Pakistan–Afghanistan Relations: Between Geography and Geopolitics
Understanding the Strategic Stalemate and the Road Ahead
By Col Muhammad Sabahuddin Chaudhry, IS (Retired)
Abstract
Pakistan–Afghanistan relations have entered another period of deep strain following border
clashes in October 2025 and the subsequent collapse of peace talks in Istanbul. What began as a
localized border incident has evolved into a broad economic and diplomatic standoff, with both
sides suffering significant economic losses and heightened security tensions. This editorial
examines the historical context of bilateral relations, the interlocking economic and security
dimensions of the current crisis, and the prospects for a sustainable path forward through
calibrated diplomacy and regional mediation.
Introduction
The October 2025 border crisis between Pakistan and Afghanistan underscores the fragile
equilibrium between two neighbours bound by geography but divided by mistrust. The third
round of peace negotiations in Istanbul—mediated by Turkey and Qatar—ended without
agreement, leaving both capitals entrenched in hardened positions. Islamabad demands concrete
action against the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other militant groups operating from
Afghan territory, while Kabul insists on the cessation of Pakistani cross-border strikes and
respect for Afghan sovereignty.
The breakdown of these talks not only reflects the deep political mistrust between the two sides
but also threatens to reverse years of gradual economic engagement and regional connectivity
efforts.
Historical Undercurrents
The Pakistan–Afghanistan relationship is inseparable from its historical legacy. Since the
Durand Line Agreement of 1893, Kabul has resisted recognizing the border as final, claiming it
divides ethnic Pashtun territories. For Pakistan, the Durand Line remains a settled international
frontier and the foundation of its territorial integrity. This unresolved historical issue continues to
influence political rhetoric and border management disputes.
During the Cold War, Islamabad’s support for Afghan resistance forces during the Soviet
invasion (1979–1989) created enduring perceptions of interference in Afghan affairs. Post-2001,
Pakistan emerged as a key U.S. ally in the global war on terror, while Kabul—under Western
patronage—accused Islamabad of selective counterterrorism and sheltering insurgents.
The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 was initially viewed in Islamabad as an opportunity to
secure its western flank. Yet, the resurgence of the TTP and renewed attacks inside Pakistan
have reversed that optimism, restoring the familiar cycle of suspicion and reprisal.
Economic Interdependence and Disruption
Despite chronic political tensions, both nations are economically intertwined. Pakistan provides
Afghanistan access to sea ports and essential goods, while Afghanistan supplies raw materials—
particularly coal and agricultural produce—critical to Pakistan’s industrial and energy sectors.
In 2023, bilateral trade peaked at $2.5 billion, but by 2024 it fell to $1.6 billion due to
intermittent border closures. In the first half of 2025, Pakistani exports to Afghanistan reached
$712 million, while Afghan exports totaled $277 million.¹
The October 2025 border closure has inflicted severe economic costs. Pakistan faces disruption
in coal imports and construction inputs, while inflation in perishable commodities—vegetables
and fruits—has spiked. Afghan traders, particularly in Kandahar and Zabul, report that driedfruit exports have nearly collapsed.
According to Afghan officials, 95% of Afghanistan’s pharmaceuticals are imported—
primarily through Pakistan. With trade halted, hospitals face shortages of essential medicines,
underscoring the humanitarian dimension of this economic standoff.
Security Dimension: Terrorism and Proxy Narratives
At the core of the current impasse lies Pakistan’s accusation that the TTP enjoys safe havens
inside Afghanistan. Since 2022, Pakistan has witnessed an upsurge in cross-border terrorist
attacks, often traced to groups based across the Durand Line. Afghan authorities deny providing
sanctuary, arguing that they lack full control over remote territories.
From Islamabad’s standpoint, Kabul’s inaction amounts to complicity. From Kabul’s
perspective, Pakistan’s air and artillery strikes violate sovereignty and inflame Afghan
nationalism. This dynamic has entrenched a dangerous asymmetry of coercion and control.
