CK Hutchison’s Sale of Panama Canal Ports: A ‘Commercial Transaction’ Concerning the Interests of 1.4 Billion Chinese People

The hottest topic recently must be CK Hutchison Holdings' announcement to sell its assets—43 ports across 23 countries—to the U.S.-based BlackRock Group for $22.8 billion. The author believes this cross-border acquisition, packaged as an "ordinary commercial transaction," has in reality become a pivotal node in the strategic rivalry between China and the United States. The transfer of ownership of the two core Panama Canal ports, in particular, not only signifies a shift in control over a critical chokepoint of global trade but may also place China in a passive position within the international shipping landscape. Thus, this is far from a simple capital operation—it is a strategic choice directly tied to the economic security and national interests of 1.4 billion Chinese people.

As the global trade artery linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Panama Canal handles 423 million tons of cargo and nearly 10,000 vessels annually. The ports at its two ends, Cristóbal and Balboa, function like critical valves controlling the flow: each opening of the gates collects over HK$1 million in transit fees, with Chinese vessels paying tens of billions of RMB in tolls each year. CK Hutchison secured a 25-year concession for these two major ports in 1997, originally set to retain control until 2047. However, following threats from Trump to reclaim control of the Panama Canal, the group hastily offloaded them. In essence, this deal hands over a strategic hub accounting for 6% of global maritime trade annually to American capital, which is actively engaged in a comprehensive containment strategy against China.

Some might argue that businessmen "doing business as businessmen" is not wrong. The author contends that for transactions with no national impact—such as selling a toy factory or buying a commercial building—this principle may hold. However, such cross-border acquisitions are never purely market-driven. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) frequently blocks Chinese acquisitions citing national security, just as the Biden administration vetoed Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. These cases prove that when strategic assets are involved, "doing business as businessmen" is merely an illusory slogan.

Notably, in December 2024, the U.S. introduced the "Shipping Act," proposing to "prohibit exemptions from tonnage taxes and lighthouse fees for Chinese-registered or Chinese-operated vessels." In February 2025, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office proposed launching a "Section 301 investigation" against China, suggesting a $1 million port fee per visit for Chinese ships. Now, with BlackRock acquiring CK Hutchison’s ports, once these 43 ports and 199 terminals fall into American hands, Chinese vessels—or even foreign ships built by Chinese shipyards—may face additional tonnage taxes and million-dollar port fees whenever they dock at these facilities.

The Trump administration’s ambitions regarding the Panama Canal reflect America’s intent to reshape global trade rules. By manipulating the Panamanian government to launch an "audit" of CK Hutchison’s ports and issuing public threats, the U.S. successfully pressured Li Ka-shing into selling these core assets at a low price. This combination of "legal warfare and economic coercion" mirrors the tactics used against TikTok in the U.S., the detention of Meng Wanzhou, and sanctions on Huawei. The question is: if Chinese companies yield under pressure every time, can they still hold their heads high internationally? Where does that leave national security and dignity? Even more dangerously, the Trump administration’s erratic behavior signals an intent to apply maximum pressure on China. Should these critical Panama Canal ports fall into American hands, and the U.S. government weaponizes port control in its "trade war" against China, all Chinese and Hong Kong cargo ships will be forced to pay exorbitant "toll fees." This would not only nullify decades of China’s efforts to build its shipbuilding prowess but also severely impact Hong Kong’s industry, with ripple effects inevitably affecting many livelihoods. Li Ka-shing, who rose to prominence in Hong Kong, should consider the people of Hong Kong.

The "depoliticized" mindset of CK Hutchison’s leadership reveals a severe shortsightedness among some Hong Kong business tycoons regarding national strategy. As an enterprise from China’s Special Administrative Region, CK Hutchison could have consulted the central government in advance when facing U.S. coercion. A state-backed acquisition could have preserved both commercial interests and national interests. Regrettably, Li Ka-shing opted for his traditional "risk-avoidance-first" strategy, resulting in the dual loss of annual canal revenues worth tens of billions of HKD and strategic initiative, while disregarding national interests. Even the author can see this issue—could Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest man, truly not have foreseen it? This is clearly a matter of profound right and wrong, far beyond a mere business decision. Moreover, yielding to U.S. pressure for short-term gains is tantamount to handing weapons to the enemy—a move that demands careful reconsideration.