The United States and China will eventually settle their differences over tariffs — maybe even reach a deal that allows both sides to say they won.

美国和中国最终将解决他们在关税问题上的分歧，甚至可能达成一项让双方都说自己赢了的协议。

But don’t be fooled. Even if the world’s two biggest economies reach a truce, their relationship is likely to get worse.

但别让这种结局蒙骗了。即使世界上这两个最大的经济体握手言和，它们之间的关系也可能会变得更糟糕。

That’s the bold warning that Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Treasury secretary, plans to make to many of the world’s top business and political leaders on Thursday at a Bloomberg L.P. event on the economy in Beijing. During an interview with me this week, he shared a copy of the speech, previewing some of what he will say.

这是美国前财政部长小亨利·M·保尔森(Henry M. Paulson Jr.)打算本周四在北京举行的彭博(Bloomberg)创新经济论坛上，对世界许多商界和政界的高层领导人发出的明确警告。在我本周对他进行采访时，保尔森与我分享了他的演讲稿，并扼要介绍了他要说的一些内容。

Mr. Paulson has spent a career trying to work with China, starting as a banker at Goldman Sachs, where China represented an enormous business opportunity, and later as Treasury secretary. His think tank, the Paulson Institute, focuses on China. He has close ties to senior officials in both countries and is often consulted by both sides — so the alarm bells he is ringing are likely to sound loudly in corner offices around the globe.

保尔森把他的职业生涯花在了试图与中国打交道上，从他在高盛(Goldman Sachs)当银行家起——那时中国对高盛来说代表着巨大的商业机会，直到后来出任美国财政部长。他的智库保尔森基金会(Paulson Institute)关注中国问题。他与两国的高级官员关系密切，他们都经常征求他的意见——所以，他敲响的警钟可能会在全球各地的办公室里回荡。

The danger, Mr. Paulson said, is that the animosity between the two countries has merged “military prisms and ideas into economic policies.”

保尔森说，危险在于，两国之间的敌意已将“军事视角和思想并入到经济政策中来”。

“It should concern every one of us who cares about the state of the global economy that the positive-sum metaphors of healthy economic competition are giving way to the zero-sum metaphors of military competition,” he is planning to say.

“喻指健康经济竞争的正和思维，正让位于喻指军事竞争的零和思维，这应该让我们每一个关心全球经济状况的人担心。”

Over the summer, President Trump declared on Twitter: “We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far better off without them.” He sent shock through industry when he added: “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”

今年夏天，特朗普总统在Twitter上宣布：“我们不需要中国，坦率地说，如果没有他们，情况会好得多。”他还说了一句让整个行业震惊的话：“我们伟大的美国公司因此得令，要立即开始寻找中国以外的选择，包括把你们的公司带回来，在美国生产你们的产品。”

Mr. Paulson never mentions Mr. Trump by name in his speech. He is hopeful that the two sides will reach the first stage of an agreement, but he suggested that inflammatory language and the use of tariffs by both sides had been deeply damaging.

保尔森在演讲中未提到特朗普的名字。他对双方达成第一阶段协议抱有希望，但他暗示，双方的煽动性言论和关税的使用，已经造成了严重损害。

“Even when this is done, it won’t be the end of the story,” he said. “The very idea of tariffs has been relegitimated after taking a wallop from the dismal failures of the 1930s.” He added, “We are now living in a world where tariffs have become normalized and even applauded.”

“即使达成了（第一阶段协议），也不意味着就没事了，”他说。“关税想法本身在20世纪30年代被证明是徒劳之后曾被唾弃，如今又被重新提出来了。”他还说，“我们现在生活在一个关税已经变得正常化，甚至受欢迎的世界里。”

Most worrisome to Mr. Paulson is the prospect that the United States could close off its financial markets to Chinese investment, or even kick some Chinese companies out of American stock indexes.

最让保尔森担心的是，美国可能会对中国投资关闭金融市场，甚至将一些中国公司逐出美国股指。

“Decoupling China from U.S. markets in this way would, of course, harm China,” he said. “But it would not be in America’s interest. It would eventually threaten U.S. leadership in finance, as well as New York City’s role as the world’s financial center. And it would help other financial centers like Tokyo, London and Singapore. And, over time, Shanghai.”

