No transit trade at Chaman, but repatriation continues Azad News HD

 

Introducing 

On Friday, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan remained firmly closed for all kinds of trade activities, as the governments of both countries grapple with mounting security concerns amid heightened tensions. The closure of this vital frontier — a gateway for commerce, transit and everyday interaction — has profound consequences not only for the two countries directly involved, but also for regional trade, economic stability, livelihoods in border communities, and the broader strategic framework of South Asia.

The current situation

The closure of the border is not a sudden isolated incident, but the result of escalating clashes and disagreements along the roughly 2,600-kilometre frontier that Pakistan shares with Afghanistan. One of the key triggers was a series of violent exchanges in early October 2025, when Pakistani forces accused Afghan side elements of attacks emanating from Afghan territory, and responded with military operations. Pakistan responded by closing its major border crossings — including the pivotal crossing at Torkham as well as the one at Chaman — to all traffic: commercial, transit and passenger movement. 

Officially, Islamabad has declared that until border security improves – in other words, until militant attacks that originate across the border are appropriately addressed – the transit trade will not resume. At a media briefing, Pakistan’s Foreign Office stated that “the safety of our citizens and soldiers is our priority… until we evaluate the security situation, trade will remain suspended.” On the Afghan side, the government in Kabul (under the leadership of the Taliban regime) states that it rejects the notion of being used as a base for militant attacks, while also lamenting the humanitarian and economic impact of the closure.

As of now, border crossings have been shut for many days, trade flows have halted, and trucks loaded with perishables and other goods lie stranded on both sides of the border. Analysts estimate that with each passing day, millions of dollars in commercial value are being lost. 

Why the trade matters

To understand the significance of the closure, one must appreciate how deeply intertwined the economies of Pakistan and Afghanistan are — especially in the border regions and in terms of transit trade, essential goods, and agriculture.

Afghanistan is a land-locked country that relies heavily on its neighbours — particularly Pakistan — for access to seaports, transit routes, and markets. Goods moving from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea often traverse Afghan territory and then pass into Pakistan, or vice versa. One report observes that trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan is worth roughly USD 2.3 billion annually, covering “fresh fruit, vegetables, minerals, medicine, wheat, rice, sugar, meat and dairy products”.  On the Pakistani side, much of the fresh produce market — especially in the north-western provinces and major cities — depends on supplies that cross the frontier from Afghanistan (for example apples, grapes, other fruits and vegetables). 

The border trade is also a lifeline for many small and medium traders, truck operators, logistics firms and dozens of allied businesses in the border regions. Many families depend on cross-border commerce either as exporters or importers — either sending goods across or receiving them. When trade flows, the benefits cascade: from farmers to wholesalers to retail markets to consumers. When trade stops, the ripple effects are immediate and wide.

The economic consequences

With the frontier shut, the economic costs are mounting rapidly.

Price inflation and supply disruptions

On the Pakistani side, one of the most visible indicators has been the dramatic surge in prices of fruits and vegetables. Tomatoes, a staple in Pakistani households, have reportedly jumped in price by more than 400 per cent — from moderate levels to around PKR 600 per kg (and in some districts reaching PKR 700). Apples, grapes and other fresh items — many of which originate or transit through Afghan territory — are in short supply, pushing up prices further. On the Afghan side, where the economy is fragile and heavily reliant on external supply lines, the closure threatens both access to essential goods (wheat, sugar, medicines) and the ability to export produce, leaving traders stranded and fruit and vegetable containers rotting. 

Losses to traders and stranded cargo

Traders report that many hundreds of containers of perishable goods are stuck at the border, unable to enter or exit. One Afghan chamber of commerce official said “we have around 500 containers of vegetables for export daily, all of which have spoiled.”  At one major crossing, officials say approximately 5,000 containers are stuck on both sides.  The result: lost income for exporters, spoilage costs, demurrage charges, wasted logistics, and disruption of the supply chain.

Impact on livelihoods and border communities

In the frontier regions — towns such as Torkham, Chaman and others that straddle or border the frontier — the closure has severe yet often overlooked consequences. Local markets see less trade, truck drivers are idle, cross-border labour flows are disrupted, and profits vanish. Families whose earnings depend on daily commerce or services tied to border traffic now face uncertainty. Meanwhile, many small traders who finance their merchandise on credit find themselves exposed.

