On February 23, 2026, the Panamanian government raided two ports and forcibly took over the port facilities of CK Asset Holdings.
On March 9 and 10, the Chinese Ministry of Transport and the National Development and Reform Commission successively held talks with the executives of Maersk Group (A.P. Moller-Maersk) and Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC).
The official announcement from China did not disclose the specific content of the talks. Some Chinese scholars believe that the talks mainly concerned the adjustment of routes and freight rates by the two shipping giants under the impact of the Middle East conflict.
However, by March 12, La Prensa reported that COSCO Shipping, a subsidiary of the Chinese shipping giant China Cosco Shipping, had suspended operations at the Balboa Port in Panama.
The consecutive actions by China have led to speculation that the talks were related to the dispute over the Panama ports, and the suspension of COSCO Shipping's operations was the first measure of retaliation by China.
In early January, the Supreme Court of Panama ruled that the concession rights of the Hong Kong-based CK Asset Holdings subsidiary for two ports on the Panama Canal were unconstitutional. The government then handed over the ports to Maersk and MSC for temporary operation for 18 months.
The Panama Canal was originally a neutral waterway, but it has become a frontline in the Sino-US confrontation since 2025. What does the Panama government's move to reclaim the operating rights mean? What is the background of the companies being taken over? How will this move affect relations with China?
Currently, the Panama government has handed over the Cristobal Port to a branch of the Swiss shipping giant "Mediterranean Shipping Company" (MSC).
Dispute over CK Asset Holdings Selling Ports
The dispute over the Panama Canal can be traced back to early 2025. At that time, Trump returned to the White House and claimed "China is operating the Panama Canal," also accusing Panama of charging too high a toll for the canal passage, saying the US should take back Panama.
In March, the Hong Kong-based company Cheung Kong (Holdings) announced the sale of 43 ports, reaching an agreement with a consortium led by the American asset management firm BlackRock. This included two ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.
In 1997, the subsidiary of Cheung Kong, "Panama Ports Company" (PPC), signed an agreement with the Panamanian government to obtain a 25-year concession for the Balboa and Cristobal ports; the company received a renewal of 25 years in 2021.
The Panama Canal carries about 5% of global maritime trade. The two ports are located at the southern and northern ends of the canal, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, controlling the throat of global shipping. According to data from the Panama Maritime Authority, in 2025, Panama ports handled 9.9 million containers - these two ports accounted for 39%, totaling 3.9 million.
However, Cheung Kong's actions attracted criticism from China, which believed it harmed national interests; the State Administration for Market Regulation stated it would "review" the transaction. Eventually, Cheung Kong did not sign the agreement as planned in April.
At the same time, the Panamanian Audit Office submitted a lawsuit to the court, alleging that the Panama Ports Company had violated the terms of the contract in its renewal, including failure to pay 1.2 billion USD in taxes to the Panamanian government. The court finally ruled the contract unconstitutional on January 29 this year.
A month later, the Panamanian government raided the two ports and forcibly took over the facilities and seized the company's assets. President Mulino said the port operations would not be interrupted.
Relationships of the Two Companies with the United States
Senior researcher Li Liangfu from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Singapore's Yusof Ishak Institute told the Straits Times that he had previously predicted that the Panamanian government might next seize control of the canal ports or implement nationalization, followed by management by U.S. companies.
Currently, the Panamanian government has set up an 18-month transition period, handing over the Cristobal Port to Terminal Investment Limited (TIL), a subsidiary of the Swiss shipping giant Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC); the Balboa Port is being taken over by APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Maersk.
Neither of the two companies temporarily taking over the ports were selected through competitive bidding. From the background of the two接管 companies, one may see how the Panamanian government made its choice in the context of great power博弈.
Terminal Investment Limited is a subsidiary of the Swiss-based shipping giant Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). In the plan to sell the ports, MSC was the buyer working with BlackRock - it is one of the steps in the company's expansion. If successful in acquiring the 43 ports owned by CK Asset Holdings, MSC would become the world's largest port operator.
At the time, Trump praised the CK Asset Holdings' port selling plan, saying it would allow U.S. companies to hold majority equity in the canal ports.
