Beyond Blame: Pakistan’s Call For Responsible Counterterrorism Cooperation With Afghanistan – OpEd
The latest Istanbul talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, facilitated by Türkiye and Qatar from October 25 to 29, ended without a formal breakthrough. Both sides agreed on continuing the ceasefire and coming back to the negotiation table, but deep mistrust continued to cloud the relations between them. While the dialogue was inconclusive, it exposed a stark difference in threat perception: where Pakistan sees terrorism as a shared regional menace, Afghanistan views it through the prism of sovereignty and internal stability.
A basic fact underpins the dispute: terrorism knows no borders. For nearly a generation, Pakistan has borne the price of regional instability, fighting off militancy born of the post-9/11 fallout and later metastasizing into networks such as the TTP and Baloch insurgent groups. These have found safe havens across the border, as weak state control has afflicted Afghanistan’s eastern provinces.
Islamabad’s stance in Istanbul was neither belligerent nor unjustified. Pakistan called for verifiable and written guarantees that Afghan soil will not be used for attacks inside Pakistan-a demand based on the UN Charter principle of non-interference and the Doha Agreement, 2020, wherein the Taliban committed to not allowing the use of Afghan territory by terrorist groups against other states.
Since 2021, the TTP has carried out a spate of deadly attacks on Pakistan’s security forces and civilians. More than 400 Pakistanis have been killed in terrorist incidents so far in 2024, according to the PIPS data, with most of these attacks blamed on TTP factions operating from Afghan sanctuaries. These groups, despite ideological alignment with the Taliban, act autonomously and openly reject Afghanistan’s commitment to bilateral peace.
It is, therefore, justified for Pakistan to insist on a verifiable counterterrorism mechanism rather than verbal assurances that have failed time and again in the past. Islamabad’s call for written guarantees and international verification is not an act of hostility but a demand for accountability the same standard the international community expects from Pakistan.
The delegation from Kabul, headed by Zabihullah Mujahid, claimed that the Taliban government cannot control every armed group operating within Afghanistan and accused Pakistan of airspace violations. Such arguments may be politically expedient, but they fly in the face of their own stated objective of full sovereignty for Afghanistan. Sovereignty, after all, is inseparable from responsibility.
When Kabul claims it cannot restrain militants who attack Pakistan, it effectively gives lie to its own claim to state authority. The TTP is not an extension of Pakistan’s internal politics but a result of cross-border militancy that puts regional security at risk. The Taliban leadership needs to realize that harboring or ignoring such groups results in the erosion of international trust and furthers Afghanistan’s isolation on the diplomatic front.
Contrary to the Afghan media’s portrayals, Pakistan’s delegation in Istanbul came far from looking for a confrontation. The remarks uttered by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif regarding military action were clearly conditional-a reflection of national frustration rather than a declaration of war. At every point, Pakistan has stressed that cooperation, not coercion, is its preference, underlining joint verification teams and intelligence sharing as alternatives to unilateral actions.
Both countries stand at a critical crossroads. If mistrust deepens, the outcome will not be victory for one and loss for the other; it will be mutual insecurity. The border regions, already ravaged by economic deprivation, will again become sanctuaries for extremist groups that will exploit governance vacuums on both sides.
The talks in Istanbul should not be written off as a failure but as a diagnostic exercise for indicating what remains unresolved. Such a technical-first, political-later roadmap presented by Türkiye and Qatar merits serious consideration. A joint verification mechanism, perhaps under OIC or SCO observation, can help bridge the trust deficit.
Furthermore, Pakistan has genuine security concerns vis-à-vis Indian influence in Afghanistan, especially the so-called Indian support networks operating under humanitarian and reconstruction covers. To disregard this as a dimension of the conflict is the oversimplification of Pakistan’s stance into one of paranoia rather than prudence.
Similarly, Pakistan needs to pursue a policy of calibrated diplomacy in these critical times. As Afghanistan’s key trading partner and humanitarian corridor, this leverage should be exercised towards constructive engagement, not coercive rhetoric. Indeed, both states share not just a border, but a destiny shaped by geography, religion, and security interdependence.
These talks may have ended without signatures in Istanbul, but they underlined one inexorable reality: there cannot be peace in one country and militancy in the other. Afghanistan’s stability is Pakistan’s stability, and vice versa. The Taliban government must prove its words through verifiable actions, not statements of denial. The way forward for Pakistan lies through sustained diplomacy anchored in international law, strategic patience, and regional cooperation. The contours of the next phase of engagement should be defined by counterterrorism, not confrontation. The road from Istanbul to peace will be long, but it begins with a shared recognition: terrorism is the common enemy, and defeating it is the common responsibility.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
