There is a pro-China think tank suspected of being funded by China or its United Front Work Department that has been spreading anti-Philippines and pro-China narratives since its website registration on May 28, 2022, shortly after the conclusion of the last presidential elections.

This pro-CCP propaganda website, known as the Asian Century Journal, is filled with content that is blatantly pro-China, anti-Philippines, and anti-US. Upon visiting their website, you would be surprised to find that all of their published posts give the impression that the think tank is based in China and staffed by Chinese propagandists.

However, it is entirely run by Filipinos and/or Chinese-Filipino so-called scholars and thought leaders.

Its president, Herman Tiu Laurel, has been actively spreading narratives and propaganda in favor of China and against the Philippines.

For example, one of his recent posts or articles published on the Asian Century Journal, titled “U.S. Bullies Pinoys, axes two de-escalations,” is filled with fake news, disinformation, and misinformation slanted in favor of China and against the Philippines and the United States.

We are not going to fact-check the entire article, as we only need to focus on its lead paragraph, which reeks of fake news, lies, and disinformation.

Statement to Fact Check:

“For nearly 25-years the Philippines and China maintained a steady and peaceful dialogue over its South China Sea disputes except for about a dozen significant enough to report incidents in over 8,500-days. Suddenly in February 2023 the clashes became almost weekly occurrences at either the Ayungin or Scarborough Shoal. It was the U.S. and its Filipino proxies’ ‘assertive transparency’ or Project Myoushu, provocations to create the ‘China bully’ image, but twice there had been pushbacks that called for ‘easing of tensions’ or ‘de-escalation’.”

Quotation: “For nearly 25-years the Philippines and China maintained a steady and peaceful dialogue over its South China Sea disputes except for about a dozen significant enough to report incidents in over 8,500-days.”

Argument Against:

• Historical Context: Contrary to this claim, the Philippines and China have experienced numerous disputes and rising tensions over the South China Sea, especially since the 1990s. The Philippines has been consistently vocal about Chinese incursions into its claimed waters.

Significant Incidents:

• 1995: China occupied Mischief Reef, leading to protests from the Philippines.
• 2012: The Scarborough Shoal standoff saw a significant escalation, with both countries deploying ships to assert their claims.
• 2013: The Philippines brought a case against China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016, a ruling China has ignored.

Quotation: “Suddenly in February 2023 the clashes became almost weekly occurrences at either the Ayungin or Scarborough Shoal.”

Argument Against:

• Ongoing Clashes: Clashes in the South China Sea have been ongoing for years, with numerous incidents reported before 2023. The frequency of clashes around Ayungin and Scarborough Shoal has been part of a broader pattern of assertive behavior by China, not a sudden change.
• 2019: Chinese vessels harassed Filipino fishermen and resupply missions to Ayungin Shoal.
• 2021-2022: Multiple incidents involved Chinese maritime militia and coast guard vessels blocking or harassing Philippine vessels.

Quotation: “It was the U.S. and its Filipino proxies’ ‘assertive transparency’ or Project Myoushu, provocations to create the ‘China bully’ image…”

Argument Against:

• China’s Actions: The characterization of U.S. and Filipino actions as provocations overlooks the consistent and aggressive actions by China in the region. China has been building artificial islands, militarizing them, and asserting expansive territorial claims despite international law.
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. has conducted freedom of navigation operations to challenge China’s excessive maritime claims but has done so within the framework of international law. The aim is to ensure open sea lanes, not to provoke.

Quotation: “Twice there had been pushbacks that called for ‘easing of tensions’ or ‘de-escalation’.”

Argument Against:

• Frequent Calls for De-escalation: Calls for easing tensions and de-escalation have been a consistent part of the dialogue between the involved nations, not just isolated instances. ASEAN has repeatedly called for adherence to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
• Diplomatic Efforts: Efforts to de-escalate have included bilateral and multilateral talks, regional forums, and even direct interventions by other nations concerned about stability in the South China Sea.

The narrative that the Philippines and China maintained a largely peaceful dialogue for 25 years and that recent clashes are primarily due to U.S. and Filipino provocations is misleading.

Historical evidence shows that tensions and incidents have been ongoing for decades, driven largely by China’s assertive territorial claims and actions in the South China Sea.

The U.S. involvement has been consistent with international law, aiming to ensure freedom of navigation rather than provocation. Calls for de-escalation have been frequent and are part of ongoing diplomatic efforts in the region.

Who is Herman Tiu Laurel

Herman Tiu Laurel is the president of the Asian Century Journal, a publication known for its pro-China stance. He has been a prominent figure advocating for closer Philippines-China relations and is associated with the Association for Philippines-China Understanding (APCU)​.

There are significant indications that his think tank may be influenced by Chinese interests. Laurel’s writings and speeches frequently align with Chinese government narratives. His think tank, the Philippine BRICS Strategic Studies, echoes China’s advocacy for a multi-polar world structure, and he has actively promoted China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)​​.

Laurel’s involvement with the APCU and his consistent pro-China messaging suggest potential alignment with China’s United Front Work Department, which seeks to influence foreign public opinion. However, concrete evidence of direct funding from China or its United Front Work Department to his think tank is not readily available in public sources. Nonetheless, the alignment of his views and activities with Chinese strategic interests raises questions about the potential for indirect support or influence​.