China’s Neighboring Security Environment amid China-U.S. Rivalry by ZHANG Jie
While strengthening its capacity building, China should also clarify and specify its strategy for its neighborhood.
Welcome to the 35th edition of our weekly newsletter! I’m SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies and a visiting scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School (fall 2024).
Recently, I published an article on China-U.S. relations with UKNCC. Although it was written two months ago, some of the recommendations for both countries have yet to be implemented. If you're interested, feel free to click the link: https://ukncc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Issue-2025-compressed.pdf
ChinAffairsplus is a newsletter that shares articles by Chinese academics on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-Europe relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu, and me.
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions and feedback can be addressed to sch0625@gmail.com
Today, we have selected an article written by Zhang Jie, which focuses on the security environment in China’s neighborhood amidst the China-U.S. rivalry.
Summary
China’s neighboring security environment is an ecosystem shaped by the interactions of various actors, possessing its inherent logic of development and transformation, and exhibiting distinct characteristics of the times. In recent years, the China-U.S. game（博弈） has emerged as a defining feature of China’s neighboring security landscape. This dynamic has prompted strategic adjustments by actors such as Japan, Russia, India, and ASEAN, leading to a realignment of regional powers and differentiated changes in sub-regional security postures, collectively driving the evolution of China’s neighboring security environment.
With the Trump administration back in power, China’s neighboring security environment is expected to become even more complex and volatile. In light of this, China should adopt a more proactive and constructive policy orientation. While strengthening its capacity building, China should also clarify and specify its strategy for its neighborhood, enhancing predictability and strategic mutual trust between neighboring countries and China, thereby jointly fostering a community of shared destiny in the periphery.
Why It Matters
At the 2025 Munich Security Conference, global leaders voiced growing concern over rising tensions across the Indo-Pacific. The Korean Peninsula is once again a flashpoint. In the South China Sea, maritime frictions are escalating. Uncertainty surrounding a second Trump administration has only added to regional unease. These developments point to a deeper structural shift: China’s surrounding security environment is no longer a regional matter—it reflects the evolving global balance of power.
Zhang Jie’s article offers a timely and structured analysis of this shift. It examines how the China-U.S. rivalry has transformed the strategic dynamics around China’s periphery. Rather than focusing solely on conflict zones, Dr. Zhang presents a multilayered framework that accounts for regional actors, subregional divergence, and systemic uncertainty. She identifies key drivers of instability—including military bloc consolidation in Northeast Asia, competitive alignments in South Asia, and rising external influence in Central Asia.
What sets this work apart is its grounding in Chinese strategic thinking. Zhang situates China’s regional diplomacy within a broader vision of cooperative development and security. Her emphasis on calibrated regionalism and mutual reassurance reflects an approach distinct from Western containment strategies.
At a moment when narratives about China are often framed through confrontation, this article provides a different lens. It reveals how Chinese scholars interpret the current phase of China-U.S. competition—not as inevitable conflict, but as a test of regional resilience and diplomatic agility. For policymakers and scholars seeking to understand the logic behind China’s neighborhood policy—and its response to shifting U.S. strategies—Dr. Zhang’s work is essential.
Key Points
1. Reframing the Neighboring Region: From Concept to Strategic Core
This study traces the evolution of “neighboring security environment” from a marginal diplomatic term to a central pillar of China’s foreign policy strategy. As the concept matured—both in state discourse and academic analysis—it became foundational to understanding China’s external environment. The “neighboring region” is no longer a passive geographic category but a structured, multi-layered system shaped by China’s own rise and strategic behavior. This reframing underscores the core argument: China must treat its surrounding region not as a buffer, but as an integrated and dynamic security ecosystem that it has both the responsibility and the capacity to shape.
Three Perspectives that should inform China’s Understanding of its Neighboring Region
History Matters: China’s neighboring security environment has evolved through three phases: from Cold War-era U.S.-Soviet rivalry, to a post-Soviet focus on economic development, and now a landscape shaped by China-U.S. strategic competition, COVID-19, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These are fueling military buildup, shifting alliances, and new security frameworks.
A Complex and Interwoven System: The region forms a dense, multilayered system involving major powers, shifting subregional dynamics, and global forces. Crises like pandemics and supply chain disruptions transcend traditional boundaries, with flashpoints such as the South China Sea posing persistent risks.
