The recent decision by Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison to sell its stakes in two Panama Canal ports to American asset manager BlackRock has drawn significant backlash from Beijing, thrusting the American buyer into the spotlight. The deal, which sees BlackRock paying US$23 billion for control of the two ports and 41 others across 23 countries, has been met with scathing criticism from Chinese state media.
Chinese government-backed websites reposted critical commentaries last week, condemning the sale as a “betrayal of all Chinese people.” The reports raised questions about CK Hutchison’s loyalties, urging the company to clarify where it stands. The deal will result in CK Hutchison, a subsidiary of Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s empire, receiving US$19 billion in cash from BlackRock, further intensifying tensions.
The decision to sell came amid mounting pressure from the U.S., especially after President Donald Trump’s re-election, when he demanded that the Panama Canal be freed from what he perceived as Chinese control. The sale was a surprising move, as it marked the divestment of CK Hutchison’s ports operations, except for those in China, to a consortium led by BlackRock. This move drew global attention due to the strategic significance of the Panama Canal ports in international trade.
BlackRock, despite being an influential institutional investor with a notable presence in Hong Kong, has kept a low profile regarding the transaction. Known for its wide range of investment solutions, including iShares exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and a focus on sustainable investing, BlackRock has faced increasing scrutiny as the deal progresses. The American firm’s acquisition will give it control over a total of 43 ports across 23 countries.
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, John Lee Ka-chiu, commented on the situation, noting that the concerns raised by the sale of the Panama Canal ports warranted “serious attention.” However, he also emphasized that all transactions must comply with the city’s laws. Lee further criticized foreign governments for what he termed the “abusive use of coercion” in trade relations, an apparent reference to the U.S. pressure that influenced the deal.
