Though hostilities with Pakistan have been suspended, it is not business as usual. Following security concerns expressed by the Union government, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) has revoked the security clearance of Istanbul-based airport ground handling firm, Celebi Airport Services India.
Celebi, an old player in airport services, and with 10,000 employees in India, now faces the prospect of being ousted from the 9 airports it had ongoing contracts. The trigger has been Turkey’s undiluted support for Pakistan. Not only did Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan greet the Pakistani PM Shebaz Sharif as “his brother”, but he ensured a steady supply of Turkey's advanced Bayraktar drones launched on India.
In its defense, Celebi has said it has no political affiliations, that it is not a Turkish government organization, and it is not owned by Turkish capital. The company points out it is in existence since 1958 as a global airport services firm. Its majority 50 percent owner is Actera Partners, a New Jersey-registered fund, while 15 percent is held by Alpha Airport Sevices BV, a Netherlands company.
It goes without saying national and security interests are paramount, and must prevail over business interests. Business organisations have been known to be moles working for the enemy. In this case though, Celebi has run the security gauntlet and had been given a license to operate in India. Has some new, palpable evidence changed that perception? One can understand Turkey needs to be taught a lesson. But should a company with a fairly long run in India, and with no apparent evidence of security breaches, become the collateral damage?
In another move, Adani Airport Holdings has terminated its association with DragonPass, a China-headquartered airport lounge and travel services provider. Was there a security concern in this case too; or is it to punish China for its armament supplies to Pakistan?
US-Pakistan links
If we extend the same logic, all US companies in India should be ousted considering the US has been a constant supplier of Pakistan’s war arsenal. Over the years, Pakistan has received military equipment including F-16 fighter jets, the mainstay of its air force as well as trainer jets, and M113 armored personnel carriers. In 2015, a potential $952 million FMS deal for AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and Hellfire II missiles was approved.
The first Trump administration in 2018 had halted arms sales to Pakistan, after it deemed the country part of the ‘axis of terror’. However, President Joe Biden in September 2022, reversed the policy, and approved a $450 million sales package for the upkeep of the F-16 jet programme. Though China today is Pakistan’s main military ally, the second largest arms supplies to Pakistan have been sourced from the US.
At home, the United States has come down heavily in 2019 on successful Chinese tech companies including Huawei and ZTE on security grounds. Huawei equipment was banned for use by federal agencies since they could be used for spying. Further ‘trade restrictions’ were imposed which made it virtually impossible for the Chinese to sell or buy electronic equipment in the US. Though ‘security’ was the watchword, the perception was the bans were triggered by business rivalry with American tech giants unhappy with the rapid strides being made by these Chinese companies.
ByteDance, the Chinese parent of TikTok, similarly is facing a sell-or-be-banned ultimatum in the US due to national security concerns. The US government fears that ByteDance could be compelled to share US user data with the Chinese government, and that China could use TikTok's algorithm to spread misinformation or manipulate news content.
The world’s largest merchant of death makes no bones about demanding access to every market, but denies the same access to rival technology on grounds of security. Isn’t this a violation of the core Capitalist ethos founded on free trade and no national boundaries?
A business vision
In times of war, passions are at their height; but now that the guns have fallen silent, policies cannot be shaped to the demands of ultra-nationalism. There has to be some distinction between a country’s government and its private business entities. In an overwhelming number of cases, private companies are narrowly focused on the businesses they run, and are not really concerned with the political machinations of their governments.
Meanwhile, governments and their policies change periodically. Recep Erdogan won his elections in May 2023 by a whisker that saw him get 52 percent in a run-off poll against his rival Kemal Kilicdaroglu. Perhaps, in the next vote, Erdogan may be ousted and Turkey’s policies towards India could change. Foreign investors expect continuity and protection from political vagaries. If this cannot be guaranteed, they may not stay.
On the other hand, soft power can and should be used to make a point. India’s army of holiday makers, with their vast spending power, have changed their Turkey and Azerbaijan vacation plans to register their protest against the pro-Pakistan government policies of the two countries. The same soft power was seen in the Maldives. In this case too Indian tourists boycotted the holiday island after President Mohamed Muizzu leaned towards China and asked Indian Army units to leave the country.
It is another thing though if business contracts with companies are torn up as an act of retaliation. As we said, businesses don’t like uncertainty; and credibility built over years should not be destroyed in a fit of pique. There are long-term implications we can ill afford.