By Pir Ghulam Nabi Shah Jillani
Pakistan’s warnings about the use of Afghan territory by militant groups are increasingly being heard beyond its immediate neighborhood. Islamabad has sought to draw international attention to what it describes as the growing use of Afghanistan as a base for attacks against Pakistan, alleging that hostile actors, including India and Israel, are exploiting the country’s instability and that anti-Pakistan militants operating from Afghan soil are receiving shelter and strategic support. These allegations demand serious international scrutiny because terrorism originating from Afghan territory is not simply a bilateral Pakistani-Afghan problem. If armed groups can train, organize and plan attacks across an international border, the consequences inevitably extend beyond Pakistan.
The danger is particularly acute in a region already burdened by political instability, weak institutions and competing geopolitical interests. Pakistan has paid a heavy price for militancy and continues to confront attacks against civilians and security personnel. Its armed forces have maintained operations against militant networks, while attacks linked to groups operating from or through Afghanistan have continued to raise security concerns. The human cost is borne not in diplomatic statements but by families losing relatives, communities living under fear and a country repeatedly forced to divert resources towards countering violence.
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi reiterated Pakistan’s concerns during a meeting with Norway’s foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide. The two sides discussed cooperation on counter-terrorism, preventing illegal immigration, police training and mutual legal assistance, while the situation in Afghanistan and the activities of proscribed organizations operating there were also examined. Naqvi’s central message was blunt: Afghan territory, he said, continues to be used for terrorism in Pakistan. He argued that Pakistan has effectively become a barrier between the wider world and terrorism and called for collective international action to eliminate the threat. The point deserves wider consideration.
Pakistan cannot be expected to contain a cross-border militant threat indefinitely through military means alone. If militant groups retain safe havens, training infrastructure and logistical networks beyond Pakistan’s borders, every security operation will treat the symptoms without eliminating the underlying problem. Afghanistan’s authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their territory is not used to launch attacks against neighboring states. This is not an unreasonable demand, nor is it dependent on accepting every allegation made by Islamabad. The international community should independently assess evidence of militant activity, press for transparency and insist that Afghan territory not become a sanctuary for organizations engaged in cross-border violence.
At the same time, allegations of Indian or Israeli involvement should be subjected to the same standard of evidence. Geopolitical tensions are too high for unverified claims to become substitutes for facts. Pakistan will strengthen its international case by presenting verifiable intelligence and evidence through diplomatic and multilateral channels, allowing international institutions to assess the claims independently. The United Nations and other countries have an important role to play here. Counter-terrorism cannot succeed when governments treat militant groups as useful instruments of regional policy. The distinction between a terrorist organization and a strategically convenient proxy may serve short-term political calculations, but it ultimately creates insecurity that crosses borders and becomes harder to contain.
Norway’s willingness to deepen cooperation with Pakistan on counter-terrorism, policing and legal assistance points towards the sort of international engagement that can make a difference. Terrorist financing, recruitment, weapons trafficking, illegal migration and cross-border networks cannot be tackled effectively by one country acting alone. Intelligence-sharing and legal cooperation are as important as military operations. Pakistan’s own security response will also require more than battlefield success. Military operations can disrupt militant networks, but lasting security depends on effective policing, intelligence coordination, border management, judicial capacity and political engagement.
The objective should be to ensure that no armed group can operate with impunity, whether it is based inside Pakistan or across the border. Afghanistan, meanwhile, cannot afford to become a permanent theatre for competing foreign agendas. After decades of war, its people need stability and economic opportunity rather than another cycle in which Afghan soil becomes a battleground for regional rivalries. Turning the country into a launchpad for attacks against neighbors would only deepen its isolation and prolong the insecurity that has already devastated generations. Pakistan’s message should therefore be framed not simply as a demand for Afghan action but as a wider call for collective responsibility.
The international community has repeatedly stated that terrorism must have no safe haven. That principle must apply consistently, regardless of which group is involved or which geopolitical interests it may serve. The real test of international solidarity will be whether those declarations translate into action. If Afghanistan is being used to organize attacks on Pakistan, the evidence should be investigated, the networks dismantled and those responsible held accountable. Pakistan’s security concerns cannot be dismissed as regional rhetoric, just as its allegations should not be accepted without scrutiny. What is required is something more demanding but ultimately more useful: evidence, cooperation and a shared determination to ensure that Afghan territory is never again allowed to become a platform for terrorism.
(The writer is a senior retired government health official and served in the Public Sector on various positions with large administrative and clinical experience. He has keen interest in national, international affairs, and geopolitics. He can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