The Chinese Lens: For China, its neighborhood is a strategic lifeline. Rising influence brings both opportunity and responsibility, requiring a careful balance of confidence, prudence, and cooperation to manage disputes, build trust, and navigate intensified U.S. Indo-Pacific strategies while safeguarding regional stability.
2. The China-U.S. Rivalry as the Defining Feature of Regional Security
The current Asia-Pacific security landscape is shaped less by isolated events and more by the evolving strategic competition between China and the United States. This rivalry reflects contrasting visions for regional order and security.
Asymmetrical Strategic Intentions: China’s regional engagement—through initiatives like the Belt and Road and the “Asian Security Concept”—emerged from its domestic development goals and a vision of shared prosperity. In contrast, U.S. strategies such as the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and “Integrated Deterrence” are explicitly reactive to China’s rise. While China seeks inclusion and partnership, the U.S. frames the region as a theater of containment, with China as the primary challenge to the “rules-based order.”
Alliance System and Institutional Encirclement: The U.S. has constructed a layered network of mini-lateral and multilateral mechanisms—QUAD, AUKUS, SQUAD—combined with renewed trilateral groupings like U.S.-Japan-Philippines. These alliances extend beyond military posturing to encompass economic and technological coordination, aiming to constrain China’s strategic space. China must now contend not just with bilateral pressures but with a regional system designed to shape its external environment.
Regional Responses and Strategic Hedging: Faced with U.S. pressure and internal uncertainty, many regional countries are recalibrating. While welcoming U.S. engagement, they increasingly seek balanced ties with China to avoid becoming pawns in great power competition. This hedging behavior reinforces China’s need to deepen bilateral trust and promote a development-based regional order rooted in mutual benefit, not bloc politics.
Washington Holds the Key: The Indo-Pacific strategy depends significantly on U.S. consistency. Biden’s team raced to lock in alliances before leaving office. New agreements, joint exercises, and trilateral frameworks aimed to reassure partners. Trump’s return extended some efforts but revived doubts. His focus on tariffs and burden-sharing stirred unease. In response, many Asian countries have moved closer to China to hedge against U.S. unpredictability.
3. Strategic Pluralism: Regional Powers and the Multipolar Drivers of China’s Security Environment
The transformation of China’s regional security environment is no longer solely shaped by the binary logic of China-U.S. rivalry. Instead, a multipolar dynamic is unfolding. Regional actors—Japan, Russia, India, and ASEAN—are pursuing distinct strategic paths in response to shifting power balances, domestic imperatives, and global disruptions. Their policies are not monolithic; rather, they engage in iterative bargaining between external pressures and national interests, adding complexity and fluidity to China’s periphery.
Japan: Between Alliance Obligations and Strategic Autonomy
A core U.S. ally, Japan aligns through QUAD, SQUAD and defense upgrades while pragmatically reengaging China to protect economic interests. Japan reengages China when U.S. policies threaten core economic interests. Tokyo’s dual-track policy, a security alignment with the U.S. and pragmatic engagement with China, reflects a calibrated strategy of risk management amid U.S. uncertainty.
Russia: Peripheral Player, Central Intentions
Russia leverages its residual influence in Central and Northeast Asia to contest the U.S.-centric order. Since the Ukraine war, Moscow has pivoted east with greater urgency. Despite operational constraints, Russia seeks to reframe Eurasia’s strategic space through expanded defense ties, including ASEAN outreach and naval drills with Vietnam and Indonesia.
India: Strategic Opportunism in a Fractured Order
India deepens defense and tech ties with the U.S. while preserving strategic autonomy. While deepening defense and tech ties with Washington through QUAD and iCET, India resists fully anchoring in U.S. Indo-Pacific designs. It also needs to manage unresolved border tensions and cautiously recalibrate ties with China and maintain energy and diplomatic links with Russia.
ASEAN: Anchoring Autonomy through Balance and Dialogue
ASEAN upholds autonomy through inclusive frameworks and dialogue, balancing U.S. security ties with expanding economic engagement with China, and actively resisting bloc politics to preserve regional neutrality. Its strategy is dual-pronged: lean on the U.S. for security, deepen economic ties with China, and avoid entrapment in binary bloc dynamics.
