共和党总统候选人唐纳德·特朗普2010年11月在迈阿密举行的一场集会上演讲。（美联社）

首次中美全面经济对话落幕，本轮对话恰逢习特会晤百天，既是中美全面经济对话机制框架下中美“百日经济计划”的收官，也标志中美经济合作有望开启第二个发展阶段。

作为最大的新兴发展中国家和最大的发达国家，中美拥有全球最大的市场，两国人口占世界的23%，经济总量约占世界四成，贸易约占全球的1/4，对外投资和吸收外资约占全球的三成，双方互为最重要的贸易伙伴。中美经贸关系如何走向新的利益平衡，是摆在两国面前的重大而关键性议题。

应该讲，一年多来，中美就缩小贸易逆差进行了“建设性合作”。中美元首会晤一个首要成果就是启动“百日经济计划”，为解决中美贸易摩擦提供了“缓冲带”。如今，中美两国在全面经济对话机制框架下开展的中美经济合作“百日计划”已经收尾，中美双方在农产品贸易、金融服务、投资和能源等领域已经取得重要进展。美国牛肉14年后重返中国市场，中国熟制鸡肉也在13年后再次进入美国市场，中国扩大了对美国天然气的进口，还将扩大金融领域对美国企业的开放。不能否认，“早期收获”是实实在在的。

然而，中美关系仍存障碍，中美贸易摩擦以及爆发贸易战的潜在因素并没有消除。中国主张双方通过积极对话在合作中共同弥合分歧，其利益诉求主要集中于履行世贸议定书第15条义务、美国对华出口管制、中企赴美投资公平待遇问题、美方滥用贸易救济措施等方面。美方立场则重在建立中美之间更加平衡的经济关系，主张在迅速解决贸易逆差和市场准入问题的基础上，将贸易逆差作为促使中国与美合作的工具。双方立场的分歧是显而易见的，在短期内也很难弥合，因为在当今全球贸易体系和现代产业分工体系下，中美经贸不存在绝对量上的“贸易平衡”。

在“美国优先”政策和“存量切割”思维的指引下，特朗普政府的贸易政策可能继续保持强硬路线。近期，特朗普已启动对美国进口钢铁、铝的广泛调查。而且在钢铁和铝的两项调查中，特朗普政府都启用了之前很少使用的第232条款。该条款赋权美国商务部调查进口对国家安全的影响，而美国总统有权在调查结束时限制相关进口，考虑动用配额和关税，以应对来自中国和其他国家的钢铁倾销。美国商务部长罗斯最近也表示，特朗普政府已将钢铁、铝业、汽车、飞机、造船和半导体行业列为其贸易政策议程的六大“关键行业”。因此，未来并不排除中美贸易摩擦升级和对华贸易制裁的可能性。

经贸关系历来被认为是中美关系的压舱石，这一表述的合法性在于中美贸易体量之大、领域之广、交织之深，世界第一大与第二大贸易国间如此厚重的经济相互依存，为中美关系施加了极大的势能。

一旦中美双方引发贸易冲突，结果将是大家都不愿意看到的“双输”，双方谁都承受不起贸易战的灾难性后果。笔者认为，对中美经贸关系的定义应远超“贸易平衡”。中美经贸关系也应该超越“百日经济计划”，要重新审视和定义中美“经济平衡”的内涵与外延，着眼于如何创造中美未来经贸的发展空间，逐步消除结构性矛盾，制定一个更可持续的经贸发展路线图。

不可低估中美之间结构性合作的潜力和重要性。贸易结构的特点决定了中美经贸的竞争性与互补性并存。中美经济优势性互补，且互补性大于竞争性，两国在资源禀赋和产业结构方面的巨大差异和强烈互补性会长期存在。例如，基础设施投融资、高新科技、制造业、能源、服务贸易等是中美共同受益的重要领域，双方存在巨大的合作增长潜力与利益契合点，应加快推进优势领域与潜在领域的全面合作。

重点应积极推进中美各类优质生产要素和创新资源的整合，放宽高技术领域出口限制。推动两国高技术市场深化合作，是两国面向未来的互利选择。双方需要逐步消除投资壁垒和各类投资歧视性政策，以开放的投资政策以及公平公正对待所有投资者，共同致力于改善营商环境、国家安全审查、知识产权保护状况，提升规则透明度与公平性。

应尽快重启中美双边投资协定（BIT）谈判，推动市场双向开放，探索负面清单制度以及相关高标准的最佳路径，在条件成熟时启动范围更广的双边投资与贸易协定（BITT）谈判，加快推进中美基建投资、亚投行等多边开发融资体系以及“一带一路”框架下的第三方市场开发与广泛合作。

长远来看，提升中美结构性合作潜力可创造巨大的增长红利，或许是双方推动经贸问题解决的有效手段。它将使中美经贸合作真正步入“双赢”的良性可持续发展轨道。

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks Nov. 2016 during a campaign rally in Miami. (EVAN VUCCI, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The first China-U.S. Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED), held in Washington, D.C. on July 19, coincided with the 100th day of the first meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump. The dialogue marked the conclusion of the 100-day action plan as well as the start of a new stage of China-U.S. economic cooperation.

