U.S. could resist COSCO inclusion in CK Hutchison port sale
Since the deal was announced on March 4 to sell 43 of CK Hutchison's ports in 23 countries, including two along the Panama Canal, to a consortium led by U.S. firm BlackRock and Italian billionaire Gianluigi Aponte's family-run shipping company MSC, it has sparked a firestorm of criticism from China. While the U.S. government might oppose the inclusion of state-run COSCO in the consortium over perceived geopolitical risks posed by Chinese influence, bringing in the shipping giant could provide a more level playing field rather than one company being dominant, said a person with knowledge of the deal.
The complex deal would require approval from around 50 jurisdictions involved, and it would take at least two years for the process to be completed, sources and analysts said.
There was no immediate response from the White House, COSCO and CK Hutchison to requests for comment. At a time of festering global trade tensions between China and the U.S., the deal showcases the growing rivalry between both sides for maritime influence in the strategic commercial shipping sector that has been dominated by China in recent decades.
U.S. President Donald Trump had earlier called for the removal of Chinese ownership in the Panama Canal — now used for more than 40% of U.S. container traffic valued at $270 billion annually. Following months of pressure from Beijing, including Chinese state media lambasting the move as a betrayal, and various Chinese government departments saying they would conduct a legal review, CK Hutchison announced on July 28 that a Chinese investor was being courted.
It also said changes to the composition of the consortium and structure of the transaction would be necessary to secure regulatory approval.
Two sources with knowledge of the matter said the investor was COSCO — a shipping and ports conglomerate that is now one of the world's dominant, vertically integrated marine transportation firms.
While any stake by COSCO is not yet clear, a triparty agreement with BlackRock and MSC would alleviate China's national security concerns and have its blessing, the sources said. "The potential acquisition of Hutchison Ports is driven by the strategic need to secure key port resources amid global competition and U.S.-China tensions," JPMorgan wrote in a research report.
The report also noted that while the inclusion of COSCO would "relieve some concerns by the Chinese government, thus boosting the likelihood of a green-light scenario," not all ports in the original agreement might be included.
COSCO is requesting a bigger stake while the other parties in the consortium are keen to keep it a minority, the sources said.
China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, told reporters on Monday in response to a question on the deal that Beijing "will conduct lawful regulation, firmly safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests, and uphold justice and fairness in the market."
A deal involving COSCO would be a "loud reaffirmation of China's geopolitical influence across the global maritime trade and transport sector, and of its effective leverage in trade negotiations with the U.S.," Isaac Kardon, Senior Fellow for China Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said.
"Beijing's disapproval clearly forced Hutchison to back off and change tack — and not merely in the optics of the transaction, but in its basic structure and national ownership." Should the deal proceed, it would be a crucial off-ramp for CK Hutchison, with the Americans wary of COSCO's growing maritime heft that could undermine U.S. national security. There could also be further blowback amid ongoing and complex bilateral trade talks.
Some analysts say the Panama ports, in particular, will be a focus for the Trump administration, and could be taken out of the transaction to meet U.S. strategic interests.
"The inclusion of this behemoth Chinese central state-owned enterprise as an owner seems like it should be a non-starter for the Trump administration seeking to strip Chinese control and restore some kind of American suzerainty over the Canal Zone," added Kardon. The CK Hutchison assets up for sale span the globe, including ports in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Barcelona in Spain, Felixstowe in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Poland and the Bahamas — enlarging Beijing's global shipping networks and options at a time of great trade and tariff uncertainties.
"At the moment they (Beijing) are in a place generally where they want to assert themselves and say, hey, don't mess with us," said Andrew Cainey, a senior associate fellow with the Royal United Services Institute, a defense and security think tank, in London.
"If the U.S. were to come back and object to it, China could try to block the deal or demand more (from CK Hutchison)."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
U.S. museum says Trump administration did not compel impeachment display removal
The recent removal of a placard at the National Museum of American History that detailed President Donald Trump's two impeachments did not come after White House pressure, the museum's parent organization said Saturday. The placard was meant to be temporary and "did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation," the Smithsonian Institution said in a statement on X. "It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard. "We were not asked by any administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit." The Smithsonian statement came after The Washington Post reported Thursday that the museum last month removed the placard describing Trump's impeachments and reverted to old signage that said "only three presidents have seriously faced removal" — Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The Post said the removal stemmed from a Smithsonian content review after the White House pressured the organization to remove a director of one of its art museums. Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice — first in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, then in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate both times. Since starting his second term in January, the Republican has moved to control major cultural institutions while slashing arts and humanities funding. In March, Trump signed an executive order to "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness" and "remove improper ideology." The order accused the institution of having "come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology" and argued the shift has promoted narratives that portray American values as "inherently harmful and oppressive." The impeachment exhibit "will be updated in the coming weeks to reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history," the Smithsonian said in its statement.
The Mainichi
7 hours ago
- The Mainichi
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers -- from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes -- tariffs -- on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands -- and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run -- even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. "In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. "The biggest winner is Trump," said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. "He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded -- dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls "Liberation Day'' -- April 2 -- when the president announced "reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% "baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs -- all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States -- up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year -- but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. "20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate," Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under -- and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath -- got hit harder. Even some poorer countries were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 -- versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax -- even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. "If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits -- or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. "Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser," Wolff said.
Nikkei Asia
8 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
China and Russia collaborate in global spread of surveillance states
Comment Political meddling in Georgia shows threat of growing authoritarian coordination Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping are working to expand their countries' influence in Georgia, a crucial South Caucasus link between Asia and Europe. (Nikkei montage/Source photos by Reuters) HIROYUKI AKITA TBILISI, Georgia -- It was a rare instance of a senior Chinese official speaking with unusual candor: On July 2, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told European Union top diplomat Kaja Kallas that he does not want to see Russia lose the war in Ukraine.
