I'm not claiming that China is going to wholesale invade one of its neighbours. The nine-dash-line is almost a given at this point, which is patently an attempt to impinge on the EEZs of numerous countries. Depending on who you talk to, a secondary objective of the Belt and Road is to operationalise the so-called string-of-pearls strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean)
More broadly speaking, China wants to reformulate the Asian security architecture with itself in charge. This is obviously in conflict with Washington's vision. Further, the point behind the NASC is not to outright exert military hard power over other countries but to tie the region close together with China's economic fortune. Hence, as I mentioned, 'partners' rather than 'allies'.
To clarify, I am not American. I am Australian, I speak Mandarin and I've been there quite a few times.
I agree in principle about the problems with market liberalisation. A large part of the reason why the BRI has been successful is suspicion of the IMF's notion of development especially during the 1980s and 1990s - forcing Global South countries to privatise public assets, remove tariffs and the like. However, the CPTPP has nothing to do with America anymore. It's a Japan-led initiative.
I really wasn't trying to moralise about what is 'good' for China and the world, I'm just speculating about the possibility of an escape from the current situation where an illiberal government is now competing with the United States at least for regional hegemony, if not global hegemony. We aren't talking about breaking China's 'will', as it were, but incentivising it to adhere to established liberal norms - basically, creating a situation where China stands to gain from acting as a status quo, rather than a revisionist power. The thing is, a large portion of power-transition theorists believe that states NEVER act like that and that a rising power will always be revisionist and, hence, challenge prevailing norms.