The Deal Beijing Offered Trump: Constructive Strategic Stability
The edition includes remarks by Wang Yi, Diao Daming, Shen Yi and Wu Xinbo, along with the latest Zhong Sheng commentary, discussing the concept of Constructive Strategic Stability.
Hi folks, I am doing a special weekend edition today, covering some of the official statements, commentaries and analytical views that have emerged following the Donald Trump-Xi Jinping summit meeting in Beijing. What you’ll find in this edition is:
Breakdown of Wang Yi’s interview on the outcomes
China’s Ministry of Commerce’s statement on outcomes of economic talks
Zhong Sheng commentary on the concept of “constructive strategic stability”
Detailed breakdowns of views shared by Diao Daming, Shen Yi and Wu Xinbo.
My brief takeaway from all this is that the Chinese side appears to be very satisfied with the outcomes of the summit. There is a sense that the US is finally acknowledging China as an equal. Chinese scholars argue that the idea of strategic stability between great powers in this current era must go beyond the old domains of nuclear, military and crisis management to encompass politics, economics, technology, security, supply chains, strategic assessments of each other and global governance.
They believe that the US administration has accepted the new framing of the relationship and has grasped Chinese concerns with regard to Taiwan, trade and technology. There’s an optimism that the downward spiral in ties is likely to pause and we might even see some constructive outcomes in economic issues in particular. On Taiwan, the analytical writings articulate clear demands about halting arms sales and opposing independence. They also seem to indicate that the US must not desire to maintain the divided status quo between the PRC and Taiwan. In other words, they’d like the US to start accepting that “unification” is inevitable.
That said, it is important to mention that this new framing of constructive strategic stability is not being interpreted by Chinese officials or analysts as some G2-style shared management of the world. Competition remains the underlying theme from Beijing’s perspective too; this is made very explicit. In addition, there is little interest being expressed in these writings about Beijing wanting to manage global hotspot issues with the US. Rather, Beijing appears to be desiring a rebalanced relationship with the US, which engenders some bilateral stability and a calmer external environment—breathing room—for it to continue pursuing its political, economic, technological and security goals. Wu puts this succinctly, arguing that such a situation “extends our period of strategic stability and wins time and space for our development”.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi provided a briefing following the Trump-Xi summit meetings. The MoFA website has the full English translation of Wang’s comments. He called this a “historic meeting:
First, China and the United States have both entered a crucial stage in our development. This year marks the start of China’s 15th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development, and we are advancing Chinese modernization on all fronts through high-quality development. This year is also the 250th anniversary of American independence. In this special year, the two presidents met in Beijing for an extensive discussion on national governance, bilateral relations, and international and regional hot spots. This sent an important message to the world: Achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand, and the two countries can help each other succeed and advance the well-being of the whole world.
Second, China-U.S. relations have reached a new starting point. This is the first face-to-face engagement between President Xi and President Trump since their Busan meeting last October, and also the first visit to China by a U.S. president in nine years. It is a continuation and strengthening of the good momentum in the interactions between the two presidents. As transformation not seen in a century accelerates across the globe, the world has once again reached a crossroads. President Xi raised some important questions: Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm of major-country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide greater stability for the world? Can we build a bright future together for our bilateral relations in the interest of the well-being of the two peoples and the future of humanity? These questions are vital to history, to the world, and to the people. They are the questions of our times that Chinese and American leaders need to answer together. When the two presidents set the course for the giant ship of China-U.S. relations, they are also pointing out the right direction for human society.
Third, the two presidents’ in-depth discussions have produced fruitful outcomes. The visit included not only official talks and a welcoming banquet, but also private exchanges and a cultural visit. Throughout the nearly nine hours the two presidents spent with each other, they showed mutual respect, a commitment to peace, and a shared interest in pursuing cooperation. The most important political understanding they reached was the agreement to build “a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability.” They also agreed for the two sides to pursue more exchanges on foreign policy, military-to-military relations, economy and trade, public health, agriculture, tourism, people-to-people ties, and law enforcement. This will provide a powerful boost to China-U.S. interactions at all levels and in all fields.
The next bit is important:
“What is meant by “a constructive relationship of strategic stability,” the new vision for China-U.S. relations?
Wang Yi: President Xi and President Trump agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability, providing strategic guidance for bilateral relations over the next three years and beyond. The new vision they articulated has been well received by the people of both countries and the broader international community.
“This is how China understands it: It should be positive stability where cooperation is the mainstay and the relationship gets more resilient through exchange and cooperation. As the world’s top two economies, China and the United States share deep ties. Neither can cut the other out, or prosper without the other. We both gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. While a confrontational relationship will be disastrous for both countries and the world, China-U.S. cooperation will get many great things done to the benefit of both and all. It should be healthy stability where competition is kept within proper limits and is not turned into a zero-sum game. Major-country competition is nothing new, but China-U.S. relations should not be defined by competition. When competition does happen, it must be a healthy one where we learn from each other, pursue excellence together, and compete fairly in compliance with rules. The purpose of competition should be to outdo oneself, so that both sides become better. It should be constant stability where differences are manageable and the relationship should not be like a roller coaster. Both sides should maintain policy continuity and stability. It is very important for both sides to honor our words and move in the same direction. A positive outlook of China-U.S. cooperation will provide more certainty for both countries’ development and for the international situation. It should be lasting stability where peace is expectable and conflicts and wars are not acceptable. Peaceful coexistence is the biggest common denominator of China and the United States. Conflict and confrontation between us will produce consequences no one can bear. To prevent this from happening, the bottom line is that both sides must abide by the three China-U.S joint communiqués, respect each other’s social systems and development paths, respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, and respect each other’s right to development. In short, building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is not a slogan. It should be a goal both sides uphold and entail concerted actions. Now that our presidents have set the direction, we should add more substance to this new vision and translate it into concrete policies and measures, so as to write a new chapter in China-U.S. relations.”
The next question:
During this summit, what has been agreed in terms of interactions at the leadership and other levels?
