China Warns CK Hutchison: Panama Port Deal Is Not "Ordinary Business" – “Don't Be Naïve, Don't Be Foolish”
CK Hutchison is in geopolitical trouble
On the 4th of this month, CK Hutchison Holdings announced that, at a valuation of HK$148.2 billion, it will sell 80% of the assets of its Hutchison Port Holdings to a consortium led by three companies: US-based BlackRock, US-funded Global Infrastructure Partners, and Terminal Investment Ltd., which is under the Italian Aponte family, one of the top 100 shipping companies. The deal involves transferring its stake in and operation of 43 ports and associated logistics networks across 23 countries, including the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal at both ends of the Panama Canal.
The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council of China issued a strongly worded comment on the matter yesterday, directly stating that the transaction is not an “ordinary commercial activity,” but rather a hegemonic act in which the United States employs state power—through coercion, pressure, and inducements—to seize the legitimate rights and interests of another country, all masked as “commercial behavior” and essentially representing power politics. The signed commentary, titled “Don’t Be Naïve, Don’t Be Foolish,” first appeared yesterday in a “sharp review” in Hong Kong’s Ta Kung Pao, and was later reprinted that evening in the “Hong Kong and Macao-related Information” section on the website of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office.
A full translation of the “sharp review” is available
Don’t Be Naïve, Don’t Be Foolish
At present, as the world undergoes an accelerated transformation unseen in a century, the strategic contest between China and the United States is becoming increasingly fierce—truly a time of high winds and raging waves. The United States views China as its main competitor and is sparing no effort to contain and suppress China’s development.
Recently, one development has sparked strong reactions from all sides: Hong Kong’s Cheung Kong Hutchison Whampoa Limited recently announced that it has reached a principled agreement with a consortium led by the United States’ BlackRock to sell 80% of its assets in Hutchison Port Holdings, transferring its stake in and operation of 43 ports and accompanying logistics networks across 23 countries, including the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal at both ends of the Panama Canal.
Some say this deal is just an ordinary commercial transaction. Is that really the case?
What everyone can see is that just this January, when Trump took office, he declared high and clear that China was controlling the Panama Canal and boldly announced that the United States would “take it back,” even if it meant using military force if necessary. Immediately afterward, Secretary of State Rubio made his first foreign visit directly to Panama to exert pressure. Then, just before Trump delivered his first address to Congress, the above news was released. Could all of this be merely a coincidence in timing? What exactly is the nature of this transaction?
The Transaction is Not “Ordinary Commercial Behavior”
In fact, several media outlets in the US and the UK have already revealed numerous behind-the-scenes details. Some reports indicate that BlackRock CEO Fink has a close personal relationship with Trump and, during the acquisition negotiations, even visited the White House to brief Trump on the situation. It is no wonder that when Trump gave his address to Congress, he proudly announced that the “big deal” had been concluded, boasting that “we didn’t let China get Panama.” Clearly, Trump and the American side did not regard this transaction as an ordinary commercial affair at all; they blatantly and unabashedly intervened and manipulated it, treating it entirely as a means to further the pursuit of global hegemony.
Many netizens point out that the Panama Canal is the throat of global shipping—6% of world maritime trade passes through it, and Chinese commercial shipping accounts for 21% of that traffic, making it the core artery of trade between China and Latin America and the Caribbean. Once the Panama Canal is “Americanized” and “politicized,” the United States will undoubtedly use it for political purposes to advance its own political agenda, and China’s shipping and trade will inevitably be controlled by the US. If the United States were to implement measures such as selective capacity restrictions or imposing “political surcharges,” Chinese companies’ logistics costs and supply chain stability would face great risks. Some netizens also noted that through this deal, BlackRock would control about 10.4% of the world’s container terminal throughput, joining the ranks of the world’s top three port operators, and it is entirely possible that it would work in concert with US policies to suppress China, raising costs for Chinese cargo and squeezing the market share of Chinese shipping companies. Moreover, this transaction creates a major gap in the port network that Chinese companies have built up over the years, thereby allowing American interests to erode their overseas development advantages. Other netizens even point out that the United States might use this transaction as a “template” to spark a wave of port mergers and acquisitions worldwide through political pressure, thereby controlling more critical ports globally and employing “long-arm jurisdiction” to suppress China, leaving Chinese vessels with “no reliable haven.”
This is by no means mere fearmongering. According to a draft executive order from the US government, plans are already underway to charge Chinese vessels special docking fees, and the US will urge its allies to take similar measures, otherwise facing retaliation. If all of the United States’ calculated moves succeed, they will undoubtedly impact China’s shipbuilding, shipping, foreign trade, and even the Belt and Road Initiative, and will directly affect Hong Kong’s efforts to consolidate and elevate its position as an international shipping and trade center, while threatening and undermining the normal global order and safety of shipping and trade.
Clearly, this transaction is an act of hegemony by the United States—using state power, coercion, pressure, and inducements through despicable means to seize the legitimate rights of another country—disguised as “commercial behavior.” The predatory ambitions of American politicians are evident for all to see; their intentions are as plain as day. According to some reports from US and UK media, scholars at the Strategy and International Studies Center (a US think tank) believe this transaction is a “major victory” for the United States in its global competition with China, and anti-China politicians have even hailed it as a key step in “regaining control of a strategic hub.”
Think Twice Before Sacrificing Principles for Big Issues
For this reason, netizens have widely expressed strong doubts and criticisms regarding this transaction and Cheung Kong Hutchison’s actions, deeming it a sign of kowtowing without backbone—a profit-driven, unscrupulous act that ignores national interests and the greater cause of the nation, betraying and selling out all Chinese people. Such sentiments are completely understandable.
In the face of such significant matters of national importance, those involved should think twice—carefully consider the nature and core issues at stake, and truly decide which side they stand on.