[Text/Observer Network Zhang Jingjuan] The United States and the United Kingdom signed what they called the "first tariff trade agreement" last week. According to British media reports, this agreement gives the US the right to veto Chinese investment.

According to a report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the 14th, the British government urgently explained its stance regarding claims that the UK-US agreement might harm China's interests.

In this agreement between the UK and the US, although President Trump partially withdrew tariffs in certain areas, the US imposed strict so-called "security" clauses on British steel and pharmaceutical strategic sectors, requiring related industries to "meet American requirements in supply chain security and ownership of production facilities as soon as possible" to obtain exemptions or preferential policies for American tariffs.

Although it appears superficially applicable to all third countries, British officials admitted to the Financial Times that Trump has hinted that China is the target.

The report stated that China expressed concerns that this move might prevent it from supplying goods to the UK bound for the US, emphasizing a "basic principle" - cooperation between nations should not violate or harm the interests of third parties.

After the report was published, the Chinese Embassy in the UK made a statement, expressing serious concern about relevant media reports and requesting clarification from the British side.

Local time on May 8th, the UK and the US announced the trade agreement across the ocean. BBC video screenshot.

China is the world's second-largest economy and the UK's fifth-largest trading partner. In 2024, bilateral trade reached 98.4 billion pounds (approximately 941.5 billion RMB).

In response to the latest comments from China, the British government responded that the trade agreement with the US serves national security interests, safeguarding thousands of jobs in key sectors, protecting British businesses, and laying the foundation for larger-scale trade in the future.

The UK emphasized that any "external terms" in the agreement are "not intended to disrupt mutually beneficial economic relations with any third party."

"Chancellor of the Exchequer Darren Jones clearly pointed out that there is no Chinese investment veto in this trade agreement," the British government added, stating that trade and investment with China remain crucial for the UK, and that Britain will "continue to cooperate in areas that serve both national and global interests in a pragmatic manner."

According to the Daily Express of the UK, Jones previously told Times Radio in an interview that he was not very clear where this information came from, possibly a criticism from the Conservative Party. "We haven't even released all the agreement documents; we don't know how they reached such conclusions."

"I can say with certainty that this trade agreement does not have any so-called Chinese investment veto," Jones said.

A former UK trade official, Ali Renison, believes that if the final agreement between the UK and the US shows that the UK further aligns with the US position on trade with China in exchange for tariff exemptions, China may retaliate in some form. Diplomatic sources further pointed out that these so-called "security clauses" could become a "template" for the US to pressure other allies to exclude China from critical supply chains, coercing allies like the UK to reduce trade and investment cooperation with China in sensitive fields.

On the 14th, when asked about China's views on recent trade agreements between the UK and India and the US, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a regular press conference, "Regarding the UK's trade agreements with relevant countries, I would like to point out that cooperation between nations should not target or harm the interests of third parties."

This article is an exclusive contribution by the Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7504488128544113206/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's viewpoint. You are welcome to express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.