4. Diverging Subregional Dynamics and the Trajectory of China’s Surrounding Security Environment
China’s periphery is increasingly shaped by complex, asymmetric security patterns. As the China-U.S. rivalry intensifies, subregional responses diverge sharply, and strategic uncertainties multiply—particularly under the disruptive potential of a Trump 2.0 administration. While Northeast Asia heads toward bloc confrontation, South and Central Asia remain fluid, and Southeast Asia tries to maintain autonomy.
Fragmented Subregional Landscapes: Northeastern Confrontation, Southern Volatility, Central Balancing
In Northeast Asia, bloc politics are entrenched. U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral security ties are deepening, while Russia and North Korea move toward informal military alignment, making the peninsula a flashpoint of systemic confrontation. South Asia is marked by India’s rising dominance and ongoing U.S.-India coordination aimed at counterbalancing China–Pakistan ties. Aside from this, political unrest and terror threats persist in states like Nepal and Pakistan. Central Asia has returned to multipolar competition. While Russia retains leverage, China’s strategic presence is growing. The C5+1 mechanism reflects Central Asia’s balancing diplomacy. Conversely, Southeast Asia remains relatively stable, bolstered by economic growth. ASEAN maintains strategic space by focusing on development and resisting bloc alignment, even as tensions rise in the South China Sea, especially with U.S.-backed provocations from the Philippines.
Three Key Trends: Continuity Within Complexity
Military Proliferation: Major powers and regional states are reinvesting in military deterrence. The proliferation of military exercises, U.S. missile deployments in the Philippines, and naval cooperation in Northeast Asia point to an intensifying arms race.
Securitization: The concept of “security” now extends beyond the military. Economic, technological, and supply chain issues are increasingly securitized under U.S. “de-risking” policies, with ripple effects across China’s periphery.
Hope for stability: Despite friction, most regional actors still seek stability. China’s emphasis on dialogue and development-focused diplomacy aligns with the underlying preferences of many neighboring countries.
Outlook: Volatility in the Trump Era and the Rise of Middle Powers
A second Trump presidency could deepen uncertainty. Concerns over unilateralism and economic disruption have already pushed Southeast Asian and Central Asian states toward diversified diplomacy. Notably, Indonesia’s BRICS accession and ASEAN’s renewed cohesion suggest a shift: smaller powers are not choosing sides, but seeking influence. Their growing role in regional order-making may align closely with China’s vision of a cooperative and multipolar periphery.
Conclusion
As global power shifts accelerate, the strategic center of gravity is tilting toward Asia. At stake is the shape of the regional order. Will it be open, inclusive, and development-oriented—or fragmented into rival blocs built on an outdated Cold War logic? The resurgence of U.S. containment strategies under a possible Trump 2.0 presidency only makes this question more relevant.
For China, the response lies not in confrontation, but in consolidation. A coherent neighborhood strategy—anchored in predictability, mutual benefit, and engagement with small and medium-sized states—is essential. These countries, increasingly assertive, are critical to resisting polarization and sustaining regional cooperation.
China’s vision, rooted in the concept of a “Community with a Shared Future,” now requires operational depth. Through the implementation of its goals of promoting global development and security, China has a window of opportunity to shape a regional order not through dominance, but through partnership, pragmatism, and shared prosperity.
About the Author
Zhang Jie 张洁：Dr. Zhang is a Research Fellow at the School of International Politics and Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where she directs the Department of Asia-Pacific Security and Diplomacy and leads the Asia-Pacific Security Research and Innovation Project Group. Her work focuses on the South China Sea, China’s peripheral security, and China–Southeast Asia relations.
About Publication
The Chinese version of this article is published by Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs (双月刊). Established in 2004, it is a national academic journal co-published by the Institute of Asian and African Development, DRC of the State Council, and the Collaborative Innovation Center of South China Sea Studies. It focuses on traditional and non-traditional security issues in the Asia-Pacific, especially maritime territorial disputes, naval security, maritime law, ecological protection, and their strategic implications.
The journal bridges academic and policy research, integrating Chinese and international perspectives. Key topics include regional security, great power dynamics, Belt and Road developments, and neighborhood diplomacy. With a commitment to “strategy, innovation, expertise, and scholarship,” it employs a double-blind peer review process and maintains high academic standards. It serves as a vital resource for researchers and policymakers in Asia-Pacific maritime and security studies.
