A Korean fiend said traditionally China doesn't control their occupied countries as long as they recognize China controls them. I think they would impose much less bloodshed than what US partners would.
I'm not an expert but that's my feeling
Discussion
*doesn't control harshly as long as (...)
Don't take my comment to mean that I don't want China involved. China is a balancing force here, which is a good thing. The unipolar moment has lead to atrocities, and a multipolar world will mitigate those atrocities. Instead of the US and Israel doing anything they want, slaughtering Arabs wherever they can, Russia and China are saying "you cannot do that anymore." That sounds like a good thing to me.
I just didn't think China would step up. This is the beginning of a new era in geopolitics.
As to your specific comment about them not harshly controlling nations: They haven't needed to. And in a multipolar world they will continue to behave well in order to maintain good will with all the other powers. But I'm a realist when it comes to international foreign relations, and I believe nations will behave like psychopaths and do whatever is in their best interest (as we have so clearly seen with Israel and also with the USA), so IMHO China only behaves well because it is currently in China's best interest.
In general, we've seen how large groups of people behave this way over and over. We've seen it in corporations (refer to movie: "The Corporation (2003)") and I believe many of the same mechanisms extend to nations, and indeed all large groups of people.
Competition is always good, I think. Be it in domestic economy, foreign policy or whatever, because it will force countries to behave decently, even if it's self served.
If bosses treats employees bad there's the menace of communism to make them think twice.
If a government is getting too happy about implementing communist and destroying invidivudal liberty, there's the treat of a more individual-rewarding party to win the elections