Islamabad and Taliban-ruled Kabul’s most recent round of diplomatic efforts came to nothing, with Islamabad accusing Kabul of making “empty promises” at meetings held in Istanbul and calling for immediate, verifiable actions against militant groups operating from Afghan territory. Pakistan Today +3 Geo News +3 | Ndtv.com (NDTV) +3 (PA Today, Geo News, Ndtv), +3.
Diplomatic Process and Demand for Action
Following border clashes that resulted in soldiers and civilians dying, mediator diplomacy was attempted. A ceasefire agreement reached in Doha on 19 October set the framework for further talks between Pakistan and India. Financial Times + 2 *Pakistan Today.
+2
The second round in Istanbul aimed to build on that framework by developing a verification mechanism to detect cross-border terrorist activity and address it effectively. W. Dawn Page
Islamabad asserts that Afghanistan failed to meet their core demand: restricting use of Afghan territory by groups such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other militant organizations targeting Pakistan. At dawn today, these issues reemerged again during negotiations between both parties.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office expressed extreme disappointment. Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Hussain Andrabi stated that Taliban regime used “futile arguments to stonewall efforts at reaching any concrete understanding”, as well as deflective measures instead of taking concrete actions against terrorists. [Geo News].
Islamabad issued a statement explicitly rejecting attempts by Kabul to shift focus or engage in blame games during talks, and to turn dialogue into a blame game. At the heart of its dissatisfaction are several issues:
Pakistan alleges that Afghan-based militants continue launching attacks against its territory in violation of longstanding commitments made by their government. According to Pakistan Today, militants from Afghanistan continue launching attacks into Pakistani territory.
Pakistan wants concrete actions from their government: handing over militants, closing safe havens and setting up monitoring mechanisms at border crossings. [Geo News]
The Taliban contends it does not exert control over all groups as Pakistan demands and have accused it of adopting an irresponsible and uncooperative stance during talks. @mathrubhumi has confirmed this tweet from @matthrubhumi
Strategic Implications
The failure of the Istanbul meeting reflects deeper strategic differences between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan insists its border cannot be used as an entryway to violence; Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif warned not to test Pakistan’s resolve and all options remain open. Eventually Dawn reported on these developments.
Afghanistan faces challenges in protecting its sovereign right not to be dictated to, while also overseeing all violent actors within its borders.
Going Forward, what to watch out for
Will Pakistan resume or intensify cross-border military or aerial operations if Islamabad concludes that the Taliban never will meet their demands? Can mediators from Turkey and Qatar salvage this process, leading to another round of talks?
Will Afghanistan take concrete legal, military and administrative steps to eliminate TTP/Baloch separatist groups allegedly operating from its soil or risk further bilateral tension?
How will the diplomatic breakdown impact the tenuous ceasefire and regional security architecture, including intelligence cooperation and border regime?
Conclusion
What began as a diplomatic effort to stabilise one of Pakistan’s most volatile borders has escalated into an unfavorable standoff. Pakistan accuses Afghanistan’s Taliban regime of only offering words, not deeds, while Kabul disputes this framing and claims limited capacity. At stake are national security, sovereignty, militant dynamics management and external pressure – issues for which each side appear equally concerned; without verifiable action being taken from Islamabad on both sides, military options may become necessary on both sides – neither side seems eager but both may find necessary.