SEASAT Youth Perspectives

【Think Tank Forum—Building an NSP+ Think Tank Corridor | Strategic Alliances for Democratic Resilience in the Indo-Pacific: Institutionalizing the Think Tank Corridor under the NSP+ Framework】Hsin-Tzu Cynthia Yang and Ruei Kuo

August 12th, 2025

BACKGROUND

The “Think Tank Corridor,” proposed by Professor Alan Hao Yang (2025) under the New Southbound Policy Plus (NSP+), is one of three key civil society initiatives aimed at deepening policy dialogue and cooperation between Taiwan and its Southbound partners. It focuses on expanding informal policy exchanges, fostering research and discussion on regional issues like democratic governance and disaster resilience, and offering intellectual support to policymakers and civil society. The initiative includes hosting an annual “NSP Think Tank Summit,” conducting image surveys across 18 partner countries, and building sustained partnerships with ASEAN think tanks. Strategically, it serves to promote Taiwan’s “warm power” diplomacy, position Taiwan as a regional knowledge hub, and counter authoritarian influence, while integrating with parallel efforts like the NGO and Youth Corridors to form a multi-layered model of people-centered diplomacy.

In parallel, institutions like theTaiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) play a complementary role by supporting democracy, equality, and minority rights through regional forums, NGO grants, and youth leadership initiatives. TFD also aims to position itself as a regional hub for democratic collaboration, enhancing Taiwan’s visibility and impact within broader Indo-Pacific civil society networks. These ongoing efforts underscore Taiwan’s commitment to a values-based foreign policy and reinforce the rationale for expanding multi-level, people-centered partnerships through the Think Tank Corridor.

INSIGHTS AND REFLECTIONS

Taiwan faces a uniquely complex geopolitical dilemma in the Indo-Pacific. AsDr. David Santoro of the Pacific Forum emphasized during the Yushan Forum, a contingency over Taiwan would fundamentally reshape the region’s security architecture - allowing Beijing to project military and intelligence capabilities deep into the Pacific, threatening U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam, and destabilizing Southeast Asia. This scenario underscores Taiwan's pivotal role, yet also highlights its vulnerability due to exclusion from formal diplomatic alliances and strategic ambiguity in international policy.

As Dr. Yoichi Funabashi argues in an article entitled “What is a Think Tank?” (Funabashi, 2019), the essential function of a think tank is to serve as an “intellectual sounding board” - informing the public and supporting democratic deliberation through policy research and public engagement. Similarly, institutions like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) demonstrate this role by organizing conferences, publishing analyses, and engaging with media to shape public understanding. In this sense, think tanks operate as a critical third pillar alongside legislatures and the media in safeguarding democratic accountability.

Yet for Taiwan, exercising this democratic function internationally is constrained by geopolitical exclusion and fragmented policy networks, particularly with Europe and the broader Indo-Pacific. These constraints call for a more integrated and empowered role for Taiwanese think tanks, not only in advising the government but also in engaging the public and transnational partners on matters of regional security and democratic values.

Mr. Andrew Yeh of China Strategic Risks Institute (CSRI) further pointed out during the panel that since the Russia-Ukraine war, European think tank resources have been overwhelmingly redirected toward continental issues, weakening transregional engagement with the Indo-Pacific. Despite this, Yeh argues that Europe has both strategic incentives and shared vulnerabilities - such as cyber-attacks, undersea cable sabotage, and disinformation threats - that align it closely with Taiwan’s experiences. However, in the absence of an institutionalized framework, collaboration between Taiwanese, European, and Indo-Pacific policy communities remains fragmented and underdeveloped.

Therefore, Taiwan’s think tank diplomacy under the New Southbound Policy+ (NSP+) is critically constrained at a time when regional coordination, anticipatory research, and a shared response to hybrid threats are urgently needed. Without targeted efforts to construct a resilient and integrated “think tank corridor,” Taiwan risks strategic isolation and underutilization of its policy expertise in shaping a stable Indo-Pacific future.

While Taiwan’s strategic importance and the urgency for regional collaboration are widely acknowledged, the development of a robust and future-ready NSP+ think tank corridor faces two interrelated but distinct challenges.

Challenges and Difficulties: 

1. Structural Fragmentation and Statist Constraints in Taiwan’s Think Tank Ecosystem

The first is internal and institutional: Taiwan’s think tank ecosystem remains heavily state-centered and fragmented, limiting its inclusiveness, flexibility, and international credibility. A lack of diverse funding models, limited cooperation between public and private institutions, and overreliance on official narratives have weakened Taiwan’s capacity to project independent intellectual leadership.