Wang Yi: The China-U.S relationship is one of the most important and complex bilateral relationships in the world. It is anchored by presidential engagement. Since President Trump took office last year, the two presidents have had two meetings and five phone calls, and wrote each other many letters. Their engagement provided strategic direction for the improvement and development of China-U.S. relations and kept the relationship on an even keel despite a few ups and downs. During this visit, the two presidents agreed to keep in close touch through meetings, calls, and letters. At the invitation of President Trump, President Xi will pay a state visit to the United States this fall. In the meantime, the two sides should work together to make thorough preparations for these presidential interactions, foster the right atmosphere, and secure more outcomes of cooperation. With the authorization of the two presidents, the political and diplomatic channel has stayed active. The two countries’ foreign policy officials and diplomats have properly handled differences, solved practical problems and increased mutual understanding, contributing to stronger bilateral ties. As instructed by the two presidents, the two economic and trade teams have held multiple consultations, which stabilized the economic and trade ties and market expectations. These two channels will continue to work to lengthen the list for cooperation and shorten the list of irritants. To effectively implement what the presidents have agreed to, the various departments on both sides must work in concert. The Beijing summit will reenergize exchanges between the two sides’ legislative bodies, subnational entities and business, academic and media communities, and add more dimensions to the constructive relationship of strategic stability. The two sides have also agreed to support each other in hosting this year’s APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and G20 Summit. All levels in both countries must hit the ground running to follow through on what our presidents have agreed to and secure more tangible outcomes as soon as possible.
On Taiwan, Wang Yi said:
“The Taiwan question was an important topic taken up at the summit. China’s position is very clear: First, the Taiwan question is China’s internal affair. Realizing complete reunification is an aspiration shared by all sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. It is also the unwavering, historic mission of the Communist Party of China. The mainland and Taiwan belong to one and the same China. This is a fact established since antiquity, the real status quo of the Taiwan Strait, and an important part of the postwar international order. We hope that the U.S. side will strictly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, and honor its international obligation.
Second, the Taiwan question is the most important issue between China and the U.S., one that affects the entire relationship. If it is handled properly, the overall relationship will be stable, and the two sides will be able to devote more energy to advancing mutually beneficial cooperation. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, and the entire relationship will be in great jeopardy. China hopes that the U.S. side will take concrete actions to keep the relationship on an even keel and contribute to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
Third, China and the U.S. both agree on the vital importance of safeguarding cross-Strait peace and stability. To ensure this is the case, one must never indulge or support ‘Taiwan independence’, because ‘Taiwan independence’ and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Our impression coming out of the summit is that the U.S. side understands China’s position, takes China’s concerns seriously, and, like the rest of the international community, does not agree with or accept Taiwan’s moving toward independence.”
Well, here’s Donald Trump basically saying that Taiwan “has somebody there who wants to go independent; well, it’s a risky thing…they figure they have the United States behind them, I’d like to see it stay the way it is…”
On economic ties, Wang says that “Where disagreements and frictions exist, equal-footed consultation is the only right approach. The two economic and trade teams produced generally balanced and positive outcomes, including continuing to implement all the consensus reached in prior consultations, establishing a board of trade and a board of investment, addressing each other’s concerns regarding market access for agricultural products, and expanding two-way trade within the framework of reciprocal tariff reduction. The two teams are in consultation over the details. They will lock in the outcomes expeditiously and work together to ensure their execution.
To add to this, a Ministry of Commerce statement on Saturday announced the following five “preliminary outcomes” from the consultations between the two sides’ economic ties.
First, the two sides will continue to properly implement the outcomes of earlier consultations, and have formed a positive consensus regarding relevant tariff arrangements.
Second, the two sides have agreed to establish a Trade Council and an Investment Council to discuss each side’s respective concerns in the trade and investment fields. The two sides will discuss matters such as tariff reductions on relevant products through the Trade Council, and have agreed in principle to reduce tariffs on products of mutual concern of an equivalent scale.
Third, the two sides will resolve, or substantively advance the resolution of, some non-tariff barriers and market access issues on agricultural products. The United States will actively work to address long-standing Chinese concerns including automatic detention measures targeting Chinese dairy and aquatic products, exports of media-grown bonsai to the United States, and recognition of avian influenza-free zones in east China’s Shandong Province. China, for its part, will actively advance solutions to US concerns regarding beef facility registration and poultry exports from certain U.S. states to China.
Fourth, the two sides have agreed, through arrangements such as mutual tariff reductions on a certain range of products, to push forward the expansion of two-way trade in areas including agricultural products.
Fifth, the two sides have reached relevant arrangements on China’s purchase of aircraft from the US side and on the US side’s guarantee of the supply of aircraft engines and parts to China, and have agreed to continue to advance cooperation in relevant fields.
The positive outcomes achieved in the China-US economic and trade consultations show that the two sides, by upholding the spirit of mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit, and by carrying out dialogue and cooperation, are able to find ways to resolve problems. At present, the two sides are still consulting on the details of the relevant outcomes. The economic and trade teams of the two sides will, in accordance with the direction of the consensus determined by the two heads of state, lock in the outcomes as soon as possible, jointly carry out implementation well, and inject more certainty and stability into the next phase of China-US economic and trade cooperation and into the world economy.” 一是双方继续落实好前期磋商成果，并就有关关税安排形成积极共识。二是双方同意成立贸易理事会和投资理事会，讨论双方贸易投资领域各自关切。双方将通过贸易理事会讨论有关产品降税等问题，原则同意对同等规模的各自关注产品降税。三是双方将解决或实质性推动解决部分农产品非关税壁垒和市场准入问题。美方将积极推动解决中方在乳制品和水产品自动扣留、介质盆景输美、山东禽流感无疫区认定等方面的长期关切。中方也将积极推动解决美方牛肉设施注册、部分州禽肉输华等关切。四是双方同意通过一定范围产品的相互降税等安排，推动扩大包括农产品在内等领域的双向贸易。五是双方就中方向美方采购飞机以及美方保障飞机发动机、零部件对华供应等达成有关安排，同意继续推进相关领域合作。中美经贸磋商取得积极成果，说明双方秉持相互尊重、平等互惠的精神，通过开展对话与合作，是能够找到解决问题的办法的。目前双方仍在就有关成果的细节进行磋商。双方经贸团队将按照两国元首确定的共识方向，尽快锁定成果，共同做好落实，为下一步的中美经贸合作与世界经济注入更多确定性和稳定性。
Back to Wang Yi’s interview, which ends with this about Ukraine and Iran:
“On the Middle East situation, President Xi set forth China’s consistent position. He emphasized that the use of force cannot solve problems, and dialogue is the only right choice. Negotiation may not produce immediate results, but now that the door of dialogue has been opened, it should not be closed again. China encourages the U.S. and Iran to continue settling their differences and disputes through negotiation, including on the nuclear issue. China calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible on the basis of continued ceasefire, and believes that the fundamental solution to the stalemate in the Strait lies in achieving a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. China has been working to promote peace talks, and will continue to play its role for an early end to the conflict and restoration of peace in the Middle East.
