美国国务院布林肯对中国为期两天的访问，对外释放了中美都希望管控紧张局势的信号。中国国务委员兼外长秦刚明确表示，当前中美关系处在建交以来的最低谷。换言之，在中方看来，拜登政府上台后中美关系比特朗普时期变得更糟糕。

毋庸讳言，不少重要人士都发出了中美可能会爆发战争的警告。曾在上世纪70年代推动中美关系缓和的美国前国务卿基辛格认为，中美关系目前处于“悬崖顶上”，如果双方不改变轨迹，台湾海峡很可能会出现武装冲突。商界精英、桥水创始人瑞·达利欧（Ray Dalio）则称，中美已经处在“战争边缘”（brink of war），局面将随着美国进入2024年总统大选季而更加恶化。

让中美关系稳下来，是此次布林肯北京之行的关键词。根据去年年底中美两国元首在印尼巴厘岛会晤中达成的共识，今年本该是双方深化协商、缓和关系的重要机会窗口。然而，年初的“飞艇事件”令中美关系急转直下，拜登政府的强势操作或许可以在美国国内政治中得分，但却中美之间的战略互动跌入冰点。而这正是此次中方向布林肯强调“冷静、专业、理性处理意外偶发事件”的原因。

中美关系已然变得非常脆弱，双方互信也在过去几年你来我往的较量中越发稀薄。特别是，“中国是美国的最大战略对手”成为美国民主党和共和党的共识，两党围绕“谁对中国更强硬”展开竞争，任何一方都担心被指责对华软弱。众议院外交委员会主席、共和党人迈克尔·麦考尔（Michael McCaul）将布林肯的北京之行称为“刺眼的失败”，指责拜登行政当局因为想要和中国恢复对话而暂停了一些对华制裁行动。

麦考尔太过刻薄，他和很多共和党鹰派议员一样，试图用不负责任的指责达到“一石两鸟”的目标，既令中国承受压力，同时也让拜登政府难堪。美国国内政治的劣质恶斗已经很难让中美之间展开有效的外交，而这对于避免两个核大国步入战争至关重要。这些鹰派议员对台湾问题的历史经纬缺乏了解，对与中国对话毫无兴趣。中美关系成为美国“极化”政治的受害者。

布林肯的北京一夜，并非毫无收获。中美高层交往可能会在未来几个月变得热络，美国财长耶伦、商务部长雷蒙多有望访华，而秦刚等中方高级官员也收到了访美的邀请。如果条件具备，中国领导人也可能会在今年11月赴美参加APEC领导人非正式会议。此外，中美两国元首还有机会在今年9月出席二十国集团新德里峰会期间举行会晤。

当然，这取决于中美能否在两国元首巴厘岛会晤共识的基础上“再出发”，布林肯虽做出承诺，但仍需认清前路多歧的现实。首先，双方对两国关系的定位有着重要分歧。拜登政府坚持用“大国竞争”定义中美关系，并强调两国较量迎来“决定性十年”。中方则明确称，大国竞争不符合时代潮流，更解决不了美国自身的问题和世界面临的挑战，需以“相互尊重、和平共处、合作共赢”原则妥处中美关系。此次布林肯访华，双方同意继续推进中美关系指导原则磋商，弥合分歧需要战略智慧和外交技巧。

其次，双方同意继续推进联合工作组磋商。“大处着眼、小处着手”，中美关系中存在很多具体问题。如果原则性问题谈不拢，就要把更多精力和资源用于解决具体问题，这是让中美关系稳下来的重要路径。比如，拜登政府一直以关税审查为由延续特朗普政府开启的对华“贸易战”，这种故意的拖延令大多数美国企业和商业组织不满。为安抚商界，拜登政府试图用“去风险”政策话语替代“脱钩”，但这需要拜登政府拿出更多的实际行动来证明两者之间的差异。

第三，中方对布林肯多次强调台湾问题是“中国核心利益中的核心，是中美关系最重大的问题，也是最突出的风险”，但中美在台湾问题上的较量或会进一步加剧。美国所奉行的“一个中国政策”将《与台湾关系法》和所谓“六项保证”纳入，这与中方所坚持的“一个中国原则”相比，差距似越来越大。美方很多人士认为，台湾问题和平解决的前景已经十分渺茫，而“武力统一”则是美国无法接受的。美军印太司令部司令阿奎利诺近日称，他的任务是尽力通过威慑避免“武统”，如果开打，则必须打赢。

美国立法部门在台湾问题上的消极动向更为突出。今年4月，美国众议院中国问题特别委员会刻意在国会山举行台海冲突的兵棋推演，试图借此渲染紧张态势，并在美国国内搞战略动员。以麦考尔为代表的议员不仅要求拜登政府加强对台湾地区的军事支持，还在推动日本、韩国、欧洲等第三方对台军售。美国众议长麦卡锡并没有放弃今年年内访问台湾地区的计划。这类挑衅性举措势必将使中美关系受到更多冲击。

显然，布林肯的一次访问，根本无法改变美国对华战略的轨迹，这也是美国国务院官员呼吁外界对此访降低预期的原因。中美关系“低位震荡、边打边谈”的新常态将会持续下去，防止战争以及擦枪走火引发的冲突升级，是未来数年两国关系面临的最大考验。所有人都不愿看到中美关系的惊涛骇浪，但“必有一战”的想法加之针锋相对的恶性循环，确实很有可能引致大国战争的悲剧。

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's two-day visit to China resulted in a clear message: Both Beijing and Washington wish to manage their tense relations. As Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin Gang said, China-U.S. relations are at their lowest since formal diplomatic relations were established. In other words, from the Chinese perspective, things are worse under President Joe Biden than under Trump.

