Symposium: American US Naval Operative dictating Internal Philippine Policies

**Former US air force colonel Raymond Powell mentors Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro.**

Asian Century Journal is reprinting three guest editorials on a single issue for archival purposes. Guo Wei, who graduated with a Masters degree in Law, is the deputy spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Manila. Dai Fan studied in the University of the Philippines and is an academic and director of the Center for Philippine Studies at Jinan University in Guangzhou, where commentary is frequently published regarding regional relations and educational policy. Rommel C. Banlaoi is the director of the Philippines-China Studies Center at Diliman College and president of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies. He also served as president of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies.

(1) When All You Have Is a Hammer: Ray Powell’s Second Battlefield

By Guo Wei

I. The Man With a Hammer

There’s an old saying: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Raymond Powell is that man with the hammer.

He spent much of his career in the U.S. military and intelligence. Years of viewing the world through the lens of rivalry have conditioned him to look for enemies everywhere. Every issue, every institution, every exchange must somehow fit into a geopolitical contest.

So, when he sees Filipino Chinese schools teaching children Mandarin, he doesn’t see educators preserving a community’s language and heritage—he sees instruments of “Chinese influence.” When Chinese and Filipino scholars gather for academic conferences, he doesn’t see the normal exchange of ideas—he sees political propaganda.

This mindset explains why he can produce articles that read less like serious analysis and more like conspiracy the ories. Ordinary Chinese-language education becomes “infiltration.” Routine academic cooperation becomes a “national security threat.”

The real question, then, is this: Is Philippine society truly full of “nails,” or is it simply that the observer is carrying a hammer, and determined to hammer nails into places where none exist?

II. Powell’s Twisted Logic

Chinese-language education in the Philippines has existed for more than 120 years—predating every American military presence ever established in the country.

For generations, the Filipino Chinese community has established schools, published newspapers, and taught its language not to serve some geopolitical agenda in Washington or Beijing, but to preserve its cultural heritage while raising responsible citizens deeply rooted in Philippine society.

Chinese-language education in the Philippines dates back to 1899—more than a century before Powell concocted his SeaLight project.

To portray it as an instrument of Chinese expansion is not only chronologically absurd; it also ignores the historical reality that Chinese schools in the Philippines have long been independently established, funded, and operated by the Filipino Chinese community itself.

Most Chinese schools in the Philippines have relied largely on donations and financial support from the community rather than government funding. Over the decades, they have educated generations of Filipinos who have gone on to contribute to business, medicine, education, public service, and many other fields.

If that is somehow called “infiltration,” then by the same logic every immigrant community around the world that teaches its mother tongue would deserve the same label.

And here’s where Powell’s double standard becomes impossible to ignore.

If Chinese people teaching Chinese constitutes “foreign influence,” then what exactly should we call Americans teaching English in the Philippines?

The United States introduced and mandated English in the Philippines during its colonial rule. For over a century, the United States has expanded its influence in the Philippines through education, language programs, scholarships, and youth leadership initiatives.

The U.S. Peace Corps has worked in Philippine schools and communities for decades, promoting English-language education and community development while also advancing American values and strengthening U.S. influence at the grassroots level.

The Fulbright Program has long cultivated generations of Filipino officials, academics, journalists, and professionals, creating an extensive alumni network with enduring ties to the United States.

The Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) focuses specifically on emerging political, business, and civil society leaders, nurturing future decision-makers through training programs, exchanges, and alumni networks funded by the U.S. government.

Together, these initiatives form a comprehensive influence network spanning grassroots communities, young leaders, and elite decision-makers. This is typically described as “public diplomacy” or “soft power” by Western countries.

By Powell’s own logic, however, they would equally qualify as long-term efforts to shape another country’s perceptions through education and culture in pursuit of national strategic interests and would indeed constitute infiltration.

His inconsistency extends beyond the fields of language teaching and education. Powell frequently claims to defend “academic freedom,” yet his definition of freedom appears remarkably selective.

When Filipino or Western scholars publish views on the South China Sea that align with his preferred narrative, he celebrates them as expressions of free speech. But when Chinese scholars present arguments grounded in historical records or international law, he dismisses them outright as propaganda.

That is not an objective standard. It is politics masquerading as scholarship.

III. Why a “Second Battlefield”? From Maritime Disputes to Civil Society

For years, Ray Powell’s primary battlefield has been the South China Sea.