On the Ukraine crisis, both China and the U.S. want to see an early end to the conflict, and both have done a great deal to promote peace talks in their own ways. As there is no simple solution to a complex issue, peace talks cannot be expected to achieve success overnight. China and the U.S. will maintain communication and play a constructive role in the political settlement of the crisis.”
Let’s now turn to some commentary and analytical assessments that have appeared in Chinese media since the Trump-Xi meeting.
First, in Saturday’s People’s Daily, there was a Zhong Sheng commentary, which expanded on the framework of “a constructive relationship of strategic stability.”
‘Constructive strategic stability’ should be positive stability with cooperation as the main feature. The 47-year development history since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States has repeatedly proven that when China and the United States cooperate, both benefit; when they fight, both are harmed. The two countries should become partners rather than rivals. As the world’s two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, the interests of China and the United States are deeply intertwined. The breadth and depth of bilateral cooperation not only carry the well-being of more than 1.7 billion people in the two countries, but also concern the interests of more than 8 billion people worldwide. Whether enlarging the pie of common interests or responding to global challenges such as climate change and public health, if China and the United States join hands in cooperation, they can accomplish many major things that benefit both countries and bring benefits to the world. “建设性战略稳定”应该是合作为主的积极稳定。中美建交47年的发展历程一再证明，中美“合则两利、斗则俱伤”，两国应该成为伙伴而不是对手。作为世界前两大经济体和联合国安理会常任理事国，中美利益深度交融，双方合作的广度与深度，不仅承载着两国17亿多人民的福祉，也关乎全球80多亿人民的利益。无论是做大共同利益蛋糕，还是应对气候变化、公共卫生等全球性挑战，中美携手合作，就能办成许多惠及两国、造福世界的大事.
‘Constructive strategic stability’ should be benign stability of competition with proper limits. When major countries interact, competition is unavoidable, but competition is absolutely not a zero-sum ‘boxing match’ in which one side loses and the other wins. Rather, it should be a ‘track-and-field competition’ of mutual encouragement and joint improvement. There should not be double standards, much less artificially imposed restrictions or attempts to obtain so-called competitive advantages by tying the hands and feet of others. China’s door of opening up will only open wider and wider. The start of the 15th FYP is precisely opening up broader space for cooperation between the two countries. The Chinese side is glad to see a confident, open, prosperous, and developing United States, and also hopes that the US side will look at China’s development rationally. Realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and Make America Great Again can run in parallel without conflict, mutually achieve one another, and benefit the world. “建设性战略稳定”应该是竞争有度的良性稳定。大国相处，竞争在所难免，但竞争绝非零和博弈、你输我赢的“拳击赛”，而应是相互激励、共同提高的“田径赛”，不能搞双重标准，更不能人为设限、靠捆绑他人手脚获得所谓竞争优势。中国开放的大门只会越开越大，“十五五”开局起步，正为两国合作开辟更广阔空间。中方乐见一个自信开放、繁荣发展的美国，也期待美方理性看待中国发展。实现中华民族伟大复兴和让美国再次伟大，完全可以并行不悖、相互成就、造福世界.
‘Constructive strategic stability’ should be a normal stability in which differences are controllable. China and the United States differ in history and culture, social systems, and development paths; this is an objective reality. However, so long as both sides adhere to mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, they can completely transcend differences and find the correct way for two major countries to get along. Over the past year, under the guidance of the consensus between the two heads of state, the two sides have brought into play the role of the economic and trade consultation mechanism, and a series of consultation outcomes have injected stability and certainty into China–US economic and trade relations and the world economy. In the new round of China–US economic and trade consultations that recently concluded, the economic and trade teams of the two countries reached overall balanced and positive outcomes. This is good news for the peoples of both countries and for the world. This fully demonstrates that as long as both sides move toward each other in the spirit of equality, respect, and mutual benefit, they can find ways to resolve each other’s concerns. Both sides should safeguard the current hard-won positive momentum, further make good use of communication channels in various fields, and properly manage differences. “建设性战略稳定”应该是分歧可控的常态稳定。中美两国历史文化、社会制度、发展道路不同，这是客观现实。但是，只要双方坚持相互尊重、和平共处、合作共赢，完全可以超越分歧，找到两个大国正确相处之道。过去一年来，在元首共识引领下，双方发挥经贸磋商机制作用，一系列磋商成果为两国经贸关系和世界经济注入了稳定性和确定性。日前结束的中美新一轮经贸磋商中，两国经贸团队达成了总体平衡积极的成果，这对两国老百姓和世界都是好消息。这充分说明，只要秉持平等、尊重、互惠的精神相向而行，双方就可以找到解决彼此关切的办法。双方应维护好当前来之不易的良好势头，进一步用好各领域沟通渠道，妥善管控分歧.
‘Constructive strategic stability’ should be enduring stability in which peace can be expected. The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China–US relations. If it is handled well, bilateral relations can maintain overall stability. If it is not handled well, the two countries will clash and may even come into conflict, pushing the entire China–US relationship into an extremely dangerous situation. ‘Taiwan independence’ and peace in the Taiwan Strait are as incompatible as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is the greatest common denominator between China and the United States, and the US side must handle the Taiwan issue with the utmost caution. The US side should abide by the One China principle and the three China–US joint communiqués, in order to build a solid foundation for the steady and long-term development of China–US relations.” “建设性战略稳定”应该是和平可期的持久稳定。台湾问题是中美关系中最重要的问题。处理好了，两国关系就能保持总体稳定。处理不好，两国就会碰撞甚至冲突，将整个中美关系推向十分危险的境地。“台独”与台海和平水火不容，维护台海和平稳定是中美双方最大公约数，美方务必慎之又慎处理台湾问题。美方应恪守一个中国原则和中美三个联合公报，为中美关系行稳致远筑牢根基。
Second, in today’s paper, there’s an article by Diao Daming, Professor at the School of International Studies and Chair of the Department of Diplomacy at Renmin University of China.