As the biggest developing country and the largest developed country, China and the United States have the biggest markets in the world. The population of the two nations accounts for 23% of the global total; the size of their economies amounts to about 40% of the total in the world; the value of their trade equals to about one quarter of the global total; the amount of their outbound direct investment and incoming foreign direct investment accounts for 30% of the global total; and they are each other's most important trading partner. Taking all of this into consideration, the ways in which China-U.S. economic and trade relations could strike an equilibrium of interests has become an important issue for the two to address.

China and the U.S. have engaged in “constructive cooperation” in order to reduce trade deficits in the past year. The heads of state, during their first meeting in April in Florida, agreed to launch the 100-day action plan on trade so as to provide a “buffer zone” for resolving their trade frictions. Along with the end of the 100-day action plan, China and the U.S. have made important progress in such fields as the trade of farm products, financial services, investment and energy. U.S. beef is now available on the Chinese market again after a 13-year suspension; cooked Chinese poultry has entered the U.S. market for the first time; and China has begun to import natural gas from the U.S. while also widening the financial sector for U.S. companies. These “early harvests” are the real and undeniable benefits for both sides.

However, it is a fact that obstacles and potential factors that hinder China-U.S. relations and that might lead to trade frictions or even trade war are yet to be eliminated. China hopes that the two sides could narrow and bridge their differences through dialogue and cooperation. For China, its main concerns include the U.S. fulfillment of its obligations under Article 15 of the Protocol on the Accession to the WTO, the U.S. high-tech export control against China, fair treatment for Chinese enterprises investing in the U.S., and the abuses of trade remedy measures. As for the U.S., which is striving to construct more balanced economic relations with China, it not only wants a swift solution to the issues of trade deficit and market access, but it also hopes to use the issue of trade deficit as a tool to exert pressure on China. Their differences are huge and cannot possibly be bridged in a short time. Therefore, under the current global trade system and the modern division of labor, it is unrealistic to strike an absolute “trade balance” between China and the U.S.

Under the “America First” doctrine, the Trump administration may continue to adhere to a hardline stance in its trade policy. Trump recently ordered the launch of broad investigations into U.S. imports of steel and aluminum. For the investigations, the Trump administration invoked the seldom-used legal provision – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. The legal clause empowers the Department of Commerce to investigate the impact of any import influx on U.S. national security. The president has the power to impose curbs on relevant imports at the end of the investigations as well as to impose quotas and tariffs that will curb steel dumping by China and other countries.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross also indicated that the Trump administration has listed steel, aluminum, automobile, aircraft, shipbuilding and semiconductor as the six “critical industries” in its trade policies. Therefore, the possibility that China-U.S. trade frictions may escalate and that the U.S. may apply new trade sanctions against China in the future cannot be ruled out.

If a trade conflict emerges between China and the U.S., it is certain that it would lead to a “lose-lose” scenario that is in no one's interests. Neither China nor the U.S. can afford to bear the catastrophic results from a trade war. China-U.S. economic and trade relations should not be confined by the so-called “trade balance”. Their relations should go beyond the 100-day action plan. They should reassess and redefine the “economic balance”, work to create room for further development of economy and trade, make efforts to gradually eliminate the structural imbalances, and chart a blueprint for sustainable development of economic and trade relations.

The potential and significance of structural cooperation between China and the U.S. should not be underestimated. The characteristics of trade structure indicate the coexistence of competition and complementarity in their economies and trade. Their complementarity outweighs their competition, and the huge differences in their resources and industrial structures as well the high complementariness will exist for a long time to come. For instance, financing for infrastructure construction, new and high-tech industry, manufacturing, energy and trade in services are the important sectors that would bring benefits to both. The two sides have huge potential for cooperation and shared benefits in these fields and should speed up their cooperation.

For the purpose of mutually beneficial cooperation, China and the U.S. should give priority to actively promoting the integration of quality production factors and innovative resources, relax control over the exports of high-tech products, and the deepen cooperation in high-tech markets. The two sides need to gradually eliminate investment barriers and various discriminatory investment policies and treat all investors with open and fair investment policies. The two should work together to improve the business environment, national security review system and intellectual property right protection, and to improve the transparency and fairness of rules and regulations.

The two countries should restart the negotiations on the Bilateral Investment Treaty as soon as possible, promote the two-way opening of their markets, and explore the implementation of the “negative list” system. Whenever the conditions are ripe, they should launch talks on the Bilateral Investment and Trade Treaty, which is supposed to cover a wider scope, speed up the promotion of multilateral development financing systems for China-U.S. infrastructure investment and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as well as the development and extensive cooperation on the third-party markets under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.

In the long term, tapping potentials in China-U.S. structural cooperation will help unleash tremendous growth dividends, or it could be an effective tool for the two sides to solve their economic and trade problems. By doing so, it will help lift China-U.S. economic cooperation and trade onto the track of “win-win” and sustainable development.