In my view, the answer is dependent on China's intentions and how it intends to play out the issue. One way to look at it is the traditional view that possession is 9/10th of the law. You place your marker on an island and work through the mediation process with other countries which is effectively what the others are doing. In international law there is a three part test and demonstrating administration over an island in my view is not dependent on the size of your military assets placed to administer. The second approach is simply to use military might to have your way with no intention to actually go through the due legal process of presenting your case. I think you might do that because your case is weak or the rules are stacked against you and you feel that it the best course of action in the name of national interest. It is my view that China is pursuing the latter because of its unwillingness to present its case.
I see -- so in other words you believe China is deploying military assets to basically bolster its claim (colloquially speaking).
The other part of my question was: do you believe deployment of Chinese military assets to the area and/or onto the islands is also related to its desire to project power into SCS related to greater outreach independent of the territorial dispute issue (defending SLOCs and greater defensive and surveillance capabilities in SCS overall) -- or is it only because China wants to effectively use military muscle to enforce its claim?
I'd also like to note that all nations there do use military assets to bolster their claim, and I think deploying military assets cannot simply be reduced down to "unwillingness to present one's case". They also act as bargaining chips, surveying other nations' activities, maintaining a presence, and of course guarding against foreign incursion.
No worries if you think the description is not appropriate and may be offensive to others.
Well not due to offensiveness per se, but more because on a defence forum I think we can be candid about certain ideas like aggression or lawlessness in a geopolitical or territorial dispute context. Actions can be seen as interest and capability and materially driven, and laws are only there to facilitate and prohibit certain explicit interests and capabilities which are beyond the red line.
Aggression is an action not being present. It is the inherent right of every navy to sail the high sea including China. I don't think anybody is suggesting or complaining about the presence of the Chinese navy. The issue will be judged on its behaviour towards others and that includes the USN.
Being present at a particular place is an action in itself, and no navy is ever only "present" at a location -- they are always doing some operation or another.
I would not describe it as legitimate but rather extenuating reasons and that applies to all claimants.
Okay, I don't disagree with that.
The problem with your story are twofold. Firstly, there is a dispute and so any administration whether it is by China or the other claimants do not have legitimacy i.e. it lacks recognition by others. This is precisely the reason why the USN is making the transit into the area to demonstrate this point. Many failed to understand this act in international law that failure to make this point implies tacit agreement to China's claims. This is no different to the US sending 2 B-52's into the ADIZ over the ESC during the initial set up. It is a political message in international relations and international law. Without an understanding of international laws some of these acts might seem trivial and unnecessary but they are not. Secondly what is the difference between an aircraft carrier and an artificial reef carrying planes? The former is in transit but the latter is staking a claim over something because it is stationary. No message is louder than placing military assets over a disputed territory especially the type that are considered to have offensive capabilities. That is simply escalatory and projecting non peaceful intentions. It is PR and narrative management and China is making serious mistakes in my view. First it was the overflight restrictions and now by moving more serious military hardware unto the island.
I agree that legitimacy of sovereignty regarding the fiery cross reef is an issue as much as it is for all claimants and all disputed islands.
However from what I understand the USN is constantly making FON challenges in the area to many countries as a means of maintaining the right of FON (possibly within another nation's EEZ) rather than specifically one's own territorial claim to a particular island.
Whether the legitimacy of reefs like Fiery Cross have a 12nmi territorial zone OTOH is another matter entirely and I can understand the US considering to challenge it.
Regarding military deploying military assets -- I agree that no message is louder, and China has been seeing and hearing that message broadcasted on all frequencies by US bases and forward deployed assets in westpac, and are now seeking to reach out itself, in response to extenuating circumstances in the area. I can agree with you if you say China doing this is as much of an issue as say, Taiwan deploying C-130Hs or Perry frigates to Taiping island or any other nation deploying marines or aircraft onto their own occupied islands, however I do not agree with you if you believe that China doesn't have as much of a right to deploy military assets onto certain islands (reclaimed or not), as other nations as they all individually see fit.
The ECS ADIZ is also a wholly different matter entirely which was somewhat simpler than the SCS territorial dispute. I was amused at USAF sending B-52s to ECS ADIZ given the whole point of an ADIZ is for nations to have the right to identify potential threats which do not acknowledge the ADIZ.
Legitimacy in international order is more important than military might. I think failure to understand this point or ignoring it underscores why in my view is driving all the wrong actions on China's part.
I think you severely underestimate the potency of military might (and any kind of might) in producing legitimacy. In fact I'd argue the perception of legitimacy only arises when one has such overwhelming power that others cannot help but agree to certain parts of regulations and rules which they might otherwise reject.
But let's ignore all that.
I want to separate the hypothetical deployment of assets into two distinct categories to see whether you believe them to be legitimate.
1: deployment of any military asset by any claimant of the SCS dispute onto their islands. Whether it is a marine garrison or a wing of flankers. In principle, are you equally opposed to anyone doing this?
2: deployment of a naval task force into SCS international waters on a long term duration -- not seeking to invade any other nation or take anyone's islands. The ships will include, say, two DDGs, two FFGs, two AORs, and an amphibious assault ship or carrier. The task force may or may not make port calls and exercises with a few SCS nations in the area, but for most of the time will conduct surveillance and patrol missions in SCS. Some nations may be opposed to the presence of Chinese military vessels there but the taskforce itself won't be raising any kind of military alert zone or what not -- so long as opposing surveillance aircraft or ships remain a sensible distance away there won't be a protest. However it is quite obvious that the ships have great warfighting capability and the capacity for land attack, air patrol, and/or limited amphibious assault capabilities.
If you agree in principle that no claimant should be doing "1" then I would be satisfied with the answer. I am personally of the opinion that in a territorial dispute if all sides have proven unfaithful to each other then they have the right to escalate to a sensible degree, but you don't have to agree to this.
If you acknowledge that China also has the right/legitimacy to do "2" despite the protests of some SCS nations -- which is similar to the kinds of missions that USN does on a regular basis -- then we will also agree.
