Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

UK-US Trade Deal: A Template for Isolating China’s Supply Chain?

Blog

UK-US Trade Deal: A Template for Isolating China’s Supply Chain?
Blog

Blog

UK-US Trade Deal: A Template for Isolating China’s Supply Chain?

2025-05-15 09:20 Last Updated At:09:20

A recent trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States has sparked concerns that it may serve as a blueprint for Washington to coerce allies into isolating China's supply chains.

On May 8, the UK and the US signed their first so-called "trade and tariff agreement," which includes strict "security" clauses imposed by the US on strategic sectors such as British steel and pharmaceuticals, with underlying calculations targeting China's supply chains. According to a May 13 report in the Financial Times, China responded by emphasizing a "basic principle" that co-operation between countries should not undermine the interests of third parties. The report suggests that these remarks may pose greater challenges for the UK government as it attempts to reset its relationship with China.

According to the Financial Times, the "trade agreement" reached between the US and the UK last week is the first since the Trump administration announced its "reciprocal tariff" plan last month. It involves imposing conditions on the British steel and pharmaceutical industries, requiring the UK to “promptly meet US requirements on the security of supply chains and the nature of ownership of relevant production facilities" in order to qualify for tariff exemptions or reductions from the US.

The UK and the US signed the first so-called "trade and tariff agreement," which includes underlying calculations targeting China's supply chains.

The UK and the US signed the first so-called "trade and tariff agreement," which includes underlying calculations targeting China's supply chains.

The agreement stipulates that tariff reductions on British goods will depend on "Section 232 investigations," which assess whether and how specific imported products affect US national security. Although the clause ostensibly applies to all third countries, British officials have acknowledged that Trump has indicated China as the intended target.

Former British trade official, Allie Renison, believes that this clause represents a further escalation of the US government's long-term policy of restricting China's involvement in the global supply of strategic goods. Washington hopes that the UK and other countries will disclose critical information, ultimately severing economic ties with China, particularly in sensitive sectors such as steel. Renison suggests that if the UK further aligns its trade policy with the US in exchange for tariff exemptions, China is likely to retaliate in some forms.

Diplomats further point out that the "security clauses" agreed upon by the US and the UK may serve as a "template" for the US to compel other allies to exclude China from critical supply chains, coercing allies like the UK to reduce trade and co-operation with China in sensitive areas.

According to a British government consultant focused on trade, the UK's acceptance of the US "security clauses" has surprised and unsettled China, especially as Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government has been working to improve relations with China. A Chinese source, who requested anonymity, stated that China will need to respond and that the UK should not hastily agree to this agreement.

It's reported that, regarding the sections of the agreement involving China, the British government claims that the trade agreement signed with the US aims to "secure thousands of jobs in key sectors, protect British businesses, and lay the groundwork for greater trade in the future," but also emphasizes that "trade and investment with China remain important to the UK," and that the UK is "continuing to engage pragmatically in areas that are rooted in UK and global interests".

The report notes that China had previously warned countries against signing trade agreements with the US that threaten Chinese interests. A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce stated that China has noticed that some economies are also negotiating with the US, emphasizing that appeasement does not bring peace, and compromise does not earn respect. Adhering to principles and upholding fairness and justice are the correct ways to safeguard one's own interests. Regardless of how the international landscape changes, China will steadfastly expand opening-up, firmly safeguard the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core, and unswervingly share development opportunities with countries around the world. China is willing to work with all parties to continuously deepen mutually beneficial co-operation, strengthen communication and co-ordination, jointly resist unilateral protectionism and hegemonic bullying, and jointly maintain free trade and multilateralism, promoting inclusive economic globalization.

Guancha (The Observer Net) cited Zhang Yansheng, a senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Macroeconomics, who stated that Washington will clearly force other countries to accept similar clauses in trade negotiations to isolate China, and that the UK's move is unfair to China. "This poison pill clause is actually worse than the tariffs."

However, Zhang Yansheng believes that China should not immediately take retaliatory actions but should directly raise this issue in dialogues with the UK. He argues that the fundamental problem lies with the US, while other countries are only secondary actors, and that the issue should be discussed in trade talks with the US.

From May 10 to 11, senior Chinese and US economic and trade officials held talks in Geneva, Switzerland, where both parties agreed to reduce tariffs by 115% within 90 days, and issued a joint statement on the outcomes of the meeting.

On May 12, the Ministry of Commerce stated that the equal dialogue and consultation between China and the US to resolve differences is an important step.

On May 12, the Ministry of Commerce stated that the equal dialogue and consultation between China and the US to resolve differences is an important step.

