Contrary to the picture of the game a few years ago, China's diplomatic influence and effectiveness in its immediate periphery has been shrunk for a time, while the United States won in the same region so much new advantages diplomatically and strategically. These U.S. achievements are in a great extent due to their vitally important "chanced" conditions, conditions or conveniences not created but readily used by the policy makers in Washington. They include among other things China's own problem emerged in the most recent years in foreign policy orientation, diplomatic manner, and policy-making mechanism. In its relations with East Asian neighbours at large, the newly Chinese "triumphalism" is obvious on the part of public as well as policy elites, though for the latter the degree is indeed remarkably less. However, it is still much more complicated in performance and causes than what has been generally perceived outside China. For the causes of this complex "triumphalism," the most important one should be found in "G2 the Chinese version," a really untraditional conception in the contemporary Chinese foreign policy orientation that should be put into question and analysis. Besides, there has been also national dynamics in the related decision-making, i.e., rising popular nationalism reinforced bymuch less regularized mass media and bureaucratic in-coordination. The Chinese leaders and government have been indeed thereby restrained and interfered at various foreign policy issues in different times, but one still has to guard against the overestimation of the influence exerted by these forces. When they on a particular issue is quite prominent, this state of affairs is just an effect of confusion, hesitation, or temporary lack of sufficient attention on the part of the leaders, though the structural factors such as increasing complexities of an increasingly expanding government machine and that of foreign policy challenges are also important. All the analyses on these dynamics indicate an essential point: in despite of them, political leadership is still decisive.