Talks in Istanbul Stall as Both Sides Trade Blame Over Violence
In a sharply escalating development, the peace negotiations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have reached a standstill, with Islamabad declaring that talks in Istanbul are “deadlocked” following explosive border clashes that have claimed civilian and military lives.
The breakdown comes after a week of shooting exchanges along the disputed frontier and unsuccessful attempts by mediators Doha (Qatar) and Ankara (Turkey) to broker a lasting truce. Pakistani officials say the Afghan delegation retreated from key commitments, making any concrete resolution impossible.
What Happened During the Clashes & Negotiations
Border violence erupts
The trigger for the collapse in diplomacy was a surge in violent exchanges along long-contested border areas particularly in the Chaman and Spin Boldak regions.
According to Afghan officials, four civilians were killed and five wounded in clashes during the talks. Pakistan, however, blamed Afghan forces for initiating the violence.
These incidents followed earlier, deadlier encounters where dozens of soldiers, militants and civilians died, prompting calls for a ceasefire.
The ceasefire and mediation efforts
In mid-October, after the most serious fighting in years, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire. The accord was brokered by Qatar and Turkey.
A subsequent longer-term truce was signed in Doha on October 19. The next stage of talks began in Istanbul shortly thereafter.
Talks collapse in Istanbul
The Istanbul round of negotiations dissolved after four days without any agreement on how Kabul would crack down on Tehrik‑e‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants accused by Pakistan of using Afghan soil for attacks. Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar expressed frustration, stating that the Afghan side reverted on pledges and engaged in blame-shifting instead of action.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif warned that failure to conclude the talks could lead to “open war.”
Key Issues Driving the Impasse
1. Terrorism and safe havens
Pakistan has long asserted that militant groups such as the TTP operate freely in Afghan territory and carry out attacks inside Pakistan with Kabul’s tacit support. Afghanistan denies these claims, insisting the matter is Pakistan’s internal issue.
2. Sovereignty and border control
The 2,611-kilometre (1,622-mile) border known as the Durand Line remains a flashpoint. Afghanistan has never formally recognized this delineation, adding a layer of complexity to bilateral ties.
3. Trade and humanitarian costs
Clashes and border closures have hurt commerce, particularly at crossings such as Torkham and Chaman. Bilateral trade disruptions affect livelihoods on both sides and place added pressure on diplomatic channels.
4. Mediation constraints
While Qatar and Turkey have acted as mediators, underlying trust deficits, and divergent priorities on key issues like counter-terrorism subverted progress. No verification or monitoring mechanism has yet been established to hold either side accountable.
Why the Deadlock Matters
- Regional security spill-over: A failure to resolve the dispute risks wider instability, including resurgence of militant activity that could affect Pakistan, Afghanistan, and beyond.
- Diplomatic credibility: For both nations, the inability to secure a deal could undermine their international standing and willingness of mediators to invest future efforts.
- Civilian suffering: While governments negotiate, civilians near the border continue to bear the cost—through fatalities, displacement, and economic hardship.
- Economic impact: Persistent border closures hamper trade, increasing prices, and undermining commerce in vulnerable border provinces.
- Precedent for peace process: This conflict sets the tone for how Pakistan engages with the Taliban-run Afghan government at large. A failed process may limit future cooperation.
What Happens Next?
Pakistan’s possible options
- Islamabad may continue diplomatic pressure and conditional talks while retaining the right to use military instruments if it sees border aggression as unchecked.
- It may also push for multilateral forums—bringing other regional stakeholders like China, Saudi Arabia or the UAE into mediation.
Afghanistan’s likely response
- Kabul may continue to resist Pakistan’s demands, citing its own constraints and framing the issue as interference in internal affairs.
- Alternatively, Afghanistan might accept limited commitments in exchange for economic incentives or border reopening.
Mediators and next meeting
Turkey and Qatar appear poised to convene another round of talks, potentially followed by a supervision-mechanism being established. But unless fundamental trust is rebuilt, the next session may also falter.
Risk of escalation
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s warning of “open war” underscores that if diplomacy collapses, the situation could revert to military engagement with broad consequences.
While the 48-hour ceasefire offered a brief respite, the core fault lines between Pakistan and Afghanistan remain. With both sides deeply entrenched in their positions, the Istanbul talks have ended in stalemate. Until Kabul and Islamabad make meaningful concessions or until mediators enforce a binding monitoring framework the risk of renewed violence and further breakdown in relations looms large.
