After several days of high-stakes negotiations between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban, the outcome remains frustratingly elusive. Cross-border attacks continue, and Islamabad has yet to secure concrete assurances from Kabul that Afghan territory will no longer serve as a safe haven for militants targeting Pakistan.
What began as cautious optimism has now hardened into a stark confrontation of trust, responsibility, and the limits of dialogue.
Zero tolerance for cross-border militancy
Pakistan’s position is clear: any negotiations must be accompanied by verifiable action against militant groups like the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
These terrorist groups have repeatedly exploited Afghan soil to launch attacks that endanger civilians, disrupt trade, and destabilise border communities.
For Islamabad, tolerating safe havens is not an option; the issue is existential. Yet the Taliban’s unwillingness—or inability—to provide written guarantees or dismantle these networks has deepened mistrust and stalled progress.
Taliban’s internal constraints
Control over Kabul does not equate to control over all armed factions within Afghanistan. Internal divisions, historical affiliations with the TTP, and power struggles limit the Afghan Taliban’s capacity to act decisively.
For Pakistan, this reality complicates diplomacy: negotiations can only succeed if Kabul demonstrates both authority and intent to prevent its territory from being used against a neighbouring state, and without such assurances, ceasefires risk being temporary, fragile, and easily violated.
Humanitarian and economic costs of delay
The deadlock is not merely a political or security problem; it has tangible human and economic consequences. Closed border crossings, disrupted trade, and displaced populations along Pakistan’s frontier highlight the urgency of resolution.
A ceasefire without enforceable measures offers only temporary respite, leaving communities vulnerable and businesses paralysed. The cost of inaction is high, and every day of delay amplifies these hardships.
Dialogue must be matched by action
International mediation and diplomatic encouragement provide essential support, but they cannot replace the Taliban’s responsibility to act.
Pakistan has approached these talks pragmatically, but the onus is on Kabul to translate dialogue into results.
Concrete, verifiable steps are required: dismantling militant sanctuaries, tightening border security, and engaging in transparent, accountable discussions. Only then can trust be rebuilt.
Critical inflection point
These negotiations represent more than a ceasefire—they are a test of regional stability and strategic responsibility.
If the Taliban acts with sincerity and pragmatism, the deadlock could evolve into meaningful, lasting peace. If not, Pakistan faces renewed conflict, border instability, and the continuation of a cycle of violence that endangers the wider region.
Dialogue alone cannot guarantee security; it must be reinforced by action, accountability, and political will.
Pakistan and Afghanistan share history, culture, and geography. They also share the responsibility to prevent militants from turning their borders into battlefields.
The region cannot afford the cost of delay, inaction, or half-measures. Dialogue is necessary, but decisive action is essential.
Time has run short; the Taliban must act, or the talks risk becoming another chapter in a long story of mistrust and violence.
