当前的中美关系相对于以往出现一些明显的不同，我们一时无法看清这些不同是结构性重大变化，还是一些个别现象。这给我们判断中美未来走势带来不少困惑。这些困惑总结起来至少有五个方面。

一、是技术性问题还是战略性问题。中美关系是中国管控得最好的大国关系之一，其中一条重要经验是将出现的矛盾与摩擦控制在技术层面，防止其上升为战略冲突。比如，中美南海撞机后建立技术性处理办法，而不是将问题导向中美战略性冲突。甚至在美国轰炸中国驻南联盟大使馆时也是如此。但是今天，中美发生在贸易领域的矛盾令人迷惑。一方面，许多人认为这是守成大国与崛起大国之间的“修昔底德陷阱”，是战略性问题；另一方面，特朗普又崇尚交易，正推动两国就贸易争端达成共识。由此就产生了矛盾。如果中美当前矛盾是战略性或结构性的，那么从美方看来，不管中国做出何种让步，只要这种让步不能阻挡中国崛起步伐，美方就不能接受。从目前来看，美方谈判团队的内部矛盾也集中在这一方面，鹰派的纳瓦罗坚持惩罚中国，姆奴钦则主张与中国达成可接受的协议。显然，美国自己在处理对华关系时，存在技术性和战略性的自我矛盾。

二、是政策性问题还是结构性问题。这里指的主要是经济关系。据统计，2017年中美两国双边投资大幅下降，2018年下降趋势也比较明显，其中中国对美投资下降尤其显著。以前我们常说，贸易投资是中美关系的压舱石。现在投资出现下滑，贸易出现争端，如何根据这些指标判断中美关系的未来走势？这取决于影响投资的是政策性因素，还是结构性因素。很明显，中国对美投资下滑主要是由政策性因素导致的。一方面中国加强自我审查，限制对外冲动型投资，防止出现海外投资过热，所以中国大幅减少了对美服务业投资；另一方面，美国也在加大对美投资审查，对中国资本收购美国高科技敏感行业做出种种限制。中国并未针对美资做出专门投资限制，因此美国对华投资下滑可能主要是由于中国劳动力、土地、物流等成本上升导致的，也跟美国资本的投资取向有很大关系。当然，中国也有部分行业暂时没有完全放开。但这只是一种粗略分析，经济联系对于中美关系的未来至关重要，我们要尽早破解这一困惑。

三、是个别现象还是普遍现象。美国国内政治风向并不稳定，民主党倾向自由主义，更关注人权和社会问题，共和党则更加务实，对外更强调国家利益。在对华立场上，不同政党在当政时期也明显不同。现在的问题是，美国当前展现出的强硬立场是一种党派、政治集团的立场，还是一种国家或民族立场？换句话说，在美国国内是某一些人强调对华强硬，还是形成了一种全国上下共同认可的新的政治正确？长期以来，中美关系之所以保持基本稳定，除了外交上的技巧外，还与两国内部的强烈友好倾向密不可分。比如，中国国内对中美关系有高度共识，认为这是中国最重要的对外关系，强调双方加强沟通，稳妥处理分歧，在相互尊重基础上建设新型大国关系，其关键词是“合作”。长期以来，美国国内主流思想也认为应该稳妥处理对华关系，虽然美国不接受中国的一些理念和做法，但仍拒绝让两国走向对抗。现在的问题在于，美国国内的主流对华认知是否发生了转折性变化？这是处理中美关系的基础。

四、是安全利益还是意识形态。熟悉特朗普的人都认为，他不是一个看重意识形态的人，他更看重实际利益。这跟他商人以及共和党的身份也非常贴切。但冷战的深刻记忆提醒我们，意识形态斗争无处不在，在安全利益出现争端时，意识形态差异往往会更加凸显，这不是一个人能左右的。意识形态的差异并不仅仅体现在执政理念和政治体制上，也体现在对社会文明的不同看法上。美国、澳大利亚、新西兰等国限制中国国有企业或它们认定的所谓国有企业在本国投资，很大程度上已经不仅是出于安全和经济利益考虑，而是明显受到意识形态的影响。最近，一位美国议员给某研究机构去信，建议该机构撤回对某位中国学者的会议邀请，理由是这位学者与政府有关联。在过去，这种直接干预学术机构交流的做法是不可想象的。近期，美国在台湾问题上做出许多错误举动，支持这些举动的基本都是意识形态因素。或者说，中美安全分歧的增大给这类意识形态冲动提供了土壤和空间。过去中美两国积极管控意识形态分歧，都强调不能让意识形态差异阻碍中美交往，从而对中美友好交往起了重要促进作用。当然，现在的零星迹象并不说明中美已经陷入意识形态冲突，但这足以引起两国特别是美方的警觉。

五、是美国还是整个西方。特朗普不仅对华强硬，他对欧洲也不手软。欧洲一方面反对特朗普在贸易、气候等问题上的单边政策，同时也对中国对欧投资做出限制，批评中国的产业政策，怀疑中国在欧洲的基础设施建设倡议。那么问题在于，当前形势下美国的对华强硬只代表它自己，还是代表了整个西方？西方世界对华政策是否形成了一致性？马克龙是欧洲的新兴政治力量，他访问澳大利亚时强调平衡中国的影响，但转身回到欧洲就强调联合中国维护世界多边体制。默克尔在贸易、伊核和欧洲安全问题上强烈批评美国，但她也毫不回避对中国在欧洲作用的猜忌。表面上看，欧洲对华政策出现分裂，既担心中国影响力的扩大，又需要联合中国维护国际规范，因为正是这些规范确保了欧洲在全球，包括WTO、巴黎气候协定的政治地位。中美欧正在形成一种新的三角互动模式，其中中国的分量在增大，而未来的问题是欧洲将偏向哪一边。

毫无疑问，当前的中美两国和两国关系都进入了新的时代，两国需要重新磨合，寻找新的处理双边关系的合适途径。磨合期难免出现碰撞和困惑，现在两国要做的是解决困惑，若不是让困惑上升为分歧和冲突。

China-US relations have evolved. These changes are making people puzzled.

