If you want the original cause, you have to go back to WWII. Or the Boxer Rebellion. Or the colonial era before that. With territorial claims, if you go back fa

If you want the original cause, you have to go back to WWII. Or the Boxer Rebellion. Or the colonial era before that. With territorial claims, if you go back far enough in history, you can find some justification. Territorial claims on uninhabited islands are even less cut and dry. China has claimed the islands since, well, ever - but until the last 10-20 years they lacked the resources/need/desire to exercise that claim. China claims that Japan's aggression in the area forced them to build up a military presence to defend their claim, but it's hard to know whether that's just anti-Japan propaganda or not because it's entirely plausible. What I'm saying is that a lot of countries have claimed these islands for a long time before the recent militarization/occupation of the area by all parties. No country has a truly better claim than the other, so it's a case where possession is 9/10ths of the law. China was late to the island base building game, so they had to take an island that was too small to build a base on and expand it. Does that make them the aggressors? Or are Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam aggressors because they built a military base there before China? The US media doesn't give you that nuanced view, because this is a case where morality is grey and there are no heroes or villains. Just a bunch of nations claiming some islands and then trying to justify their claim by building on said islands.