共和黨總統候選人唐納德·特朗普2010年11月在邁阿密舉行的一場集會上演講。（美聯社）

首次中美全面經濟對話落幕，本輪對話恰逢習特會晤百天，既是中美全面經濟對話機制框架下中美“百日經濟計劃”的收官，也標誌中美經濟合作有望開啟第二個發展階段。

作為最大的新興發展中國家和最大的發達國家，中美擁有全球最大的市場，兩國人口佔世界的23%，經濟總量約佔世界四成，貿易約佔全球的1/4，對外投資和吸收外資約佔全球的三成，雙方互為最重要的貿易夥伴。中美經貿關係如何走向新的利益平衡，是擺在兩國面前的重大而關鍵性議題。

應該講，一年多來，中美就縮小貿易逆差進行了“建設性合作”。中美元首會晤一個首要成果就是啟動“百日經濟計劃”，為解決中美貿易摩擦提供了“緩衝帶”。如今，中美兩國在全面經濟對話機制框架下開展的中美經濟合作“百日計劃”已經收尾，中美雙方在農產品貿易、金融服務、投資和能源等領域已經取得重要進展。美國牛肉14年後重返中國市場，中國熟制雞肉也在13年後再次進入美國市場，中國擴大了對美國天然氣的進口，還將擴大金融領域對美國企業的開放。不能否認，“早期收穫”是實實在在的。

然而，中美關係仍存障礙，中美貿易摩擦以及爆發貿易戰的潛在因素並沒有消除。中國主張雙方通過積極對話在合作中共同彌合分歧，其利益訴求主要集中於履行世貿議定書第15條義務、美國對華出口管制、中企赴美投資公平待遇問題、美方濫用貿易救濟措施等方面。美方立場則重在建立中美之間更加平衡的經濟關係，主張在迅速解決貿易逆差和市場准入問題的基礎上，將貿易逆差作為促使中國與美合作的工具。雙方立場的分歧是顯而易見的，在短期內也很難彌合，因為在當今全球貿易體系和現代產業分工體系下，中美經貿不存在絕對量上的“貿易平衡”。

在“美國優先”政策和“存量切割”思維的指引下，特朗普政府的貿易政策可能繼續保持強硬路線。近期，特朗普已啟動對美國進口鋼鐵、鋁的廣泛調查。而且在鋼鐵和鋁的兩項調查中，特朗普政府都啟用了之前很少使用的第232條款。該條款賦權美國商務部調查進口對國家安全的影響，而美國總統有權在調查結束時限制相關進口，考慮動用配額和關稅，以應對來自中國和其他國家的鋼鐵傾銷。美國商務部長羅斯最近也表示，特朗普政府已將鋼鐵、鋁業、汽車、飛機、造船和半導體行業列為其貿易政策議程的六大“關鍵行業”。因此，未來並不排除中美貿易摩擦升級和對華貿易制裁的可能性。

經貿關係歷來被認為是中美關係的壓艙石，這一表述的合法性在於中美貿易體量之大、領域之廣、交織之深，世界第一大與第二大貿易國間如此厚重的經濟相互依存，為中美關係施加了極大的勢能。

一旦中美雙方引發貿易衝突，結果將是大家都不願意看到的“雙輸”，雙方誰都承受不起貿易戰的災難性後果。筆者認為，對中美經貿關係的定義應遠超“貿易平衡”。中美經貿關係也應該超越“百日經濟計劃”，要重新審視和定義中美“經濟平衡”的內涵與外延，着眼於如何創造中美未來經貿的發展空間，逐步消除結構性矛盾，制定一個更可持續的經貿發展路線圖。

不可低估中美之間結構性合作的潛力和重要性。貿易結構的特點決定了中美經貿的競爭性與互補性並存。中美經濟優勢性互補，且互補性大於競爭性，兩國在資源稟賦和產業結構方面的巨大差異和強烈互補性會長期存在。例如，基礎設施投融資、高新科技、製造業、能源、服務貿易等是中美共同受益的重要領域，雙方存在巨大的合作增長潛力與利益契合點，應加快推進優勢領域與潛在領域的全面合作。

重點應積極推進中美各類優質生產要素和創新資源的整合，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公平公正對待所有投資者，共同致力於改善營商環境、國家安全審查、知識產權保護狀況，提升規則透明度與公平性。

應儘快重啟中美雙邊投資協定（BIT）談判，推動市場雙向開放，探索負面清單制度以及相關高標準的最佳路徑，在條件成熟時啟動範圍更廣的雙邊投資與貿易協定（BITT）談判，加快推進中美基建投資、亞投行等多邊開發融資體系以及“一帶一路”框架下的第三方市場開發與廣泛合作。

長遠來看，提升中美結構性合作潛力可創造巨大的增長紅利，或許是雙方推動經貿問題解決的有效手段。它將使中美經貿合作真正步入“雙贏”的良性可持續發展軌道。

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.