APM Terminals belongs to the Danish shipping giant A.P. Moller–Maersk. The group is the world's second-largest shipping company and has been a contractor of the U.S. "Maritime Security Program" (MSP) since 1996. This program requires shipping companies to provide ships to the U.S.,承担物资装备运输服务.
According to reports by Danish media, there are 60 ships in the "Maritime Security Program," among which 23 belong to A.P. Moller–Maersk, accounting for more than a third. Over the past five years, the program has brought in 4.1 billion Danish kroner in revenue for Maersk.
The Panamanian government said it would grant new concession rights through public bidding within 18 months.
The Balboa Port is now managed by APM Terminals.
Responses from All Parties
After the ruling, CK Asset Holdings issued a statement expressing strong opposition, stating that the Panamanian court's ruling and the government's forced takeover of the port were illegal.
As the court ruled that CK Asset Holdings could not appeal, the company stated that the Panama Ports Company had applied to an international arbitration institution to request the Panamanian government to compensate at least 2 billion USD. The group also informed Maersk Group that the unauthorized takeover of the port would cause damage to the company and could take legal action.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that it would take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises. The Hong Kong government lodged a serious protest with the Panamanian government, urging Hong Kong companies to carefully review their existing and future investments in Panama.
The ruling also caused concerns among other port operators. Some questioned how much legal protection contracts could still provide to investors.
However, the U.S. welcomed the ruling. John Moolenaar, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on China, called it a "victory for the United States."
COSCO Shipping, a subsidiary of the Chinese shipping giant China Cosco Shipping, has suspended operations at the Balboa Port in Panama.
Will the Panamanian Government Pay a Price?
Some arguments suggest that the decision by the Panamanian government is a self-protection measure in the Sino-US rivalry.
The Panamanian government had maintained friendly relations with China. In 2017, former President Varela cut ties with Taiwan and signed a cooperation memorandum of understanding with China on the "Belt and Road Initiative," becoming the first Latin American country to join the initiative.
Assistant Professor Urdenes from the Institute of Political Science at the Catholic University of Chile once stated at an event that China filled the gap left by Washington's loss of interest in Latin America before 2020, establishing economic influence in the region.
However, after Trump returned to the White House, he pursued a new Monroe Doctrine, constantly trying to consolidate U.S. influence in Latin America. After Secretary of State Rubio visited Panama in February 2025, current President Mulino immediately announced the non-renewal of the "Belt and Road" initiative.
Facing pressure from the U.S. on the canal issue, President Mulino of Panama had repeatedly publicly protested. However, Zhu Feng, dean of the School of International Relations at Nanjing University, analyzed in an interview with the Straits Times that the ruling by the Panama High Court was clearly a result of pressure from the Trump administration, and he predicted that the U.S. would gradually strengthen its regulation of the Panama Canal ports.
The Hong Kong-based newspaper Ta Kung Pao criticized the Panamanian approach as not "protecting the constitution," but rather a disgraceful "judicial flattery."
China had previously stated that the Panamanian government would pay a "heavy price" for revoking the contract. The talks and the suspension of operations by the COSCO Shipping Group were seen as the first step of retaliation.
Based in Shanghai, the China Cosco Shipping Group is Asia's largest shipping group. According to reports by Panamanian media, the empty containers of the China Cosco Shipping Group can only be returned to the Manzanillo International Terminal or the Colon Container Terminal on the Atlantic side. It is unknown whether the suspension of operations is permanent.
The report pointed out that it is necessary to observe how this decision will affect the service or space exchange agreements already reached between shipping companies, which usually divide ship capacity to cover different routes and destinations.
Although La Prensa noted that about 80% of the cargo handling at Balboa Port depends on Maersk Group, the move is unlikely to have a significant impact on operations, but the incident involving China Cosco Shipping may just be the beginning.
Earlier reports indicated that China had asked shipping companies to use other ports when the cost was low; customs have also strengthened inspection measures for bananas and coffee, among other imports from Panama.
However, Wang Fei, deputy director of the Department of International Relations at the Institute of Latin American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the port incident is not the main reason for China's talks with the two companies. In his view, the talks mainly conveyed two signals: the hope that shipping giants would take the lead in maintaining neutrality amid geopolitical changes and take measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises overseas.
Source: BBC
Original: toutiao.com/article/7616457961799500324/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.