Broader macro / national implications

For Pakistan, with its already troubled economy and high inflation, the supply disruption amplifies food inflation pressures, hurting low-income households the most. Moneycontrol recently noted that the food inflation rate, already above 25 per cent in Pakistan, is under further pressure because of the closure. For Afghanistan, whose economy is fragile, sanctions-hit and largely aid-dependent, loss of transit routes and inability to export even modest agricultural produce is another blow. The border closure risks not only trade revenues, but also employment, tax base, and humanitarian access in border provinces.

The security dimension

While the economic impact is enormous, the underlying reason for the closure is firmly rooted in security. Pakistan has long accused Afghan territory of being used as a sanctuary for militants who launch cross-border attacks into Pakistan. One of the groups cited is the Tehreek‑e‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Pakistan’s military and civilian authorities say that unless such militant activity is cut off, the border cannot be treated purely as a conduit of trade — it must also be a security frontier.

For example, in a Reuters dispatch, Pakistani military sources said “all entry points are closed since Saturday following unprovoked attacks by the Afghan Taliban forces.”The Afghan side in turn denies being a harbour for militants, asserting that they do not want conflict with Pakistan, and have urged dialogue. 

In this sense the border closure is a lever of diplomacy and pressure: Pakistan is making a strong statement that trade will not resume until there is a “verifiable and empirical mechanism” to ensure militant attacks do not emanate from Afghan territory. The Afghan side, faced with economic losses and diplomatic pressure, is guided by the Taliban-led government’s interest in domestic legitimacy, regional integration and controlling armed groups in its territory.

Political and diplomatic backdrop

The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has always been complex, layered with geopolitical, ethnic, historical and strategic dimensions. The frontier — often called the Durand Line — is disputed in terms of its status, and tribal populations migrate or trade both sides irrespective of official boundaries.  Post-2021, after the Taliban took control in Kabul, Islamabad has had to recalibrate its policy toward Kabul, from ally to uneasy partner to cautious guarantor of security. This makes any border incident or trade disruption more sensitive.

The October 2025 clashes are perhaps the worst in recent years: according to some sources, dozens of soldiers were killed on both sides in the exchanges preceding the closure. The border is not just a trade route; it is part of sovereign territory, tribal networks, militant pathways, refugee flows and strategic considerations (including Pakistan’s view of Afghan-based militant threats and Afghanistan’s view of sovereignty and foreign interference).

Diplomatically, Pakistan has been engaging with the Afghan side through talks — for example, meetings in Doha and scheduled rounds in Istanbul aimed at forging a cease-fire and a mechanism to keep militants off Pakistani soil. One official Pakistan statement emphasized that safe passage of goods will only resume when the commitments on militant attacks are fulfilled, noting that: "Stop these attacks and our relations can be back on track. We are not asking for the moon. We are asking [them] to uphold commitments." 

Who is suffering and how

The closure and its ripple effects affect multiple categories of stakeholders:

• Large and small traders: Both Pakistani and Afghan traders who rely on cross-border commerce are losing income. Perishables perish; costs go up; contracts are aborted.

• Truck drivers and logistics workers: Drivers are stranded, sometimes for days, at border check-points. Warehousing has to hold containers, adding cost. 

• Border communities: In towns straddling the frontier, people who serve cross-border business (hotels, food stalls, lodging, services for truckers) are hit. The human cost is acute.

• Consumers: Pakistani consumers face soaring grocery bills thanks to supply disruptions (tomatoes, apples, grapes, onions). Afghan consumers face shortages of imported goods, higher costs and reduced variety.

• Governments: Pakistan faces political fallout from inflation and supply shortages; Afghanistan faces reputational and economic losses.

• Regional transit and central Asian trade: Because some goods bound for Central Asia transit through this route, the disruption has knock-on effects beyond just the two countries. 

What would reopening require?

Given the severity of the closure and its consequences, what would it take to resume trade? Based on statements from Pakistan’s Foreign Office and other sources, the conditions are clear:

1. Security assurance: Pakistan demands that militant attacks from Afghan territory be halted, and a credible mechanism be established to monitor and enforce this. 

