南海軍事化問題成為中美南海問題論戰的焦點始於2015年。當年，美國防長卡特、美國海軍太平洋艦隊司令哈里斯上將以及美國海軍前作戰部部長退役上將羅海德先後提到南海軍事化問題，使之成為中美南海問題論戰的焦點。

從卡特、哈里斯和羅海德發表的言論可以看出，關於“南海軍事化”問題，三人其實構建了一個中國在南海搞軍事化的邏輯。羅海德界定“軍事化”為“如果基礎設施的特點和性質可以用于軍事目的即為軍事化”， 哈里斯則指出中國的島礁建設目的是“軍事用途”，最後卡特總結為“中國在南海的島礁建設加劇了軍事化”。由此可見美國對南海軍事化問題的認識類似一個簡單的“三段論”，即大前提是“軍事化”的概念是任何設施有被用于軍事目的性質就是軍事化，小前提是中國的島礁建設具有軍事目的，結論則顯而易見，即中國正在南海搞軍事化。因此，分析中國對於其在南海的島礁建設的目的的說明或解釋是揭示中國對南海軍事化問題立場的基礎。

2015年9月25日，中國國家主席習近平訪問美國，他在與美國總統奧巴馬舉行正式會談並共同會見記者時指出：“我們致力於維護南海和平穩定，堅持通過對話管控爭議，堅持通過談判協商和平解決爭議，積極探索通過合作實現互利共贏，堅持尊重和維護各國依據國際法享有的南海航行和飛躍自由。中國在南沙群島的有關建設活動不針對、不影響任何國家，也無意搞軍事化。”

2016年2月18日，楊潔篪委員會見來訪的澳大利亞外長畢曉普時就南海問題提到兩點，第一、中國的島礁建設主要出於民事目的，是為了更好向國際社會提供公共服務產品；第二、中國在島礁上部署有限防衛設施與軍事化無關，是行使國際法賦予主權國家的自衛權。

在2015年8月的東盟地區論壇上，王毅外長指出，中國在南海的島礁建設有兩種目的，即改善駐島人員生活條件和向地區國家提供公共服務。在2016年1月27日與來訪的美國國務卿克里舉行會談時，王毅外長指出中國在島礁必要的防衛設施完全出於防禦目的，是行使主權國家享有的自保權和自衛權，與所謂“軍事化”沒有關係。2月23日王毅外長在美國與克里會談時，表示中國南海島礁周邊安全環境不容樂觀，因為周圍國家過去幾十年里在非法竊據的島礁上部署了大量軍事設施，同時中國島礁還面臨抵近偵察等武力挑釁。

中國外交部副部長劉振民2016年5月19日會見美國媒體代表團時表明了三點意見：第一、中國不贊同有媒體稱中國的島礁建設導致了南海軍事緊張；第二、中國之所以反對這個觀點是因為中國是最後一個進行南海島礁建設的國家，而且是被迫的；第三、中國是在自己領土上進行建設，而其他國家是在非法竊據的中國島礁上搞建設。

中國關於南海軍事化問題的立場可以概括為兩個部分，即中國對於南海軍事化如何理解，以及中國如何評價南海軍事化問題。

（一） 中國對南海軍事化的理解

中國不認同美國對於“南海軍事化”的定義。美國認為，只要南海島礁及其設施被用作軍事用途，就屬於南海軍事化。也就是說，一旦島礁上有任何軍事設施，或者島上的設施可能被用作軍事目的，例如機場和碼頭，就都可以被納入南海軍事化的範疇。

但中國認為這個定義並不符合南海的有關實際情況。首先，在島上部署軍事設施是國際法賦予中國作為一個主權國家的基本權利，中國在南海島礁上部署必要的防禦設施符合國際法與國際慣例，同時也是應對武力威脅的必要之舉。沒有必要的防禦設施，駐島人員的基本安全就無法得到保證。其次，如果島礁的基礎設施可以被用作軍事目的就被認為是軍事化，則過於泛化了。對於南海島礁建設，美方“草木皆兵”的理解和說法不符合常識。

（二）中國對於南海軍事化問題的評價

中國對於其在南海的島礁建設及防禦設施部署的評價可以歸納為如下幾點：

第一、中國在島礁上修造設施主要有兩個目的：一是改善駐島人員生活條件；二是承擔自己應盡的國際責任，向地區國家及國際社會提供公共服務。

第二、南海周邊國家已經在竊據中國的島礁上部署了大量進攻性武器，同時美國艦機不斷駛入中國南海島礁的鄰近水域進行挑釁，給中國施加了很大的安全壓力，嚴重威脅了駐島人員的安全與中國的領土主權。

第三、基於第二點原因，中國被迫在島礁上部署了有限的防禦設施以自保，這符合國際法賦予主權國家自衛權的規定，也屬於國際慣例。

第四、考慮到南海安全局勢有可能繼續惡化，中國有權利根據受到武力威脅程度的不同來調整部署在南海島礁上的防禦設施數量，必要時會增加。這既是現實的迫切需要，也符合國際法和國際慣例。

第五、美方的“南海軍事化”定義不符合事實。南海的實際情況是，中國在南海島礁部署的一些防禦設施極其有限，不影響島礁基礎設施的民用目的。相反，美國及其南海地區盟國在南海部署了大量進攻性的軍事力量。

第六、基於前面五點，是美國，而不是中國，在推動南海軍事化。

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”.