Are these changes of a tactical or strategic nature? China has taken great care to control friction with the US to prevent it from escalating to the strategic level. For example, after the midair collision between a US surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet in 2001, the two sides dealt with the incident and did not allow it to worsen to the level of a strategic conflict. The two nations also handled the 1999 US bombing of the Chinese embassy in the former Yugoslavia in a similar manner. The current trade friction between the two countries is very perplexing. Many tend to believe that the trade conflict is an evidence of the so-called Thucydides Trap between an emerging power and an established power and is therefore a strategic issue. US President Donald Trump is a man known for the Art of the Deal and is pushing the two to reach consensuses on trade disputes. If the US really considers its conflict with China as strategic or structural, it would not feel satisfied with any concessions China may make, unless such concessions could stop China's rise. It seems members of the US trade delegation could not even reach consensus on this among themselves. The hawks, led by Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro, insisted on punishing China, while the doves, represented by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, advocated for reasonable and acceptable deals with China. It seems the US is also caught in a dilemma between tactics and strategy in handling its relations with China.

Are challenges in bilateral commercial relations caused by economic policies or structural problems? Statistics showed that China-US bilateral investments dropped by a large margin in 2017, and the downhill trend continued into 2018. Of bilateral investments, the decline in China's outbound investment in the US was extremely substantial. Trade and investment are always considered to be the anchor of China-US relations. Is this declining investment and trade friction indicative of the future of China-US relations? This depends on whether the factors causing it are structural ones or policy-related. China imposed curbs on irrational outward investment, and therefore Chinese investment in the US service sector declined significantly. The US also tightened its scrutiny over foreign investments and imposed various restrictions on mergers and acquisitions by Chinese companies in the high-tech and sensitive sectors. China does not have any investment curbs specifically targeting the US, therefore the decline in US investment in China might have been caused mainly by the rising costs of Chinese labor, land, and logistics services, and might also be related to investment preferences. It's also true that some Chinese industries have yet to fully open to foreign investment.

The political landscape in the US is evolving. The Democrats prefer liberalism and pay more attention to human rights and social issues, while the Republicans are more pragmatic and concentrate more on national interests. While in power, their stances towards China are remarkably different. The reason China-US relations have long remained mostly stable is, in addition to diplomatic skills, the strong inclination towards friendship in both countries. For example, China believes its relationship with the US is its most important one, and stresses that the two sides should strengthen communication, properly handle disputes, and foster a new type of major-country relations on the basis of mutual respect. In the US, there is also a wide consensus that relations with China should be appropriately handled. The US does not buy some of Chinese ideology and practices, but it doesn't want confrontation.

People who know Trump would agree that he is a man who cares little about ideology but more about practical benefits, and this matches well with his character as a businessman and Republican. But ideological differences are often behind disputes over security interests. Countries including the US, Australia, and New Zealand imposed curbs on investments by China's state-owned enterprises – or enterprises they consider to be State-owned ones. These curbs were not made for security and economic considerations but were obviously influenced by ideology. A US senator recently wrote to a Washington-based think tank asking it to withdraw an invitation to a Chinese scholar, alleging that the scholar had a background in the Chinese government. Such direct intervention into academic exchanges was unimaginable in the past. The US recently made a number of wrong moves on the Taiwan question. These moves were actually driven by ideological factors. In the past, China and the US actively managed their ideological differences and disputes and stressed that they should not obstruct normal exchanges and communications. This played an important role in propelling the development of China-US exchanges. Of course, isolated cases don't mean that China and the US are caught in ideological conflicts, but the cases do merit attention from both sides, particularly the US.

Is the US alone or is the whole Western world playing tough on China? Trump takes a tough stance against both China and Europe. Europe opposes Trump's unilateral policies on trade and climate change, but at the same time imposes restrictions on Chinese investments, criticizes China's industrial policies and questions the Chinese initiative of building infrastructure in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron is the leader of a new political force in Europe. He talked about countering China's influence while visiting Australia, but he advocated cooperating with China to defend the global multilateral system immediately after he was back in Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a stern critic of the US on issues like trade, the Iran nuclear deal, and European security, but she openly expressed her doubt over China's role in Europe. Europe's China policy seems divided. It is worried about the expansion of China's influence but also needs China's cooperation to help defend international norms. And these norms have helped establish Europe's political status in the world, including in the World Trade Organization and the Paris agreement on climate change.

China-US relations are evolving into a new era and the two nations need to adapt to each other and find new appropriate channels to handle their ties. Amidst great changes, it is natural to have some conflicts and problems. What they need to do is to find solutions to them.