“At present, the profound changes unseen in a century are accelerating in their evolution; the international landscape is marked by intertwined turbulence and chaos, the momentum of world economic growth is insufficient, and conflicts and confrontations are emerging one after another. As the world’s two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, the face-to-face meeting between the two heads of state, their in-depth exchange of views on major issues concerning both countries and the world, and their reaching of a series of consensuses have not only pushed the giant ship of China–US relations forward steadily, but have also injected urgently needed stability and certainty into the world. The two sides jointly established the new positioning of a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US, providing strategic guidance for China–US relations over the next three years and even longer. This new positioning accurately grasps the historical position of current China–US relations, clarifies the direction for proper interaction between China and the United States across various fields in the coming period, and points out the principled path for promoting the stable, healthy, and sustainable development of bilateral relations. 当前百年变局加速演进，国际形势变乱交织，世界经济增长动能不足，冲突对抗此起彼伏。中美作为世界前两大经济体和联合国安理会常任理事国，两国元首面对面会晤，就事关两国和世界的重大问题深入交换意见，达成一系列共识，不仅推动中美关系大船平稳前行，也为世界注入了亟需的稳定性和确定性。双方共同确定了“中美建设性战略稳定关系”的新定位，为未来3年乃至更长时间的中美关系作出战略指引。这一新定位，准确把握了当前中美关系的历史方位，明确了未来一段时间中美在各领域正确相处的方向，为推动两国关系稳定、健康、可持续发展指明了原则路径.
Building a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US is both a profound summary of the lessons and experiences of China–US interactions over the past period and a clear judgment on the historical position in which current China–US relations are situated. Strategic competition does not accord with the broad trend of history or the theme of the times, nor can it define the overall picture of China–US relations. To take strategic competition with China as the starting point of policy is both a misreading of China’s development and a misjudgment of the China-US relationship; it fundamentally cannot resolve China’s and the US’s respective problems or the problems of the bilateral relationship, and still less can it deal with global challenges. On the contrary, it will damage the stability of the bilateral relationship and make it difficult for both sides to obtain the favorable external environment that development requires. Since last year, China and the United States, upholding the spirit of equality, respect, and mutual benefit, have successively carried out seven rounds of economic and trade consultations and achieved a series of consultation outcomes. Both sides should together safeguard the current hard-won positive momentum and promote China–US relations in carrying forward the past and opening the future, moving steadily and going far. 构建“中美建设性战略稳定关系”，是对过去一段时间中美互动经验教训的深刻总结，也是对当前中美关系所处历史方位作出的明确判断。战略竞争不符合历史大势和时代主题，也无法定义中美关系的全局。把对华战略竞争作为政策出发点，既是对中国发展的误读，也是对中美关系的误判，根本无法解决中美各自问题、双边关系问题，更无法应对全球性挑战，反而会破坏两国关系稳定，使双方难以获得发展所需的良好外部环境。去年以来，中美秉承平等、尊重、互惠精神，先后开展了7轮经贸磋商，达成一系列磋商成果。双方应一道维护好当前来之不易的良好势头，推动中美关系承前启后、行稳致远.
In tangible terms, ‘constructive strategic stability’ should be positive stability with cooperation as the main feature; benign stability with competition kept within proper limits; normal stability in which differences are controllable; and enduring stability in which peace can be expected. These ‘four stabilities’ further clarify the correct way for China and the US to get along in different fields. In areas where both sides believe they share broad common interests, China and the United States should calculate the big account and look to the long term, uphold the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, continuously lengthen the list of cooperation and enlarge the pie of cooperation. China and the United States have different national conditions, so contradictions and differences are unavoidable, but competition between the two sides must be moderate. It is absolutely not a zero-sum game in which one side loses and the other wins, but rather a benign competition that improves oneself and illuminates each other. On the premise of maintaining strategic stability in bilateral relations, the continued strengthening of mutually beneficial cooperation, carrying out moderate competition, and effectively managing differences between China and the United States will help promote the stable, healthy, and sustainable development of bilateral relations and bring more peace, prosperity, and progress to the world. 具体而言，“建设性战略稳定”应该是合作为主的积极稳定，应该是竞争有度的良性稳定，应该是分歧可控的常态稳定，应该是和平可期的持久稳定。这“四个稳定”进一步明确了中美在不同领域的正确相处之道。在双方认为拥有广泛共同利益的领域，中美应算大账、看长远，秉持相互尊重、和平共处、合作共赢的原则，不断拉长合作清单、做大合作蛋糕。中美两国国情不同，有矛盾分歧在所难免，但双方的竞争必须是适度的，绝不是你输我赢的零和博弈，而应是提升自身、照亮彼此的良性竞争。在双边关系保持战略稳定的前提下，中美持续加强互利合作、开展适度竞争、有效管控分歧，有助于推动两国关系稳定、健康、可持续发展，为世界带来更多和平、繁荣、进步.
Building a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US requires both sides to move toward each other and put things into action. Strategic competition or strategic stability? Which situation better conforms to the interests of China and the United States and is more beneficial to the development of China–US relations? Both China and the United States already have a clear understanding and have established the new positioning of a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US. Based on this understanding and choice, China and the United States should come forward with concrete actions of moving toward each other, properly answer the questions of history, the world, and the people, turn China–US ‘mutual achievement and common prosperity’ into a visible and tangible reality, and make China–US relations a stable source of world peace and a driver of common development. 构建“中美建设性战略稳定关系”，需要双方相向而行、付诸行动。战略竞争还是战略稳定？哪一种情形更符合中美两国利益、更有利于中美关系发展？中美双方都已经有了清晰的认知，确定了“中美建设性战略稳定关系”的新定位。基于这一认知和选择，中美双方应拿出相向而行的实际行动，回答好历史之问、世界之问、人民之问，将中美“相互成就、共同繁荣”变为看得见、摸得着的实景，让中美关系成为世界和平的稳定源和共同发展的推进器.
