Haqqani’s Proposal to Resume Communication Channels

The Interior Minister of the Interim Afghan Government has proposed a dedicated bilateral mechanism to address contentious issues with Pakistan. Islamabad has taken note of this proposal.

The response from Pakistan is measured but firm. State-level dialogue remains welcome. What Kabul offers in words, however, must finally be matched by actions on the ground.

This is not a new position. Since the Taliban takeover, Pakistan has consistently pursued dialogue and diplomatic engagement at every available level.

Islamabad has repeatedly called on Kabul to ensure that Afghan soil will not be used by terrorists against Pakistan. That request has been made again and again, through every channel diplomacy allows.

Despite this sustained outreach, Kabul failed to translate its assurances into effective action against the TTP and other terrorist groups operating from Afghan territory. Promises were made. Results did not follow.

The scale of Pakistan’s diplomatic effort is worth stating plainly. Before resorting to precision strikes, Pakistan exhausted the available channels through four Foreign Minister visits and two Defence Minister or DG ISI missions.

That engagement continued through five Special Representative visits, five Secretary-level meetings and one NSA visit. Eight Joint Coordination Committee meetings were also held to address the same underlying concern.

On the ground, the record is just as extensive. There have been 225 Border Flag Meetings, 836 protest notes and 13 demarches, all aimed at securing one basic commitment from Kabul.

This is not a picture of a country eager for confrontation. It is a picture of sustained, patient diplomacy pursued well past the point most states would consider reasonable.

Pakistan has always remained open to resolving differences peacefully through state-to-state dialogue. That principle has not changed, and it does not change now.

But any renewed mechanism must rest on something firmer than assurances. It must be underpinned by a clear Taliban commitment that Afghan soil will not be used by terrorists against Pakistan.

That commitment needs to be supported by tangible, verifiable counter-terrorism action. Words on their own have already been tried, and they have already fallen short.

Effective border management must also be part of the equation. A mechanism without enforcement is simply another meeting on a long list of meetings that changed nothing.

Pakistan remains open to state-level dialogue as a matter of policy. But the sustainability of any such mechanism will depend on tangible actions, not renewed promises dressed in new language.

For any dialogue to move forward in a meaningful way, the Afghan Taliban must ensure that Afghan soil is not used to perpetrate terrorism against Pakistan. This is the baseline, not a bonus condition.

Kabul also carries obligations beyond its bilateral relationship with Islamabad. It must honour its international commitments, including those made under the Doha framework.

Those commitments include ensuring that Afghan soil is not used by hostile proxies against Pakistan. The TTP and the BLA are named specifically because they represent the most direct and persistent threats emerging from that territory.

Institutional coordination is not something Pakistan rejects. Quite the opposite. Pakistan remains ready for it, provided such coordination results in tangible and verifiable counter-terrorism measures.

Border management has to improve alongside any political mechanism. Otherwise, the mechanism becomes a talking shop while attacks continue across the frontier it claims to address.

The proposal from Kabul’s Interior Minister may represent a genuine opening. Pakistan is willing to test that possibility through renewed engagement.

But willingness to talk cannot substitute for willingness to act. Four Foreign Minister visits and 836 protest notes already tested the value of assurances alone.

What comes next has to look different. Verifiable steps against terrorist sanctuaries, real border enforcement and honoured commitments under existing frameworks would signal that this proposal is more than another cycle of promises.

Pakistan has shown patience through years of dialogue that produced words but little else. That patience has not run out, but it is not unconditional either.

The path to a functioning bilateral mechanism runs through action, not rhetoric. Kabul now has the opportunity to show which of the two it is prepared to offer.