Rahmatullah Faizan*/ The Turkish meeting between the Afghan and Pakistani delegations was held at a time when relations between the two countries have been overshadowed by distrust, negative propaganda and unconstructive approaches in recent years. However, the presence of the Islamic Emirate’s representatives in these talks was a sign of Kabul’s serious determination to resolve issues through understanding, dialogue and mutual respect. Since its inception, the Islamic Emirate has always emphasized the principle of national sovereignty, political independence and good neighborliness and has adopted a responsible approach based on national interests.
Publish dateWednesday 29 October 2025 - 12:14
Story Code : 333887
Talks without reaching a final agreement
According to media reports and reliable sources close to the talks, the talks between the Afghan and Pakistani delegations in Turkey ended without reaching a final result. It is said that the main reason for the failure of this process was the emergence of some challenges and misunderstandings during the meeting, which prevented the desired progress of the talks.
According to sources, the Pakistani delegation deviated from the usual framework of diplomatic talks in some cases and pushed the atmosphere of the meeting towards tension; which surprised the Qatari and Turkish mediators. These mediators called on both sides to continue the talks with restraint and a spirit of understanding, on the path of goodwill and mutual trust.
Behavior of the Pakistani delegation; distance from the principles of diplomacy
Reports show that in some parts, the tone and behavior of the Pakistani delegation did not correspond to the principles of official talks. Such a situation usually has two meanings:
a) Either the Pakistani team did not have the necessary technical and technical preparation for the talks;
b) Or it was assigned to prevent the formation of an agreement by creating an atmosphere of tension.
Informed sources say that the articles of the agreement were almost finalized; only one article remained to be discussed, when the Pakistani side disrupted the meeting with insulting and improper behavior. This dispute was related to the discussion of armed groups active in the region and the mutual responsibility of the two countries towards them.
The main dispute; the responsibility of the “Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan”
The Pakistani delegation called for a more active role for Afghanistan in containing the groups that operate from Pakistani soil against this country. In response, the Afghan delegation, emphasizing the principle of national sovereignty and mutual responsibility, clarified that the members of these groups are citizens of Pakistan and are outside the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Afghan government. The Afghan side added that the Islamic Emirate is committed to not using Afghan soil against any other country, and in return, Islamabad is expected to respect the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Afghanistan.
The main axis of the dispute was the extent of the responsibility of the two countries towards the activities of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad wanted Kabul to suppress this group or invite it from Afghan soil, while based on political logic and the principles of international law, such a request is not legitimate; because the members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan are citizens of that country and their containment is the responsibility of the Pakistani government, not Afghanistan.
Security guarantees and air borders
Next, the discussion of mutual security guarantees was raised. The Afghan side emphasized that no hostile action against Pakistan would be taken from Afghan soil, but in return, it demanded that Islamabad prevent the flight of foreign drones in Afghan airspace and prevent sabotage groups from using Pakistani soil to destabilize Afghanistan.
Kabul’s response, which was based on the principle of “national sovereignty” and “non-interference,” is considered logical and in line with international standards.
Initially, the Pakistani delegation tacitly agreed to Afghanistan’s proposal to prevent the flight of drones, but after contacting higher authorities, it changed its position and announced that Islamabad could not prevent the operation of foreign drones or the emergence of ISIS. This change of position complicated the negotiations.
Drone flights and Qatar-Turkey mediation
When the Afghan delegation expressed its concerns about the flights of American aircraft from Pakistani airspace to Afghan territory, the head of the Pakistani delegation, General Shahab Aslam, said that raising such an issue was inappropriate. The Honorable Ambassador of the Turkish Government, Mr. Mirdif, who was present as a mediator, emphasized that Afghanistan’s legitimate concerns should be heard and that the talks should not be interrupted. General Shahab responded by stating that the said aircraft had taken off from Qatari bases and it would be better to examine them there.
The Qatari ambassador explained that cooperation with the United States is based on a specific agreement, and General Shahab added that Pakistan also has a similar agreement.
Consequences and lessons of the talks
These talks showed that the security differences and misunderstandings between the two countries still require further, more transparent and trust-building talks. The mediators urged both sides to maintain diplomatic contacts and use confidence-building mechanisms to seek practical solutions to reduce tensions and strengthen regional cooperation.
General Shahab Aslam's response in rejecting the issue of drone flights and his reference to American bases in Qatar carried several clear messages:
1. Islamabad is trying to shift the responsibility for violating Afghan airspace to others.
2. His admission of having a "security understanding with the United States" regarding drones is an affirmation of Pakistan's practical cooperation in airstrikes against targets inside Afghanistan.
3. The Qatari ambassador's calm demeanor and balanced stance showed that the mediators were aware of Afghanistan's sensitivities and tried to return the dialogue process from verbal tension to a logical path.
A moral and political victory for the Islamic Emirate
Although the Turkish negotiations did not lead to a final agreement, this process revealed the true face of the two countries. The rift was revealed to regional observers. Islamabad’s duplicitous behavior and dependence of security decisions on the will of foreign powers showed that the root of distrust lies not in Kabul, but in Pakistan’s shaky and multi-layered policies.
In contrast, the Islamic Emirate, with a firm, logical approach based on the principles of Islamic diplomacy, proved that regional stability, security, and cooperation are only possible under the shadow of mutual respect and independence of decision-making.