Many have warned of a possible war between China and the United States. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who was instrumental in the thaw in China-U.S. relations in the 1970s, believes the relationship is now at the edge of a cliff, and unless the two parties change their trajectories, armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait is likely. Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio thinks the two countries are on the “brink of war,” and the situation is likely to worsen further as the U.S. enters the 2024 general election season.

The keyword of Blinken's trip was stability. According to the consensus reached between Chinese and U.S. leaders in Bali, Indonesia last year, this year should have been an important window of opportunity for deepening consultation and easing tensions. But the balloon incident at the beginning of the year sent bilateral ties into a tailspin. The Biden administration's tough approach may have scored points in domestic politics, but it also brought bilateral strategic interaction to the freezing point. That's why the Chinese side emphasized that the U.S. needs to be cool-headed, professional and rational in handling “unexpected incidents.”

China-U.S. relations have become fragile. Mutual trust has been wearing thin in a constant game of tit-for-tat over the past few years. A consensus has emerged between America's two main political parties that China is the country's “biggest strategic rival.” The Democrats and Republicans even compete to see who can be tougher to China. Both worry about being accused by the other as “weak.” Michael McCaul, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Blinken's Beijing trip was a glaring failure, and he criticized the Biden administration for suspending some sanctions in an effort to restore dialogue.

MacCaul was being mean, as are many other hawkish Republican members of Congress. He attempted to kill two birds with the one stone with irresponsible accusations in an attempt to pressure on China and embarrass the Biden administration. Nasty political infighting in the U.S. has already rendered effective diplomacy difficult between China and the U.S. — something of critical significance in preventing war between the two nuclear powers.These hawks do not seem to fully understand the history and sensitivity of the Taiwan issue, and they have no interest in dialogue with China. Instead, they see Beijing as an evil rival. Thus, China-U.S. relations have fallen prey to political polarization in the U.S.

Blinken's one-night stay in Beijing was not fruitless. High-level exchanges between China and the U.S. may warm up in the next few months, with possible China visits b y U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. Senior Chinese officials such as Foreign Minister Qin Gang have received invitations to visit the U.S. And if conditions allow, Chinese President Xi Jinping may go there himself to attend the informal APEC leaders meeting in November. The two countries' leaders may also meet in September on the sidelines of the G20 summit in New Delhi.

Of course, all this hinges on whether the two countries can reset relations on the basis of what the Chinese and U.S. leaders agreed in Bali. Despite Blinken's commitment to do so, there may yet be uncertainties going forward.First, the two sides diverge significantly over the nature of bilateral ties. The Biden administration has insisted on defining it as “major power competition,” and emphasized that the two countries will face a “decisive decade.” The Chinese side has stated clearly that major power competition is inconsistent with the trend of our times and will neither resolve the problems facing the U.S. nor global challenges. The China-U.S. relationship should be properly handled based on principles of mutual respect, peaceful co-existence, win-win cooperation. During Blinken's visit, the two sides agreed to continue consultations over the guiding principles for bilateral ties. Bridging the current chasm calls for strategic wisdom and diplomatic craft.

Second, both sides agreed to continue consultations via joint working groups. There are many specific issues that require a big picture perspective, starting with the trivial. If they can't agree on matters of principle, they should instead focus more on solving specific problems, this is an important method for stabilizing bilateral ties.For instance, the Biden administration has maintained the sanctions against China that were imposed by the Trump government on the pretext of tariff review. This has left the majority of American companies and business organizations dissatisfied. In order to pacify the business community, the Biden government has replaced the rhetoric of “decoupling” with a softer term — “de-risking.” But it will take more practical action on the part of Biden's team to prove it's different from the Trump administration.

Third, the Chinese side has on multiple occasions emphasized to Blinken that the Taiwan issue is “the core of core Chinese interests, the biggest issue in China-U.S. relations, and also the most outstanding risk.” But the two sides' wrangling over the island may further worsen the situation. The U.S. has incorporated its Taiwan Relations Act and Six Assurances into its “one-China” policy.” And this only seems to have drifted further from the Chinese side's “one-China” principle. Many in America assume the prospect of peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue has become dim and find the prospect of “reunification by force” by China unacceptable. The Indo-Pacific commander, Admiral John Aquilino, said recently that his mission is to make every effort to prevent unification by force through deterrence, and make sure the U.S. wins if a war breaks out.

Negative developments on the part of U.S. legislators are even more conspicuous. In April, the U.S. House Select Committee on China staged a a tabletop war game exercise over Taiwan on Capital Hill, attempting to hype tensions and conduct a domestic strategic mobilization. Members of Congress such as McCaul not only asked the Biden administration to increase military support for Taiwan, but are also promoting arms sales through third parties, including Japan, South Korea and Europe. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hasn't given up on his plan to visit Taiwan this year. Such provocative measures will inevitably batter China-U.S. relations.

A single visit by Blinken in no way suffices to change the trajectory of U.S. China policy, which was why U.S. State Department officials called for lowering expectations about the trip. The new normal of China-U.S. relations — “oscillating at low levels, talking while fighting” — will continue. Preventing war, or even escalating unintended conflicts, will be the foremost test for bilateral ties in the years to come. Nobody wants to see an armed conflict between the U.S. and China, but many believe it's unavoidable. The vicious circle of tit-for-tat may lead to the tragedy of war.