“以这种方式将中国与美国市场脱钩，当然会损害中国，”他说。“但这并不符合美国的利益。它最终会威胁美国在金融领域的领导地位，以及纽约市作为世界金融中心的地位。并有助于东京、伦敦和新加坡等其他金融中心。而且，随着时间的推移，帮助上海成为金融中心。”

Worse, he described what would happen in an imagined global financial calamity, similar to the 2008 crisis, which consumed Mr. Paulson’s tenure as Treasury secretary.

对于一场堪比2008年金融危机的假想全球金融灾难中会发生什么，他有着更糟糕的描述。保尔森担任财政部长的全部时间都花在了应对2008年的金融危机上。

“When the next crisis comes — and a crisis will come, because financial crises are inevitable — we will regret it if we lack mechanisms for the world’s first- and second-largest economies to coordinate,” he said.

“下一次危机来临时——危机一定会来，因为金融危机不可避免——如果我们缺乏世界第一和第二大经济体之间的协调机制，我们会后悔的，”他说。

Mr. Paulson raised a worst-case scenario that is often dismissed by policymakers but that he believes deserves a lot more attention.

保尔森提到了一种最糟糕的情况，政策制定者们常常对这种情况不屑一提，但他认为它应该引起更多关注。

“Let’s not forget that China is a very large purchaser and holder of U.S. Treasuries,” he said, referring to China ownership of over $1 trillion in United States debt. “This helps support U.S. monetary policy, enabling lower interest rates and supporting our spending and lack of saving.”

“我们不要忘记，中国是美国国债的大买家和持有者，”他指的是中国持有的超过1万亿美元的美国国债。“这有助于美国的货币政策，让低利率成为可能，支撑了我们大笔花钱但储蓄不足的做法。”

Then, he addressed what virtually no United States policymaker has been willing to acknowledge aloud: If the relationship between the countries deteriorates further, China could decide to sell — or at least not buy — as many Treasury bonds, potentially sending their value down and pushing interest rates much higher. That would undoubtedly hurt China, but it could be tremendously damaging to us, an idea this column raised last year.

然后，他谈到一个几乎没有美国政策制定者愿意大声承认的问题：如果两国关系进一步恶化，中国可能决定出售——或至少不买——这么多的美国国债，这可能会导致美国国债价值降低，并推高利率。这无疑会对中国造成伤害，但也可能对我们造成巨大的伤害，本专栏去年曾讨论过这个观点。

“That’s why the unilateral, reciprocal and retaliatory steps on both sides concern me so much,” Mr. Paulson said.

“这就是为什么双方采取单边的、相互的，以及报复性的措施令我如此之担忧，”保尔森说。

Even if the United States isn’t able to accomplish all it wants in leveling the playing field with China, Mr. Paulson said, the very idea of walking away from the country is a worse outcome.

保尔森说，即使美国在要求中国提供一个公平竞争环境上不能得到所有想要的东西，离开中国的想法本身其实是一个更糟糕的结果。

“It is not in our interest to isolate ourselves when the rest of the world is not going to decouple from China,” he said.

“当世界其他地区不打算与中国脱钩时，孤立我们自己不符合我们的利益，”他说。

Perhaps most provocatively, Mr. Paulson said the United States and China were creating divisions on technology standards in the name of national security.

保尔森的说法中也许最具煽动性的是，美国和中国正在以国家安全的名义制造技术标准上的分裂。

“I take my nation’s national security as the highest priority of all,” he said. “But when technologies also have the potential for widespread and beneficial commercial use, sequestration risks ceding economic leadership to a rival company and country.”

“我把国家安全看作是高于一切的首要事务，”他说。“但当技术也具有广泛和有益的商业用途潜力时，封锁就有可能把经济领导权拱手让给竞争企业与国家。”

He added: “A decision, after all, to protect too much of a country’s technology will ultimately undermine both economic competitiveness and national security.” He said he believed there was a middle ground that would allow for tech systems to work in both countries.

他补充说：“过多地保护一个国家的技术的决定，最终将损害该国的经济竞争力和国家安全。”他说，他相信存在一个让技术体系在两国都能工作的中间地带。

Mr. Paulson told me that he titled his speech “Delusions of Decoupling.” But he was quick to point out that the title “doesn’t mean decoupling is a delusion.”

保尔森告诉我，他演讲的题目是“脱钩的谬见”。但他马上指出，题目的意思“指的并非脱钩是一种谬见”。

“The delusion,” he said, “is that it will be easy or beneficial.”

“认为脱钩将是容易或有益的做法，才是谬见，”他说。