‘First step in right direction’: Political figures, other nations welcome Pakistan-Afghanistan ceasefire pact Azad News HD
The recent breakthrough between Pakistan and Afghanistan marks a significant turning point in regional diplomacy, heralding a pause in a long‑standing cycle of tension and conflict along their shared border. After days of heightened hostilities, the two neighbouring countries brought their senior delegations together in the Qatari capital of Doha. The central aim: to negotiate a lasting cessation of cross‑border violence, restore mutual respect for sovereignty, and set in motion mechanisms for durable peace.
A high‑level Pakistani delegation, led by Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, travelled to Doha to engage in direct negotiations with officials representing the Afghan side. The Afghan delegation was headed by Defence Minister Mullah Muhammad Yaqoob, who represented the government in Kabul. Their meeting represented, in many respects, the culmination of escalating urgency: recent clashes along the roughly 2,600‑kilometre frontier had grown deadlier, trade and refugee flows were disrupted, and the broader regional implications of instability were rapidly becoming acute.
In the course of the Doha negotiations, the two sides agreed — under the mediation of Qatar and Turkey — to an immediate ceasefire. They pledged to respect one another’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, to refrain from supporting or harbouring groups that launch attacks on the other side, and to adopt a constructive approach toward managing their border region in a maner that diminishes the prospects of renewed violence.
Beyond the ceasefire itself, the agreement included a commitment to the establishment of mechanisms designed to ensure the sustainability of peace. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to follow‑up talks, verification processes, and other consultative frameworks aimed at translating the ceasefire from a temporary arrangement into a more permanent condition. Specifically, they set a date for the next round of discussions in Istanbul on October 25.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar of Pakistan welcomed the agreement, describing it as “the first step in the right direction.” He emphasised that the institutionalisation of a concrete and verifiable monitoring mechanism would be key to preventing further loss of life and creating real stability.
In this narrative, it is vital to frame both the why and the how of this ceasefire, as well as to reflect on its broader implications: for the border region, for bilateral relations, for regional dynamics, and for the hope of sustainable peace in South‑Asia. What follows is an integrated treatment of these elements, providing context, exploring the path to agreement, examining what this means for both countries and the region, and offering some thoughts on what lies ahead.
Context: Why the Tensions Escalated
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is one of the longest and most sensitive in the region, marked by geography, history and politics. Known colloquially (and controversially) as the Durand Line, it stretches some 2,600 km and crosses rugged terrain, tribal communities, and porous boundaries. From the outset, the border has been a source of dispute, with successive Afghan governments refusing formal recognition, and Pakistan insisting on its need for a secure frontier.
In recent years, the security calculus in Pakistan has been severely challenged by militant groups operating along and across that border region. Pakistan has repeatedly alleged that armed groups — including the Tehrik‑i‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other allied factions — have found safe havens inside Afghanistan, enabling them to strike inside Pakistani territory. The Pakistani security establishment has described such cross‑border attacks as intolerable. Meanwhile, the Afghan side, which in recent years has been governed by the Afghan Taliban regime, has often rejected the characterization of hosting such groups, and expressed strong concern about violations of Afghan sovereignty by Pakistani strikes.
In the lead‑up to the Doha talks, there were a series of confrontations: escalating cross‑border fire, Pakistani military strikes inside Afghanistan (which Afghanistan decried as violations of its territory), civilian casualties, and disruption of border trade and refugee flows. This escalation prompted grave concern — not only for the two countries directly involved but for the region at large, as instability on that frontier tends to affect neighbouring states, humanitarian flows, and trade logistics.
Faced with this mounting crisis, Pakistan declared that its tolerance for militant attacks emanating from Afghan soil was exhausted, warning that it would take “all possible measures” to protect its territory. In response, Afghan officials insisted that Pakistan must respect Afghan sovereignty and avoid unilateral cross‑border action. The diplomatic impasse grew urgent and the risk of a broader conflict loomed. Against this backdrop, the Doha talks emerged as a key moment: whether the two sides could step back from the brink and agree to manage their conflict through dialogue rather than force.