Overlaying this is the perception within Pakistan that India uses Afghan territory as a proxy
platform to foment instability. While both Kabul and New Delhi reject such allegations, the
narrative persists in Pakistan’s strategic discourse, complicating trust-building efforts.
The October 2025 clashes, which resulted in multiple casualties on both sides, demonstrated how
quickly localized skirmishes can escalate into a regional crisis.
The Failed Istanbul Talks
Mediated by Turkey and Qatar, the third round of Pakistan–Afghanistan peace talks in
Istanbul aimed to establish a framework for counterterrorism cooperation and the reopening of
trade routes. However, Pakistan’s demand for verifiable action against the TTP, coupled with
Kabul’s insistence on halting Pakistani air operations, proved irreconcilable.
The talks ended in deadlock, eroding hopes for near-term de-escalation. The absence of a
mutually acceptable verification mechanism remains the single largest obstacle to sustained
engagement.
Strategic Analysis
The stalemate can be explained by three structural factors:
1. Asymmetrical Leverage: Pakistan wields control over key trade corridors and access
routes to the sea, while Afghanistan’s leverage lies in the sanctuary and influence it
exercises—directly or indirectly—over militant networks affecting Pakistan.
2. Mutual Deficit of Trust: Decades of conflicting security policies have created
entrenched skepticism. Neither side is willing to rely on political assurances without
verifiable enforcement mechanisms.
3. Economic Vulnerability: Both economies are too interdependent to endure prolonged
border closures. Afghanistan’s overreliance on Pakistani ports and trade routes leaves it
particularly exposed, while Pakistan’s exporters and border communities face mounting
losses.Unless both capitals replace coercion with calibrated diplomacy, the relationship
will remain trapped in a destructive cycle of retaliation and denial.
Policy Options and Recommendations For Pakistan
• Conditional Engagement: Maintain diplomatic channels while linking trade
normalization to measurable Afghan action against identified TTP elements.
• Economic Diversification: Strengthen trade with China, the Middle East, and Central
Asia to reduce exposure to Afghan instability.
• Multilateral Mediation: Institutionalize the involvement of neutral facilitators such as
Turkey, Qatar, and China to verify counterterrorism commitments.
For Afghanistan
• Transit Diversification: Gradually expand trade through Iran, Uzbekistan, and
Turkmenistan while maintaining essential links with Pakistan.
• Counterterrorism Credibility: Demonstrate tangible progress in controlling non-state
actors operating within Afghan territory.
• Confidence-Building: Allow third-party observation of border incidents and establish a
joint technical committee for intelligence-sharing.
Joint Measures
• Humanitarian Trade Corridor: Establish and supervised corridor to permit the flow of
essential commodities—food, medicine, and perishables—until broader trade
normalization is achieved.
• Border Verification Mechanism: Develop a neutral monitoring cell (with Turkish or
Qatari participation) to investigate border incidents and prevent escalation.
• Structured Dialogue: Convene a high-level ministerial dialogue with defined timelines
and deliverables to replace ad hoc crisis diplomacy with institutional continuity.
Conclusion
Pakistan and Afghanistan share not only a border but also an intertwined destiny. Geography
dictates cooperation, but politics continues to obstruct it. The collapse of the Istanbul peace talks
has exposed the limits of coercive diplomacy and underscored the need for verifiable
frameworks for counterterrorism and trade. For Pakistan, strategic patience, economic resilience,
and multilateral engagement are essential. For Afghanistan, responsible governance and credible
action against cross-border militancy are vital for legitimacy. Ultimately, neither nation can
achieve stability by weakening the other. A durable peace demands pragmatic engagement, not
ideological rigidity. Without it, both sides risk perpetuating a cycle of economic pain and
security paralysis that benefits no one except the spoilers of peace.
Author Bio
Col Muhammad Sabahuddin Chaudhry, IS (Retd) served in the Pakistan Army as a Pilot and
Security Consultant in corporate Sector. Total 43 years’ experience in the field. He writes on
regional security, Civil–military affairs and Current Affairs with focus on South and Central
Asia. His analyses have appeared in Defense journals, The Truth International and policy forums.
