4月初，中美兩國元首在弗羅里達州海湖莊園舉行了首次會晤，就中美雙邊關係以及一系列國際重要焦點問題進行了全面、深入的交流，這也被國際媒體稱為跨越太平洋的“第一次握手”。中美兩國元首正式會晤推動兩個世界經濟大國經濟關係邁向了新起點。中美再次確認了經貿關係對兩國、對世界的重要性，並就兩國建立高級別的全面經濟對話合作機制達成了共識。這有助於加強中美之間的互信，減少經貿關係的對抗，降低世界經濟金融的不確定性，為中美未來幾十年的發展指明了方向。

中美經貿關係的本質是互利共贏。中美都處於進行變革的重要時期，既互為市場，又互為合作夥伴，應該共同做大合作蛋糕。中美元首會晤一個首要的成果就是啟動“百日經濟計劃”，為解決中美貿易摩擦提供“緩衝帶”。作為最大的新興發展中國家和最大的發達國家，中美關係是全球最重要的經濟關係，如今中美每年雙邊貿易將近5200億美元。2016年，中美貿易額5196.1億美元，是38年前建交時的210多倍，雙向投資也超過2000億美元。因此，過去一段時間中美出現貿易爭論，也讓世界各國高度關注中美貿易衝突的溢出效應。此次中美之間推出一個百日計劃，雙方將圍繞貿易領域的合作展開為期100天的談判和評估，以縮小中美之間的貿易不平衡性，從根本上避免中美之間直接爆發貿易衝突。

然而，我們不可忽略未來許多潛在問題的影響。中美經貿關係仍存障礙，導致中美之間貿易摩擦以及爆發貿易戰的潛在因素並沒有消失，未來挑戰甚至有可能增加。就貿易議題而言，100天期限非常短暫，不可能解決中美經貿的所有問題。因此，需要避免未來特朗普政府可能出台限制性政策的影響，比如美國貿易談判代表萊特希澤表示將考慮評估中國解決鋼鐵、水泥產能過剩問題的工具。在這樣的政策背景下，需要美中雙方有面向未來的戰略性思考。

根本而言，造成中美貿易不平衡的原因是複雜的、多方面的，要從全球國際分工、產業布局、中美雙方經濟發展階段、經濟結構等多方面、多角度、客觀地看待這一問題，解決這一問題。一方面，美國跨國公司在中美經貿交往中扮演着重要的利益相關者角色，在多年的中美經濟合作中發揮着重要的推動作用，但如今中國的企業也越來越國際化，成為中美經貿合作的助推器。

另一方面，中美經貿關係不應以“貿易平衡”為主線和核心基礎，而應着眼於如何創造中美未來經貿的發展空間，以積極創造更加公平的競爭環境為基礎。雙方應確定未來共同目標，確定經貿發展的合作領域，提升發展雙邊關係的潛力。

從特朗普經濟政策的指向看，基礎設施投資、高科技、製造業、能源行業將是新政府高度關注的四大“支柱行業”，並以此形成促進就業為核心的經濟政策和產業政策。以基礎設施為例，特朗普總統在競選時提出的1萬億美元基礎設施建設藍圖，尚未公布具體方案，但據美國交通部數據，目前美國僅地表交通基建投資缺口，就達9000億美元，這還不是特朗普基建計劃的全部。如果要實現基建承諾，特朗普政府必須引入民間資本，包括海外資金，加強中美在基礎設施建設以及多邊投融資體系的合作——比如可以通過基礎設施債券以及PPP（政府和社會資本合作）等形式。中美基建合作對未來重啟雙邊投資協定談判也有促進作用。

近一時期以來，美國商界及產業界表達了積极參与“一帶一路”框架內合作的意願。比如，美國進出口銀行就希望積极參与“一帶一路”建設，並聯合全球進出口銀行體系形成金融互聯網絡，為全球基礎設施提供信貸和融資。

中美經貿關係應超越“百日經濟計劃”。從未來更廣闊的合作前景看，深化中美經貿產業合作，積極推進中美各類優質生產要素和創新資源整合，放寬高技術領域出口限制，推動兩國高技術市場深化合作是兩國面向未來的互利選擇。雙方需要逐步消除投資壁壘和各類投資歧視性政策，以開放的投資政策以及依法公平公正對待所有投資者，加快雙邊投資協定談判，探索在條件成熟時啟動範圍更廣的雙邊投資與貿易協定談判。同時，在“一帶一路”框架下的第三方市場開發，勢必為中美及全球帶來不可低估的增長新動力。

President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Donald Trump had their first face-to-face meeting at Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in April, a comprehensive and in-depth exchanges of views on bilateral relations as well as major international and regional issues. The meeting reaffirmed the importance of economic and trade ties to the two nations and the world as a whole, and the two leaders reached consensus on establishing the mechanism for high-level, comprehensive economic dialogue. This will be conducive to strengthening mutual trust, reducing economic and trade frictions, lowering uncertainties in the global economy and finance, and charting the course for future development of China-US relations in decades to come.

