Pakistan–Afghanistan ceasefire: A chance for real peace

The recently concluded ceasefire agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan represents a crucial, albeit fragile, turning point in a tense relationship defined by mistrust, security challenges, and a long, porous border. Brokered in Doha with mediation by Qatar and Türkiye, the temporary truce brings an end – at least for now – to several days of deadly cross-border clashes that left casualties on both sides. It offers a much-needed opportunity to stabilize a situation that had the potential to spiral into prolonged conflict, with serious implications for regional peace and economic connectivity. But whether this ceasefire becomes a foundation for lasting peace or simply a pause before renewed hostilities depends entirely on how both countries act in the coming weeks.
This is not the first time that Islamabad and Kabul have faced military escalation followed by de-escalation. But the current context is particularly sensitive. Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, Pakistan has witnessed a significant increase in terrorist attacks emanating from Afghan soil, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Groups like Fitnaul Khawarij and the banned (TTP) have exploited the 2,500-kilometer-long porous border to target Pakistani security forces and civilians alike. The latest hostilities were triggered by unprovoked attacks initiated from the Afghan side, prompting Pakistan to respond with targeted strikes that reportedly eliminated more than 200 militants and dismantled several terrorist camps.
The Doha ceasefire agreement, finalized after diplomatic engagement between Pakistan’s delegation led by Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and the Afghan side represented by Acting Defence Minister Mullah Yaqoob, is therefore not just a diplomatic gesture – it is a test of political will. Former Ambassador Manzoor ul Haq rightly called it a “constructive and positive step” that could lay the foundation for a verifiable mechanism to monitor terrorist activities. But as several experts have noted, the real responsibility now lies with the Taliban regime to ensure that Afghan soil is not used to launch cross-border attacks against Pakistan.
Adnan Sarwar Khan, a seasoned foreign policy expert, welcomed the truce as a step towards easing security tensions but emphasized that it must be followed by decisive action against TTP and its affiliates. He rightly pointed out that Pakistan has shown both military resolve and diplomatic flexibility – responding to attacks with force while remaining open to dialogue. This dual-track approach has given Islamabad leverage, but its sustainability will depend on Kabul’s sincerity in countering terrorism.
Pakistan’s concerns are not unfounded. The Taliban regime has repeatedly pledged – including under the Doha Peace Agreement – not to allow Afghan soil to be used against any country. Yet, the persistence of TTP safe havens and training camps suggests either unwillingness or inability on the Taliban’s part to enforce this commitment. Brigadier (Retd) Mahmood Shah, a respected security analyst, has highlighted this contradiction, accusing the Taliban of providing space to terrorist groups in violation of international agreements. He also pointed to the alleged role of India in fueling instability by attempting to drive a wedge between the two neighbors – an agenda, he argued, undermined by this latest ceasefire.
The geopolitical backdrop cannot be ignored. The border shared by Pakistan and Afghanistan is not just a security flashpoint; it is also a vital corridor for trade, people-to-people contact, and regional connectivity. Any prolonged conflict along this frontier would damage not only bilateral relations but also broader economic initiatives, including transit trade and energy corridor projects linking Central Asia to South Asia. Professor Dr Zahid Anwar aptly underscored the impact of the $7.2 billion worth of U.S. military equipment left behind in Afghanistan – much of which has found its way into the hands of militants. Disarming these groups and restoring state control over heavy weaponry is essential to prevent the recurrence of violence.
Another critical dimension is the humanitarian cost. Cross-border clashes have displaced communities, disrupted trade routes, and deepened mistrust between ordinary people on both sides of the border who share centuries-old cultural and tribal bonds. A ceasefire, therefore, is not merely a military decision but a humanitarian necessity. Preventing further bloodshed requires trust-building, coordinated border management, and joint counter-terrorism measures.
Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s strong message during the passing-out parade at the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul – calling on the Afghan people to “choose peace over violence” and warning that “every state proxy of our neighbour will be raised to dust” – reflects Islamabad’s firm stance. Pakistan is no longer willing to tolerate terrorism from across the border, and this message has resonated both domestically and internationally.
However, firmness must be matched with diplomatic clarity. A follow-up meeting scheduled for October 25 in Istanbul offers an opportunity to translate this fragile truce into a structured security framework. Pakistan must press for verifiable commitments, intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and joint monitoring arrangements. At the same time, it should continue engaging with key international stakeholders – particularly Qatar, Türkiye, China, and the U.S. – to ensure sustained pressure on the Taliban to comply with its obligations.
The international community, too, has a role to play. The failure to enforce the Doha Accord and other commitments has created space for terrorist groups to thrive. If the ceasefire collapses, the consequences will not be limited to Pakistan and Afghanistan; they will reverberate across the region, threatening broader stability and economic projects like CASA-1000, TAPI, and CPEC connectivity to Central Asia.
Experts are correct to describe the truce as a welcome development, but it must be understood for what it is – a beginning, not a solution. Lasting peace will require consistent diplomacy, robust security cooperation, and a clear message to all non-state actors: terrorism will not be tolerated. For Kabul, this is a moment of truth. If the Taliban regime wants international legitimacy and regional stability, it must act decisively against TTP and similar groups.
For Islamabad, the strategy must combine strength with strategic patience. Pakistan has paid a heavy price in blood and treasure in its fight against terrorism. It cannot and should not allow its hard-won security gains to be undermined again. But peace – if built on credible guarantees and sustained engagement – remains the better path.
The Pakistan-Afghanistan ceasefire offers a narrow window of opportunity. Whether it becomes a turning point or a temporary pause depends on the resolve, maturity, and political will shown by both sides. This is the time to choose lasting stability over endless cycles of violence.