Afghanistan and Pakistan have extended their ceasefire following mediation talks hosted by Türkiye and Qatar

For the second time in a month, a temporary hush has settled over the turbulent 2,600-kilometre frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a fragile peace secured through the relentless diplomatic efforts of Türkiye and Qatar. The news emerged late Thursday from Istanbul, where negotiators from both nations agreed to extend an existing ceasefire, avoiding a resumption of the deadliest border clashes seen since the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in 2021. Yet, beneath the relief of de-escalation lies a profound and dangerous gulf between the two capitals, a gap that nearly derailed the entire process just hours before the extension was announced, underscoring the deeply conditional nature of this fragile truce.

The latest round of talks, held in Istanbul from October 25-30, followed an initial ceasefire brokered in Doha after a week of intense fighting earlier in the month, triggered by cross-border strikes that reportedly began with Pakistan’s targeting of militant hideouts in Afghan territory. That violence, which saw heavy shelling and artillery fire, had a devastating humanitarian toll. The United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported the conflict killed at least 50 Afghan civilians and wounded 447 others in that initial week alone. Even before the truce, the human cost was evident, with the Emergency NGO, which runs a surgical centre in Kabul, confirming receiving five deceased and 40 wounded in the capital following explosions that preceded the initial ceasefire. The renewed diplomatic shuttle, therefore, was not merely about statecraft but about staunching a massive haemorrhage of civilian life.

The consensus to continue the truce was formally announced in a joint statement from the mediating countries, with the Turkish Foreign Ministry confirming that “All parties have agreed on continuation of ceasefire.” The statement also revealed plans for a subsequent high-level meeting on November 6 in Istanbul, where delegates are expected to finalise a crucial implementation framework. This framework is slated to include a monitoring and verification mechanism intended to “ensure maintenance of peace and impose a penalty on the violating party,” a significant move toward institutionalising accountability along the contentious Durand Line. On Friday, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, through spokesman Tahir Andrabi, has confirmed the ceasefire “holds,” noting that Islamabad had “taken note of assurances from the Afghan side on this issue” and expressed a guarded optimism for the next round of negotiations. Echoing the positive rhetoric, the Afghan Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, stated that the talks concluded with “agreement that both sides will meet again and discuss the remaining issues,” stressing the desire for “positive ties with Pakistan and remains committed to relations based on mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs.”

However, this diplomatic success follows a dramatic collapse that highlights the intractable core of the dispute. Just two days prior, on Wednesday, Islamabad had officially declared the Istanbul negotiations a failure, with Pakistan’s Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Attaullah Tarar, taking to social media to accuse Kabul of having “backtracked on commitments to control militancy” and offering “unabated support to anti-Pakistan terrorists.” The breakdown, as reported by sources familiar with the negotiations, centred on Pakistan’s insistence on concrete, verifiable action against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group Islamabad holds responsible for a significant surge in cross-border terror attacks. A senior Foreign Office official in Islamabad later made it clear that the ceasefire is “neither open-ended nor unconditional.” This official stressed that the single litmus test for continuation is that Afghanistan must not allow its territory to be used for attacks against Pakistan and must provide “credible evidence of action, including dismantling militant hideouts” against the TTP.

Kabul, meanwhile, has consistently refuted the allegations of harbouring militants, instead counter-accusing Islamabad of violating its sovereignty. During the failed negotiations, the Afghan side reportedly refused to officially designate the TTP as a terrorist organisation, while demanding that Pakistan cease the drone flights and airspace violations it allegedly permits, a claim Islamabad is said to have refused to accept. The diplomatic tightrope being walked by the mediators is evident: they must not only bridge this profound trust deficit but also find common ground on the nature of “terrorism” itself. As one analyst, Hameed Hakimi of Chatham House and the Atlantic Council, recently observed, the only way a ceasefire of this nature can hold is if it is backed by a genuine, long-term political solution, a goal that remains distant as both sides prioritise conflicting security narratives.

The stakes are not purely military. The repeated closures of key border crossings, such as Torkham and Chaman, have severely impacted the regional economy. Traders on both sides of the frontier have reported mounting losses due to stranded trucks carrying food, fuel, and perishable goods, compounding the existing economic hardship in Afghanistan and affecting livelihoods in Pakistan’s border provinces. The economic pain, some observers suggest, may be the most powerful incentive for peace. Nevertheless, for the truce to evolve into stability, analysts, including those from Oxford Analytica Daily Brief, suggest that the agreement must transition from being a “fragile” break in hostilities to a mechanism with structural, enforceable guarantees. The November 6 meeting is now the crucible for this transition, where the temporary cessation of fire must either become a foundation for lasting de-escalation or risk reverting to another pause in a perpetual regional conflict.