By Chiu E-ling 邱伊翎
The cancelation of RightsCon 2026 in Zambia was not merely a logistical setback — it was a political decision with global consequences, and one that should concern anyone who cares about open international dialogue and digital rights. RightsCon is the world’s largest forum dedicated to human rights in the digital age. Built on a multi-stakeholder model, it brings together civil society groups, governments, technologists, journalists and companies to debate issues from artificial intelligence (AI) and digital platforms to surveillance technologies and freedom of expression. This year’s conference was to take place in Lusaka, the first time RightsCon would be hosted in sub-Saharan Africa. Just days before the event was set to begin, the Zambian government announced an open-ended “postponement,” effectively forcing the conference to be canceled. The organizers, Access Now, later said they believed foreign interference was behind the decision, pointing to pressure from Chinese diplomats over the participation of Taiwanese and the inclusion of politically sensitive topics.
Amnesty International described the cancelation as an example of Chinese transnational repression, warning that it reflected a growing pattern in which Beijing uses political and economic influence over other governments to silence dissent beyond its borders. The broader significance of the incident lies in what it reveals about global power dynamics. The cancelation illustrates how authoritarian practices increasingly cross borders and reshape international civic space. Over the past decade, China has expanded its global footprint through diplomacy, trade and large-scale economic initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative. Across Africa, infrastructure projects, development loans and digital connectivity investments have transformed political economies. While often framed as development partnerships, the arrangements can also create structural dependencies that extend beyond economics. For governments facing debt pressure, elite interests or strategic calculations, resisting Beijing’s political demands might appear far riskier than yielding civic space. The RightsCon case shows how such leverage can translate into control over who is allowed to participate in international forums — and what topics are considered acceptable. It is coercion through structure rather than force, but its impact on open debate is no less damaging. At stake is the integrity of the multi-stakeholder model. Global digital governance depends on meaningful civil society participation. Policies on AI, platform governance, surveillance technologies and online expression directly shape people’s rights and everyday lives. They cannot be legitimate or effective if they are shaped exclusively by states, especially powerful ones seeking to avoid scrutiny. That brings us to a principle that should be nonnegotiable: Nothing about us without us. Decisions that affect people’s data, speech and safety must include those most affected. Excluding civil society actors to satisfy authoritarian pressure undermines both democratic legitimacy and policy quality. Taiwan has a highly active digital and civic technology community that regularly engages in public debate on platform regulation, AI governance, open government and the social effects of emerging technologies. At a time when digital rights and AI are central global concerns, silencing such participation weakens international discussion rather than protecting it. Excluding voices because of political pressure does not make global governance more stable; it makes it more fragile. Importantly, the cancelation of RightsCon did not go unchallenged. Access Now refused to accept conditions that would exclude participants or constrain open debate, and more than 130 civil society organizations worldwide issued a joint statement condemning the decision. These responses matter. They show that global civil society recognized what was at stake and was willing to draw a line. The real danger lies in normalization. When exclusions are repeatedly treated as pragmatic compromises, they redefine what is acceptable in international engagement. Once silence becomes the safer option, everyone becomes vulnerable. The cancelation of RightsCon should therefore be seen not as an isolated incident, but as a warning. International dialogue on digital rights cannot remain open if exclusion is quietly accepted. Defending inclusive, multi-stakeholder spaces requires collective vigilance — and a refusal to treat transnational repression as business as usual. Chiu E-ling is the executive director of Amnesty International Taiwan.