又是年终盘点时刻。评说中美关系好似中国的春晚节目，虽众口难调，却必不可少。许多国家，尤其中美两国的政府、个人、智库、刊物，观察事物的出发点、角度和标准不尽相同，判断自然各显特色。然而，诸多评论中，笔者感觉到不少共同的东西：哪怕碰撞再多，博弈再深，紧张有多加剧，中美关系这艘大船，总能破浪前进。

如今，关心中美关系走向的人多了，而且程度不断加深。除了极个别国家，那种或亲美、或挺中的界线模糊化味道越来越浓。亚投行的诞生颇为典型。众多发展中国家积极参与在意料之中，但美国怎么也不会想到的是，英国、法国、德国、澳大利亚、韩国等传统盟友都成为首批创始成员国，劝说、阻挠挡不住这些国家为了本国的发展利益而主动参与中国发起的公共产品建设。它们参与亚投行不等于去美国化，况且它们仍是世界银行、IMF和亚洲开发银行等传统机构的主要成员，只是它们不再赞成非美即中那种清晰的界限罢了。在中美关系上，不能事事都听美国的，更何况，美国对亚投行的立场在国内也饱受诟病。习近平主席访美后，中英、中法、中德等关系的热度上升足见一斑。

关心美国为首的跨太平洋伙伴关系协定（TPP）,却更重视中国提出的“一带一路”倡议。毫无疑问，TPP是部分国家为深化发展自由贸易而建立的高大上的贸易机制，或将成为未来世界贸易的标杆规则，任何国家，若想加入这个俱乐部，都必须首先达标。显然，TPP多了些政治性，少了些包容性。“一带一路”建设就不同了，它是中国和相关国家从基础设施建设着手，确立共谋、共建、共享的项目。它符合各国国情和需要，实用而又包容，很容易使项目所在国看到实惠，其他参与国也得到道义和经济上的利益。

辩论中美关系已成为常态，但要做塑造、建设新型国际关系的主人。今年以来，美国国内掀起的一波又一波中美关系大辩论，大致分为三种观点。一种是认为尼克松总统以来的美国对华政策已完全失败，中国正在或已然成为美国的对手，而且是战略对手。典型的言论是中美处于“互不信任的时代”，美国要修定“对华大战略”等等，认为中国在挑战美国的全球领导地位，美国必须采取更强硬的遏制政策。第二种观点主张维持接触、竞争、规范和合作政策，寻求建立亚太地区的安全和经济合作机制，南海问题不应成为中美新的冷战或冲突摩擦点。第三种观点是主张全面合作，中美双方都应有足够的战略耐心，寻求更多有共同利益的合作点。第一种观点明显极端，但影响很大，误导性强。第二种观点是多数。第三种观点有些理想化。中国没有出现美国那样的大辩论，对美合作是主流观点，同时认为也要防范。但中国国内不少尖锐的观点也不时出现，诸如中美战略互疑论、美国对华遏制论和中美必有一战论，等等。

中美两国领导人敢于引导舆论，敢于利用和创造机会，在构建新型大国关系的探索中坦然面对挑战，敢于逆水行舟。奥巴马总统在伊朗核问题达成协议后，主动打电话肯定中国发挥的建设性作用。在巴黎协议达成前后，奥巴马总统两次与习近平主席通电话，充分肯定和赞赏中美在联合国气候变化谈判中共同的引领作用。习近平主席访美成果累累，关键是确保了中美构建新型大国关系的正确方向。奥巴马总统在与习近平主席白宫秋叙时表示要把平稳的中美关系带给下一届美国政府。两国政府在通过做实事、搞合作，一点一滴地积累相互信任。

如今，名人、普通人、领导人、战略家们正在形成一个共识，那就是，世界大势在变，相互关系在调整，但千变万化，中美相向而行应是不变的目标。在全球化和互联时代，全球性挑战日益增多、局部战争不止、恐暴活动加剧、经济复苏乏力、自然灾害频生、和平受到威胁、发展遭到制约的全球性问题使任何国家都难以独善其身，也没有任何一个国家可以单独应对这些挑战。世界上的许多事，没有中美共同参与和有效合作，恐怕都难以办好，这已经成为不争的事实。站在全球高度，新兴大国和守成大国关系的内涵和意义正在发生历史性变化。中美两国人民，世界各国人民，都希望中美相互适应，互留空间，管控分歧，多谋合作。这样，中美才有希望，世界才有希望。中美两国准备好了吗？不搞两国集团，但寻求同一个梦想，构建人类命运共同体，应成为共同追求的目标，这是两国的责任和担当。

In their respective reviews of Sino-US relations at the end of the year, various institutions, governments, think tanks, mass media and individual observers, particularly in China and the United States, have divergent judgments about the state of those relations based on different intentions, perspectives and criteria. Among those sometimes conflicting observations, however, there is also one underlying consensus: Despite all the contradictions, entanglements and escalation in tensions, the great ship of Sino-US relations has always managed to plow through the waves.

