Experts Call for Stronger Measures Against Disinformation

Chinese cognitive warfare against Taiwan demands stronger institutional response, experts warn

Taiwan must develop a comprehensive legal framework and enhance inter-ministerial cooperation to counter China’s increasingly sophisticated cognitive warfare campaigns, according to security experts. The warning comes as Chinese tactics evolve beyond simple disinformation to include advanced psychological operations targeting Taiwan’s social fabric.

The National Security Bureau (NSB) recently identified five primary methods China employs in its cognitive warfare against Taiwan: analyzing social sentiment, disseminating disinformation, infiltrating public opinion through abnormal social media accounts, generating realistic content with artificial intelligence, and hacking Taiwanese accounts.

Tunghai University Cross-Strait Research Center deputy executive director Hung Pu-chao emphasized that Taiwan’s democratic and open society makes it particularly vulnerable to these tactics. “If Taiwan’s institutional responses lag behind China’s operational pace, the nation’s democratic and open society would be repeatedly exploited, becoming a breeding ground for cognitive warfare,” Hung said.

According to Hung, China follows a clear operational procedure in its cognitive warfare campaigns. The process begins with intelligence gathering about Taiwanese political figures, opinion leaders, and social networks to identify potential fault lines and emotional triggers within society.

Once these vulnerabilities are mapped, China disseminates controversial information through social media platforms, exploiting Taiwan’s open democratic environment to amplify conflicts and sow division. “China uses Taiwan’s democratic system as its operational interface, causing suspicion, division and eroding trust within society to weaken its overall defense,” Hung explained.

The expert pointed to significant shortcomings in Taiwan’s response capabilities, particularly at the institutional level. “We cannot use laws from the analog era to fight cognitive warfare in the digital age,” he said, highlighting how national security legislation has often stalled in Taiwan’s opposition-led Legislative Yuan, creating an institutional deadlock that China repeatedly exploits.

This political dimension further complicates Taiwan’s defense efforts. When national security issues become politicized, legitimate risk warnings can be dismissed as partisan attacks, undermining the island’s collective defense capabilities. Hung noted that China doesn’t need to convince the entire population of its narratives—merely heightening political polarization achieves its cognitive warfare objectives.

The multifaceted nature of these threats requires a whole-of-government approach rather than relegating responsibility solely to national security agencies. Hung advocated for broader cooperation between multiple ministries: the Ministry of Digital Affairs implementing technical countermeasures, the Ministry of Justice enforcing legal accountability, and the Ministry of Education promoting media literacy.

He also urged a shift in government strategy from reactive clarifications to proactively exposing China’s methods and narrative logic. By helping the public understand and recognize these tactics, Taiwan could develop what Hung described as a “social vaccine” against disinformation, effectively incorporating cognitive security into the island’s democratic defense systems.

The warning comes amid growing concerns about Beijing’s increasingly institutionalized approach to information warfare against Taiwan, which it claims as its territory. These cognitive operations represent a critical component of China’s “gray zone” tactics—coercive activities below the threshold of conventional military conflict—designed to wear down Taiwan’s resistance and international support over time.

As tensions across the Taiwan Strait continue, the island’s ability to counter these sophisticated information campaigns may prove just as crucial as its conventional military deterrence in maintaining its democratic way of life and de facto independence.