President Obama said at a news conference on Monday in the Vietnamese capital that the United States had agreed to lift completely its embargo on lethal weapons sales.

The US strategy ignores the legitimate desire of most countries for peace and development and upsets the natural balance in the region. If Washington insists on playing the role of “regional balancer” under a misguided Cold War mentality, it would achieve nothing but create imbalance and walk right into the “hegemon’s trap” despite repeated historical lessons.

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III compares China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative with the U.S.'s Rebalance to Asia, ultimately advising that for the U.S. to be seen as not reacting to China's growing regional influence, it would need a better appreciation of the security needs, growing aspirations, and economic demands of rising powers.

The view of mainstream Americans about China is the key to formulating any US grand strategy toward Beijing. Today, while some domestic politics has negative effects, we need more dialogues to enhance transparency and control third-party factors with prudent management and precaution.

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.