology specifications such as open source.

We recommend a strategic approach to the costs of migration projects. It is neither sensible nor realistic to develop everything ourselves or to replace every non-European application one-to-one. Nevertheless, the state, economy and society must remain capable of acting in all central areas of the digital transformation. This includes the digital infrastructure of the administration in particular. In view of the high need for digitalization, a special focus should be placed here on new awards – with digital sovereignty as a central selection criterion.

Is complete digital sovereignty even realistic? Are there not also areas in which it must remain a distant ideal?

Complete digital sovereignty is unrealistic and unnecessary. However, Europe could pursue a keystone strategy in which we at least occupy indispensable key positions in the digital value creation process worldwide. In the field of semiconductor production, for example, the Dutch company ASML has such a position, in business software it is SAP, others could be conquered in many digital niches – analogous to the niche world market leaders of the last 70 years.

Especially in the B2C market, the goal of complete digital sovereignty would be unrealistic. In the crucial B2B and B2G sectors, however, there is an opportunity to secure significant market shares and actively shape the digital future according to our own values, thereby gaining digital self-determination. It is a widespread misconception that there are no European solutions in these areas. Of course, these efforts must not lead to protectionism. So if a good solution is available exclusively from overseas, it should be purchased and used.

Mr. Grün, thank you very much for the interview!

(axk)