ISTANBUL (Turkey): On the third day of high-level security negotiations in Istanbul, the delegation from the Tehreek‑e‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) base country presented a draft proposal to their Pakistani counterparts after more than 15 hours of talks.
The Afghan side’s document demanded that Pakistan respect Afghanistan’s airspace and land borders and stop allowing opposition groups to use its territory for hostile operations targeting Afghanistan.
Sources close to the Taliban delegation said both sides have now “agreed on most issues” and expect a joint communiqué to follow — though none of the details have yet been released.
Meanwhile, officials in Islamabad say they remain skeptical. Pakistani security officers say the Afghan side lacks a full decision-making mandate and continues to demand “verifiable” steps against militant groups such as the TTP that they say operate from Afghan soil.
Also in play: mediators from Turkey and Qatar who are pushing to bridge the gap with some optimism for a “positive outcome,” despite unresolved challenges. However, the Taliban’s refusal to commit in writing to curbing TTP activities has deepened mistrust.
Pakistani sources say progress hinges on the Taliban’s “positive attitude,” and they cite external influences — including alleged Indian support for the Taliban — as complicating factors.
The talks follow a cease-fire agreement signed in Doha on Oct. 19, after a deadly flare-up along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. During the Istanbul talks, Pakistan is said to have already submitted a counter-text, while the Afghan team brought forward their draft in turn.
But the timing of fresh border clashes casts a long shadow. Pakistan’s military reported that 25 militants were killed while repelling infiltration attempts in Kurram and North Waziristan — conduct that Islamabad says undermines the spirit of the cease-fire and raises questions about Kabul’s willingness or capacity to control militant movement.
On the Afghan side, the delegation includes senior security and intelligence figures such as Deputy Interior Minister Mawlawi Rahmatullah Najeeb, Anas Haqqani, and Suhail Shaheen, yet it notably lacks top-level political leadership — a fact Pakistan believes limits what the Afghan team can commit to.
On Pakistan’s side, the team is drawn from the intelligence and military world, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Directorate of Military Operations, and the absence of foreign-ministry-level negotiators underlines the technical, security-centric nature of the talks.
One key issue: the establishment of a four-party monitoring channel tasked with overseeing implementation of any cease-fire mechanism, evaluating violations, and sharing information — a major Pakistani demand.
Another: the reopening of closed border crossings that are key for trade and commerce between the two countries.
Although the two sides are in direct talks, the implications stretch across the region. A durable truce could stabilise one of South Asia’s most volatile border zones, ease refugee flows and reduce militant spill-over risks that affect Pakistan’s western front.
Yet the Afghan side’s insistence on sovereignty and the deep mistrust over Pakistan’s demands suggest that even if a communiqué is signed, it may lack depth. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, the truce may not hold — and Pakistan’s “open war” warning signals that Islamabad is prepared to act unilaterally if necessary.
Have you liked the news article?