The Doha Negotiations: Process and Outcome
The negotiation process itself was intensive and driven by urgency. According to Pakistan’s foreign ministry, the Pakistani delegation, led by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, arrived in Doha for talks on October 18. The Afghan side, led by Defence Minister Mullah Yaqoob, joined the discussions concurrently. Both delegations were accompanied by senior security and intelligence officials.
The talks took place under the mediation of Doha (Qatar) and the Republic of Türkiye (Turkey). They lasted approximately 13 hours, during which both sides negotiated not only the immediate ceasefire but also the framework for future cooperation, verification and mechanisms of monitoring.
At the conclusion of the talks, a formal statement by Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed to:
-
an immediate cessation of hostilities,
-
the establishment of mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability,
-
and follow‑up meetings in the coming days to ensure the sustainability of the agreement and the verification of its implementation.
On the Pakistani side, Minister Asif stated publicly that terrorism emanating from Afghanistan towards Pakistan would stop immediately, and that both countries would respect each other’s sovereignty. He also confirmed that the next meeting of the delegations would be held in Istanbul on October 25.
On the Afghan side, spokespersons acknowledged the agreement and highlighted that the ceasefire marked a positive step toward ending a period of intense hostilities. While they emphasised the need for Pakistan to respect Afghan territory, they also welcomed the dialogue track.
Thus, the outcome was more than a mere cessation of fire: it was a principled recognition of two things — one, that the frontier dispute must be managed through negotiation; and two, that unilateral action by either side is no longer an acceptable long‑term model.
What Makes This Ceasefire a Different Kind of Agreement
Why does this recent ceasefire stand apart from previous understandings between Islamabad and Kabul (or between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban regime)? Several factors distinguish it:
-
High‑level delegation and comprehensive agenda: Both sides sent senior political and defence representatives, and the agenda went beyond immediate cessation of fire — it included mechanisms, verification, respect for sovereignty, and future meetings. Many previous accords had been narrower in scope or more tactical.
-
Third‑party mediation by Qatar and Turkey: The fact that neutral (or at least non‑directly involved) external actors mediated the talks adds weight and potential for independent monitoring or facilitation of compliance.
-
A clear timeline and follow‑up structure: The setting of a date (October 25 in Istanbul) for the next meeting signals that the parties view this as a process rather than a one‑off. This helps shift the mindset from “truce” to “treaty in the making”.
-
Explicit reference to sovereignty and verification: The agreement places emphasis on both sides respecting each other’s territory and on verifying compliance, both vital to durable peace.
-
Mutual recognition of overlapping security concerns: While Pakistan emphasised cross‑border attacks and militant sanctuaries, Afghanistan emphasised sovereignty and the prohibition of foreign strikes. By referencing both dimensions, the agreement has a more balanced character than many prior efforts.
Potential Benefits and Positive Outcomes
If this agreement is implemented in good faith, the benefits could be substantial — for both countries individually, their border communities, and the region more broadly.
For Pakistan
-
The immediate reduction of cross‑border attacks could ease pressure on Pakistan’s security forces, reduce casualties, and allow redeployment of resources toward development and domestic priorities.
-
Stabilisation of the border region could resuscitate trade routes (such as the Chaman and Torkham crossings), which have been closed or disrupted. The reopening would benefit border economies, traders, and ordinary citizens.
-
A successful structure of monitoring and verification could also signal Pakistan’s commitment to diplomacy and regional stability, improving its international standing.
For Afghanistan
-
The ceasefire removes immediate military pressure and the risk of large‑scale Pakistani strikes, which have provoked domestic backlash and raised concerns of sovereignty violations.
-
The reduction in hostilities could provide the Afghan regime with breathing space to focus on internal governance, reconstruction, and normalisation of foreign‑relations.
-
The agreement signals that Kabul is willing to engage diplomatically and could open avenues for broader engagement with regional partners, donors, and neighbours.
For Border Communities
-
For thousands of people living in border‑districts on both sides, the persistent cycle of raids, shelling, refugee flows and trade disruptions has long been a grim reality. A functioning ceasefire could bring relief: less fear of violence, reopening of commerce, restoration of livelihoods, and fewer internal displacements.
-
Refugees and Afghan nationals living in Pakistan (and vice versa) may see improved conditions, fewer forced repatriations, or less punitive measures arising from security crackdowns.
