Beijing condemns CK Hutchison's Panama deal with BlackRock

Hong Kong tycoon's conglomerate now being publicly questioned: Whose side are you on?

Yesterday/Thursday, March 13, the website of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, the Chinese ministry in charge of the two special administrative regions, reposted a harsh criticism from the newspaper Tai Kung Pao towards the U.S. government-coerced divestment of 43 ports by CK Hutchison to a consotirum led by BlackRock, including two ports near the Panama Canal. Tai Kung Pao is a newspaper based in Hong Kong and known to be a vehicle for Beijing’s messaging.

It is now crystal clear that Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing's CK Hutchison never coordinated with Beijing against Donald Trump’s economic coercion, a term widely adopted against China several years ago but, as I pointed out the other day, suddenly disappeared from the English-language discourse when Washington employs it.

CK Hutchison's statement a few days ago, as reported by The New York Times, plainly insulted onlookers’ intelligence by insisting that the deal was “purely commercial in nature and wholly unrelated to recent political news reports concerning the Panama ports,” as if the entire world had not witnessed Trump’s repeated, baseless claims that China operated the Panama waterway.

The Ta Kung Pao condemnation, translated below, reveals Beijing’s concern that BlackRock, a U.S. company, will cooperate with Washington to impose additional costs on Chinese shipping or even threaten Chinese maritime trade.

A pro-Beijing expert was quoted by the South China Morning Post yesterday as asking, “Even if CK Hutchison Holdings is under pressure to sell the ports, why among all options will it decide to sell it to an American company which will technically hand the control of the ports to the country?”

Ironically, as The New York Times reported, the Li Ka-shing family “specifically sought an American buyer, one of the people briefed on the discussions said. There were three other bids for the deal, another person familiar with the deal said.”

No one cares about facts these days but it should be mentioned that, as Reuters reported, “the ports are not part of the canal nor needed for vessels to pass through the interoceanic way, which is mostly used by ships departing from or heading to the U.S. The Panama-owned canal is operated by an autonomous entity, while Panama's Maritime Authority oversees the ports and Panama's vessel registry.”

The condemnation didn’t ask CK Hutchison to unwind the deal but did describe the deal reached so far as “in principle.” The Hong Kong conglomerate has now been asked to reflect which side it is on - Beijing’s or Washington’s.

莫天真 勿糊涂

Don’t Be Naïve, Don’t Be Confused

At present, the world is undergoing accelerated changes unseen in a century, and the strategic rivalry between China and the United States is becoming increasingly intense—it is indeed a time of high winds and turbulent waves. The United States regards China as its primary competitor and is making every effort to suppress and contain China’s development.

Recently, a certain development has sparked strong reactions from various parties: Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison Holdings Limited recently announced that it had reached, in principle, an agreement with a consortium led by BlackRock to sell 80% of the assets of its subsidiary, Hutchison Ports Group, to the consortium. The sale involves the transfer of 43 ports and their supporting logistics networks, which CK Hutchison holds and operates across 23 countries, including the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal at both ends of the Panama Canal.

Some say this transaction is just an ordinary commercial deal. Is that really the case?

Everyone can see that in January this year, as soon as Donald Trump took office, he loudly claimed that China was controlling the Panama Canal and declared that the U.S. must “take back,” even expressing a willingness to use military force if necessary. Immediately after, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio made his first foreign visit directly to Panama to exert pressure. Then, just before Trump’s first speech to Congress, the news about this transaction was released. Are all these just coincidences in timing? What is the true nature of this deal?

The Transaction Is Not an “Ordinary Commercial Deal”

In fact, some U.S. and British media have already revealed many details behind the scenes. According to reports, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has a close personal relationship with Trump and had visited the White House to brief Trump about the acquisition during the negotiation period. No wonder Trump triumphantly announced in his congressional speech that this was a “Big Deal,” boasting that he “we didn’t give it to China.” Clearly, neither Trump nor the U.S. regarded this transaction as a “regular business deal.” Instead, they openly and blatantly intervened and manipulated it, using it as a tool to enforce their global hegemony.

Many netizens pointed out that the Panama Canal is a critical chokepoint in global maritime trade, with 6% of global shipping passing through it. China accounts for 21% of the canal’s total freight volume, making it a core trade route between China and Latin America and the Caribbean. If the Panama Canal is “Americanized” and “politicized,” the U.S. will inevitably use it for political purposes to advance its own agenda, putting China’s shipping trade at the mercy of American control. Should the U.S. implement selective traffic restrictions or impose political surcharges, China’s businesses will face significant risks regarding logistics costs and supply chain stability.

Other netizens have pointed out that through this transaction, BlackRock will control about 10.4% of global container terminal throughput, making it one of the world’s top three port operators. It is entirely possible that BlackRock will cooperate with U.S. policies to pressure China by increasing port fees for Chinese cargo ships or squeezing China’s share of the global shipping market. Moreover, this deal has created a major gap in China’s long-established global port network, allowing U.S. interests to erode China’s overseas economic interests. Some have also warned that the U.S. may use this deal as a “blueprint” to pressure more port acquisitions worldwide, taking control of key global ports and implementing extraterritorial jurisdiction to suppress China’s maritime presence—making it increasingly difficult for Chinese ships to find reliable harbors.

This is not alarmism. According to a draft executive order from the U.S. government, the U.S. plans to impose special docking fees on Chinese vessels and will push its allies to adopt similar measures, threatening them with retaliation if they refuse. If these U.S. calculations succeed, they will undoubtedly impact China’s shipbuilding, maritime trade, and even the Belt and Road Initiative. Additionally, such actions will directly affect Hong Kong’s ability to consolidate and enhance its status as an international shipping and trade center while also threatening and disrupting the global shipping and trade order.

Clearly, this deal is an act of hegemonic coercion by the U.S., which has used threats, pressure, and enticements to forcibly seize another country’s rightful interests under the guise of a business deal. The aggressive ambitions of American politicians are evident—this is a move as blatant as Sima Zhao’s ambition, which was known to all (a reference to an infamous historical figure whose intentions were clear to everyone). According to some U.S. and British media reports, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described this deal as a “huge victory” for the U.S. in its global competition with China. Meanwhile, anti-China politicians view it as a key step in reclaiming a strategic hub.

Think Carefully Before Acting on Matters of Great Importance

Because of this, the public has expressed strong skepticism and criticism toward this transaction and CK Hutchison. Many believe that this is an act of submission and betrayal—an instance of sacrifice national interest and morals for profit. It is not difficult to understand why people feel this way.

In the face of such a significant matter that concerns national interests and fundamental principles, the relevant company must think carefully. They must deeply consider the nature and key implications of this deal and reflect on where they stand and which side they are on.