當前的中美關係相對於以往出現一些明顯的不同，我們一時無法看清這些不同是結構性重大變化，還是一些個別現象。這給我們判斷中美未來走勢帶來不少困惑。這些困惑總結起來至少有五個方面。

一、是技術性問題還是戰略性問題。中美關係是中國管控得最好的大國關係之一，其中一條重要經驗是將出現的矛盾與摩擦控制在技術層面，防止其上升為戰略衝突。比如，中美南海撞機後建立技術性處理辦法，而不是將問題導向中美戰略性衝突。甚至在美國轟炸中國駐南聯盟大使館時也是如此。但是今天，中美髮生在貿易領域的矛盾令人迷惑。一方面，許多人認為這是守成大國與崛起大國之間的“修昔底德陷阱”，是戰略性問題；另一方面，特朗普又崇尚交易，正推動兩國就貿易爭端達成共識。由此就產生了矛盾。如果中美當前矛盾是戰略性或結構性的，那麼從美方看來，不管中國做出何種讓步，只要這種讓步不能阻擋中國崛起步伐，美方就不能接受。從目前來看，美方談判團隊的內部矛盾也集中在這一方面，鷹派的納瓦羅堅持懲罰中國，姆奴欽則主張與中國達成可接受的協議。顯然，美國自己在處理對華關係時，存在技術性和戰略性的自我矛盾。

二、是政策性問題還是結構性問題。這裡指的主要是經濟關係。據統計，2017年中美兩國雙邊投資大幅下降，2018年下降趨勢也比較明顯，其中中國對美投資下降尤其顯著。以前我們常說，貿易投資是中美關係的壓艙石。現在投資出現下滑，貿易出現爭端，如何根據這些指標判斷中美關係的未來走勢？這取決於影響投資的是政策性因素，還是結構性因素。很明顯，中國對美投資下滑主要是由政策性因素導致的。一方面中國加強自我審查，限制對外衝動型投資，防止出現海外投資過熱，所以中國大幅減少了對美服務業投資；另一方面，美國也在加大對美投資審查，對中國資本收購美國高科技敏感行業做出種種限制。中國並未針對美資做出專門投資限制，因此美國對華投資下滑可能主要是由於中國勞動力、土地、物流等成本上升導致的，也跟美國資本的投資取向有很大關係。當然，中國也有部分行業暫時沒有完全放開。但這只是一種粗略分析，經濟聯繫對於中美關係的未來至關重要，我們要儘早破解這一困惑。

三、是個別現象還是普遍現象。美國國內政治風向並不穩定，民主黨傾向自由主義，更關注人權和社會問題，共和黨則更加務實，對外更強調國家利益。在對華立場上，不同政黨在當政時期也明顯不同。現在的問題是，美國當前展現出的強硬立場是一種黨派、政治集團的立場，還是一種國家或民族立場？換句話說，在美國國內是某一些人強調對華強硬，還是形成了一種全國上下共同認可的新的政治正確？長期以來，中美關係之所以保持基本穩定，除了外交上的技巧外，還與兩國內部的強烈友好傾向密不可分。比如，中國國內對中美關係有高度共識，認為這是中國最重要的對外關係，強調雙方加強溝通，穩妥處理分歧，在相互尊重基礎上建設新型大國關係，其關鍵詞是“合作”。長期以來，美國國內主流思想也認為應該穩妥處理對華關係，雖然美國不接受中國的一些理念和做法，但仍拒絕讓兩國走向對抗。現在的問題在於，美國國內的主流對華認知是否發生了轉折性變化？這是處理中美關係的基礎。

四、是安全利益還是意識形態。熟悉特朗普的人都認為，他不是一個看重意識形態的人，他更看重實際利益。這跟他商人以及共和黨的身份也非常貼切。但冷戰的深刻記憶提醒我們，意識形態鬥爭無處不在，在安全利益出現爭端時，意識形態差異往往會更加凸顯，這不是一個人能左右的。意識形態的差異並不僅僅體現在執政理念和政治體制上，也體現在對社會文明的不同看法上。美國、澳大利亞、新西蘭等國限制中國國有企業或它們認定的所謂國有企業在本國投資，很大程度上已經不僅是出於安全和經濟利益考慮，而是明顯受到意識形態的影響。最近，一位美國議員給某研究機構去信，建議該機構撤回對某位中國學者的會議邀請，理由是這位學者與政府有關聯。在過去，這種直接干預學術機構交流的做法是不可想像的。近期，美國在台灣問題上做出許多錯誤舉動，支持這些舉動的基本都是意識形態因素。或者說，中美安全分歧的增大給這類意識形態衝動提供了土壤和空間。過去中美兩國積極管控意識形態分歧，都強調不能讓意識形態差異阻礙中美交往，從而對中美友好交往起了重要促進作用。當然，現在的零星跡象並不說明中美已經陷入意識形態衝突，但這足以引起兩國特別是美方的警覺。

五、是美國還是整個西方。特朗普不僅對華強硬，他對歐洲也不手軟。歐洲一方面反對特朗普在貿易、氣候等問題上的單邊政策，同時也對中國對歐投資做出限制，批評中國的產業政策，懷疑中國在歐洲的基礎設施建設倡議。那麼問題在於，當前形勢下美國的對華強硬只代表它自己，還是代表了整個西方？西方世界對華政策是否形成了一致性？馬克龍是歐洲的新興政治力量，他訪問澳大利亞時強調平衡中國的影響，但轉身回到歐洲就強調聯合中國維護世界多邊體制。默克爾在貿易、伊核和歐洲安全問題上強烈批評美國，但她也毫不迴避對中國在歐洲作用的猜忌。表面上看，歐洲對華政策出現分裂，既擔心中國影響力的擴大，又需要聯合中國維護國際規範，因為正是這些規範確保了歐洲在全球，包括WTO、巴黎氣候協定的政治地位。中美歐正在形成一種新的三角互動模式，其中中國的分量在增大，而未來的問題是歐洲將偏向哪一邊。

毫無疑問，當前的中美兩國和兩國關係都進入了新的時代，兩國需要重新磨合，尋找新的處理雙邊關係的合適途徑。磨合期難免出現碰撞和困惑，現在兩國要做的是解決困惑，若不是讓困惑上升為分歧和衝突。

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.