Outside of the paper, Guancha has this long, four-part interview with Shen Yi from Fudan University discussing the framework of constructive strategic stability. The first part of it has Shen discussing the concept of strategic stability historically. He begins by talking about the Cold War before comparing the logic of strategic stability between the US and the USSR and then discusses how this concept has evolved and how it now applies to China and the US.
“During the Cold War, US–Soviet strategic stability did not mean that the two sides had a high degree of mutual trust, nor did it mean that the two sides lacked ideological conflict. Rather, it meant that even amid extreme confrontation, the two sides were still able to form and maintain a basic set of mechanisms to avoid nuclear war and crises running out of control.
After the end of the Cold War, the concept of ‘strategic stability’ gradually expanded. Nuclear weapons remained the core issue, but factors such as cyber, outer space, missile defense, hypersonic weapons, AI, conventional precision strikes, economic sanctions, and technological blockades could also affect strategic stability among major powers. For China–US relations, the classic US–Soviet nuclear stability framework clearly cannot be directly applied, because there are significant differences between China and the United States in the scale of nuclear forces, strategic culture, security environment, and economic interdependence. This gives ‘strategic stability’ a more complex connotation in China–US relations.
China–US strategic stability not only involves nuclear deterrence and arms control, but also involves political mutual trust, strategic perceptions, crisis management and control, the boundaries of economics, trade, and technology, and respect for each other’s core interests. It is precisely in this sense that the proposal of the concept of a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US advances traditional strategic stability from the domain of military security into the overall framework of major-country relations. It emphasises stability, but does not take freezing contradictions as its objective; it acknowledges competition, but requires that competition must be limited; it faces differences, but requires that differences must be controllable; it pursues peace, but is not merely passively avoiding conflict. Rather, it emphasises creating a sustainable foundation for peace through cooperation and moving toward each other. 冷战时期的美苏战略稳定，并不意味着双方互信很高，也不意味着双方没有意识形态冲突，而是意味着：即使在极端对抗之中，双方仍然能够形成并保持一套避免核战争和危机失控的基本机制。 冷战结束以后，“战略稳定”的概念逐渐扩展。核武器仍然是核心议题，但网络、太空、导弹防御、高超音速武器、人工智能、常规精确打击、经济制裁、技术封锁等因素，也都会影响大国的战略稳定。对于中美关系而言，经典的美苏核稳定框架显然不能直接套用，因为中美的核力量规模、战略文化、安全环境以及经济相互依赖都存在显著差异，这使得“战略稳定”在中美关系中具有更加复杂的内涵。中美战略稳定不仅涉及核威慑与军控，更涉及政治互信、战略认知、危机管控、经贸科技的边界，以及对彼此核心利益的尊重。 正是从这个意义上说，“中美建设性战略稳定关系”这一概念的提出，将传统战略稳定从军事安全范畴推进到了大国关系的总体框架之中。它强调稳定，但不是以冻结矛盾为目标；它承认竞争，但要求竞争必须是有限度的；它面对分歧，但要求分歧必须是可控的；它追求和平，但并不是消极地避免冲突，而是强调通过合作和相向而行，创造可持续的和平基础.
Later in the interview, Shen talks about the evolution of China-US ties through six phases. I am more interested in phases four to six.
“The fourth stage was the constructive cooperative relationship and partnership relationship of the 21st century. In 2009, when President Hu Jintao and President Obama met in London, the two sides unanimously agreed to jointly strive to build a ‘positive, cooperative, and comprehensive China-US relationship for the 21st century’. During President Hu Jintao’s visit to the United States in 2011, the two sides agreed to build a ‘China–U.S. partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit and win-win outcomes’. During this period, China and the United States became highly mutually-embedded economically. After joining the WTO, China became an important force in the global market system. The US, meanwhile, attempted to shape China through institutions and markets of engagement. The identity-recognition of both sides contained both perspectives of being a cooperative partner and a potential competitor.
The fifth stage was the proposal of a ‘new type of major-country relations’. As China’s comprehensive national power rose and the US launched its ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy, strategic mutual suspicion between China and the United States increased. The Chinese side proposed building a new type of major-country relations featuring ‘no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation’, attempting to break the historical dilemma of conflict between a rising power and an established power. This formulation emphasised that China and the United States must not repeat the old path of confrontation between major powers and should explore a new way of getting along. Although the US side’s degree of acceptance of this framework was limited, its ideas provided an important intellectual foundation for the later formulation of ‘mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation’.
The sixth stage is the ‘constructive relationship of strategic stability’ amid the background of strategic competition. Since 2017, the US has defined China as a strategic competitor. The trade war, technology war, export controls, supply chain restructuring, and the ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’ have resulted in continuous pressure on China–US relations. Against this background, the agreement by the two heads of state in 2026 to build a constructive relationship of strategic stability between China and the US carries obvious stage-based significance. This framework neither avoids competition nor fantasises about returning to the past. Rather, it attempts, under conditions in which competition has become normalised, to establish a framework for major-country relations that is more manageable, more predictable, and more sustainable.
From ‘enemies’, ‘quasi-allies’, ‘constructive strategic partnership,’ ‘constructive cooperative relationship,’ ‘partnership relationship,’ and ‘new type of major-country relations’, to a “relationship of constructive strategic stability’, the evolution of China–US identity perceptions reflects a basic pattern: the stability of relations between the two countries can never rely only on temporary common interests, nor can it be built upon the fantasy of one side changing the other side. Rather, it must be built upon correct strategic understanding, respect for core interests, effective management and control of differences, and the expansion of cooperative interests.
