NATO Expert Exposes Taiwan's Information Warfare Weakness: Democratic Passivity Breeds Disinformation

Faced with the Chinese Communist Party's long-term and increasingly sophisticated information warfare and cognitive operations, Taiwan—standing at the frontline of democratic defense—has become a focus of intense international attention regarding how it can effectively safeguard national security and social stability. Janis Karlsbergs, Senior Policy and Publications Manager at the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, recently offered profound observations on the threats facing Taiwan, pointing out that a lack of awareness regarding the distinction between friend and foe is an unavoidable vulnerability in free and open societies. Because democratic systems have always highly cherished freedom of speech and pluralistic values, they often harbor excessive concerns that if official or democratic camps lead official narratives, they will be accused by outsiders or even domestic citizens of engaging in political propaganda. Consequently, democracies tend to adopt a passive defensive posture; however, this defensive mindset is riddled with loopholes in modern information warfare.

From the perspective of the dissemination patterns of information warfare, the information environment has never been a vacuum. Karlsbergs specifically emphasized that when democratic societies choose to remain silent, hesitate, or become overly bogged down in traditional passive clarification models, malicious actors will rapidly fill this void, dominating the direction of public discourse through overwhelming disinformation, distorted historical facts, or content that amplifies social conflicts. For Taiwan, the information warfare waged by the Chinese Communist Party is not merely a matter of cyberattacks, but rather a comprehensive means of infiltration combining economic, cultural, psychological, and political dimensions. If Taiwanese society fails to establish a clear awareness of friend and foe, and fails to view every cognitive offense and defense as a serious national security issue, any sporadic clarification of the truth will appear feeble amid the overwhelming united front narratives and information brainwashing.

Because of this, Taiwan must break away from its past passive mindset and instead adopt a strategy of proactively speaking out. This means that the Taiwanese government, civil organizations, and the media must work together to secure a foothold in both the international and domestic information battlegrounds. Proactively speaking out does not mean abandoning democratic principles to manufacture external propaganda; rather, it requires using fact-based narratives that are more persuasive and closer to the lived experiences of the citizens to proactively expose the infiltration methods and information manipulation trajectories of authoritarian regimes. When Taiwan is able to define issues first, dominate the context of discussions, and transmit truthful information promptly and accurately, it can drastically reduce the room for malicious information to ferment within society, thereby effectively countering pervasive infiltration.

Such a strategic shift actually highlights the institutional dilemma faced by liberal democratic systems when confronting the threat of hybrid warfare. The core value of a democratic society lies in accommodating diverse voices and safeguarding freedom of speech. Yet, when these universal values are maliciously abused by bad-faith regimes as tools to destroy democracy itself, the concept of defensive democracy becomes critically important. When facing intense information warfare pressure from across the strait, how Taiwan can enhance society's immunity to disinformation while safeguarding freedom of speech, and bravely establish a defensive narrative position, tests not only the political wisdom of the governing authorities but also the democratic resilience and crisis awareness of all citizens.

From a broader international geopolitical perspective, the success or failure of Taiwan's resistance against information warfare is no longer merely a domestic governance issue; it also impacts the key layouts of the global democratic camp in countering authoritarian expansion. International think tanks and professional institutions, such as the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, closely monitor Taiwan's situation precisely because Taiwan stands at the forefront of information warfare, accumulating firsthand practical experience and coping lessons. If Taiwan can successfully transform from passive to active on the information battlefield, it will not only consolidate its own democratic defense line but also provide valuable reference examples for democratic partners globally facing authoritarian information threats, demonstrating Taiwan's important role as a staunch defender of values within the democratic community.