Af-Pak Peace Talks Collapse: Why Mutual Distrust Doomed Istanbul Negotiations

The trust deficit was apparent even as the negotiators were preparing to leave for Istanbul, venue for the third round of talks mediated by Qatar and Turkey, when Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif questioned the Taliban government’s “independent authority to hold talks". He continued to blame India for influencing Kabul instead of trying to rebuild the bridge with the Taliban, which was once Islamabad’s ally.

While the second day of the current session was coming to an end on Friday, November 7, Asif announced “a complete deadlock” while speaking to Pakistan media, adding “the negotiations have entered an indefinite phase”. He told viewers that the Afghan delegation had come “without any programme” and would not sign a written pact.

At the heart of the impasse lie several irreconcilable priorities. Islamabad demands Pakistani militants based in Afghanistan -- particularly elements of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and allied networks -- be decisively dismantled, and wants a written, verifiable mechanism to prevent cross-border strikes.

Islamabad now desperately needs to address national security and design a domestic political survival. Several uprisings -- from Baluchistan to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir -- within the country have sparked public outrage and put pressure on the military and civilian leaders to produce results.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has rejected what it sees as Islamabad’s attempts to dictate internal Afghan security measures, arguing that Kabul will not act as a policing agent for Islamabad or sign open-ended commitments that could be used to justify foreign intervention.

The Taliban has emphasised that action against militant networks must be based on Afghan law and sovereignty, while also pointing to Pakistani incursions and artillery fire that Kabul says undermined the negotiations.

A second major problem is verification. Islamabad sought written, monitorable commitments and a mechanism for third-party verification, which the Afghan side viewed as an infringement on its independence. The resulting mismatch meant neither side could bridge the trust deficit in Istanbul.

The Afghan Taliban has repeatedly denied any involvement in hosting the Pakistan-Taliban or abetting terror attacks across the border. A written undertaking would mean justifying Islamabad’s allegations of Kabul’s involvement in covert operations against Pakistan.

Another issue that hangs over the dialogue is the repatriation of Afghan refugees. With Pakistan opening a floodgate of returnees, evicting thousands from its land, the Taliban is inundated by the sheer volume. Even international agencies are requesting Islamabad to control the flow, but to no avail.

While Pakistan described the talks as effectively over, the Taliban and the Afghan state media framed the outcome differently, stressing the fragile ceasefire but rejecting Islamabad’s principal demands. The two sides had agreed to a ceasefire and the establishment of mechanisms to consolidate peace and stability in the first round of negotiations held in Doha in October this year.

They also agreed to hold follow-up meetings to ensure the sustainability of the ceasefire and verify its implementation reliably and sustainably, thus contributing to achieving security and stability in both countries. However, two subsequent rounds in Istanbul ended in a stand-off, exposing deep mistrust, diverging security priorities, and conflicting domestic pressures.

The day the third round of dialogue was scheduled to resume (November 6), Pakistani and Afghan forces exchanged fire at the Spin Boldak-Chaman border crossing in Afghanistan's Kandahar province. Both sides traded allegations, accusing each other of initiating the attack.

Meanwhile, mediators from Qatar and Turkey are reported to have expressed disappointment with the talks ending in a stalemate, increasing regional tensions.

- IANS