Baku, October 28, AZERTAC

DND Exclusive Story: Pak-Afghan Talks has ended without results in Istanbul. Reliable Pakistani sources have reported that the recent talks between the delegations of Pakistan and Afghanistan in Turkey ended without any definitive result. Sources confirmed that Istanbul talks failed because Afghan Taliban refused to convert assurances into verifiable action.

An insider who was present in the talks while talking to DND News Agency confirmed that Pakistan remains committed to a negotiated, peaceful solution, but will not compromise on its core demand: the prevention of its territory being used as a launchpad for attacks.

“Pakistan has provided yet another opportunity for the talks to reach a conclusion. This is clear evidence of Pakistan’s sincerity, resolve, rational stance, and cooperative spirit”

According to sources close to the meeting, the talks were marked by clear obstruction from the Afghan side and an uncooperative, defensive attitude. Reports indicate that some members of the Afghan delegation spoke provocatively, avoided direct answers, and even used insulting and dismissive language on several occasions.

The sources added that the Qatari and Turkish mediators were taken aback by the Afghan delegation’s posture and implicitly conveyed their surprise at dealing with a side that refused to engage constructively with its neighbour.

Detailed negotiations

Based on information received, most agenda items had been discussed in depth, but one key security item caused the deadlock. The Afghan side repeatedly sidestepped the core Pakistani demand — clear, verifiable action against groups using Afghan soil to carry out attacks inside Pakistan — and responded with evasions and legalistic pretexts rather than concrete commitments.

An informed Pakistani source said:

“The Afghan delegation repeatedly avoided agreeing to practical, verifiable measures to stop cross-border terrorism. Their vague assurances and refusal to accept responsibility undermined the negotiations.”

Another source added that Pakistan presented specific, time-stamped evidence of militant sanctuaries and cross-border movement. Rather than addressing the evidence, some Afghan representatives questioned the provenance of the material and attempted to shift the discussion to procedural and political issues while also contacting back Kabul repeatedly during the talks which seriously undermined the talks to reach to any concrete conclusions.

When Pakistan requested that the Afghan representatives take steps to restrain and uproot groups conducting attacks against Pakistani civilians and security forces, the Afghan delegation refused to accept responsibility and argued that those militants were not under their effective control — a stance that surprised mediators who expected a willingness to cooperate on mutually agreed security protocols.

Pakistan’s position and warning

Pakistani delegates made it clear that if hostile groups continue to operate from Afghan territory and attack inside Pakistan, Islamabad will reserve the right to take necessary measures to defend its people and sovereignty. This warning was delivered as a sober, proportional response to repeated cross-border assaults that have cost Pakistani lives.

Reciprocal guarantees and airspace issue

The Afghan delegation proposed reciprocal guarantees, suggesting that, in return for Afghanistan’s assurances, Pakistan should guarantee non-violation of Afghan airspace and restriction on any third-party use of Pakistani airspace for strikes into Afghanistan. Islamabad clarified that it could not issue guarantees on matters such as unilateral operations by third countries — nor could it be held responsible for militant activity emanating from Afghan soil. If Afghan soil continues to be used by militants, Pakistan will reserve the right to eliminate the threat before it hurts Pakistan.

Verbal tensions

Sources reported that when the Afghan side raised the airspace issue, the Pakistani head of delegation, General Shahab Aslam, pointedly reminded delegates that responsibility for preventing use of territory for hostile acts lies first with the territorial state that is Afghanistan. When urged by mediators to allow the Afghans to present their assurances, the Pakistani delegation emphasised that presenting unverified denials would not substitute for on-ground action.

According to those present, General Shahab stressed that Pakistan had presented credible, corroborated evidence of cross-border militant activity — including movement, bases and command links — and that Islamabad expected tangible, enforceable steps, not rhetorical reassurances. Similarly, a high placed source present in the talks informed that on night of 27/28 October, negotiations continued for 18 long hours. Sane source confirmed that three times the draft was finalised by both sides. To ensure that Afghan side this time sticks to the agreed draft, after third time full agreement, General Shahab asked from Afghan side “In Islam it is said that anything that is said or committed three times is considered final so it now final from your side?”. Source informs that Afghan side “Yes” they agree to this draft. However, most shockingly, immediately after committing to the final draft and before signing on the agreement, Afghan side again went outside and had a phone call with Kabul after which they again came back inside and backed off from the agreed final draft of the agreement. This shocked everyone including the Qatari and Turkish negotiators who said “Allah help and forgive these people”.

Sources present inside the negotiations also informed that the negotiations in Istanbul began about a week after the talks held in Qatar and have so far spanned three days. On the first day, discussions continued for 19 hours, on the second day for 11 hours, and on the third day for 18 hours. Pakistan’s fundamental and principled demand has been that the Afghan Taliban end their patronage of the TTP and BLA and ensure that Afghan soil is not used for terrorism against Pakistan.

During these three days, there were several occasions when the Afghan Taliban delegation agreed with Pakistan’s logical and well-reasoned arguments — particularly in the presence of the host countries, Qatar and Turkey. However, whenever the moment of signing the agreement approached, they withdrew at the last minute following instructions received from Kabul. This happened three times, clearly indicating that the main obstacle to progress lies in the directives and attitude being conveyed to the Afghan delegation by the Kabul administration.

Despite this, Pakistan has provided yet another opportunity for the talks to reach a conclusion. This is clear evidence of Pakistan’s sincerity, resolve, rational stance, and cooperative spirit. Pakistan’s objective is to ensure peace and stability not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan but across the entire region, so that no threat may arise that could endanger global peace. The mediators — Qatar and Turkey — conveyed their disappointment that Afghanistan did not respond to practical proposals that could have immediately reduced violence and restored normalcy along the border.