第四阶段是21世纪的建设性合作关系与合作伙伴关系。2009年，胡锦涛主席与奥巴马总统在伦敦会晤时，双方一致同意共同努力建设“21世纪积极合作全面的中美关系”。2011年胡锦涛主席访美期间，双方同意建设“相互尊重、互利共赢的中美合作伙伴关系”。这一时期，中美经贸高度互嵌，中国加入世界贸易组织后成为全球市场体系的重要力量。美国则试图通过接触制度和市场来塑造中国。双方的身份认同既包含合作伙伴，也包含潜在竞争者。第五阶段是“新型大国关系”的提出。随着中国综合国力上升、美国“亚太再平衡”战略展开，中美之间的战略互疑上升。中方提出构建“不冲突、不对抗、相互尊重、合作共赢”的新型大国关系，试图破解崛起大国与守成大国之间冲突的历史困境。这一提法强调，中美不能重蹈大国对抗的覆辙，应当探索新的相处方式。虽然美方对这一框架的接受程度有限，但其理念为后来“相互尊重、和平共处、合作共赢”的表述提供了重要的思想基础。第六阶段是战略竞争背景下的“建设性战略稳定关系”。2017年以来，美国将中国定义为战略竞争者，贸易战、科技战、出口管制、供应链重组以及“印太战略”使中美关系持续承受压力。在此背景下，2026年两国元首赞同构建“中美建设性战略稳定关系”，具有明显的阶段性意义。这一框架不回避竞争，也不幻想回到过去，而是试图在竞争常态化的条件下，建立一种更可管理、更可预期、更可持续的大国关系框架。从“敌人”、“准盟友”、“建设性战略伙伴关系”、“建设性合作关系”、“合作伙伴关系”、“新型大国关系”，再到“建设性战略稳定关系”，中美身份认同的演进体现了一个基本规律：两国关系的稳定，从来不能仅靠一时的共同利益，也不能建立在一方改变另一方的幻想之上，而必须建立在正确战略认知、核心利益尊重、分歧有效管控以及合作利益扩展的基础之上.
Next, Shen discusses how this new framing of China-US ties expands and builds on the concept of strategic stability. He says:
First, the innovation of the ‘a relationship of constructive strategic stability’ lies in extending strategic stability from the traditional fields of military security and nuclear deterrence to the overall structure of China–US relations. Traditional strategic stability mainly focused on the risks of nuclear war, arms races, and crisis escalation; whereas China–US constructive strategic stability encompasses several dimensions, including politics, economics, technology, security, and global governance. It requires the two countries not only to avoid military conflict, but also to prevent economic and trade relations from spinning out of control, technological cooperation from breaking apart, supply chains from being interrupted, strategic misjudgments from spreading, and cooperation in global governance from coming to a standstill. 首先，“建设性战略稳定关系”的创新在于，将战略稳定从传统的军事安全和核威慑领域，扩展到了中美关系的总体结构。传统战略稳定主要关注核战争风险、军备竞赛和危机升级；而中美建设性战略稳定则涵盖了政治、经济、科技、安全、全球治理等多个维度。它要求两国不仅避免军事冲突，也要防止经贸关系失控、科技合作断裂、供应链中断、战略误判扩散，以及全球治理合作停摆.
Second, it emphasises the core connotation of ‘constructive’. Traditional strategic stability often carried a somewhat negative coloration, i.e., preventing war, preventing preemptive strikes, and preventing arms races; whereas constructive strategic stability requires stability itself to possess positive connotations. As President Xi pointed out, ‘positive stability with cooperation as the main feature’ signifies that US-China relations cannot remain at the low-level equilibrium of merely ‘avoiding war’; rather, through cooperation in fields such as trade, health, agriculture, tourism, cultural and people-to-people exchanges, law enforcement, and global governance, the two nations must continuously build up the positive assets of their relationship. ‘Benign stability with competition within proper limits’ signifies that competition is unavoidable, but it should have boundaries, rules, and bottom lines, and competition must not be pushed toward extreme confrontation. ‘Normal stability in which differences are controllable’ signifies that differences will not disappear, but can be effectively managed through communication mechanisms, political and diplomatic channels, and military-to-military communication channels. ‘Enduring stability in which peace can be expected’ points to the ultimate objective of stability toward long-term peace, rather than short-term easing of tensions. 其次，它强调“建设性”这一核心内涵。传统战略稳定往往带有某种消极色彩——即防止战争、防止先发制人、防止军备竞赛；而建设性战略稳定则要求稳定本身具有积极内涵。正如习主席所指出的，“合作为主的积极稳定”说明中美关系不能停留在“不打仗”的低水平稳定，而应通过经贸、卫生、农业、旅游、人文、执法、全球治理等领域的合作，不断增加关系的正向资产。“竞争有度的良性稳定”说明竞争不可避免，但应当有边界、有规则、有底线，不能将竞争推向极限对抗。“分歧可控的常态稳定”说明分歧不会消失，但可以通过沟通机制、政治外交渠道和两军沟通渠道加以有效管理。“和平可期的持久稳定”则把稳定的最终目标指向了长期和平，而不是短期的缓和.
Third, it links ‘stability’ with ‘moving toward each other’. President Xi emphasised that building a ‘relationship of constructive strategic stability between China and the US is not a slogan; it means actions in the same direction’. This means that this new positioning is neither a unilateral demand nor an abstract declaration, but rather requires the joint support of policy practice by both sides. The US side cannot verbally emphasise stability on the one hand while on the other hand sending wrong signals on issues such as Taiwan, broadening the concept of national security on technology issues, applying unilateral pressure on economic and trade issues, and engaging in bloc confrontation on international issues. Stability must be reflected through actions, fulfilled through policies, and guaranteed through concrete mechanisms. 第三，它将“稳定”与“相向而行”联系起来。习近平主席强调：“中美建设性战略稳定关系不是一句口号，而应该是相向而行的行动。”这意味着，这一新定位既不是单方面的要求，也不是抽象的宣示，而是需要双方政策实践的共同支撑。美方不能一边口头强调稳定，一边在涉台等问题上释放错误信号，在科技问题上泛化国家安全，在经贸问题上单边施压，在国际问题上搞阵营对抗。稳定必须由行动来体现，由政策来兑现，由具体机制来保障.