-
Border markets, cross‑border kinship ties, and commerce that have been impacted could gradually recover.
For the Region
-
Stability along the Pakistan–Afghanistan frontier will benefit regional trade corridors, infrastructure projects (including any Pakistan–Afghanistan–Central‑Asia links) and reduce the risk of militant groups exploiting the chaos to rebuild.
-
It also sends a signal to other neighbouring states that diplomatic conflict‑management is possible even in highly fraught contexts.
-
Moreover, it potentially improves the climate for international actors (donors, multilateral organisations) that seek to support Afghanistan’s reconstruction and regional connectivity.
Risks, Challenges and What Might Undermine the Agreement
While the prospects are encouraging, the path ahead is fraught with risks and uncertainties. Ceasefires often falter when one side perceives non‑compliance, or when external pressures (militants, spoilers) disrupt the fragile equilibrium. Key potential challenges include:
-
Verification and monitoring
-
A monitoring mechanism is only as effective as the trust, resources and transparency behind it. If either side doubts the mechanism’s independence or fails to grant access, the framework may quickly lose credibility.
-
External meditors (Qatar, Turkey) may play a role, but long‑term institutionalisation requires local buy‑in, technical capacity, and sustained political commitment.
-
-
Spoiler groups and militant networks
-
One of the central pledges was that militants operating from Afghan territory should not attack Pakistan. However, past disagreements have arisen when groups beyond Kabul’s full control continued cross‑border operations.
-
If militant attacks resume, Pakistan may retaliate, potentially undoing the ceasefire. The triangular dynamic among the Afghan regime, Pakistani state, and non‑state actors (militants) remains complex.
-
-
Unilateral strikes and sovereignty issues
-
Pakistan has previously carried out strikes inside Afghanistan, citing self‑defence. Afghanistan, however, views such incursions as violations of its sovereignty. Unless there is clarity on how to manage that tension, the risk of unilateral action remains.
-
The agreement’s reference to respecting sovereignty is significant, but the practical implementation requires careful mechanisms to respond to violations, investigations, reparations, etc.
-
-
Economic and logistical realities of the border
-
Reopening trade routes and restoring commerce will require not only political will but infrastructure, border‑management reforms, customs cooperation and trust between local officials. If traders remain disadvantaged, the economic incentive for peace may weaken.
-
-
Political will and leadership transitions
-
Leadership changes, shifts in policy priorities, or domestic political turmoil can undermine commitments. Both Islamabad and Kabul must maintain momentum and resist domestic pressures that favour military solutions.
-
For example, if domestic constituencies in Pakistan demand tougher action, or Afghan hard‑liners oppose concessions, the agreement could be tested.
-
-
Broader regional geopolitics
-
The border conflict is intertwined with broader regional dynamics — potential Indian engagement with Afghanistan, Chinese interests, Central‑Asian transit corridors, and the influence of other state and non‑state actors. External interference or competing agendas may complicate implementation.
-
Conversely, positive regional involvement (economic investment, connectivity initiatives) could enhance the chances of success.
-
What Lies Ahead: The Road to Istanbul and Beyond
With the Doha accord now signed, the spotlight turns toward the next phase in Istanbul on October 25 and beyond. That meeting will be pivotal in converting the ceasefire into operational reality. Key issues likely to dominate the agenda include:
-
The design and launch of the monitoring and verification mechanism: Who will lead it? What will its mandate be? How will it be funded and staffed? What happens if one side alleges a violation?
-
Border‑security management and delineation of responsibilities: This may involve establishing joint patrols, exchange of intelligence, de‑escalation protocols, border‑crossing reforms, and coordination among security and customs agencies.
-
Addressing the militant threat: Detailed discussions will focus on how Afghan territory can be prevented from being used for attacks on Pakistan, and how Pakistan can refrain from unilateral military strikes. This may require Afghan commitments to dismantle safe‑havens and Pakistan assurances of respecting Afghan territory.
-
Economic, trade and humanitarian dimensions: Restoring the flow of goods, reopening crossings, managing refugee and migrant flows, rebuilding trust among local border populations, and promoting economic integration.
