Panama’s Port Deal Provokes Strong Backlash from China
As the news of the United States’ successful “purchase” of the Panama Canal began to settle in the U.S., the deal’s seller, Li Ka-shing, and his conglomerates have recently become the subject of intense criticism in China.
Several Chinese officials and agencies have started to express significant dissatisfaction with the Li family’s decision to “throw away” such a strategic and lucrative business.
The controversy was initially sparked by statements made by then-President-elect Donald Trump, who, before his inauguration, repeatedly declared his intention to “reclaim” the Panama Canal, a project built by the United States years ago but “controlled” by China, in President Trump’s words. During his State of the Union address on March 5, Trump revealed, “Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal.”
The media soon uncovered that the U.S. firm was BlackRock, the Wall Street giant, and the seller was CK Hutchison, a conglomerate founded by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. Li Ka-shing’s companies have operated two key ports along the Panama Canal—Balboa and Cristobal—since 1997, securing a 25-year extension in 2021 without competitive bidding. But, in recent years, the Li family’s position has been increasingly under scrutiny.
Under the terms of the acquisition, BlackRock, through one of its investment groups, had purchased two ports—Balboa and Cristobal—along with 43 other ports across the globe. However, the $22.8 billion deal excluded any port interests within China.
After nearly two weeks of silence regarding the sale, the news suddenly gained significant traction in China’s media. From media reports, it became apparent that Li Ka-shing’s company had not consulted with the Chinese government before finalizing the deal. It is also becoming clear that the Chinese government has different opinions about this deal based on multiple media reports.
Regarding the public, some argued that the Li family, as businesspeople, were simply acting in their financial interests and should not be expected to consider geopolitical tensions in their decisions. They believed the sale was purely a business transaction with no other profound implications. Nevertheless, many echoed the Chinese government’s position, suggesting that businessmen without the support of their country are vulnerable to external pressures and exploitation. They argued that, in such a high-stakes geopolitical environment, there is no such thing as a pure business decision.
According to a Xinhua News Agency report, from March 14 to 15, Ma Hui, Vice Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, led a CPC delegation to visit Panama. During the visit, he met with leaders of major Panamanian political parties and held discussions with think tank scholars. Ma stated that China is willing to strengthen exchanges with Panamanian political parties and think tanks to enhance mutual understanding and trust. The report pointed out that the Panamanian side expressed its willingness to deepen friendly exchanges, build consensus on cooperation, and promote the sustained development of China-Panama relations.
Some commentators believe that the timing of the Chinese delegation’s visit to Panama was primarily aimed at countering the geopolitical risks arising from Li Ka-shing’s sale of the port through diplomatic and economic means. It was seen as both a pushback to U.S. control over the Panama Canal and a strategy for China to ensure the continued advancement of the Belt and Road Initiative in Latin America.
However, despite strong official statements and actions from China, CK Hutchison Holdings has remained silent and has not made any public comments. For now, we present the reactions from various parties in China as a basis for future analysis.
The Chinese Government’s Stance
The Chinese government has unequivocally expressed dissatisfaction with the transaction. Below are the responses from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the official Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, as well as the responses from two top former and current officials from Hong Kong.
Response from the Chinese Foreign Ministry
During a routine Foreign Ministry press conference on March 5, a Reuters reporter asked, “A consortium backed by BlackRock has agreed to acquire a majority stake in a Hong Kong company that operates ports on both sides of the Panama Canal. This means that, under pressure from the White House, U.S. companies have gained control of key ports in the region. What is the Foreign Ministry’s comment on this?”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded:
"We have no comment on the specific commercial transaction. Previously, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has already addressed the issue regarding the operation of the ports by the Hong Kong company. As a matter of principle, I would like to emphasize that China supports domestic enterprises, including those from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in investing and developing overseas. All countries should provide a fair and just environment for relevant enterprises. We oppose the abuse of coercive and pressuring tactics in international economic and trade relations."
The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council
The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the CPC Central Committee and Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council (hereinafter referred to as the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office) reposted articles questioning CK Hutchison’s port transaction twice within three days.
On March 13, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office website reposted a sharp commentary from Hong Kong’s Ta Kung Pao titled Don’t Be Naive, Don’t Be Confused. The article stated:
"This transaction is a hegemonic act by the United States, using state power to seize the legitimate rights and interests of other countries through coercion, pressure, and inducement. It is a form of power politics disguised as a 'commercial transaction.' The wolfish ambitions of American politicians are clear to all."
