Panama Seizes CK Hutchison Ports in Canal Power Play

Panama Seizes CK Hutchison Ports in Canal Power Play

Apple Daily - Hong Kong Images ()

The Hong Kong-based conglomerate calls the takeover unlawful as geopolitics reshapes global trade infrastructure

A Physical Takeover on the Canal

Panama’s government moved decisively on February 24, 2026, sending officials to physically occupy the two ports operated by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison at either end of the Panama Canal. The Panamanian Maritime Authority entered the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal and assumed what CK Hutchison described as administrative and operational control over both facilities. The company, controlled by the family of billionaire Li Ka-shing, called the takeover unlawful and described it as the culmination of a sustained campaign by the Panamanian state against its subsidiary, Panama Ports Company.

The Legal and Political Background

The seizure followed a ruling last month by Panama’s Supreme Court declaring CK Hutchison’s concession to operate the two ports unconstitutional, even though the company had renewed its concession in 2021 for an additional 25 years. The court’s ruling came after more than a year of escalating political pressure stemming from U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that China was effectively controlling the Panama Canal. Trump began making those allegations in December 2024 and threatened military force if necessary to reassert what he called U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere. Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino has insisted his country upholds the rule of law and that the judiciary operates independently of the central government.

Beijing Pushes Back

The Chinese government’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office weighed in with unusually sharp language, calling the Supreme Court ruling absurd and shameful and warning Panama it would pay heavy prices politically and economically. Mulino rejected those threats firmly, signaling that Panama did not intend to reverse course regardless of Beijing’s displeasure. The government decree authorizing the occupation cited urgent social interest as the legal basis and gave the Maritime Authority the right to take over port property including computer systems and cranes.

CK Hutchison Caught in a Three-Way Fight

CK Hutchison has found itself trapped between three governments: China, which views the company as a Hong Kong entity whose assets should not be seized by foreign powers; the United States, which used the company’s Chinese ownership connections to justify demands for the canal’s ports to be removed from its management; and Panama, which was caught between Washington’s pressure and its own legal and sovereignty considerations. This is precisely the kind of situation that critics of Beijing’s erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy have warned about for years. Companies based in Hong Kong are increasingly treated as Chinese companies by foreign governments and international institutions, even when their actual corporate structure and management are distinct from state-owned mainland Chinese entities. The Council on Foreign Relations has documented how China’s strategic infrastructure investments across Latin America have become a flashpoint in the broader U.S.-China competition, with Panama’s canal ports becoming the most visible symbol of that contest.

What This Means for Global Trade

The practical implications of the port seizure are significant. CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Company has managed Balboa and Cristobal since the late 1990s, developing them into efficient facilities handling millions of containers annually. An abrupt change in management raises questions about operational continuity, labor relations, and investment in future infrastructure. Shipping companies that rely on the canal for transoceanic routes will be watching closely to see whether the transition to state control maintains service standards.

A Cautionary Tale About Geopolitics and Commerce

The Panama Canal ports saga offers a broader lesson about the dangers of geopolitical competition playing out through corporate seizure and legal manipulation. CK Hutchison is a commercially successful enterprise that built and operated these ports under international contract law. The legal framework it relied upon was upended by political pressure from a foreign superpower operating thousands of miles from the canal. The UN Conference on Trade and Development has tracked a rise in state interference with foreign investment in critical infrastructure globally, reflecting a trend that undermines the investment protections that underpin global commerce. For Hong Kong-based businesses, the episode is a warning about operating in an environment where the line between Hong Kong commercial entities and Chinese state interests is routinely blurred by foreign governments. The city’s business community built its reputation on contract law, independent courts, and predictable rules. When those qualities are perceived to be diminishing inside Hong Kong itself, the consequences extend far beyond the city’s borders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *