China to study possibility of joining U.S.-led trade talks

BEIJING Thu May 30, 2013 2:33pm EDT

Related Topics

BEIJING (Reuters) - China will study the possibility of joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade talks, the Commerce Ministry said on Thursday, signaling its openness to the U.S.-led trade pact.

"We will analyze the pros and cons as well as the possibility of joining the TPP, based on careful research and according to principles of equality and mutual benefit," Shen Danyang, a Commerce Ministry spokesman, said in a comments published on the ministry's website.

"And we also hope to exchange information and materials with TPP members on the negotiations."

Shen said China, which has attached importance to the TPP talks, has been soliciting the opinions of various government departments and industries on the trade pact.

In April, the United States and countries already involved in the TPP talks formally approved Japan's entry into the negotiations at a meeting of regional trade ministers in Indonesia.

Japan will join 11 nations already in talks on the TPP: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand. Members hope to reach a deal by the end of this year.

Japan's addition would boost the proposed agreement to one covering nearly 40 percent of world economic output.

The TPP talks are officially slated to conclude this year, although many trade experts expect them to stretch into 2014.

(Reporting by Kevin Yao; Editing by Michael Roddy)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
Free_Pacific wrote:
“And we also hope to exchange information and materials with TPP members on the negotiations.” Shen Danyang.

Another words, we want to know the substance of negotiations and positions, without actually being a negotiating member. It’s unlikely China could ever deliver the copyright or IP protection required to join this trade pact, something it’s minister will be well aware of from publicly available information. This is just intelligence gathering in a different skin.

May 30, 2013 11:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
duduong wrote:
TPP is a simple American ploy to bully little countries outside of the WTO framework. The terms are totally one-sided. Free trade is only emphasized on finance and service industries, i.e. America’s strong suits. Any social economic structures different from the American norms are also penalized. Take Chile for example: it signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the US 10 years ago, and its trade surplus against the US quickly turned into a huge deficit.

It is obvious why China is making noise: it wants to scare the likes of Japan into signing away their economic future to the US. In 10 years, these countries will be so weak that they will have to come beg China for rescue from American bloodsuckers.

May 30, 2013 12:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

Considering the TPP was picked up late in the game by America, as it is a modified replica of a free trade pact already in existence (Between he majority of TPP negotiating countries), the ‘This will hurt small countries’ idea is farcical. Singapore, Brunei, Chile and New Zealand have all been the biggest proponents of these deals and are ‘small countries’, they have no fear of free trade. You just need education, rule of law, low corruption and innovation to succeed.

China is slowing, manufacturing and the supply chain are shifting to it’s periphery, China is not the golden goose. Who is the real blood sucker? We all know the answer to that. The expansionist empire that can not even sustain itself or it’s environment. It’s only gains come from the theft of it’s neighbors land and resources.

May 31, 2013 1:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.