On March 15, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office website reposted another commentary from Ta Kung Pao titled Great Entrepreneurs Are Staunch Patriots. The article concluded by stating:
"If entrepreneurs fail to see the essence of American politicians who 'want both money and lives,' and choose to dance with them and act against the tide, they may temporarily achieve a 'Big Deal' and make huge profits. However, in the end, they will have no future and will be condemned by history."
Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Leung Chun-ying
On March 17, Leung Chun-ying, Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the CPPCC, posted on social media, indirectly responding to Li Ka-shing’s sale of Panama Canal ports to the BlackRock Group. Leung was previously the third Chief Executive of Hong Kong between 2012 and 2017
The full text is as follows:
Perhaps Hong Kong was under foreign rule for too long, leading some Hong Kong businessmen to mistakenly believe that "businessmen have no homeland" and that everything should be "business is business." Anyone with eyes can see how Hong Kong was required to submit to and contribute to the British economy during its colonial period. Anyone with a brain can also think of how the U.S. government supports American businesses, targets TikTok, and suppresses Chinese-made ships. Can we still say that businessmen have no homeland? Is it just "business is business"? Businessmen without a homeland are like children without parents, vulnerable to bullying—this is true everywhere. American businessmen can only and will only do things that align with U.S. interests. They cannot do anything that violates U.S. interests. The U.S. government only supports American businessmen, not foreign ones. This is the inevitable relationship between American businessmen and the United States. The same applies to other countries like the UK, Canada, and Singapore. The same applies to China.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Chief Executive John Lee
On March 18, John Lee spoke to reporters before an Executive Council meeting. He expressed three points on Li’s deal:
The public’s concern over the incident deserves attention.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government demands that foreign governments provide a fair environment for Hong Kong enterprises and opposes the use of coercive and pressuring tactics.
Any transaction must comply with legal and regulatory requirements, and the Hong Kong government will handle the matter in accordance with the law and regulations.
When pressed on whether the Hong Kong government could use the Hong Kong National Security Law to block the transaction, John Lee reiterated that any transaction must comply with laws and regulations, and the Hong Kong government will handle it accordingly.
Media Coverage
Chinese media has presented diverse perspectives on Li Ka-shing’s Panama Canal deal. Some outlets view it as a “normal business decision,” emphasizing Li Ka-shing’s profit-driven nature as a businessman. For example, Jiemian magazine commented, “For CK Hutchison, this transaction is part of its own strategic adjustment, a timely assessment of market risks, and an optimization of its asset structure. In the future, how traditional shipping companies can maintain their footing and retain strength in the new landscape will make CK Hutchison’s approach an important reference.”
Other media, however, have criticized the move, arguing that Li Ka-shing’s actions did not take China’s overall interests into account. Prominent commentator Hu Xijin, the former editor-in-chief of Global Times, believes that the notion of “business is business” is overly simplistic. Using TikTok as an example, he pointed out that without the support of the Chinese government, the social media company might have already been shut down. Therefore, “I think CK Hutchison should have at least fought a few rounds with the U.S. side like TikTok did. However, it (CK Hutchison) compromised from the very beginning, which not only concerns China’s shipping security but also does no good for the company itself.”
I believe CK Hutchison should have confidence in its homeland and resist the pressure from the Trump administration from the perspectives of commercial law and international law. There's no need to fear trouble from the U.S. side. When businesses grow large, they may inevitably encounter geopolitical challenges, but these should be manageable for CK Hutchison. If the U.S. takes extralegal actions against Hong Kong companies, China is not powerless either. The Chinese government will never abandon businesses that stand with the homeland at critical moments……. CK Hutchison likely does not want to become a focal point in the U.S.-China rivalry. Indeed, no commercial company wishes to be at the center of such a storm. However, when geopolitics comes knocking with its coercive power, it is difficult to avoid, and surrender is not a solution. The only option is to face it head-on. When a company grows large and risks arise, it must shoulder its social responsibilities and national obligations when the time comes. Although the heights may be cold, the most reasonable and ultimately prudent choice is to accept the situation and adapt to it.
Judging by official reactions and media commentary, China appears displeased that the Li family so readily transferred such a high-stakes business to an American firm, particularly under pressure from the White House. The key question now is whether the Chinese government will exert enough pressure to block the sale—or whether it even has the ability to do so at this stage. It remains to be seen whether the deal will move forward or if political fallout will force a reassessment.
Juan Zhang is a senior writer for the U.S.-China Perception Monitor and managing editor for 中美印象 (The Monitor’s Chinese language publication).
The views expressed in this article represent those of the author(s) and not those of The Carter Center.