-
Confidence‑building measures: Beyond formal security steps, trust‑building initiatives — such as cross‑border infrastructure, people‑to‑people exchanges, cultural/humanitarian cooperation — may help cement the peace dividend.
For this process to succeed, several adaptive strategies will help:
-
Transparent communication with publics in both countries about the purpose and terms of the agreement — so that local populations understand the benefits and reduce suspicion.
-
Inclusion of local stakeholders (border communities, traders, refugees, local administrations) in implementation processes so they have a stake in the peace.
-
A flexible response system: In the event of violations or incidents, the mechanism should allow for swift investigation, de‑escalation, and remediation rather than immediate retaliation.
-
Encouragement of regional partners and international organisations to support the process — through capacity‑building of border‑agencies, financial backing for economic reintegration, and third‑party observation of the verification mechanism.
If these elements are handled well, the Istanbul meeting may serve as a launchpad for a new era of cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Broader Implications for the Region
The Pakistan–Afghanistan frontier is not an isolated issue; it is a nexus point for broader regional dynamics. The successful negotiation of this ceasefire may produce ripple‑effects beyond the bilateral table.
First, it may strengthen regional connectivity. Afghanistan has long aspired to be a transit hub between South Asia, Central Asia and beyond. A more stable border with Pakistan could open up trade, transport corridors, energy pipelines and cross‑border investment. For Pakistan, improved relations with Kabul support its vision of connectivity (including CPEC‑related linkages) and economic outreach toward Central Asia.
Second, it may enable a shift in security paradigms. The border region has often been treated primarily as a military problem — insurgents, strikes, fences, displacement. This agreement suggests a move toward diplomatic, institutional and economic frameworks of managing the frontier. That shift could be emulated elsewhere.
Third, it may re‑shape perceptions of Afghanistan’s external relations. Since the 2021 return of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan has been isolated in many international forums. A willingness to engage diplomatically with Pakistan, sign ceasefire accords and participate in monitoring mechanisms may help normalise its external posture, encourage regional investment, and reduce its role as a sanctuary for militant networks.
Fourth, the role of brokers (Qatar and Turkey in this case) may signal a broader trend where smaller but strategically placed states foster regional dialogue. Such mediation may become more common in South Asia, which has long lacked strong institutionalised conflict‑resolution frameworks.
Finally, a durable peace on this frontier may help relieve some of the humanitarian burdens: fewer internally displaced persons, better cross‑border refugee management, restoration of trade and livelihoods, and decreased threat of militant resurgence along the corridor.
A Word of Caution: This is a Beginning, Not a Conclusion
While optimism is warranted, it is important to recognise that this agreement is a first step, not an end point. The language used by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister — “first step in the right direction” — is apt, signalling both hope and awareness of the long haul ahead.
The true test of success will be whether the parties can sustain the ceasefire, build the agreed mechanisms, and create the conditions under which peace becomes self‑sustaining. In conflict zones, the durability of peace matters as much as the signing of accords. Without consistent follow‑up, ceasefires can unravel under pressure.
It bears emphasising that peace is not simply the absence of bombs and bullets. It requires the presence of stability, economic opportunity, governance, trust and the systematic management of underlying grievances. For Pakistan and Afghanistan, the underlying grievances include questions of sovereignty, militant networks, border management, refugee flows, and economic neglect of frontier regions.
So success will depend on the ability of both states to move from crisis management to relationship building — from confrontation to cooperation. If they manage to do so, this ceasefire may mark the beginning of a more stable era; if they fall short, it may become another short‑lived pause in a longer saga of tension.
Conclusion
To summarise, the ceasefire agreement signed in Doha between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a significant diplomatic achievement. It comes at a time of acute risk and escalation, offering a path toward reduced violence, better cooperation, and enhanced regional stability. The fact that it was achieved through high‑level talks, with external mediation, and with clear commitments to follow‑up mechanisms, provides hope that this will not merely be a temporary lull but the start of something more enduring.
However, the real work lies ahead. Implementation, verification, border‑management, economic revival and trust‑building will determine whether the agreement blossoms or withers. For the people of the border districts, for the traders, for the refugees, for both states and for the region, the promise of peace is real — but only if it is matched by consistent action.