The China-US economic and trade relationship is characterized by mutual benefits and win-win results. As each other's biggest market and partner, China and the United States are bound to expanding their economic and trade cooperation. One important achievement of the Xi-Trump summit was their agreement to launch the “100-day plan”, which was meant to provide a “buffer zone” for settling trade frictions. As the largest developing country in the world and the largest developed economy, and with two-way trade valued at nearly $520 billion, China-US relations are certainly the most important economic ties in the world. In 2016, China-US trade amounted to $519.61 billion, more than 210 times the size 38 years ago when diplomatic relations were established. Today, the amount of two-way investment exceeds $200 billion. Recent China-US trade disputes have become concerns for many countries, as they worry about any spillover effects from China-US trade conflicts. With the launch of the 100-day plan, the two sides will conduct trade negotiations and assessments, work to narrow the trade imbalance, and try to avert any outburst of trade conflict.

However, we should not overlook many potential problems. There are still obstacles in China-US economic and trade relations, and some hidden factors that might lead to trade frictions or even a trade war are yet to be eliminated, so managing trade ties will be very challenging. It is virtually impossible to solve all related problems in just 100 days, so it is advisable to prevent impact of possible restrictive policies that the Trump administration may adopt in the future. For instance, US trade representative Robert Lighthizer would assess the tools China applies in tackling the glut in steel and cement production, and tensions in those sectors are still high. Therefore, against such a policy backdrop, China and the US need to have a future-oriented strategy about their trade and economic relationship.

There are complicated and multifaceted reasons for the China-US trade imbalance, and the issue should be viewed objectively from different perspectives, such as global division of labor, industrial layout, and the stages of the two nations' economic development levels and economic structures. On one hand, multinational corporations from the US are important stakeholders in economic and trade activities between China and the US, have played an important role in promoting bilateral cooperation in the past years, and are now working as boosters for economic and trade cooperation amid the globalization process of Chinese companies.

On the other hand, “trade balance” should not be the theme or core foundation for China-US economic and trade relations, and the two countries should focus on creating bigger potential for economic and trade development, and vigorously cultivate a better and fairer environment for competition. The two sides should set their common goals, define the fields for economic and trade cooperation, and expand the potential for the development of bilateral relations.

Signs are already pointing to infrastructure investment, high technology, manufacturing and energy as the four “pillar” industries in the economic policy of the Trump administration. His economic and industrial policies are focused on promoting employment in these core sectors. Take infrastructure as an example. Trump, during the presidential campaign, hyped an investment of $1 trillion in infrastructure construction, but so far he has not announced any detailed plan for the implementation of that blueprint. According to data from the Department of Transportation, investment shortage for the construction of ground transport facilities is as high as $900 billion, and this is only part of Trump's infrastructure investment plan. If Trump is to materialize his promise for infrastructure construction, his administration would have to bring in private capital, including offshore capital, and have to explore ways to strengthen China-US cooperation in infrastructure construction and multilateral financing systems, for example, bond issues for infrastructure construction and the PPP model. At the same time, China-US cooperation in infrastructure construction could also play a driving role in the future re-launch of bilateral-investment treaty talks.

US business and industry circles have shown keen interest in cooperation within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. For instance, the Export-Import Bank of the United States has voiced its strong desire to take part in the construction of the Belt and Road, and has cooperated with global export-import banks to form a financing network to provide credit and financing services for infrastructure construction worldwide.

China-US economic and trade relations should certainly look beyond the 100-day plan. For broader prospects for cooperation, it will mutually benefit China and the US to deepen economic, industrial and trade cooperation, vigorously promote the integration of production and innovation resources, lift restrictions on high-tech exports, and push for closer and deeper cooperation in high-tech markets. The two sides also need to gradually eliminate investment barriers and various discriminatory policies on investments, adopt open investment policies and treat all investors fairly and equally within the framework of laws, speed up the BIT talks, start talks for a broader bilateral investment and trade treaty when conditions are ripe, and inject new vigor for growth through third-party market development under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.