China probes Li Ka-shing's Panama ports deal for security concerns
Beijing has investigated Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing's proposed deal to sell his global ports, including two at the Panama Canal, to BlackRock after failing to change Li's mind with closed-door and public pressure.
Senior Chinese leaders have ordered several government agencies, including the State Administration for Market Regulation, to scrutinize the proposed deal, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources.
The report said the probe will check whether the transaction involves any potential security breaches or antitrust violations, but it will not necessarily result in any follow-up action.
A CK Hutchison spokesperson told Reuters that the company will not hold any press conference or investor call after announcing its 2024 results on Thursday.
On March 4, CK Hutchison said it had agreed to sell its entire 80% stake in Hutchison Ports – which owns, operates and develops 43 ports comprising 199 berths in 23 countries – to a consortium led by BlackRock, Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) for US$22.8 billion. However, it will not sell its ports in Hong Kong and mainland China.
The company said it will finalize the deal within the next 145 days.
On the evening of March 4, United States President Donald Trump said in his speech to Congress that his administration saw progress in reclaiming the Panama Canal as an American firm would buy both ports around the canal.
CK Hutchison announced the deal on March 4, the same day when the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) held the opening ceremony of its annual meeting in Beijing. In China, this meeting and that of the National People's Congress (NPC) are called the 'two sessions.'
During the 'two sessions,' arrangements were made for Victor Li, the elder son of Li Ka-shing and chairman of CK Hutchison, to meet with a 'national leader' to discuss the Panama ports deal, Greenbean, a United Kingdom-based media outlet run by Hong Kong journalists, reported on March 16.
There are eight 'national leaders' in China, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang, five other members of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee's politburo, and Vice President Han Zheng. There are more than 60 deputy national leaders.
Citing people familiar with the situation, Greenbean said that Victor Li told the unnamed Chinese leader that CK Hutchison is selling its ports to an Italian firm, which refers to the TiL Group, parent of the world's largest container shipping company, Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC).
The report said Li Ka-shing, 96, is a close friend of MSC founder and chairman Gianluigi Aponte while BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink is a friend of Trump.
The meeting between Victor Li, who is only a CPPCC member, and a national leader is abnormal in terms of their respective political titles.
Currently, 124 out of about 2,100 CPPCC members are from Hong Kong, including 16 standing members (mainly tycoons) and one vice chairman. Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is now a CPPCC vice chairman.
Victor Li had been a CPPCC standing member since 1998 until he was 'demoted' to just a member in March 2023. Other CPPCC members include some small-and-medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners and academics.
In March 2021, Beijing changed Hong Kong's election system by removing the say in the election that Li Ka-shing had enjoyed as a member of the 1,200-member Election Committee empowered to choose the city's next chief executive.
Media reports said Beijing was unhappy that Li had kept selling assets in China to invest in Europe for many years and refused to join its campaign to slam Hong Kong's anti-extradition protesters in 2019.
After the 'national leader' failed to persuade Victor Li to stop the transaction, Ta Kung Pao, the CCP's mouthpiece, opened fire on him.
An article published on March 13 criticized CK Hutchison's Panama Ports deal as 'kneeling, profit-seeking, a trade of integrity for profits, a disregard for national interests and national justice, and a betrayal of all Chinese people.'
The newspaper said in its editorial on March 15 that all great entrepreneurs are staunch patriots. It said that Li's ports deal has hidden political calculations, does not take into account China's interests, and helps the evil tyrant harm China and the world.
The editorial said many Chinese entrepreneurs, such as Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei, are proud to be sanctioned by the US and willing to help China break the United States' technological blockade.
The Chinese State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) circulated both articles on its website, prompting many Chinese commentators to attack Li.
'Li Ka-shing colluded with the American BlackRock Group. We should take action on this matter,' Wang Qiang, a professor at Fudan University and a military columnist, says in an article published on March 15.
'Li had taken a lot of benefits from mainland China in the past. But during the Hong Kong riots, he showed his ugly face, allowing us to see clearly what kind of capitalist he is.'
Wang says after the US controls all of Li's ports, including those at the Panama Canal, it can use any excuse to suppress Chinese shipping companies, for example, by raising the docking fees exponentially or using 'long-arm jurisdiction' to ban Chinese ships from docking.
'This is a special and precise attack on China's manufacturing sector, especially on our Belt and Road Initiative,' he adds.
'It is very difficult to guard against a thief at home, and Li Ka-shing is China's 'thief at home',' he says. 'Li's CK Hutchison is backstabbing our national strategy. This is a naked violation of the national interests of the People's Republic of China. We must deal with him in accordance with the relevant laws of the country and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.'
