南海军事化问题成为中美南海问题论战的焦点始于2015年。当年，美国防长卡特、美国海军太平洋舰队司令哈里斯上将以及美国海军前作战部部长退役上将罗海德先后提到南海军事化问题，使之成为中美南海问题论战的焦点。

从卡特、哈里斯和罗海德发表的言论可以看出，关于“南海军事化”问题，三人其实构建了一个中国在南海搞军事化的逻辑。罗海德界定“军事化”为“如果基础设施的特点和性质可以用于军事目的即为军事化”， 哈里斯则指出中国的岛礁建设目的是“军事用途”，最后卡特总结为“中国在南海的岛礁建设加剧了军事化”。由此可见美国对南海军事化问题的认识类似一个简单的“三段论”，即大前提是“军事化”的概念是任何设施有被用于军事目的性质就是军事化，小前提是中国的岛礁建设具有军事目的，结论则显而易见，即中国正在南海搞军事化。因此，分析中国对于其在南海的岛礁建设的目的的说明或解释是揭示中国对南海军事化问题立场的基础。

2015年9月25日，中国国家主席习近平访问美国，他在与美国总统奥巴马举行正式会谈并共同会见记者时指出：“我们致力于维护南海和平稳定，坚持通过对话管控争议，坚持通过谈判协商和平解决争议，积极探索通过合作实现互利共赢，坚持尊重和维护各国依据国际法享有的南海航行和飞跃自由。中国在南沙群岛的有关建设活动不针对、不影响任何国家，也无意搞军事化。”

2016年2月18日，杨洁篪委员会见来访的澳大利亚外长毕晓普时就南海问题提到两点，第一、中国的岛礁建设主要出于民事目的，是为了更好向国际社会提供公共服务产品；第二、中国在岛礁上部署有限防卫设施与军事化无关，是行使国际法赋予主权国家的自卫权。

在2015年8月的东盟地区论坛上，王毅外长指出，中国在南海的岛礁建设有两种目的，即改善驻岛人员生活条件和向地区国家提供公共服务。在2016年1月27日与来访的美国国务卿克里举行会谈时，王毅外长指出中国在岛礁必要的防卫设施完全出于防御目的，是行使主权国家享有的自保权和自卫权，与所谓“军事化”没有关系。2月23日王毅外长在美国与克里会谈时，表示中国南海岛礁周边安全环境不容乐观，因为周围国家过去几十年里在非法窃据的岛礁上部署了大量军事设施，同时中国岛礁还面临抵近侦察等武力挑衅。

中国外交部副部长刘振民2016年5月19日会见美国媒体代表团时表明了三点意见：第一、中国不赞同有媒体称中国的岛礁建设导致了南海军事紧张；第二、中国之所以反对这个观点是因为中国是最后一个进行南海岛礁建设的国家，而且是被迫的；第三、中国是在自己领土上进行建设，而其他国家是在非法窃据的中国岛礁上搞建设。

中国关于南海军事化问题的立场可以概括为两个部分，即中国对于南海军事化如何理解，以及中国如何评价南海军事化问题。

（一） 中国对南海军事化的理解

中国不认同美国对于“南海军事化”的定义。美国认为，只要南海岛礁及其设施被用作军事用途，就属于南海军事化。也就是说，一旦岛礁上有任何军事设施，或者岛上的设施可能被用作军事目的，例如机场和码头，就都可以被纳入南海军事化的范畴。

但中国认为这个定义并不符合南海的有关实际情况。首先，在岛上部署军事设施是国际法赋予中国作为一个主权国家的基本权利，中国在南海岛礁上部署必要的防御设施符合国际法与国际惯例，同时也是应对武力威胁的必要之举。没有必要的防御设施，驻岛人员的基本安全就无法得到保证。其次，如果岛礁的基础设施可以被用作军事目的就被认为是军事化，则过于泛化了。对于南海岛礁建设，美方“草木皆兵”的理解和说法不符合常识。

（二）中国对于南海军事化问题的评价

中国对于其在南海的岛礁建设及防御设施部署的评价可以归纳为如下几点：

第一、中国在岛礁上修造设施主要有两个目的：一是改善驻岛人员生活条件；二是承担自己应尽的国际责任，向地区国家及国际社会提供公共服务。

第二、南海周边国家已经在窃据中国的岛礁上部署了大量进攻性武器，同时美国舰机不断驶入中国南海岛礁的邻近水域进行挑衅，给中国施加了很大的安全压力，严重威胁了驻岛人员的安全与中国的领土主权。

第三、基于第二点原因，中国被迫在岛礁上部署了有限的防御设施以自保，这符合国际法赋予主权国家自卫权的规定，也属于国际惯例。

第四、考虑到南海安全局势有可能继续恶化，中国有权利根据受到武力威胁程度的不同来调整部署在南海岛礁上的防御设施数量，必要时会增加。这既是现实的迫切需要，也符合国际法和国际惯例。

第五、美方的“南海军事化”定义不符合事实。南海的实际情况是，中国在南海岛礁部署的一些防御设施极其有限，不影响岛礁基础设施的民用目的。相反，美国及其南海地区盟国在南海部署了大量进攻性的军事力量。

第六、基于前面五点，是美国，而不是中国，在推动南海军事化。

With US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, commander of the US Pacific Command Harry Harris and former Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead all mentioning it in 2015, militarization has since become the focus of China-US debate over the South China Sea.