During the panel discussion at the Yushan Forum 2025, panelists emphasized that Taiwan’s think tank ecosystem remains heavily state-centered, limiting its flexibility, inclusiveness, and international credibility.

Dr. James Gomez from Asia Centre highlighted that many think tanks in the Indo-Pacific, including those in Taiwan, operate through a “statist lens,” which restricts their analytical depth and ability to engage with alternative power structures within societies. He warned that overreliance on government-aligned think tanks risks reproducing state narratives, making it difficult for foreign partners to identify independent and critical voices in Taiwan’s policy discourse. Instead, he advocated for expanding cooperation with independently funded think tanks that can offer more nuanced and innovative perspectives - especially in navigating the elite, bureaucratic, and inter-agency dynamics that shape regional security.

This concern was echoed byDr. Tristan Liu of Taiwan Think Tank, who acknowledged the sector’s dependency on government funding, which may compromise its perceived independence. In response, think tanks like Taiwan Think Tank are seeking alternative fundraising models, though such transitions remain in the early stages.

Dr. Yujen Kuo of the Institute for National Policy Research (INPR) further pointed to the fragmentation between public and private think tanks in Taiwan. While private institutions like INPR are more agile in responding to emerging issues - such as quickly convening forums or forming cross-sectoral research teams with chip manufacturers, green economy centers, and financial institutions - he emphasized the lack of synchronized agenda-setting and institutional coordination between the two sectors. Dr. Kuo underscored the importance of developing joint platforms and a clear division of labor to strengthen Taiwan’s domestic policy influence and its international narrative capacity.

These challenges, rooted in funding structures, institutional silos, and the dominance of statist paradigms, directly constrain the potential of Taiwan’s NSP+ think tank diplomacy. As emphasized in the earlier Insights and Reflections, addressing these structural issues is imperative if Taiwan is to avoid strategic isolation and meaningfully contribute to a resilient Indo-Pacific policy ecosystem.

2.The Authoritarian Challenge-Disinformation and Cognitive Influence through Think Tanks

Another mounting challenge identified in the Think Tank Forum is the growing authoritarian influence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly China’s strategic use of disinformation and cognitive operations to shape global norms and fragment democratic consensus. As highlighted in a 2024 report by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), Chinese think tanks have evolved into sophisticated instruments of authoritarian narrative projection. Since President Xi Jinping’s 2013 directive to build “new-type think tanks with Chinese characteristics,” these institutions have played an increasingly assertive role in Track 1.5 dialogues, non-governmental forums, and global policy debates.

While these interactions offerbackchannel communication during periods of official tension, panelists at the Yushan Forum cautioned against naively engaging with Chinese think tanks without acknowledging their proximity to the party-state and their embedded political agendas. Mechanisms such as the Network of East Asian Think Tanks (NEAT) and the Network of Trilateral Cooperation Think Tanks (NTCT) demonstrate China’s capacity to institutionalize influence operations under the guise of regional cooperation.

Moreover, China's cognitive influence is expanding intoemerging governance fields, such as AI regulation and human rights discourse. Its 2023 launch of the Global AI Governance Initiative, later submitted to the UN in 2024, proposes “equitable distribution” of AI while rejecting ideological exclusions - language some scholars, such as Austin Wang (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), interpreted as a form of “AI communism.” This represents a broader strategy to redefine global standards and democratic values through the manipulation of normative language and expert platforms.

In this context, Indo-Pacific think tanks are not merely research institutions - they are frontline actors in the defense of democratic cognition and narrative sovereignty. Their ability to critically interpret, counteract, and propose alternatives to authoritarian framings is central to the resilience of open societies. However, without a coordinated framework and cross-border alert systems, these institutions risk being outpaced by China’s rapidly scaling cognitive architecture.

This deepens the imperative outlined in the Problem Statement:Taiwan’s think tanks, already limited by state-centered funding and institutional fragmentation, now face an additional layer of geopolitical complexity - an ideational battlefield where the very definitions of rights, security, and governance are contested.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the structural and geopolitical challenges discussed above, we propose the following policy recommendations to strengthen Taiwan’s think tank diplomacy under the NSP+ framework and enhance the Indo-Pacific’s collective resilience against authoritarian influence:

1.Diversify Funding and Institutional Models for Taiwanese Think Tanks

To move beyond a statist model and foster a pluralistic ecosystem, the Taiwan government should promote alternative funding sources, such as public-private partnerships, foundations, and international co-financing, to reduce overreliance on state budgets and encourage the growth of diverse think tanks. A transparent funding registry and clear accountability guidelines will further enhance institutional credibility and regional trust.