On Tuesday, Hong Kong's Chief Executive John Lee said that concerns expressed over CK Hutchison's deal to sell its global port operations to a US consortium are worthy of 'serious attention,' saying that foreign governments should provide a fair environment for deal-making.
Lee added that the Hong Kong government would ensure that any transactions were made in accordance with the law. However, he did not answer a journalist's question about whether the Hong Kong government would use the city's National Security Law to handle the case.
On June 30, 2020, China's NPC Standing Committee passed a set of national security laws, which include an offense called 'collusion with foreign or external forces to endanger national security.'
According to the law, 'national security' means the status in which China's political regime, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, the welfare of the people, sustainable economic and social development, and other major interests of the state are relatively free from danger and internal or external threats, and the capability to maintain a sustained status of security.
A foreign company can be an external force if its directors are accustomed to or under an obligation (formal or informal) to act according to a foreign government's directions, instructions, or wishes.
Colluding with an external force means that a person acts in cooperation with an external force or with its financial contributions or other support.
Yong Jian is a contributor to the Asia Times. He is a Chinese journalist who specializes in Chinese technology, economy and politics.
Read: Beijing calls Li Ka-shing a 'traitor' in Panama ports deal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Standard
5 hours ago
- The Standard
Wall St indexes open higher with Trump's Middle East decision in focus
Hong Kong stocks edged up on Friday in hopes of US intervention in the Israel-Iran war.
HKFP
5 hours ago
- HKFP
2 Hongkongers evacuated from Israel as conflict with Iran enters 8th day
At least two Hongkongers, along with more than 100 Chinese students, have been evacuated from Israel, as the country's conflict with Iran entered its eighth day. China's official state news agency Xinhua reported on Friday that the two Hongkongers were among a group of 119 Chinese nationals who entered Egypt on Thursday via the Taba border crossing, located at the southern end of Israel. Also on Thursday, Hong Kong issued a 'black' travel alert – the most serious level of its kind, meaning 'severe threat' – for Israel and Iran, warning against all travel to the two countries. A 24-hour hotline was set up for Hongkongers in the two Middle Eastern nations as the government urged them to also seek assistance from the Chinese embassy there. HKFP has reached out to the Immigration Department for information about Hongkongers currently in the two countries. The armed conflict between Israel and Iran entered the eighth day on Friday as the two longtime enemies continued to trade fire. The Israeli military said on X on Friday that its fighter jets struck 'dozens of military targets in Iran' overnight, including industrial sites used to make missiles and what Israel said were research centres for developing nuclear weapons in Tehran. What did the IDF accomplish in Iran overnight? ✈️60+ fighter jets struck dozens of military targets in Iran using approximately 120 munitions. ⭕️Several industrial sites used to manufacture missiles were struck in the Tehran area. These sites served as a key industrial center… — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 20, 2025 Iranian missiles hit a hospital in southern Israel as well as residential buildings in Tel Aviv on Thursday, wounding 240 people, according to AFP. The White House said on Thursday that US President Donald Trump will decide whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran 'within the next two weeks.' 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quoted Trump as saying. Meanwhile, China's President Xi Jinping on Thursday called for all parties, 'especially Israel,' to 'cease hostilities as soon as possible' in a phone call with Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to Xinhua. China's foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Wednesday that close to 800 Chinese citizens had been evacuated from Iran since Israel began its strike against the country in the early hours of June 13.
