Daily Times

Frederick Forsyth, known for his bestselling thriller novels, features famous personalities and political leaders as characters in his books. His books contain factual information, technical details and meticulous planning. Dogs of War, one of his best-selling novels, tells the story of European and African mercenary soldiers. A British industrialist hires their services to depose the government of Zangaro, a fictional African country.

A mercenary takes active part in an armed conflict for personal gain. He exists both in local and international arenas. In international perspective, he is neither a national of the party in conflict nor the resident of the territory in trouble. Simply speaking, you pay him money and he will kill people for you.

Dogs of war have existed for thousands of years, across different civilisations. Pharoah Rameses II of the 19th dynasty in ancient Egypt had an army of 11,000 mercenary soldiers. Memnon of Rhodes commanded Greek mercenaries to fight with the army of Alexander the Great in the historical Battle of Grancious in 484 BC for the Persian Empire. In the era of warring states in ancient China, mercenaries’ services were warmly welcomed. Trained through the works of Mozi and Sun Tzu, generals and military advisors offered their skills for hire to different states.

In its golden days, the subcontinent of India also witnessed the rise of mercenaries. In 1498, Vasco de Gama saw Italians protecting the interests of Rajas on the Malabar Coast. In 1565, more than 2,000 Portuguese soldiers were in the service of various Indian princes. By the time of Shah Jehan, the number of European soldiers had grown to a record high, necessitating the government to set up a new suburb outside Delhi, called Firingipura, to accommodate them.

European colonial powers also benefited from mercenary soldiers by incorporating them in their armies. They recruited individuals from the countries they ruled. The Gurkha regiment of the British Indian Army and the French Foreign Legion consisted of foreign soldiers.

In recent times, mercenary soldiers have played an important role in shaping the course of events in various countries. They exhibited their talent in the Congo crises, the Nigerian civil war, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria, etc. Like other professions, this profession also evolved over time. Smaller groups still exist today but now is the time of private military and security companies.

Private military and security companies do not call themselves mercenary companies though they mainly offer those services that a mercenary or a group of mercenary soldiers offer. Operating in corporate shadows, these companies provide logistics, soldiers, military training and advisory services. If required, they even fight for their clients. So, we do have mercenaries, mercenary groups and mercenary companies in our times but do countries also play the mercenary role? Do some countries fight other countries’ wars for money? Certainly. When country A hires country B to play the ‘dog of war’ role, the fee or compensation is termed in a respectable manner and called ‘aid’, for example military aid, economic aid and so on. Let us examine the role Pakistan has played in international affairs.

I looked up the website of the ministry of foreign affairs and had a feeling that some unwritten law prohibits policy makers from consulting the speeches of Quaid-e-Azam on the topic of foreign policy. Also, they are not allowed to look at the contents of the website. On the website, an excerpt from Quaid-e-Azam’s broadcast message to the people of the US clearly states foreign policy principles as honest and fair in international dealings. Mr Jinnah also adds that Pakistan’s foreign policy is goodwill and friendliness towards all nations. On another occasion he said that Pak-India relations would be like those of the US and Canada. In short, this was the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan’s foreign policy, and was interred with him.

The US started economic assistance and military aid to Pakistan in 1951. By 1955, Pakistan had become a member of SEATO and CENTO to contain communist USSR. Being a member of these organisations did not help Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani wars in 1965 and 1971. Why did we need to join the anti-USSR camp? The question is forgotten and remains unanswered. In short, we secured US interests and were rewarded with dollars called aid.

Then came 1979. At the height of the cold war, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. For a price Pakistan’s services were up for hire to turn this landlocked country into a graveyard for the USSR’s soldiers. The US saw an opportunity to march communism away from its lands without risking the lives of its soldiers and people. Thus, the US loosened its purse and we took care of the Afghan war. Our rulers at that time planted the seeds of extremism in the population to secure future human material for an alien war. New strategies and theories were formulated to justify the mercenary job. When the war ended, mercenaries became jobless. Since they knew only how to fight they started fighting with each other. This resulted in the rise of the Taliban who would rule for the next few years.

History turned over a new page in 2001. Militants, once trained by the US and its allies to fight the Red Army, cast their eyes on the US itself, and attacked its twin towers in New York. After the Taliban’s refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden, the US decided to turn Afghan land into a stage show for its deadly weapons. Pakistan, architect of the Taliban, saw another opportunity to offer its services for hire against its own grown up brainchild. A deal was made. The US got the Taliban and we got aid; and terrorism came as a gift.

Until recently, Islamabad had not taken sides in the Syrian crisis, in order to maintain a delicate balance in its ties with both Riyadh and Tehran. Deserted by the US, Saudi officials promised a sum of $ 1.5 billion to our government, personally pledged by Saudi Arabia for saving its skin. The prime minister himself reiterated this Saudi line in a press conference. Later, however, the government denied any policy change over Syria but Mr Sharif knew what he was talking about. Over time, the cat will be let out of the bag.

We believe, even against the odds, that our leaders preferred certain choices over others in good faith. The question, however, is the nature of the role we played in international politics. Are we in a position to say that we did not fight alien wars for aid or money? Certainly not. It is the time to review the objectives of our foreign policy. Otherwise, we should not hesitate to market our services as a mercenary nation.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be contacted at qmparis@gmail.com