Key points
- Focus on borders, security, spillover risks
- Trade and integration ambitions scaled back
- Stability management replaces long-term solutions
ISLAMABAD: Regional diplomacy toward Afghanistan has entered a more restrained phase, with Central Asian states and neighbouring countries increasingly focused on containing instability rather than attempting to shape political outcomes inside the country.
For much of the past two decades, engagement with Afghanistan was driven by the belief that outside involvement could help stabilise the country and gradually integrate it into regional economic and security frameworks, reports The National Interest, an American bimonthly international affairs magazine.
That assumption has now largely faded. With little expectation that engagement can influence the Taliban’s internal trajectory in the near term, regional governments have recalibrated their policies toward risk management and insulation.
Pursuing ambitious development agendas
Instead of pursuing ambitious development or reform agendas, success is now measured in narrower terms: preventing cross-border militancy, limiting refugee inflows, curbing narcotics trafficking and managing economic spillover. Afghanistan is increasingly treated as a source of risk rather than a partner for transformation.
This approach is evident among Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours. Pakistan continues to maintain channels with Kabul but has prioritised border fencing, security operations and deterrence amid persistent cross-border attacks.
Iran faces similar pressures, including refugee flows, drug trafficking and water disputes, which have shaped a largely defensive posture focused on frontier stability.
Border security
Central Asian republics have also scaled back earlier optimism about trade corridors and energy connectivity. Engagement now centres on border security, limited commerce and coordination with larger regional powers. Concerns over narcotics flows and militancy have reinforced a cautious stance.
China and Russia, often seen as filling the vacuum left by Western disengagement, have likewise avoided large-scale economic or security commitments.
Both stress regional dialogue and oppose deeper isolation of Afghanistan, but their primary objective remains preventing transnational threats rather than driving reconstruction or political change.
Shared risks
Diplomacy continues, but its role has shifted. Regional meetings increasingly serve to manage shared risks rather than address root causes.
With the absence of a strong external anchor following the withdrawal of Western forces, regional states are acting primarily to protect immediate interests.
While containment may reduce short-term spillover, analysts warn it risks normalising Afghanistan’s instability.
As risk management replaces long-term engagement, the country’s isolation could deepen, leaving uncertainty over whether this approach can prevent further deterioration or merely delay it.
