| > It claims that the islands have belonged to China for hundreds of years, and points to various old maps, historical use by Chinese fishermen, mentions in various treaties, and so on. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-se...
"... the tribunal rejected China’s argument that it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. " > I mostly hope that the situation doesn't escalate, but many sides are capable of escalation - the US, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and others. Only one of those countries has been building / extending artificially reefs / islands in this area. Xi lost face over this decision, and just said "tough, we aren't going to abide by it anyway". Hardly the actions of a reasonable government as good world citizens. > I can think of much more serious issues than some uninhabited islands and rocks China has deemed it very, very important to seize this area. It's pretty clear why to most people. > US military actions is the South China Sea could be viewed as highly provocative. I can see why China would respond by putting anti-aircraft batteries on the islands. You think it's reasonable to respond to freedom of navigation operations (also conducted by other countries than the USA) by militarising islands that aren't even theirs? |
China doesn't recognize the tribunal's jurisdiction in this case, since China previously opted out of binding arbitration on territorial issues, as allowed by UNCLOS.
> Only one of those countries has been building / extending artificially reefs / islands in this area.
At the same time, the US has been conducting provocative military maneuvers in the South China Sea. These days, China and the Philippines are cooperating to some extent in the South China Sea. The US has been prodding the Philippines to take a more confrontational approach.
> China has deemed it very, very important to seize this area.
I think there are two issues. They view the sea as strategically important, and don't want to be at the mercy of the US Navy, which could shut down a lot of Chinese trade in the event of a conflict. They also don't want to lose face, and giving in to US demands that they drop China's traditional territorial claims would not go over well among the Chinese population.
> You think it's reasonable to respond to freedom of navigation operations (also conducted by other countries than the USA) by militarising islands that aren't even theirs?
"Freedom of navigation operations" is a propagandistic name given by the US Navy to very provocative military maneuvers in what China views as its territorial waters. I think it's entirely understandable that China puts defensive weaponry on islands it considers its own, in response to perceived violations of its sovereignty by a hostile military.