Finally, it provides strategic guidance for China–US relations over the next three years and even longer. At present, with the alternation of the US domestic political cycle, the intensification of social polarisation, and the spread of industrial anxiety, being tough on China has become a cross-party consensus; geopolitical conflicts are continuously accumulating; and China-US relations are facing a high degree of uncertainty. The putting-forward of the position of building a ‘relationship of constructive strategic stability between China and the US’ is precisely intended to set a stable framework for this kind of uncertainty, so that the two sides, on major issues, have principles that can be followed, mechanisms that can be used, bottom lines that can be defended, and cooperation that can be done. 最后，它为未来三年乃至更长时间的中美关系提供了战略指引。当前，美国国内政治周期更迭、社会极化加剧、产业焦虑蔓延，对华强硬成为跨党派共识，地缘冲突不断叠加，中美关系面临高度不确定性。“建设性战略稳定关系”的提出，正是意在为这种不确定性设定稳定框架，使双方在重大议题上有原则可循、有机制可用、有底线可守、有合作可做.
Looking at the future, this new positioning has significance in three aspects. First, it provides a political framework for halting the decline and stabilising China–US relations. Second, it provides a principled foundation for restoring predictability to economic, trade, and technological cooperation. Third, it provides a signal of stability for the international community in judging the direction of China–US relations. As the world’s two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, the stability of China–U.S. relations itself is a kind of global public good. If a relationship of constructive strategic stability can be implemented, it will help world economic recovery, improvements in global governance, and the effective management and control of regional hotspot issues.” 从未来影响看，这一新定位具有三方面的重要意义。其一，它为中美关系止跌企稳提供了政治框架。其二，它为经贸与科技合作恢复可预期性提供了原则基础。其三，它为国际社会判断中美关系走向提供了稳定信号。 中美作为全球前两大经济体和联合国安理会常任理事国，两国关系的稳定本身就是一种全球公共产品。“建设性战略稳定关系”若能落实，将有助于世界经济复苏、全球治理改善以及地区热点问题的有效管控.
The final part of the interview is about Taiwan. Shen makes four points on this.
First, Taiwan is the core of China’s core interests: “Any attempt to instrumentalise, internationalise, or prolong the Taiwan question will touch China’s bottom line and will also directly impact the stable foundation of China–US relations.” 任何试图将台湾问题工具化、国际化、长期化的做法，都会触碰中国底线，也会直接冲击中美关系的稳定基础.
Second, ‘Taiwan independence’ and peace in the Taiwan Strait are as incompatible as fire and water. This assessment by President Xi indicates that maintaining stability requires identifying the true source of risk. The greatest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait is not China’s insistence on the position of unification, but rather the mutual collusion between ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist activities and interference by external forces. If the US side, on the one hand, claims to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait, while on the other hand continuing arms sales to Taiwan, elevating official exchanges, and indulging ‘Taiwan independence’ forces in misjudging the situation, this will create serious strategic instability. Safeguarding peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait does not mean maintaining the divided status quo (分裂现状), still less creating room for ‘Taiwan independence’ activities, but rather firmly safeguarding the One-China Principle and the political foundation established by the three China–US joint communiqués. 其次，“台独”与台海和平水火不容。习近平主席的这一判断指明，维护稳定必须识别真正的风险来源。台海和平的最大威胁，并非中国坚持统一立场，而是“台独”分裂活动与外部势力干涉相互勾连。若美方一方面声称维护台海和平，另一方面继续对台军售、提升官方往来、纵容“台独”势力误判形势，就会造成严重的战略不稳定。维护台海和平稳定，不是维持分裂现状，更不是为“台独”创造活动空间，而是要坚定维护一个中国原则和中美三个联合公报所确立的政治基础.
Third, properly handling the Taiwan question is the prerequisite for overall China–US stability. President Xi emphasised that if the Taiwan question is handled well, bilateral relations can maintain overall stability. This reflects the Chinese side’s sober judgment regarding the overall situation of China–US relations. China and the United States have broad space for cooperation in areas such as economics and trade, technology, meteorology, public health, financial stability, and international and regional hotspot issues. But if the Taiwan question spins out of control, all cooperation will be impacted. In other words, the Taiwan question is not an ordinary issue within China–US relations, but rather a foundational issue determining whether the base of bilateral relations is stable. 第三，台湾问题处理得当，是中美总体稳定的前提。习近平主席强调，处理好了台湾问题，两国关系就能保持总体稳定。这体现出中方对中美关系大局的清醒判断。中美之间有经贸、科技、气象、公共卫生、金融稳定以及国际和地区热点等广泛合作空间，但如果台湾问题失控，所有合作都将受到冲击。换言之，台湾问题不是中美关系中的一个普通议题，而是决定两国关系底盘是否稳固的基础性议题.
Fourth, safeguarding peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is the greatest common denominator between China and the United States. This formulation provides a clear direction for US policy. If the United States truly hopes for peace and does not want conflict with China, then it should, through concrete actions, abide by the One-China principle and the three China–US joint communiqués, and stop sending wrong signals to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces. For the United States, this is not a concession to China—please do not misunderstand—but rather a rational choice when maintaining China–US strategic stability, avoiding conflict between major powers, and protecting its own national interests. Therefore, under the framework of the ‘constructive strategic stability’, the Taiwan question should be understood as a bottom-line issue of stability. If this bottom line is repeatedly tested, so-called strategic stability will lack a foundation. If the US side can handle the Taiwan question with the utmost caution, then China–US relations will have the conditions to expand cooperation in other fields and form a more constructive pattern of interaction.” 第四，维护台海和平稳定是中美双方最大公约数。这一表述为美方政策提供了明确方向。美国如果真心希望和平、不想与中国发生冲突，就应该以实际行动恪守一个中国原则和中美三个联合公报，停止向“台独”分裂势力释放错误信号。对美国而言，这不是对中国的让步——请不要误解——而是在维护中美战略稳定、避免大国冲突、保护自身国家利益时的理性选择。因此，在“建设性战略稳定关系”的框架下，台湾问题应当被理解为稳定的底线议题。如果这一底线被反复试探，所谓的战略稳定就缺乏根基。如果美方能够慎之又慎地处理台湾问题，中美关系就有条件在其他领域扩大合作，形成更具建设性的互动格局.
Finally, Wu Xinbo, Dean, Institute of International Studies, and Director at the Center for American Studies, at Fudan University, also talked about this framework in an interview. Wu was invited to the banquet with the US delegation on May 14. He also reflects on the experience. I am only covering his substantive analysis.
