China has expressed disapproval of a trade agreement between the UK and the US. The country worries that the deal might limit Chinese products in British supply chains.

Beijing articulated that agreements between nations should not aim to exclude other countries. They emphasised adherence to this “basic principle” in international dealings.

International Trade Dynamics

This diplomatic reaction from Beijing points to a growing awareness of how international trade agreements ripple beyond the immediate signatories. The concern, in this case, centres on whether the pact could subtly reshape access to markets and influence sourcing decisions—particularly for nations not directly involved. By singling out the concept of exclusion, the Chinese government is making a broader commentary on emerging trade alliances and how they might be used to create spheres of preferential economic influence.

What’s important in the context of this development is how it reframes the way cross-border supply frameworks are being structured. Not as purely commercial dynamics, but increasingly with strategic considerations folded into them. With supply chains often serving as indirect mechanisms for asserting economic influence, any shift in their composition—whether caused by tariffs, trade rules, or geopolitical recalibration—becomes immediately relevant.

For us, this puts further weight behind paying attention not only to tariffs or headline trade volumes, but to the subtler terms embedded in deals: clauses about origin, joint ventures, technology definitions, regulatory harmonisation. Individually, these may appear benign; collectively, they can signal shifts that alter flow direction and transaction preference.

Potential Market Repercussions

Savvy positioning over the next several weeks may lie in closer observation of commodity-linked agreements tied to Anglo-American trade flows. These could begin to show early reordering in volume expectations or component sourcing. Markets may begin to price in potential preference away from certain suppliers, especially if procurement policies become politicised.

Moreover, Liu’s pointed remarks about inclusion serve more as a warning of broader fatigue with selective commercial bloc-building—and may form the basis for gradual recalibration in export strategy, subsidies targeting Western markets, or even countermeasures in parallel agreements elsewhere.

In our view, this creates a valuable short-term window to monitor potential changes in FX hedging behaviour from East Asia, and reoptimise exposure to sensitive inputs—particularly in sectors where supply elasticity is low, and demand is project-based.

The tone of the message sent from the Chinese capital also suggests that further commentary will likely follow. Regular communication from trade officials can set expectations for market participants, especially those dealing in shipping, industrial manufacturing, and raw material contracts. In those cases, brief anticipatory shifts in volatility may offer targeted opportunities, if leveraged with care.

As hedging postures tighten globally, paying keener attention to diplomatic signalling like this may improve insight into where sourcing pressure might arise next—and by extension, where medium-term spread adjustments could begin forming at the contract level.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.