Brazil is one of a handful of countries that includes Indonesia, Turkey, and India who have been on the fence in the last decade’s debate over whether to develop an international framework to govern the Internet — one that would replace the role that the United States has played as chief Internet steward. Traditionally, that debate has featured America in the role as champion of a free and open Internet, one that guarantees the right of all people to freely express themselves. Arguing against that ideal: repressive regimes which have sought to limit connectivity and access to information. But the NSA’s actions have shifted that debate, alienating key Internet Freedom allies and emboldening some of the most repressive regimes on the planet. What is emerging is a coalition between countries that object to how the United States is going about upholding its avowed principles for a free Internet, and countries that have objected to those avowed principles all along.

Our close allies in the European Union, for instance, are now considering revoking data-sharing agreements with the United States and requiring American web site providers to prominently warn Europeans that their data is subject to U.S. government surveillance. Meanwhile, repressive regimes like Iran, Syria, and China are wresting control of information over their networks, poisoning popular applications and services, and undermining the foundations for the Internet’s open, interconnected structure.

The motivations of those nations questioning America’s de facto control over the global Internet may vary, but their responses are all pointing in the same troubling direction: towards a Balkanized Internet. Should this happen, the Internet is in danger of becoming like the European train system, where varying voltage and 20 different types of signaling technologies force operators to stop and switch systems or even to another locomotive, resulting in delays, inefficiencies, and higher costs.