In a recent Global Times article, US scholar Robert A. Manning contended that US actions relative to China, including its pivot to Asia strategy and its alliances with China's neighboring countries such as Japan and South Korea, do not constitute a strategy of containment aimed at preventing China's rise, as many Chinese experts believe.

Renowned US political scientist Joseph Nye also believes that containment is not a relevant policy tool for Washington in dealing with a rising China, as he wrote for the New York Times early this year.

From a theoretical definition of "containment," I agree with the above two experts.

Containment was a US policy in response to a series of Soviet Union moves to expand its communist influence. The main doctrine was to break economic ties with the Soviet Union, which doesn't apply to the current Sino-US relationship given the deep economic interdependence of the two.

Containment dominated US-Soviet Union relations in the Cold War era, while both cooperation and containment exist in Sino-US relations.

But as China's influence in the international community grows, which the US views as a threat to its hegemony, the US feels wronged.

Asian countries, which witness the most strategic rivalry as well as economic integration, are particularly concerned about China's rise. Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines and some other countries certainly want to balance China's power in the region, which provides an excuse for the US to lend a helping hand to its "little brothers." Washington euphemistically describes this as "counterbalancing."

In a political sense, "counterbalancing" is a more accurate term than "containment" for the US. It implies that China is subverting the regional order and the US is coming to the rescue.

The cause and effect of the current situation in the Asia-Pacific need to be agreed upon by both China and the US.

China believes that its policies have not changed. The disputes between China and its neighboring countries mainly originated from the latter's provocations and China had to act accordingly.

However, the US and some of China's neighboring countries don't think this way.

They feel wary of China's assertiveness because of its growing military capabilities that break regional balance.

If the US aims to be a responsible world power, it should persuade those small countries not to stir up tensions. Simply blaming China for the break of the power balance is not justifiable.

The media often use the word "containment" to make Sino-US relations sound more dramatic.

They would speculate that the US is aiming to contain China with acts such as promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership and conducting military exercises with the Philippines and Japan. They also hype up the US strategy of a "C-shaped" encirclement ring.

These are just excessive interpretations. The media does not have a clear understanding of containment, which requires the countries involved to have Cold War mentalities.

Nonetheless, neither China nor the US want to resort to this mentality to confront each other at the current time. If stressed too much, this concept may create a self-fulfilling prophecy, which will result in the "containment" theory becoming a reality.

As promoted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, currently the best approach that should be taken by both China and the US is to establish a new type of great power relations.

This kind of relationship means both should forget the traditional concept of big power relations that end up in rivalry or even war.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Wenwen based on an interview with Jin Canrong, deputy dean of School of International Studies, Renmin University of China. wangwenwen@globaltimes.com.cn