By S.M. Inam
The recent round of additional secretary-level talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, held against the backdrop of Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s visit to Kabul earlier this year, signals a tentative but meaningful effort to navigate one of South Asia’s most complex bilateral relationships. At once fraught with historic mistrust and shaped by shifting geopolitical currents, this dialogue encapsulates the cautious pragmatism both sides now embrace amid enduring uncertainties. The presence of senior officials—Syed Ali Asad Gillani for Pakistan and Mufti Noor Ahmad Noor for Afghanistan—underscored the seriousness with which both governments approached the meeting. The agenda was a reflection of longstanding, often thorny issues: counterterrorism cooperation, trade facilitation, migration management, and the promise of regional connectivity.
These talks, while limited in scope, represent a diplomatic overture towards recalibrating ties that have too often been transactional, reactive, and vulnerable to abrupt ruptures. Central to the discussion was the persistent challenge of terrorism. The Pakistani delegation’s pointed insistence on actionable measures against militant groups operating on Afghan soil was a stark reminder of the security concerns that have long defined Islamabad’s approach to Kabul. For Pakistan, these groups are not merely distant actors but existential threats that undermine internal stability and complicate regional peace efforts. The bluntness of Islamabad’s demands speaks to a frustration born of years of perceived inaction or, at best, ambivalence from the Afghan side. This issue remains the fulcrum on which bilateral trust pivots; without credible and sustained progress here, other areas of cooperation risk collapse.
Yet, the talks did not linger solely on security. Recognizing the economic fragility that shadows the region, the dialogue placed significant emphasis on trade and transit. Both sides expressed the importance of transparent, predictable cross-border commerce, with particular reference to implementing a track-and-trace system designed to enhance accountability and reduce friction. In a region where trade corridors are often disrupted by politics and conflict, this is no small commitment. It reflects an understanding that economic interdependence can be a stabilizing force, offering tangible benefits that might temper broader geopolitical tensions. The economic discussions also touched on the much-anticipated Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan railway corridor, a project heralded as a game-changer for regional connectivity and integration.
In a landscape where infrastructure projects have become pawns in larger geopolitical rivalries, this corridor stands out as a rare initiative with genuine promise for shared prosperity. Both delegations pledged to finalize a framework agreement to operationalize the railway, but such declarations, while encouraging, must be viewed with measured optimism. History reminds us that ambitious regional projects in South Asia often stumble against the realities of shifting political will and security dilemmas. Migration and humanitarian concerns further complicated the discussions. Pakistan’s disclosure of issuing over 500,000 visas to Afghan nationals since January 2024 highlighted Islamabad’s efforts to manage migration through legal channels. However, the ongoing presence of undocumented Afghan refugees and debates around forced repatriations remain contentious.
These issues evoke deep sensitivities on both sides, entwined with human rights considerations, economic pressures, and political narratives. Diplomacy alone cannot unravel the complex social fabric that migration weaves, but the talks reflect a willingness to at least confront these challenges openly. Beneath the immediate agenda, the talks also revealed the transactional core of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. Pakistan seeks security assurances and stability along its western border, while the Taliban administration seeks international recognition and economic opportunities. This dynamic is fraught with asymmetry and mutual suspicion, yet both parties understand that dialogue offers a better alternative to confrontation or disengagement. However, the fragility of trust, amplified by regional realignments and the rising influence of non-state actors, tempers expectations for swift or sweeping breakthroughs.
The broader regional context cannot be ignored. The evolving geopolitical landscape—marked by shifting alliances, the recalibration of US policy, and competing interests from powers like China, Russia, and Iran—casts a long shadow over these bilateral efforts. Pakistan and Afghanistan find themselves at the nexus of these external forces, with their internal dynamics inseparable from wider regional strategies. Against this backdrop, sustained diplomatic engagement is essential but insufficient by itself. It must be buttressed by consistent political will, practical confidence-building measures, and a commitment to addressing root causes of instability. These talks, while modest in immediate outcomes, represent a necessary platform for dialogue in a region too often defined by missed opportunities and escalating tensions.
The language of diplomacy—careful, calibrated, and sometimes cautious—may not inspire headlines, but it provides a framework within which grievances can be aired and incremental progress can be pursued. Yet, the true test lies beyond the conference rooms. Implementation, follow-through, and the ability to translate words into meaningful action will determine whether this engagement becomes a foundation for sustained cooperation or another chapter in a cycle of tentative rapprochements followed by renewed conflict. Ultimately, Pakistan-Afghanistan relations remain a barometer for wider regional stability. The cautious cooperation signaled by this round of talks is a welcome development, but it must not breed complacency. Both sides, alongside the international community, have a stake in nurturing this fragile progress and steering the relationship away from zero-sum dynamics towards mutual benefit. The coming months will be telling—not just for what is said in diplomatic dialogue, but for what is done in the shadow of those words.
(The writer is a former government officer and a senior analyst on national and international affairs, can be reached at inam@metro-morning.com)
