"Well in Africa they are selling arms, deploying troops and buying up mineral rights in Sudan, Congo, etc."
That is not interfering, Brad, as it is being done with the consent and cooperation of the governments involved. Is is a long way from the way we have conducted ourselves for the past several decades.
"Others have mentioned what is going on in southeast asia with territorial waters, partnerships with countries like Myanmar, etc. Sounds like they are using arms, military and money to develop relationships with questionable governments. Doesn't really seem much different than what we are doing in the US with our policy."
When is the last time China committed troops to combat? Aside from a brief foray into Viet Nam, Korea was their last combat operation, and that came only when US troops were at the Yalu River. If you do a little reading of Chinese history from the time of the first British incursions in the mid 18th century, you will quickly understand why they are so sensitive about Western meddling on their borders, as well as their desire to have a buffer of non threatening states. They have never attempted to project power far beyond their borders as we have been doing.
As for using arms, questional governments, etc, it is indeed much the same. However, we stand alone in being almost continually involved in combat operations or attempts at regime change by other means. There is a world of difference between trying to gain influence thru arms sales, bribery, economic aid, trade, etc, and imposing yourself by force of arms or economic sanctions.
"Why do you think Obama is doing a southeast asia tour including Myanmar. Trying to box China in." Yes, and it is highly unlikely to succeed. Indeed, as we pi$$ away our resources on useless wars, China is building the infrastructure of a super power. Efforts to "box them in" are ultimately doomed to failure.