On May 12, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce stated that the equal dialogue and talks between China and the US to resolve differences is an important step towards further bridging divides and deepening co-operation, laying the foundation and creating conditions for further progress. The two sides reached several positive consensus points in the joint statement, recognizing the importance of bilateral economic and trade relations to both countries and the global economy, as well as the importance of sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial bilateral economic and trade relations. Both sides will continue to advance relevant work in the spirit of mutual openness, continuous communication, co-operation, and mutual respect.

The spokesperson added that both sides have agreed to establish a China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism to maintain close communication on their respective concerns in the economic and trade fields and to conduct further consultations. The Chinese representative is Vice Premier of the State Council, He Lifeng, and the US representatives are Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent and Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer. The two sides will conduct consultations regularly or irregularly in China, the United States, or in agreed-upon third countries. As needed, the two sides may conduct working-level consultations on relevant economic and trade issues.




Deep Throat

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Trump wasted not one second after US forces grabbed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He made it clear that he was eyeing the country's oil riches. But here's the catch: America's biggest oil companies aren't biting. Industry analysts confirm what the companies won't say publicly—even if these firms wanted back in, Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure and chaos on the ground mean Trump's fantasy of quick oil profits is far from easy to come true.

Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo

Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo

Minutes after the military operation wrapped, Trump stood at a press conference making promises. Major American oil companies would pour into Venezuela, he declared, investing billions to fix the country's shattered oil infrastructure "and start making money for the country". Meanwhile, he reiterated that the US embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect.

Those sanctions have crushed Venezuelan exports into paralysis. Documents from Venezuela's state oil company and sources close to the situation confirm storage tanks and floating facilities filled up fast over recent weeks. Multiple oil fields now face forced production cuts.

White House Courts Reluctant Executives

Reuters revealed the Trump administration plans meetings this week with executives from major US oil companies. The agenda: pushing these firms to restore and grow oil production in Venezuela following the military action. The White House sees this as a critical step toward getting American oil giants back into the country to tap the world's largest proven oil reserves.

But Trump's eagerness hasn't translated into corporate enthusiasm. Several major US oil companies are taking a wait-and-see approach, watching Venezuela closely. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron all denied any prior communication with the White House about Venezuela. This directly contradicts Trump's claim over the weekend that he had already met with "all" US oil firms both before and after Maduro's capture.

Venezuela sits on roughly 17% of the world's proven oil reserves—first place globally. Yet US sanctions and other pressures have gutted its production capacity. Current output runs around 1 million barrels daily, barely 0.8% of global crude production.

World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo

World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo

Only One Company Stays Put

Chevron remains the sole major US oil company still operating Venezuelan fields. The firm has worked in Venezuela for over a century, producing heavy crude that feeds refineries along the Gulf Coast and beyond. A company spokesperson said on the 3rd that the current priority centers on "ensuring employee safety, well-being, and asset integrity," adding they "will continue to operate in accordance with laws and regulations."

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips previously invested in Venezuela. In the 1970s, the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil industry, reopened to foreign investment by century's end, then demanded in 2007 that Western companies developing oil fields form joint ventures with Venezuelan firms under Venezuelan control. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips pulled out. Neither company has responded to Trump's latest remarks about US capital entering Venezuela.

One oil industry executive told Reuters that companies fear discussing potential Venezuelan business at White House-organized meetings due to antitrust concerns.

Benefits Flow to First Mover

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, expects Chevron would likely benefit first if Venezuela opens oil projects to the US. Other oil companies, he notes, will watch Venezuela's political situation closely and observe the operating environment and contract compliance before making moves.

Mark Christian, business director at an Oklahoma energy consulting firm, lays out the baseline: US companies will only return to Venezuela if they're certain of investment returns and receive at least minimal security guarantees. Lifting sanctions on Venezuela stands as a prerequisite for US companies re-entering that market.

Reality Check on Oil Profits

Even with sanctions lifted, the Trump administration won't find making money from invasion-acquired oil that easy.

 Industry insiders admit large-scale restoration of Venezuelan oil production demands years of time and billions in investment, while confronting major obstacles: dilapidated infrastructure, uncertain political prospects, legal risks, and long-term US policy uncertainty.

Peter McNally, global head of industry analysis at Third Bridge, said, "There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around." He then added that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.

Ed Hirs, an energy expert at the University of Houston, pointed to a pattern: US military invasions of other countries in recent years haven't delivered substantial returns to American companies. The history of Iraq and Libya may repeat itself in Venezuela.

Recommended Articles