Since 2023, he has posted more than 6,000 social media updates related to the South China Sea, relentlessly attacking and smearing China in every way. On several occasions, he has even commented on maritime incidents before Philippine authorities had issued their own official statements, prompting questions about the extraordinary speed and possible sources of his information.

But circumstances have changed. The room for endlessly amplifying maritime confrontations is narrowing. China and the Philippines have recently resumed diplomatic and political dialogue, strengthened communication between law enforcement agencies, and restored direct flights. Despite persistent differences, bilateral relations have begun showing signs of stabilization and renewed engagement.

That is precisely the development Powell appears least willing to accept.

As opportunities to inflame tensions at sea diminish, his attention has increasingly shifted ashore. Instead of focusing solely on maritime disputes, he has expanded his attacks to encompass almost every aspect of China–Philippines engagement—from academic exchanges and cultural cooperation to people-to-people ties.

Chinese-language education, one of the oldest institutions within the Filipino Chinese community and an enduring bridge between the two peoples, has now become his latest target.

A closer look at Powell’s record suggests that his role extends well beyond that of a so-called “independent maritime analyst”. He is in essence a former U.S. military officer who actively engages on the front lines of the South China Sea and continues to shape narratives on issues central to China–Philippines relations.

His broader objective appears clear: to encourage the Philippines to view nearly every interaction with China through the lens of strategic confrontation, gradually transforming the country into a frontline state in Washington’s competition with Beijing. The ultimate goal is to systematically turn the Philippines into a “proxy battlefield” for containing China.

His methods have been remarkably consistent.

First, in politics, he seeks to deepen divisions.

Powell has repeatedly used social media to cast routine diplomatic engagement in sinister terms. He has even portrayed normal interactions by Chinese diplomats as a calculated “good cop, bad cop” strategy.

Such rhetoric does little to promote understanding. Instead, it encourages suspicion and confrontation between the two governments, widens mistrust between civilian and military institutions between the two countries, and fuels hostility toward the Filipino Chinese community. The result is an atmosphere reminiscent of a new McCarthyism—where ordinary exchanges become grounds for political suspicion.

Second, in the media, he attempts to silence alternative voices.

Powell has repeatedly accused Chinese-language media in the Philippines of acting under the direction of the Chinese Embassy, offering sweeping allegations while casting doubt on their editorial independence.

Whether one agrees with those media outlets or not, branding dissenting perspectives as foreign manipulation risks creating a chilling effect, discouraging journalists and commentators from expressing views that depart from prevailing political narratives.

That is not the defense of free expression. It is an attempt to narrow the space for it.

Third, in culture and education, he seeks to recast history itself.

By depicting Chinese-language education as an instrument of infiltration, Powell dismisses more than a century of history and community development.

More troubling still, Powell has gone so far as to criticize activities commemorating the victory over fascism during the Second World War and openly downplay the history of Japanese militarist aggression, turning a blind eye to well-documented atrocities such as the Bataan Death March and the Manila Massacre. Such conduct is not only an affront to the memory of the Chinese and Filipino victims of World War II; it is also a betrayal of the thousands of American prisoners of war who died at the hands of the Japanese military.

Viewed together, Powell’s actions reveal a clear and troubling pattern. Whether in education, academia, the media, or cultural exchanges, the underlying message remains the same: trust less, fear more, and confront sooner.

His focus is not the well-being of the Filipino people, nor the stability of China–Philippines relations. Rather, his priority appears to be the advancement of U.S. strategic interests.

By fueling hostility and amplifying tensions, Powell’s efforts risk undermining any opportunity for further improvement in China–Philippines relations, pushing the two countries toward deeper confrontation and serving a broader agenda of maintaining U.S. influence, or dominance in the Asia-Pacific.

IV. The Philippines Doesn’t Need an American Hammer

Ray Powell would have us believe that everything around us is a nail.

It isn’t.

The Philippines does not need someone thousands of miles away to decide who its friends are and who its enemies should be. Nor does the Asia-Pacific need an American hammer striking every point of contact between China and the Philippines until ordinary cooperation is reduced to another geopolitical battleground.

