Photo by: Olimpia Kot
What is happening?
Taiwan’s Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) recently issued a strongly worded statement reaffirming that Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples belong to the Austronesian ethnolinguistic family and are not descendants of the mythological Chinese ancestors Yan and Huang. The statement emphasized that Taiwan’s Indigenous communities are not part of the so-called Chinese nation (中華民族), nor should they be subsumed under the category of ethnic minorities as defined by the Chinese government. This response came in reaction to a recent cross-strait cultural exchange event held at Yunnan Minzu University in early May 2025, titled “Colorful Yunnan, Gathering with Taiwan.” The event featured the participation of former Kuomintang Indigenous legislator Kung Wen-chi (孔文吉) and several Indigenous representatives from Taiwan. This event is an example of range of influence tactics aimed specifically at Taiwan’s Austronesian Indigenous communities.
What is the broader picture?
The Indigenous peoples of Taiwan belong to the Austronesian language family one of the largest and most widely spread language families in the world. Based on the linguistic and archaeological data Taiwan is the origin of expansion of Austronesian languages. Austronesians inhabited Taiwan at least since 4,800–4,600 cal BP. Today, their population stands at approximately 610,000, according to the Ministry of the Interior, which constitute about 2.6 % of the total population. These communities, comprising 16 officially recognized exhibit diverse social structures, material cultures, and linguistic practices that at some point came under the influence of successive waves of foreign contact and governance. Austronesian political representation is guaranteed through six reserved seats in the Legislative Yuan and the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP), a central government agency responsible for Indigenous affairs. Although Indigenous peoples comprise only 2.6% of the national population, they account for as much as 8.7% of voluntary enlistments in Taiwan’s armed forces. In special operations units, Indigenous people constitute over half, underscoring the significant role they play in national defense and security.
Under its “One China” principle, the People’s Republic of China classifies the Indigenous peoples of Taiwan as one of its “ethnic minorities” (少數民族), and more specifically under the generalized category of the “Mountain Ethnic Group” (高山族), without recognition of the distinct identities and classifications officially acknowledged in Taiwan. This homogenizing approach disregards the diverse cultural, linguistic, and historical identities of Taiwan’s Indigenous groups and may carry significant legal implications, particularly in regard of land rights, cultural recognition, and the protection of Indigenous status under both domestic and international frameworks. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) leverages this legal framework, along with a range of strategic tactics, to advance its narrative that positions Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples as integral members of a broader Chinese national family.
In recent years, Indigenous communities have become increasingly vulnerable to identity-based disinformation (IBD). A notable example was a young Amis woman’s interview on Chinese television, claiming Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples are a Chinese ethnic minority from Fujian Province. Another involved an Indigenous person publicly identifying as Chinese. False claims also circulate online, such as accusations that Taiwan violently demolishes Indigenous homes—often illustrated with unrelated images. In addition, PRC promotes narratives linking Taiwan’s Indigenous groups to Chinese minorities, using genealogical claims, academic exchanges, and financial incentives to reinforce these messages and shape perceptions for political purposes.
Why does it matter?
Identity-based disinformation (IBD) is gaining traction in both Taiwan and Europe, with targeted narratives directed at Indigenous and ethnic minority groups such as the Sámi, the Roma, and, more recently, Ukrainian communities. Although governments have introduced structural measures to combat disinformation more broadly, such as the EU’s establishment of the East StratCom Task Force in 2015 and Taiwan’s integration of media literacy into the national curriculum in 2017, these efforts have not been designed specifically to address IBD, nor it has ever been a political priority.
As a result, the effects of identity-based disinformation remain poorly understood. Its impacts on political engagement, cultural continuity, and community resilience continue to unfold with limited academic or policy attention. Meanwhile, disinformation campaigns exploiting ethnic identity have become more sophisticated, placing increased pressure on civil society and research institutions, many of which face financial or political constraints.
In Taiwan, such disinformation contributes to a growing perception among Indigenous youth that their identities are being instrumentalized in competing political narratives. Nationalist projects that seek to redefine or appropriate Indigenous identities for strategic purposes are inherently oppressive and distort those identities.
As the EU prepares its next five-year human rights strategy, there is an urgent need to support research and policy frameworks that directly confront the ethnic dimensions of disinformation.