Judging from the arguments of Carter, Harris and Roughead, they have actually constructed a logical chain for China's allegedly militarizing the South China Sea. Roughead defined “militarization” as “as long as the characteristics and nature of infrastructures can be used for military purposes”; Harris argued China's construction on South China Sea islands and reefs was “for military purposes”; Carter summed it up and concluded Chinese construction works on South China Sea features “escalated militarization” there. Their arguments thus constitute a simple syllogism regarding the alleged militarization of the South China Sea. Analysis of China's explanation of the purpose of its construction projects on South China Sea features, therefore, is the basis for revealing its stance on the so-called militarization of the South China Sea.

Chinese President Xi Jinping told the press on Sept 25 during his visit to the US, after talking with US President Barack Obama: “We are dedicated to preserving peace and stability in the South China Sea, adhere to managing and controlling disputes through dialogue, insist on resolving disputes peacefully through negotiations and consultations, actively explore realizing mutually beneficial, win-win outcomes through cooperation, persist in respecting and protecting freedom of navigation and over-flight countries are entitled to under international law. Chinese construction activities on the Nansha Archipelago do not target or affect any country, and the country has no intention to engage in militarization”.

State Counselor Yang Jiechi, while meeting Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Feb 18, made two points regarding the South China Sea. First, Chinese construction projects are mainly for civilian purposes, for providing the international community with better public service. Second, China is practicing the right to self defense bestowed by international law by deploying limited defense facilities, which has nothing to do with militarization.

At an ASEAN regional forum in August, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, Chinese construction on South China Sea islands and reefs has two purposes – to improve living conditions for the people stationed there, and provide public service to countries in the region. While talking with visiting US State Secretary John Kerry on Jan 27, Wang said China's deployment of necessary defense facilities on the islands and reefs is completely for defense purposes, is practicing a sovereignty country's rights to self-protection and self-defense, and has nothing to do with so-called militarization. Talking with Kerry again on Feb 23, Wang pointed out that the security environment for Chinese islands and reefs in the South China Sea allows for little optimism, because neighboring countries have installed a large number of military facilities on the islands they had illicitly occupied over the past decades; meanwhile, Chinese islands and reefs face such military provocations as close-in surveillance.

Vice foreign minister Liu Zhenmin of China made three points on May 19 while meeting an American media delegation: First, China does not accept the media claim that China's construction projects have resulted in escalation of tensions in the South China Sea; second, China refuses the claim because it has been the last to carry out construction in the South China Sea, and it was forced to do so; third, China is conducting construction on its own territory, other countries have been building facilities on Chinese islands and reefs they had illicitly occupied.

China's position on “South China Sea militarization” can be summed up in two parts, namely how China defines “militarization of the South China Sea”, and how it evaluates the corresponding situation.

(1) Chinese definition of “militarization of the South China Sea”

China does not accept the US definition of “militarization of the South China Sea”. The US holds that as long as islands and reefs in the South China Sea are used for military purposes, it is “militarization”. Which means as long as there is any military facility on the features, or facilities there, such as airstrips or docks, can be used for military purpose, it is “militarization”.

But China insists such definition is inconsistent with corresponding reality in the South China Sea. First, installing military facilities on the islands is a basic right China enjoys under international law, its deployment of necessary defense facilities conforms with international law and practice, and is a necessary precaution against military threat. Basic safety of the people stationed on the islands will have no guarantee in the absence of necessary defense facilities. Second, the definition will be too expansive if “militarization” means as long as facilities on the features can be used for military purposes. The US side's oversensitive claims regarding construction in the South China Sea is against common sense.

(2) Chinese views on “militarization of the South China Sea”

China's opinions on its construction projects and deployment of defense facilities on South China Sea features can be summed up in the following points:

First, there are two main purposes for the Chinese construction projects: One is to improve living conditions of people stationed there; the other is to fulfill its own international responsibilities and provide public service for countries in the region as well as the rest of the world.

Second, other countries in the region have deployed a large number of offensive weapons on Chinese features they have stolen, meanwhile the US has imposed tremendous security pressures on China with its military vessels and planes frequently entering waters off the Chinese features in the South China Sea and conducting provocations, seriously threatening safety of people stationed there as well as Chinese territorial sovereignty.

Third, based on point two, China has had to deploy limited defense facilities on the features for self-protection, which conforms to not only stipulations in international law on countries' right to self-defense, but also international practice.

Fourth, considering that security conditions in the South China Sea may continue worsening, China is entitled to adjusting the quantity of defense facilities deployed on the features according to the degree of the military threats it faces, and increase such deployment when necessary. This is not only a practical imperative, but also consistent with international law and practice.

Fifth, the US definition of “militarization of the South China Sea” is inconsistent with facts. The reality in the South China Sea is the defense facilities China has deployed there are extremely limited in number, and do not affect the civilian nature of the infrastructures on the islands and reefs. On the other hand, the US and its allies in the area have deployed a large number of offensive military forces in the South China Sea.

Sixth, based on the five points above, it is the US, instead of China, that has been promoting “militarization of the South China Sea”.