As a prominent actor on the front lines of the U.S. strategic competition in the South China Sea, Ray Powell’s approach runs counter to the broader trend toward peace and stability, dialogue and cooperation, and development and progress. His actions ultimately risk undermining Philippine sovereignty, harming the interests of the Filipino people, and narrowing the space for independent decision-making. Efforts carried out in the name of “academic analysis” and “transparency” while serving to fuel suspicion and confrontation cannot withstand public scrutiny. Attempts to drive a wedge between the Chinese and Philippine peoples are unlikely to succeed.

The future of China–Philippines relations should be determined by the peoples and governments of the two countries, not by outside actors whose strategic interests depend on keeping the relationship perpetually adversarial.

The Chinese Embassy will continue to present facts, clarify misunderstandings, and ensure that the public is not misled by distorted narratives. Chinese-language education is a cultural tradition that has been passed down within the Filipino Chinese community for more than a century, while China–Philippines educational exchanges are normal, open, and transparent forms of cooperation.

Ironically, the more urgently Powell tries to label Chinese-language education as “infiltration,” the more he reveals his own anxiety over the continued expansion of people-to-people ties between China and the Philippines.

History offers a simple lesson. Attempts to drive a wedge between the Chinese and Philippine peoples have never endured. The foundation of China–Philippines relations has always rested not only on diplomacy, but on the countless personal, cultural, educational, and commercial ties built over generations. Those connections cannot be erased by a handful of opinion pieces, however forcefully argued.

People like Powell may succeed in generating headlines. They may even create temporary political noise.

But they cannot reverse the broader trajectory of China–Philippines engagement, nor can they extinguish the shared aspirations of both peoples for peace, development, and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Because in the end, those who see only nails inevitably spend their lives swinging a hammer.

The rest of us are busy building bridges.

A sample of Sealight’s disinformation campaign.

(2)Beyond Geopolitics: Why Chinese Language Education Should Not Become a Casualty of Strategic Competition

By Dai Fan

In today’s polarized world, almost every interaction with China is read through geopolitics. Universities, research institutes, cultural exchanges—even language classrooms—are too often cast as arenas of strategic rivalry rather than spaces of learning.

As Director of the Center for Philippine Studies at Jinan University, I have spent my career studying Philippine history, society, and China–Philippines relations. One lesson is clear: sustainable relations cannot rest on diplomacy alone. They require mutual understanding, educational exchange, and people-to-people ties.

Thus, it is troubling to see a recent commentary by the U.S.-based think tank SeaLight frame Jinan University’s Chinese-language education in the Philippines as part of China’s United Front strategy. Such reductionism ignores more than a century of educational engagement and the lived experience of Chinese Filipinos.

Founded in 1906, Jinan University is China’s oldest institution created for overseas Chinese. Its first students came from Java. The name “Jinan” means “facing Nanyang,” symbolizing its mission to serve overseas Chinese communities. In 1927, it established the Nanyang Cultural and Educational Division; in 1929, Chinese Filipino students published The Philippines, China’s first journal on the country. These milestones predate the People’s Republic, the Cold War, and today’s strategic competition.

For 120 years, Jinan’s mission has been consistent: educate overseas Chinese, advance scholarship, and preserve language and culture. This continuity deserves recognition before political labels are imposed.

Chinese-language education is only part of Jinan’s broader academic ecosystem. The university is a leader in social sciences, conducting research on overseas Chinese history, migration, diaspora, literature, economics, international relations, media, and Southeast Asian studies. It hosts China’s only Ministry of Education Key Research Base for Overseas Chinese Studies. This reflects a genuine academic commitment, not simply language training.

Ironically, global academia increasingly values migration and diaspora studies. To dismiss them when they involve China undermines intellectual fairness.

Listen to how Secretary Teodoro apes the views of Raymond Powell.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1866284754777037

Missing from SeaLight’s analysis is the perspective of Chinese Filipinos. Chinese communities have lived in the Philippines for centuries. Binondo, established in the late sixteenth century, is the world’s oldest Chinatown—a reminder that Chinese–Filipino interaction predates the modern nation-state.

Over generations, Chinese Filipinos have become integral to Philippine society. They built schools, hospitals, charities, and businesses. They contributed to commerce, manufacturing, education, science, healthcare, journalism, and public service. Their philanthropy and disaster relief have aided countless families.

These contributions never required abandoning cultural heritage. Maintaining Chinese language and traditions has not made them less Filipino. My Chinese Filipino friends are proud citizens, secure in their national identity, while also preserving their ethnic culture. This reality deserves respect, not suspicion.