2. Diplomatic buy-in and mechanisms: Talks in Doha and Istanbul are intended to produce agreements covering cease-fire, monitoring, border post arrangements, and signalling mutual trust. Without such agreements the closure is unlikely to end.

3. Operational readiness and logistics: Once security is assured, the mechanics of reopening (clearing stranded goods, resuming customs, transit arrangements, paperwork, border staff, trucking corridors) must be implemented.

4. Confidence-building in trade corridors: Traders will need assurance of continuity, reliability and non-interference. If closures become recurrent, they will divert trade to other routes — which erodes the viability of the border trade entirely.

Pakistani officials have repeatedly said that until these conditions are met, they cannot allow the border trade to resume. As one official noted: “Till the evaluation of the security situation, the [Afghan] transit trade will remain closed.” 

Broader implications

The closure of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border for trade is not just a bilateral issue — it has wider regional and structural implications.

Regional economic integration

One of the visions for South and Central Asia is increased integration of transport, trade and transit corridors. Afghanistan plays a key hub role, linking Central Asian states, South Asia, and the Arabian Sea via Pakistan. Disruption of these routes undermines the very feasibility of regional trade architecture, reduces investor confidence, and forces trade to use costlier or longer alternative routes.

Food security and household welfare

In Pakistan, large parts of the population are under significant food-price pressure already. The border disruption exacerbates food security risks. When staple vegetables surge five- or six-fold in price, that imposes real hardship on households, especially the poor and vulnerable. In Afghanistan, where many households depend on imports and transit trade for their daily needs, the closure adds to humanitarian concerns.

Strategic and security narrative

The border closure brings the security narrative front-row: Pakistan’s insistence that peace along the frontier is inseparable from trade. It reflects the shift from thinking of borders purely as commercial gateways, to treating them as national security front-lines. This will likely shape future border-policy: strict controls, tighter checks, more surveillance, and possibly more frequent closures if tensions flare.

Humanitarian and development setbacks

Border communities and logistics are part of development ecosystems; closures cause immediate economic pain and can push communities back into poverty. The longer the disruption, the greater the chance that border trade becomes permanently diverted, undermining livelihoods and infrastructure investments.

Political legitimacy and domestic politics

For Pakistan’s government, managing inflation, supply disruptions and border security are politically salient. High prices and shortages can feed public discontent. For Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban government, its ability to manage external relations, maintain trade access, and ensure the welfare of the country (even under international isolation) are equally important for internal legitimacy.

Possible scenarios ahead

Given the dynamics, several scenarios might unfold:

• Rapid reopening: If Pakistan and Afghanistan quickly reach an agreement that addresses Islamabad’s security concerns, border trade could resume within weeks. This would stabilise prices, ease economic pain, and restore some normalcy.

• Protracted suspension: If talks stall or one side fails to implement security commitments, the closure may drag on for months. This would inflict higher economic costs, drive traders to alternative routes, deepen inflation, erode trust, and perhaps shift trade flows permanently.

• Intermittent closures: A third scenario is recurring closures: trade resumes, but is suspended again whenever there is a skirmish, attack or new flare-up. This unpredictability damages trade viability, deters investment, and forces businesses to adapt to “unstable frontier trade” rather than steady flows.

• Diversion of trade routes: Businesses may adjust by shifting reliance away from the Pakistan-Afghanistan route, exploring alternate corridors (if any exist) or trading less. Over time this could permanently reduce the economic interdependence of the two countries and weaken the economic argument for improved relations.

What this means for Pakistan, Afghanistan and the region

For Pakistan

Pakistan must weigh the economic costs of border closure (rising inflation, supply disruptions, political unease) against its security concerns (militant attacks, border infiltration, strategic vulnerability). The disruption is already hitting households with higher food prices. If the closure persists, Pakistan might face mounting domestic pressure. At the same time, Islamabad’s insistence on linking security and trade sends a strong message: trade corridors will not be open without responsible border behaviour from neighbour(s). This may affect Pakistan’s future border management strategy: more aims at controlled crossings, fencing, monitoring, tighter customs and trade protocols.