Wu says:
“In the past, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union, the two nuclear major powers, also engaged in strategic stability, but the foundation of that stability was ensuring mutual destruction. If you dare to strike me, I can destroy you. Strategic stability was maintained by frightening the other side and making the other side not dare to act. This was a kind of negative stability. Now we speak of ‘constructive strategic stability’. President Xi profoundly explained its core essence from four dimensions, i.e., positive stability with cooperation as the main feature, benign stability with competition within proper limits, normal stability in which differences are controllable, and enduring stability in which peace can be expected. With cooperation as the main feature, China and the US can continuously strengthen the resilience of China–US relations through exchanges and cooperation and enlarge the pie of common interests between themselves; with competition within proper limits, there is no zero-sum game in which one side loses and the other wins; with controllable differences, relations cannot fluctuate up and down like a roller coaster; with peace being expected, conflict, confrontation, and even war must not occur. This is what ‘constructive’ means; strategic stability is supported through these things.
Wu then added:
“If over the next three years we can realise a relationship of constructive strategic stability between China and the US, then for China, it extends our period of strategic stability and wins time and space for our development. For China–US relations, it would explore a new paradigm of peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation between a rising great power and an established great power or superpower. For the United States, it is also a good thing.
To Make America Great Again, without China, without cooperating well with China, America cannot become great. The US needs to improve its economy and people’s livelihood through a mutually beneficial and win-win approach and can rely on China’s strength to realise stability in international affairs. The United States is gradually shifting from a China policy that focused mainly on competition and suppression during Trump’s first term and the first year of his second term, toward a China policy that places greater emphasis on the stability of China-U.S. relations, on cooperation in China-US relations, and on the management and control of differences. If the new vision and new positioning of a relationship of constructive strategic stability between China and the US, takes root, and both sides, taking this as their guideline, pragmatically handle China-US affairs, reversing the major-power competitive or even major-power confrontational relationship between China and the US of the past few years, finding the correct way for great powers to get along, and creating a new paradigm of major-power relations, then when we look back at this visit several years later, it may well be a phased turning point in China-US relations. I think the significance of Trump’s visit to China this time will be fully demonstrated in the future.”
吴心伯：如果未来三年我们能够实现中美建设性战略稳定关系，对中国来讲，是延长了我们的战略稳定期，为我们的发展赢得了时间和空间。对中美关系来讲，探索出一条新兴大国与守成大国或超级大国之间和平共处、合作共赢的新范式。对美国来讲，也是好事情。要让美国再次伟大，没有中国，不跟中国搞好合作，美国是伟大不起来的。美国需要用一种互利共赢的方式来改善美国的经济和民生，在国际事务中能借助中国的力量实现稳定。美国正从特朗普第一任期、第二任期第一年以竞争打压为主的对华政策，逐渐转向一个更加重视中美关系稳定、重视中美关系合作、重视分歧管控的对华政策。如果“中美建设性战略稳定关系”的新愿景、新定位落地，双方以此为遵循务实处理中美事务，把前几年中美大国竞争甚至大国对抗的关系扭转过来，找到大国正确的相处之道、开创大国关系新范式，若干年后我们回头来看这次访问，它可能就是中美关系的阶段性转折点。我想，特朗普这次访华的意义会在未来充分体现出来.
On Taiwan, he says that “halting US arms sales to Taiwan and unequivocally opposing ‘Taiwan independence’ are specific demands China has made of the US.” 停止美国对台军售、旗帜鲜明反对“台独”，这是中方对美方提出的具体要求.
On trade and economic ties, Wu’s assessment is that: “It can be anticipated that, over the coming period of time, China-US economic and trade relations will halt their decline and stabilise, and may even gradually enter a period of growth.” 可以预料，今后一段时间，中美经贸关系会止跌回稳，甚至逐渐进入一个上升期.
The next bit provides greater nuance to this point:
“The area where breakthroughs are relatively easier is in trade. Going forward, we do not need to worry too much about the US playing the tariff card against us. Because US courts have already ruled, and the tariff card no longer possesses legal legitimacy. In addition, judging from last year’s China-US trade war, it did not achieve Trump’s expected results. Moreover, last year our overall exports still achieved the highest growth in history. So I believe the utility of the US tariff card is limited.
In the technology field, of course, we mainly rely on our own technological progress, accelerating technological breakthroughs through investment. However, the US tech community also has a kind of anxiety. They have discovered that the US tech crackdown on China has not knocked China down; on the contrary, after China increased its investment, it has continuously made breakthroughs, and this is very likely to cause the US to lose the major market that is China. These factors will force the US side to loosen and relax its technology restrictions on China, otherwise China’s market will in the future have nothing to do with them, which in turn will actually affect US technological development. In fact, within Trump’s circle there are also discussions about how to balance national interests and market competition and achieve a good balance.
At present, the economic and trade teams of the two countries have reached overall balanced and positive results, including continuing to implement all the consensus reached in earlier consultations, agreeing to establish a Trade Council and an Investment Council, resolving each other’s concerns about agricultural market access, and promoting the expansion of two-way trade under a reciprocal tariff reduction framework, among others. I believe that the two sides will reach more detailed outcomes going forward.”
吴心伯：比较容易突破的是在贸易领域。今后我们不用太担心美国对我们打关税牌。因为美国法院已经判了，关税牌在法律上已不具备合法性。另外从去年中美贸易战来看，也没有达到特朗普的预期效果。而且去年我们整体出口还实现了历史最高增长。所以我认为美国关税牌的效用有限。在技术领域，当然主要靠我们自己的技术进步，通过投入加快技术突破。但是，美国的科技界也有一种焦虑，他们发现美国对华科技打压没有把中国打趴下，反而中国加大投入后不断取得突破，这很可能让美国丢掉中国这个大市场。这些会倒逼美方放宽、放松对华科技限制，否则中国的市场以后就跟他们没关系了，反过来实际影响了美国科技发展。其实，特朗普内部也在讨论，怎么样兼顾国家利益与市场竞争，实现一个好的平衡。目前，两国经贸团队达成了总体平衡积极的成果，包括继续落实前期磋商达成的所有共识，同意成立贸易理事会和投资理事会，解决彼此农产品市场准入的关切，在对等降税框架下推动扩大双向贸易等。我相信，双方接下来会达成更多细节性成果.
superb sir