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's path to Tehran: the making of a global bargaining chip
The second Trump administration no longer needs to prove its foreign policy instincts. They are clear, unmistakable and anchored in brute transactionalism. If the world learned anything from the former—and now resurgent—President Donald Trump, it is that he views diplomacy not as a delicate art of engagement but as a zero-sum game of power projection. His latest rhetoric and posturing over Iran, especially in the wake of Israeli operations and heightened regional tensions, suggest a dangerous and deliberate strategy: to reduce Iran to rubble, not only for the sake of containment but to bolster American dominance in trade negotiations with China and recalibrate all relationships—friends and foes alike—on Washington's terms. At the heart of this approach is Trump's insistence that Tehran must surrender unconditionally. This is not just hyperbole; it is a method. Trump thrives on spectacle and brinkmanship. His entire worldview is predicated on the belief that America is losing because it has been too nice, too generous and too forgiving. Therefore, for Trump to extract what he perceives as 'better deals' from China, Europe, ASEAN, Mexico and Canada, he must first demonstrate that the United States is willing and able to destroy one of its most intransigent adversaries—publicly, unmistakably and with overwhelming force. Trump's obsession with bunker-buster bombs is not new. During his first term, he repeatedly floated the idea of using high-yield ordnance to obliterate Iran's underground nuclear sites. While the Pentagon and international allies balked at the prospect, Trump's inner circle entertained such military options as ways to force diplomatic capitulation. In Trump's view, diplomacy begins only when the enemy lies broken or at least battered enough to come to the table begging. A full-fledged strike on Tehran, targeting its military-industrial infrastructure, would mark not only a significant escalation in the Middle East but a cornerstone of Trump's new foreign policy doctrine: militarized deal-making. The point is not merely to neutralize Iran but to demonstrate to Beijing, Brussels and beyond that Trump's America is prepared to shatter international norms to reassert dominance. By pulverizing Iran's defenses and forcing a surrender, Trump can create a shockwave that ripples through multiple geopolitical theaters. First and foremost is China. Beijing, already embroiled in a tit-for-tat tariff war with Washington, is being forced to reconsider its risk calculus. A United States that can unilaterally take down a major regional power signals a willingness to escalate beyond traditional economic warfare. Trump clearly wants China's leadership to understand that their negotiation counterpart is not a rational actor bound by global rules—but a strongman driven by prestige, leverage and personal victory. Second, Washington's allies would be caught in the moral and strategic dilemma of either backing Trump's new militarist campaign or risking their ties to the US economy and defense umbrella. Members of the European Union—especially France—may voice concern, but ultimately, many of them remain economically and strategically tied to the United States. The same dynamic plays out in Asia, where regional powers depend on US security guarantees while also being wary of American unpredictability. Third, Trump can use the devastation in Iran to undermine Russia's remaining influence in the region. With Iran weakened, Moscow's capacity to counterbalance US interests in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq will be significantly diminished. In this sense, Iran becomes both a target and a message: defiance will be punished, and accommodation will be rewarded—on American terms. Of course, bombing Iran is not without consequences. Trump's team understands the potential for a regional conflagration. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and the remnants of the Houthis in Yemen may launch retaliatory attacks on American interests and allies. But Trump, emboldened by a Republican-controlled Congress and the politics of spectacle, is likely to argue that such blowback is manageable—collateral damage in a global campaign to reassert American primacy. Israel, already engaged in shadow wars with Iran, would likely welcome such US involvement, seeing it as a decisive moment to dismantle the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this could be the culmination of a decades-long security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or a hegemon. For Trump, Israel's support is not just strategic—it is deeply political. It energizes his evangelical base and signals to Washington's hawkish establishment that he is not just a deal-maker but a wartime president. In many ways, this is a return to a form of Nixonian 'madman theory'—showing unpredictability to coerce adversaries into submission. But Trump takes it one step further: unpredictability is no longer a tactic but a brand. From tariffs to trade deals, embassy relocations to drone strikes, Trump has shown that chaos is not a byproduct—it is the plan. Once Iran is bombed and coerced into surrender—should that scenario come to pass—Trump will likely position the act as proof that America is back, that it no longer tolerates deadbeat allies, hostile regimes or trade cheats. He will then pivot to Beijing, pressuring China to remove barriers to US exports, agree to more stringent intellectual property protections and halt its support for Iran and Russia. 'Look what happened to Tehran,' Trump might warn. 'Don't be next.' In Southeast Asia, where countries are watching this dynamic closely, the message is equally stark. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand—economies with strong trade linkages to both China and the US—will face renewed pressure to pick sides. Trump's version of 'with us or against us' will come cloaked in tariffs, sanctions and security demands. Even countries that enjoy exemptions today—such as Malaysia's semiconductor sector—could find those favors withdrawn if they do not align with America's broader geopolitical stance. Trump's strategic calculus rests on one core principle: raw power, not persuasion. His demands for Iran's unconditional surrender are not driven by fear of a nuclear Iran—there is little concrete evidence Tehran is on the brink of weaponization but by a need to demonstrate overwhelming power. In other words, Iran is not the final goal—it is the opening move. In this worldview, multilateralism is obsolete, diplomacy is for the weak, and war—so long as it is winnable—serves a purpose beyond the battlefield. It is the ultimate bargaining chip. What the world must understand is this: Trump's warnings are not rhetorical flourishes. They are statements of intent. The drive to bomb Iran is neither about containment nor about peace. It is about leverage. It is about rebalancing global power by unbalancing the world. And in this dangerous recalibration, Tehran is just the first domino. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, former head teaching fellow, Harvard University, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow , Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena , Kuala Lumpur
