Not that China needs to be contained anyway. The only worldwide threat to national security is the country with 800 military bases worldwide and a hundreds-of-years-long history of invading someone every few years.
You’re overstating the case somewhat but there’s definitely merit to that point. I think it’s a trap though to assume there can only be one aggressor in the situation: China isn’t a global military power but it has been quite aggressive around its borders and the current actions against the Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. are on a scale reminiscent of 19th century American campaigns against the native inhabitants. If you live around the South China Sea you’re quite understandably going to be worried to an extent that someone in Africa is not.
Most of those "actions" are reported to us by our government, whose ability to report objective fact has not been demonstrated. To take Xinjiang, in particular: do a deep dive into the reporting and see where it comes from. You'll discover that it all boils down to a report by one guy, a fellow of the Victims of Communism org named Adrian Zenz. His report has been responded to in various places, and whether you take the responses at face value or not, they bring up good points worth investigation that call Zenz into very serious doubt.
That’s a serious citation needed on all points, starting with the claim that only the U.S. government is reporting that and we somehow collectively imagined all of the non-governmental and non-U.S. coverage. I note in particular that the “various places” phrasing makes it hard to know what you’re talking about or how you determined those sources are credible.
It's worth reading the response from a person in China. That's not to say you should believe it _more_, but that you should hear what the objections are and whether they make sense (and whether that critique calls into question anything else in the original report, which, by the way, you should also read http://english.scio.gov.cn/xinjiangfocus/2020-09/14/content_...).
That said, "non-governmental" and "non-U.S." coverage can be suprisingly illusory. Pay attention to the sources next time you see a Xinjiang story, whether in or out of the U.S., and report back if you find out that it ultimately sources someone other than Zenz (of course, make sure to do this recursively).
It's also worth pointing out that non-governmental organizations get their funding from somewhere, and, surprise, the places most critical of China tend to get their grants from sources that are ultimately government funds. The National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Asia are particularly infamous for distancing themselves from their government ties (Allen Weinstein, a founder of the former, famously said in a 1991 interview that "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.").
Not the way America is, no. China gives loans with minimal terms to build infrastructure, and has a record of forgiving the debts when they become unpayable. The US (via the IMF) lends money for infrastructure under terms that require concessions in government policy like "repealing wage laws" and "spending less on healthcare", and rarely discharges debt, instead lending out more money at worse interest with even more austerity concessions. If a government pops up thay doesn't like the terms, we coup them. China does nothing anything like that.