For Afghanistan

For Afghanistan, the closure threatens its already weak economy and transit-dependent trade. As a land-locked nation, its reliance on Pakistani transit is significant. The loss of export markets, blocked imports, stranded trucks and increased logistics costs all set back economic prospects. The Taliban government must balance its diplomatic posture, internal security (especially managing armed groups), and economic imperatives. If trade is blocked for long, Afghanistan’s border provinces risk further marginalisation, higher unemployment, and deeper humanitarian challenge.

For the region

The disruption is a cautionary tale for regional connectivity initiatives: political and security stability remain as important as infrastructure to keep trade flowing. Countries seeking to rely on cross-border corridors must consider the fragility of frontier politics. For Central Asian states that use Pakistan-Afghanistan corridors, the closure signals the vulnerability of relying on a single route. It may prompt diversification, but also increases logistics costs and uncertainties. Furthermore, the closure emphasises that border trade is deeply interlinked with diplomacy and security policy; economic corridors cannot function in isolation from strategic considerations.

Opportunities and Risks

Opportunities

• The crisis presents an opportunity for Pakistan and Afghanistan to reset their border and trade framework: to negotiate a more formalised trade and transit treaty, build joint monitoring mechanisms, and stabilise trade flows.

• If resolved, the return of trade flows could revive border-economies, restore supply chains, reduce inflation pressures in Pakistan, and unlock new transit-route potential for Afghanistan (and indirectly Central Asia).

• The disruption might push both countries toward modernising border infrastructure, customs procedures, logistics operations, digitisation of trade clearance, and improved coordination — which would benefit long-term trade even after the crisis.

Risks

• The longer the closure, the higher the risk of permanent trade diversion: traders may find alternate routes or simply adjust their business models away from the Pakistan-Afghanistan corridor. That would diminish the economic linkages and raise costs long-term.

• Sustained inflation and supply disruptions in Pakistan may fuel domestic discontent, especially among low-income households.

• Afghanistan’s economy may suffer additional erosion, pushing more vulnerable people into deprivation, and reducing whatever leverage Kabul has in negotiations.

• A prolonged closure might strengthen radical or illicit trade channels: when formal trade is blocked, smuggling, black-market flows and informal pathways tend to rise, which undermines state control and revenue collection.

• Recurring closures inject uncertainty into regional trade frameworks, which may deter investors, logistics companies and foreign firms considering expansion into the region.

Conclusion

The fact that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains closed for all trade activities on Friday is more than a temporary hiccup. It is a reflection of the deep entanglement between security, diplomacy and commerce in a region whose frontiers have long been porous, contested and strategically charged. The closure underscores that trade cannot simply be viewed in economic terms — it is inseparable from questions of national security, regional stability and bilateral relations.

For ordinary consumers in Pakistan who are now paying exorbitant prices for vegetables, for Afghan truck drivers stranded with perishable loads, for border town families whose livelihoods are disrupted, the cost is immediate and very real. For the governments of Islamabad and Kabul, the closure presents both a challenge and an incentive: a challenge because of the losses and disruptions; an incentive because it forces a reckoning with how border management, security cooperation and trade facilitation must operate in tandem.

If Pakistan and Afghanistan can use this disruption as a catalyst to negotiate and establish robust mechanisms — for border security oversight, trade corridor governance, logistics coordination and transit arrangements — then the interruption might become a turning point toward more stable cross-border commerce. But if the closure drags on, or becomes a pattern of intermittency, the costs will escalate: economic, social and strategic. Trade flows may become permanently diverted; border communities may suffer long-term damage; regional trade ambitions may be undermined.

In essence, this episode is a stark example of how in the 21st-century globalised world, even localised border closures can ripple across economies and societies, amplifying vulnerabilities and exposing dependencies. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, in many respects, a microcosm of a broader theme: when commerce intersects with security, when frontiers are both gateways and fault-lines, the health of trade becomes a barometer of the health of diplomacy.

Until the border reopens, every day of suspension represents not just lost cargo and trade revenue, but a reminder that in this region, trade and security are inseparable — and that the reopening of crossings will require more than paperwork: it will require trust, credible guarantees and a willingness on both sides to integrate commerce into a stable bilateral framework.

---