American hawks who regard China as an implacable geopolitical adversary exhibit an unhealthy foreign policy perspective. But U.S. leaders and the American public also need to be careful not to lean too far in the other direction—toward an appeasement policy toward Beijing.

While Washington has mixed feelings toward China’s rising international status, many American scholars see no convincing reasons for the United States not to support or participate in China’s initiatives like the modern Silk Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That’s a good omen for the concept of “a new type of major country relations,” as proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, to avoid confrontation between big powers and to blaze a new trail of mutually beneficial cooperation.

With good reason, Chinese leaders wonder whether the pivot to Asia is the initial stage of a containment policy directed against their country. Similarly, U.S. officials are likely to become concerned about China’s attention and investment in Latin America, not helped by suspicions about China’s intentions in the South China Sea.

As China’s economy and interests continue to grow, Beijing will uphold its sovereignty, security and development interests and will assume a bigger role in regional and global affairs. President Xi’s upcoming visit is another opportunity for Americans to appreciate that China’s actions are targeted at the US and its allies.

Hilary Clinton’s established perspective on U.S.-China relations as the face of the “Pivot to Asia,” does not bod well for the bilateral relationship, writes Ben Reynolds. The existing Clinton ties with the Center for New America Security (CNAS), a hawkish, pro-interventionist think tank, further the claim that U.S. militaristic hegemony will continue to be the foreign policy toward China.

The Obama administration’s “rebalance to Asia” policy launched in 2010 has turned toward militaristic power-based containment rather than engagement. The Council of Foreign Relations has suggested that the U.S. boost military budgets with its allies, and diminish trade with China, a dangerous and misguided strategy that resembles Cold War tactics.

The challenges that face the world is not a due to a transition of power among states, but a diffusion of power away from governments. Nye argues that for a “new type of major power relations,” the U.S. needs to avoid containment as a strategy, and China must accept the legitimacy of American presence in the Western Pacific.

Rather than focusing on military containment, Obama made it clear that economic competition is a priority of the U.S. It isn’t entirely negative if China and the U.S. increase economic competition, with economic interdependence dictating increased pressure for economic and technological advancement and cooperation.

The recent State of the Union speech by President Obama didn’t underscore the critical importance of strengthened U.S. – Asia cooperation and engagement. Curtis Chin suggests that Obama could have more clearly clarified the Pivot to Asia, security issues in the South China Sea, and that increasingly America’s security and prosperity is linked to China and Asia.

The “Pivot to Asia” policy has been primarily driven by cold war and military conceptions of containing China’s rise. President Obama’s recent State of the Union speech kept with a distinctly American theme of soft-imperialism with mention of “writing the rules” to free trade agreements in Asia, instead of acknowledging China’s own sovereignty.