The Philippines itself illustrates why multilingual education matters. As one of Asia’s most linguistically diverse societies, it has long valued cultural and linguistic diversity.

Chinese-language education exists alongside Filipino, English, and numerous regional and indigenous languages. Research emphasizes cultivating local teachers and integrating Chinese-language education into Philippine development, not treating it as a political tool.

Learning ancestral languages is neither unusual nor uniquely Chinese. Heritage-language education worldwide allows communities to preserve culture while participating fully in national life. This principle aligns with internationally recognized cultural and educational rights.

Chinese-language education should be judged by the same standard.

China and the Philippines have differences. Maritime disputes require dialogue. But it would be a mistake to let disagreements define every aspect of relations. Universities do not negotiate territorial claims. Teachers do not set foreign policy but they teach, research, and foster understanding.

Rigorous scholarship demands more than skepticism. It requires historical perspective, methodological balance, and fairness. Criticism is strongest when evidence leads, not when suspicion dictates.

For more than a century, Jinan University has connected overseas Chinese communities with language, culture, and knowledge. That mission has remained consistent across political eras. Hence, universities bear a responsibility not to deepen divisions but to preserve human connections that politics alone cannot sustain.

READ: https://philippinesgraphic.com.ph/2021/03/21/chinese-filipinos-transecting-1521/

(3)Chinese universities and united front operations in the Philippines

By Rommel Banlaoi

A recent article raises alarm over a Chinese university that once claimed Batanes as part of China and is now training Manila’s Chinese-language teachers. It highlights the role of the United Front Work Department (UFWD), framing these activities as instruments of Beijing’s influence operations.

Such concerns really merit serious attention. Yet they must be examined with intellectual humility and objective analysis promoting understanding rather than suspicion that risks fueling hostility and disinformation.

Chinese universities are not monolithic. Like institutions elsewhere, they can serve state policy, but they are also centers of scholarship, cultural exchange and professional development.

To portray every academic tie with Chinese universities as a covert plot undermines opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning. Blanket demonization forecloses avenues that could help Filipinos better understand China, its diverse people and its complex society.

Risks, however, cannot be dismissed. The UFWD does have a mandate to extend China’s influence, and programs linked to it may carry political undertones. Transparency must therefore be demanded, with safeguards to protect academic freedom and national interest. Filipino institutions must remain alert to the possibility of soft power deployed through education, while upholding the highest standards of scholarship and independence.

At the same time, the benefits of engagement are compelling. Training teachers in Mandarin equips Filipinos with skills vital for diplomacy, business and regional integration. Academic exchanges expose participants to diverse perspectives within China, countering stereotypes and reducing misperceptions. People-to-people contacts provide informal channels of communication that can ease tensions in official relations — strategic assets in managing a relationship often marked by geopolitical friction.

The Philippines should adopt a strategy of constructive engagement with vigilance. This means continuing academic exchanges but with safeguards against political manipulation. It requires reciprocity, ensuring Filipino scholars also have opportunities to study in China under mutually beneficial terms. It entails strengthening national independence, framing cooperation with China not as passive acceptance of influence but as active management of ties to advance Philippine interests.

Linking Chinese universities to the UFWD is not entirely wrong, but such connections must be viewed with benign rather than malign intent. Overgeneralization risks fueling paranoia, while balanced and nuanced analysis clarifies contexts, safeguards interests and keeps doors open for genuine scholarly dialogue. Academic freedom and excellence demand that we resist simplistic narratives and instead pursue rigorous, diligent, objective and evidence-based assessments.

In the long run, people-to-people contacts can serve as stabilizing forces in Philippines-China relations, complementing official diplomacy with human connections less prone to weaponization.

The challenge is not whether to engage, but how to engage lawfully, fairly and with a scientific mind committed to high standards of scholarship. By stressing transparency, reciprocity and vigilance, the Philippines can preserve the constructive role of education and exchange while defending national sovereignty.

This nuanced path is neither naïve nor hostile. It is reasonable, nonjudgmental and ultimately aligned with Filipino national interests and not the interest of any foreign power.

The Authors:

Supplement: Following Sealight’s definition of terms, here are clippings of Philippine “united front operations” in Guangzhou, China, caught in camera.