李嘉诚卖港口到底犯了什么错？为何被这么多媒体口诛笔伐？自己的资产难道不是想卖就卖，为何被这么多人指着鼻子骂呢？ 李嘉诚卖港口这个事情已经过去大半年了，最近网上出现了一种声音，那就是自己在外国的资产，为什么不能想卖就卖？ 我来给大家说说，为什么这些港口虽然是李嘉诚旗下长和集团的资产，但并不是李嘉诚个人说卖就卖的？ 李嘉诚每年在中国赚的钱何止百亿，他自然就得承担起来相应的社会责任。这个世界哪里有光捞好处，不付出的事情。 别说在中国没有，在美国等国家也不可能有。那你可能会说，李嘉诚可能是无奈出售港口的？美国一直想要收回巴拿马运河的经营权，他们肯定会逼迫李嘉 诚出售港口？ 我们要知道这次李嘉诚要出售的港口，并不单单是巴拿马运河的两个港口而已，还包括在全球各地总计几十个港口。我们都知道，目前是一个全球贸易的时 代，有全球贸易就必须有航运，有航运就必须有港口。因此港口的战略价值是非常高的。 在卖港口事件之后，还发生了一个事情，那就是波兰封锁了我们的中欧班列。最终这个事情是怎么解决的，那就是通过开通北极航道给波兰施压，逼迫波兰 妥协。这个北极航道是从宁波出发，最终到达英国的菲利斯杜港口。这个港口正是李嘉诚旗下的资产，也是上 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing negotiations regarding the sale of two ports near the Panama Canal by Cheung Kong Holdings are complicated by geopolitical tensions, particularly with the U.S. government opposing Chinese involvement in the deal [1][2]. Group 1: Negotiation Details - Cheung Kong Holdings announced on July 28 that it would extend the negotiation period for the sale of two ports near the Panama Canal, indicating an intention to invite mainland Chinese investors to join the buyer consortium [1]. - The initial agreement reached in March involved a sale price of $22.8 billion for operational rights to 43 global ports, including the two near the Panama Canal [1]. - As of July 28, the exclusive negotiation period of 145 days had expired, but discussions with consortium members were still ongoing [1]. Group 2: Geopolitical Context - The Trump administration has been wary of Chinese influence in the Panama Canal, viewing Cheung Kong Holdings as a Chinese entity and expressing concerns over potential control [2]. - There is a notable tension between U.S. and Chinese perspectives on the sale, with the U.S. welcoming the sale while China remains cautious and plans to scrutinize the transaction [2]. - U.S. Republican Congressman John Moolenaar expressed that the involvement of Chinese companies in the operation and management of the ports poses unacceptable risks to U.S. security [2]. Group 3: Expert Opinions - An expert from Hong Kong Polytechnic University suggested that inviting Chinese companies to participate is a negotiation tactic to alleviate Chinese government concerns, but it may complicate the situation further [3]. - The potential inclusion of Chinese firms could extend the negotiation timeline and may require a fundamental restructuring of the deal [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant transaction involving Hong Kong's CK Hutchison Holdings, which plans to sell 43 overseas port assets, including those at both ends of the Panama Canal, to the American BlackRock consortium. The Chinese government demands that state-owned COSCO Shipping must take a stake in the deal, threatening to block the sale if excluded. This situation highlights the deeper contradictions in the strategic competition between China and the U.S. [5][9][21] Group 1: Transaction Details - CK Hutchison Holdings is selling its port assets, which are crucial for controlling logistics at the Panama Canal, a key global shipping route that handles 6% of global maritime trade, with Chinese shipping accounting for 21% of that volume [5][9] - The ports in question, Colon and Balboa, have a concession until 2047, making them strategic assets for both logistics and geopolitical influence [5][9] Group 2: Geopolitical Implications - The acquisition by the U.S. consortium is interpreted as a move to strengthen control over strategic shipping routes through commercial means, potentially integrating these ports into a U.S.-led logistics network [7][9] - China's intervention stems from concerns over supply chain security, as COSCO is a major player in global shipping and has established key logistics nodes in Latin America [7][10] Group 3: Strategic Responses - China's demand for COSCO's involvement is seen as a systematic counter to U.S. strategic pressure, aiming to ensure that critical supply chains remain unaffected by external interference [10][12] - The request aligns with China's broader "Belt and Road" initiative, enhancing its logistics network in Latin America and potentially optimizing trade routes with reduced shipping times and costs [12][15] Group 4: Potential Outcomes - The outcome of this transaction could significantly reshape the global port operations landscape and the strategic balance between China and the U.S. [17][21] - The U.S. faces challenges, including the Panamanian government's fluctuating stance and potential antitrust scrutiny from the EU, which could hinder the transaction if COSCO is excluded [19][21] - If COSCO gains control of the Panama ports, it could enhance China's shipping efficiency and counter U.S. military logistics strategies in the region [21][23]

Core Viewpoint - The sale of the Panama ports by Cheung Kong Holdings raises significant concerns regarding national interests and geopolitical implications, as it involves critical infrastructure and may be influenced by external pressures, particularly from the United States. Group 1: Transaction Analysis - The transaction does not align with commercial logic, as Cheung Kong did not pursue a competitive bidding process, instead opting for a quick agreement with BlackRock at a valuation significantly lower than market standards, approximately 13 times EBITDA compared to the typical 20 times [2] - The sale involves 80% of Cheung Kong's port assets, including key ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, which are crucial for global trade and logistics [1] Group 2: National Interest and Geopolitical Concerns - Port operations are not ordinary assets but critical infrastructure, and the sale could undermine national interests, especially given the geopolitical tensions, as it may be perceived as a concession to adversaries [3] - The transaction could be seen as a short-sighted decision influenced by U.S. pressure, potentially exacerbating global conflicts and undermining the position of Chinese enterprises in international trade [4] Group 3: Implications for Chinese Enterprises - The control of significant port operations by BlackRock could facilitate U.S. political agendas, impacting China's shipping trade and increasing operational costs for Chinese shipping companies [5] - Hong Kong enterprises, particularly those with international operations, are reminded to consider national interests alongside commercial decisions, as seen in the experiences of companies like Huawei and TikTok [6][7] Group 4: Regulatory Response - The State Administration for Market Regulation has indicated that it will review the transaction to ensure fair market competition and protect public interests [7]