Nowadays, more and more people are concerned about the China-US relationship, and to greater extents. With the exception of an extremely small number of countries, the boundary line between pro- and anti-China camps is getting increasingly blurred. The birth of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was a typical case in point. It was expected that many developing countries would participate actively. But the US might have never anticipated that its traditional allies Britain, France, Germany, Australia and South Korea would become the first founding members of the AIIB, and that it could have failed to prevent those countries from taking part in a China-initiated public goods program for their own benefits. Their participation in the AIIB doesn't mean they now shun America; they remain, for example, key members of such traditional institutions as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank. It only means that they no longer endorse the clear China-or-US demarcation as in the past. They can't afford to just listen to the US only on Sino-US relations, not to mention that US stance regarding the AIIB has been widely criticized at home. The warming up of China-Britain, China-France, and China-Germany ties after President Xi Jinping's US visit was telling proof.

Those countries care about the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. But they also have shown great interest in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative China has proposed. Sure, the TPP is a magnificent trade mechanism some countries have conceived in the name of further promoting free trade, which may present benchmark criteria for future world trade. Any country aspiring to join the club must first satisfy those criteria. The TPP is obviously more political, less inclusive. The “One Belt, One Road” initiative is quite different: Starting with infrastructure construction, China and stake-holding countries are supposed to undertake projects they plan, build and share together. It conforms to the national conditions and needs of all participating countries, is pragmatic and inclusive, and makes it easier for host countries to see the practical benefits of the projects, and for other participants to receive moral and economic returns.

Debate on Sino-US relations is expected to continue. But a new type of state-to-state relationship has to be built. By and large, there have been three main ideas in the extensive debate over Sino-US ties since the beginning of 2015: One holds that post-Nixon US China policies have failed completely, and China is becoming, or has already become, a rivalry, and a strategic one, to the US. Typical statements include that China and the US are in a “time of mutual distrust”, and that the US needs to revise its grand China strategy, featuring the belief that China is challenging American global leadership, and the US must take tougher containment policies. The second proposes to maintain the policy of engagement, competition, regulation and cooperation, seek to establish security and economic cooperation mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific, and to not let the South China Sea issue become a flashpoint for a Sino-US “new cold war” or confrontation. The third advocates all-round cooperation, stating that both China and the US should have sufficient strategic patience, and seek points of cooperation based on common interests. The first point of view is evidently extremist, but very influential and misleading. The second reflects majority opinion in the US, while the third sounds more or less idealistic. Though there has yet to be a similar major debate in China, and cooperation remains the main theme regarding Sino-US ties, radical opinions such as claims of Sino-US mutual suspicion, US containment of China, and the assumption that a war is inevitable between China and the US, have also been heard from time to time.

Leaders of both China and the US have taken the challenges to lead public opinion, create and take advantage of opportunities, explore ways for building a new type of major-country relationship, and sail against the current. After conclusion of the agreement on the Iran nuclear issue, President Obama called President Xi and praised China's constructive role throughout the process. Before and after countries reached an agreement at the Paris climate summit, Obama called Xi, giving full credit to US-China leadership in facilitating the agreement. Xi's US visit was fruitful in that it guaranteed the correct direction of building a new-type Sino-US major-country relationship; Obama also told Xi that he would leave a stable US-China relationship to the next administration. Bit by bit, both governments have been accumulating mutual confidence through practical moves and projects of collaboration.

A consensus is taking shape among celebrities, ordinary citizens, leaders and strategists in both countries that in spite of all the changes in global and international conditions, China and the US should not change their course of engagement and cooperation. In the current age of globalization and interconnection, with global and regional challenges like wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and slow economic recovery emerging and increasing all the time, no country can stay immune and cope with the threats single-handedly. There is little dispute that few global challenges can be handled properly without the joint participation and effective cooperation of China and the US. From the global perspective, historic changes are taking place in the connotations of relations between rising and incumbent powers. People from China, the US and the rest of the world share the hope that the two countries adapt to each other, leave room for each other, manage and control their disagreements, and work harder to seek collaboration. That is the only way for China, the US, and the rest of the world to see a promising future. Are China and the US ready? Instead of forming a “group of two”, China and the US share the responsibility to pursue the common goal of building a global community of shared destiny.