Why China's Aggressive Policy Toward The South China Sea?

Summary China’s aggressive policy toward the South China Sea (SCS) threatens Asian-Pacific regional stability while flaunting international law and order. Our goal should be to prevent the emergence of an overly powerful and combative China, promote and enforce stabilizing international law, and secure vital SCS trade routes for U.S. and allied interests. Prospective policy options include; (1) the facilitation of multilateral negotiations between a unified Asian organization and China, (2) forcing China to back down by threatening to pursue a policy of isolation and containment, and (3) pursuing an international legal procedure backed by the U.S. and major allies. Of these, the best option is to facilitate final status negotiations over the
and allied (Australia, Philippines) interests (CNBC). China, along with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and Japan claim ownership to intersecting parts of the SCS (CFR). China has in recent years ramped up building of artificial islands and military bases in the SCS, which pose a direct threat to the surrounding Asian countries who depend on the SCS economically (Reuters). Attempts to resolve the SCS issues with China through international law have so far proven ineffective, with China refusing to participate, and ignoring the rulings (PCA). Additionally, ASEAN has been unable to form a unified front against China in negotiations due to disagreements over SCS division, and a lack of interest from some members in irritating a growing China (especially among those currently benefiting economically from improved ties)
could use influence to force them to the negotiating table), they could present a unified front when negotiating with China, which may force China into accepting a final SCS division agreement. This option would place the burden of responsibility on the countries with the most to gain/lose and would reduce dependence on the U.S. (which may allow China to negotiate a more favorable deal if they’re not worried about being penned in by U.S. allies). All countries involved would increase their security (clearly defined ownership, less chance for dangerous disagreement and military mistakes) and gain undisputed access rights over natural