From this perspective, the real outcome of the negotiations was not a failure, but a moral and political victory for the Islamic Emirate; because despite pressure and provocation, it responded with restraint, logic, and reasoning, and once again showed that Afghanistan stands on the regional stage today as an independent, powerful, and dialogue-oriented state.
* Rahmatullah Faizan, Deputy Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Herat Province
According to media reports and reliable sources close to the talks, the talks between the Afghan and Pakistani delegations in Turkey ended without reaching a final result. It is said that the main reason for the failure of this process was the emergence of some challenges and misunderstandings during the meeting, which prevented the desired progress of the talks.
According to sources, the Pakistani delegation deviated from the usual framework of diplomatic talks in some cases and pushed the atmosphere of the meeting towards tension; which surprised the Qatari and Turkish mediators. These mediators called on both sides to continue the talks with restraint and a spirit of understanding, on the path of goodwill and mutual trust.
Behavior of the Pakistani delegation; distance from the principles of diplomacy
Reports show that in some parts, the tone and behavior of the Pakistani delegation did not correspond to the principles of official talks. Such a situation usually has two meanings:
a) Either the Pakistani team did not have the necessary technical and technical preparation for the talks;
b) Or it was assigned to prevent the formation of an agreement by creating an atmosphere of tension.
Informed sources say that the articles of the agreement were almost finalized; only one article remained to be discussed, when the Pakistani side disrupted the meeting with insulting and improper behavior. This dispute was related to the discussion of armed groups active in the region and the mutual responsibility of the two countries towards them.
The main dispute; the responsibility of the “Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan”
The Pakistani delegation called for a more active role for Afghanistan in containing the groups that operate from Pakistani soil against this country. In response, the Afghan delegation, emphasizing the principle of national sovereignty and mutual responsibility, clarified that the members of these groups are citizens of Pakistan and are outside the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Afghan government. The Afghan side added that the Islamic Emirate is committed to not using Afghan soil against any other country, and in return, Islamabad is expected to respect the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Afghanistan.
The main axis of the dispute was the extent of the responsibility of the two countries towards the activities of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad wanted Kabul to suppress this group or invite it from Afghan soil, while based on political logic and the principles of international law, such a request is not legitimate; because the members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan are citizens of that country and their containment is the responsibility of the Pakistani government, not Afghanistan.
Security guarantees and air borders
Next, the discussion of mutual security guarantees was raised. The Afghan side emphasized that no hostile action against Pakistan would be taken from Afghan soil, but in return, it demanded that Islamabad prevent the flight of foreign drones in Afghan airspace and prevent sabotage groups from using Pakistani soil to destabilize Afghanistan.
Kabul’s response, which was based on the principle of “national sovereignty” and “non-interference,” is considered logical and in line with international standards.
Initially, the Pakistani delegation tacitly agreed to Afghanistan’s proposal to prevent the flight of drones, but after contacting higher authorities, it changed its position and announced that Islamabad could not prevent the operation of foreign drones or the emergence of ISIS. This change of position complicated the negotiations.
Drone flights and Qatar-Turkey mediation
When the Afghan delegation expressed its concerns about the flights of American aircraft from Pakistani airspace to Afghan territory, the head of the Pakistani delegation, General Shahab Aslam, said that raising such an issue was inappropriate. The Honorable Ambassador of the Turkish Government, Mr. Mirdif, who was present as a mediator, emphasized that Afghanistan’s legitimate concerns should be heard and that the talks should not be interrupted. General Shahab responded by stating that the said aircraft had taken off from Qatari bases and it would be better to examine them there.
The Qatari ambassador explained that cooperation with the United States is based on a specific agreement, and General Shahab added that Pakistan also has a similar agreement.
Consequences and lessons of the talks
These talks showed that the security differences and misunderstandings between the two countries still require further, more transparent and trust-building talks. The mediators urged both sides to maintain diplomatic contacts and use confidence-building mechanisms to seek practical solutions to reduce tensions and strengthen regional cooperation.
General Shahab Aslam's response in rejecting the issue of drone flights and his reference to American bases in Qatar carried several clear messages:
1. Islamabad is trying to shift the responsibility for violating Afghan airspace to others.
2. His admission of having a "security understanding with the United States" regarding drones is an affirmation of Pakistan's practical cooperation in airstrikes against targets inside Afghanistan.
3. The Qatari ambassador's calm demeanor and balanced stance showed that the mediators were aware of Afghanistan's sensitivities and tried to return the dialogue process from verbal tension to a logical path.
A moral and political victory for the Islamic Emirate
Although the Turkish negotiations did not lead to a final agreement, this process revealed the true face of the two countries. The rift was revealed to regional observers. Islamabad’s duplicitous behavior and dependence of security decisions on the will of foreign powers showed that the root of distrust lies not in Kabul, but in Pakistan’s shaky and multi-layered policies.
In contrast, the Islamic Emirate, with a firm, logical approach based on the principles of Islamic diplomacy, proved that regional stability, security, and cooperation are only possible under the shadow of mutual respect and independence of decision-making.
From this perspective, the real outcome of the negotiations was not a failure, but a moral and political victory for the Islamic Emirate; because despite pressure and provocation, it responded with restraint, logic, and reasoning, and once again showed that Afghanistan stands on the regional stage today as an independent, powerful, and dialogue-oriented state.
* Rahmatullah Faizan, Deputy Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Herat Province
avapress.net/vdcbwfbfzrhbfwp.4eur.html
Top hits