2. Establish an NSP+ Think Tank Corridor for Regional Cooperation

To institutionalize long-term partnerships, Taiwan should:
*   Create a Think Tank Coordination Platform under the NSP+ framework, with a shared agenda calendar and regular forums among public and private institutions.
*   Launch an NSP+ Fellowship Program to support researcher exchanges, joint publications, and scenario-based policy labs.
*   Convene Track 1.5 dialogues that integrate official and civil society perspectives on governance and security.

3. Develop a Regional Cognitive Security Framework

In response to China’s increasing deployment of think tanks as instruments of cognitive warfare, Taiwan and its NSP+ partners should:
*   Establish a Coalition for Cognitive Integrity, connecting democratic think tanks across the Indo-Pacific to monitor and counter authoritarian narratives, including areas like AI governance, international law, and human rights discourse.
*   Offer joint training to build resilience in both technical analysis and normative defense.

4. Institutionalize Think Tank Roles in Foreign Policy

To fully leverage Taiwan’s intellectual assets, the government should integrate think tanks into foreign policymaking through advisory roles, secondments, and inclusion in official regional delegations.

5. Deepen Strategic Engagement with European Think Tanks

As Europe increasingly recognizes Indo-Pacific stability as vital to its own interests, as highlighted in the panel discussion, Taiwan should elevate its role as a gateway to the Indo-Pacific for European policy communities, and strengthen strategic ties by:
*   Co-developing research on topics such as undersea infrastructure, digital resilience, and AI governance, and organizing Taiwan-Europe dialogues on cognitive manipulations and other key areas like critical minerals, dual-use technologies, and hybrid threats.
*   Promoting collaboration in surveillance and intelligence sharing in areas vulnerable to cognitive and infrastructural risks.

CONCLUSION

As regional governance grows more complex, youth should not be seen merely as future leaders, but as active contributors to shaping democratic resilience today. At the 2025 Yushan Forum, delegates highlighted the urgent need to institutionalize youth engagement within the NSP+ think tank corridor. However, while most governments in the NSP+ region emphasize youth engagement, institutional pathways remain fragmented, symbolic, or tokenistic.

Taiwan, positioned as a regional democracy hub, can take the lead in building structured and sustained mechanisms for youth participation. To this end, we recommend:

*   Establishing an NSP+ Youth Policy Platform that supports collaborative research, foresight workshops, and policy prototyping. Youth delegations should be systematically included in major Track 1.5 dialogues to ensure that regional futures are co-imagined intergenerationally.
 Launching a Southeast Asia-Taiwan Emerging Leaders Initiative, modeled on successful programs like the U.S.-Japan Leadership Program (USJLP), to foster long-term, cross-sectoral connections among next-generation policymakers, researchers, and civic innovators.
*   Creating open-access digital platforms, such as multilingual policy journals, regional podcast networks, and collaborative policy-wiki spaces, to amplify youth voices and build a decentralized knowledge commons.

By recognizing youth as intellectual and civic actors in their own right, Taiwan can help shape a generation of democratic stewards capable of navigating regional uncertainty with ethical clarity and institutional imagination. This would position NSP+ not just as a geopolitical initiative, but as a normative commitment to inclusive and future-oriented governance.

REFERENCES


CSIS (n.d.). About CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies. [online] www.csis.org. Available at:https://www.csis.org/about.

Funabashi, Y. (2019). What is a Think Tank? : An Era of Policy Entrepreneurship. 中央公論新社.

MERICS (2024). Whispering advice, roaring praises: The role of Chinese think tanks under Xi Jinping. [online] MERICS. Available at:https://merics.org/en/report/whispering-advice-roaring-praises-role-chinese-think-tanks-under-xi-jinping.

USJLP (n.d.). USJF | US-Japan Leadership Program (USJLP). [online] USJLP. Available at:https://www.usjlp.org/about/.

王宏恩 (2024). 台美須密切關注中國持續推動的AI共產主義. [online] 思想坦克|Voicettank. Available at:https://voicettank.org/20241024-1/.

Yang, A.H. (2025). The New Southbound Policy and Taiwan’s Think Tank Diplomacy under Tsai Ing-Wen’s Presidency. Impact, 2025(2), pp.57–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.21820/23987073.2025.2.57.