The best defense against cognitive warfare

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

While the nation’s eyes are rightly fixed on the horizon, watching the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) bravely face down Chinese water cannons and blockades in the West Philippine Sea, a second, more insidious battle is being waged. This war is not for territory, but for the Filipino mind. It is fought on our television screens, in our social media feeds, and in the comment sections of news websites.

This is cognitive warfare, a strategy NATO’s 2021-2022 reports define as a method to influence not just what people think, but how they think. Its ultimate goal is to sow discord, erode trust in democratic institutions, and paralyze a nation’s will to act. China, as multiple investigations have shown, is playing the long game. The objective is not necessarily to make Filipinos like Beijing—a goal made impossible by its own relentless aggression at sea. The true, more achievable aim is to foster confusion, fear, and distrust.

If the public is divided, if citizens distrust their own military, if they are terrified of a “nuclear annihilation” for simply defending their own waters, then the government cannot form a coherent national will to resist. Paralysis becomes the default. A recent, crucial report from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) provides a veritable field manual for this new battleground. It identifies five “red flags” that expose how pro-China propaganda operates, offering a practical toolkit for every Filipino.

This isn’t about being “pro-China” or “pro-America”; it’s about being pro-Philippines and refusing to be manipulated. To defend ourselves, we must first understand the playbook.

TOOLKIT OF MANIPULATION

The PCIJ report, synthesizing analysis from researchers like political sociologist Alvin Camba and military historian Jose Custodio, details a sophisticated, multi-pronged attack.

First is the blatant echo of Beijing’s official—and legally baseless—talking points. Influencers, some of whom have admitted to attending China-funded training seminars, directly parrot state-sanctioned narratives. This includes defending the “nine-dash line,” a claim obliterated by the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling. By laundering these claims through Filipino voices, the propaganda attempts to give them a veneer of local, organic legitimacy.

Second is the insidious use of a glaring double standard. This is perhaps the most sophisticated tactic because it preys on legitimate historical grievances. Pro-China influencers are often hypercritical of the United States, pointing to its colonial past or the 2014 killing of Jennifer Laude. They frame any U.S.-Philippine cooperation, like the Balikatan exercises, as “puppetry” or “provocation.”

To be clear, criticism of U.S. foreign policy is not only valid but necessary. However, the tell-tale sign of propaganda is the deafening silence that follows. The same influencers who condemn American “imperialism” have nothing to say about China’s current imperial actions: its construction of military-grade artificial islands, its ramming of Filipino fishing boats, or its water cannon attacks on our own Coast Guard. Lawyer Ahmed Paglinawan, who attended the Beijing training, perfectly exemplified this deflection by dismissing fears of Chinese expansionism, arguing China has “so much vacant land.” This absurd argument deliberately ignores that China’s aggression is about controlling strategic waters, not finding living space.

Third is the contradictory, “schizophrenic” narrative of downplaying the threat while simultaneously fear-mongering about it. The goal here is to create a psychological trap. As noted by Alvin Camba, influencers will cherry-pick outdated academic papers to argue that concerns about Chinese maritime militias are “overblown” or “manufactured hysteria.” In the next breath, as seen in posts by influencer Mark Lopez, they will warn that asserting our sovereign rights will “doom” the Philippines to “nuclear annihilation.”

The message is a classic Catch-22: The threat is not real, but if you act against it, you will be destroyed. The intended result is paralysis.

Fourth is the cynical weaponization of Sinophobia. This tactic is designed to shut down all legitimate debate by falsely conflating criticism of the Chinese government with racism against the Chinese people. If you criticize the China Coast Guard for its illegal actions, you are branded a “Sinophobe.” This is a textbook deflection.

The Filipino-Chinese community is an integral and valued part of our nation, and many within it openly oppose Beijing’s aggression. Celebrating Chinese New Year has nothing to do with accepting the Chinese Communist Party’s territorial expansionism. By blurring this line, influencers attempt to silence dissent and make patriots question their own motives.

Fifth, and most direct, is the systematic effort to undermine the Philippine military and smear its most effective officials. The propaganda network has been caught amplifying false narratives of coup plots and civil instability, aiming to “paint a picture to the public that the Marcos administration is suffering instability,” as historian Jose Custodio noted.

This attack becomes personal and targeted. The PCG’s “assertive transparency” campaign—relentlessly documenting and publicizing China’s actions—has been our single most effective strategy in the information war. It has rallied international support and exposed China’s “gray-zone” tactics to the world. As a result, its architects, like Commodore Jay Tarriela, have become prime targets. He and other officials have been relentlessly smeared online as “CIA operatives” and “U.S. dogs.” This is a calculated effort to poison the antidote by destroying the credibility of the messenger.

DEFENSE BEGINS IN THE CLASSROOM

We are not defenseless. The success of “assertive transparency” proves that truthful, proactive information is the best weapon. But this strategy relies on a public that trusts the messenger and can spot the poison.

This is a “whole-of-society” problem that requires a whole-of-nation response. The propaganda is effective because it exploits every crack in our national foundation—our historical grievances, our economic anxieties, and even our political divisions. When former President Duterte threatened Mindanao’s secession, Chinese social media accounts were found to be amplifying the rhetoric, actively encouraging the fracturing of our republic.

Therefore, we cannot leave this fight to the PCG and the Department of National Defense alone. The most critical frontline is not at sea; it is in our schools.

The Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) must move with urgency. “Media and Information Literacy” is already a core subject in Senior High School, but it must be immediately updated for this new reality. We are no longer teaching students to spot simple “fake news” about celebrities; we must be teaching them to identify and resist state-level cognitive warfare.

The PCIJ’s “five red flags” are not abstract theories. They are the enemy’s playbook, and they should be required learning.

We must teach our students how to spot the double standard. We must arm them with the history to understand the 2016 Arbitral Ruling and the geography to laugh at claims that China just “needs more land.” We must give them the critical thinking to separate valid criticism of an ally from the talking points of a hostile state. We must inoculate a generation against the tactics of fear-mongering and false equivalence.

The fight for our sovereignty will be long. It will be fought as much in our classrooms and on our newsfeeds as it is in the open sea. By arming our citizens with the most powerful weapon of all – critical thought – we build a national defense that no amount of propaganda can ever breach.