Just a pause, not peace: The Pak–Afghan calm will slip again

A fragile calm has returned along the Pakistan–Afghanistan border, but it feels less like peace and more like exhaustion. After weeks of artillery fire, airstrikes, and drone attacks causing rising civilian deaths, both sides have stepped back; just enough to catch their breath. But even as the guns fall silent for now, distrust has not.

Last month’s strike on what was a drug rehabilitation facility in Kabul according to the Afghan regime, has hardened anger on both sides. Though Pakistan denies it, incidents where civilians are threatened deepen wounds, shape public opinion and close space for dialogue.

The core problem is simple: Pakistan is trying to manage the situation mainly through security, while Afghanistan is responding with denial and claims of sovereignty. Without trust and real cooperation on counterterrorism, this pause will not last.

When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, there was cautious hope in Islamabad. Many believed that a friendly government in Kabul would help contain the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). But that hope has not been realized. Attacks inside Pakistan have increased. The Durand Line is again a flashpoint. Trade has slowed, and both sides now speak more in blame than in cooperation. In just the past two years (2024–2026), there have been at least four major flare-ups, showing a clear pattern: fight, pause, and then fight again.

At the heart of this crisis is a clear contradiction. Pakistan wants engagement with Kabul but relies more on pressure and force. Afghanistan demands respect for its sovereignty but does not fully act against groups that threaten Pakistan, while also damaging border fences and preparing for further clashes.

There is also a serious miscalculation. Pakistan believed that shared history and ties would push the Taliban to control the TTP. But the link between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP is not just strategic; it is deeper, shaped by years of shared struggle and networks. Kabul either cannot or will not act decisively. Pakistan then turns to force, which in turn, strengthens Afghan anger and hardens positions.

The cost of this approach is not only security; it is also economic. Since late 2025, border closures have hurt both countries badly. Pakistan closed eight major crossings in October 2025, stopping most trade and transit. Exports have dropped, especially affecting border regions, while in Afghanistan prices have risen, jobs have been lost, and an already weak economy has come under more pressure. Instead of connecting to Central Asia, this region is closing in on itself. Economic ties that could reduce tension have been sacrificed for short-term pressure.

At the same time, abrupt deportation of Afghan refugees has added to the mistrust and created ill will at the public level. Such steps may serve immediate policy goals, but they weaken long-term relationships and deepen resentment.

The recent meeting between Pakistan and Afghanistan facilitated by China is a welcome step. But the current calm should not be mistaken for real progress.

Dr. Syed Kaleem Imam

Supporters of a hard-line policy argue that Pakistan has no choice. Faced with rising attacks and cross-border threats, the state must act to protect its people. This is understandable, but it is no longer convincing. The last two years show that a security-only approach is not solving the problem; it is locking both countries into a cycle of action and reaction.

More importantly, trust has been lost on both sides, lost to shortsightedness and the search for quick outcomes. Each side wants immediate results, but in doing so, they are damaging the very relationship that could bring long-term stability. This space of mistrust is also being exploited by hostile actors who benefit from continued tension.

What is needed now is not more pressure, but a shift in thinking. First, there must be a better balance. Security is important, but it cannot replace political engagement. Pakistan and Afghanistan need regular, structured dialogue that continues even during tensions and not only when crises erupt.

Second, there must be real cooperation on counterterrorism. This means moving beyond denial and blame. Whether through direct coordination or third-party support, both sides need credible systems for intelligence sharing and joint action.

Third, confidence-building measures are essential. Small, practical steps such as easing border movement, coordinated patrols, and humanitarian cooperation can reduce rigidities and help close the gaps that are currently being exploited.

Fourth, economic links must reopen. Trade routes, border markets, and transit agreements should not be used as pressure tools, they are stabilizers, and the securitization of the economy must be reversed. Pakistan should also rebuild the earlier economic and social ties with Afghan society in health, education, and trade, to strengthen long-term influence and trust.

The recent meeting between Pakistan and Afghanistan, facilitated by China in Urumqi, is a welcome step, but the current calm should not be mistaken for real progress. If both sides continue on the same path, tensions will only deepen. This relationship cannot be managed by force alone; it is shaped by history, geography, and the lives of people on both sides of the border. Lasting stability will require trust, engagement, and practical cooperation. Trying to control it through pressure alone is like holding water in a clenched fist; it will eventually slip away.

This is a pause, not peace. And unless both sides face reality and change course, the next escalation is not a question of if but when.

-The writer PhD, is former federal secretary/IGP/UN Police Commissioner-teaching Law and Philosophy at Universities. He tweets@Kaleemimam. Email:[email protected]: fb@syedkaleemimam.