Guess the place has become popular speculation since Chile suddenly withdrew as host for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting it was due to host in Santiago later this month. Yet the conjecture is not about where that meeting will now be held, but about where the presidents of China and the United States will put pen to paper on what the two countries have agreed to so far in their trade negotiations.

The fallout from the two countries' explosive trade exchanges has been evident worldwide. The International Monetary Fund has concluded that 90 percent of economies are in a synchronized slowdown because of the world's two largest economies' trade war. And the guessing game stems from the appreciable anxiety worldwide that the hard-won detente between the two sides might go into meltdown if they delay too long in getting their deal confirmed in contractual form.

Which is not surprising given what happened when the two parties seemed close to agreeing a much broader deal earlier in their negotiations — The feel-good optimism engendered by that apparent reconcilement was swiftly rendered premature when the two sides abruptly backed away from it.

There is certainly the possibility that a similar scenario might happen again. Particularly since the US is persisting with its tariffs pending. As well as still imposing additional tariffs on about $250 billion worth of imports from China, it insists that the tariffs announced on the rest of the $300 billion worth of imports from China are only "postponed".

An important reason why the two sides quickly resumed talking after their previous accommodation proved to have been built on sand is that both subsequently demonstrated goodwill by not only postponing new tariffs, but also suspending parts of the former tariffs that had been implemented.

Using tariffs as a means of intimidation has never been part of China's art of a deal. Instead, it has been its consistent stance that the negotiations must be conducted with mutual respect and on an equal footing — Washington's tariffs are politically expedient but not conducive to engineering a rapprochement.

If Washington were to weigh the possible gains and losses of wasting the window of opportunity in the balance, such a reckoning, done without prejudice, would persuade it that canceling its punitive tariffs on Chinese imports would be in its best interests. Especially since it could be done proportionally in light of the progress of their negotiations.

That the White House is reportedly considering rolling back levies on $112 billion of Chinese imports suggests it might already have done its accounting. Certainly the move, if it materializes, would not only oil the progress of the first deal, but also lubricate the proposed next phase of talks. In which case, the guessing game of where the two leaders might meet could no doubt be brought to an end with official confirmation of a venue.