Istanbul Talks Reveal Growing Rift Between Pakistan and the Taliban

By Kazim Jafari

The two-day negotiations between Pakistan and the Taliban government in Istanbul, held on November 6–7 and mediated by Turkey and Qatar, were intended to reduce mounting security tensions along the Durand Line. Instead, they ended without results, laying bare the deep mistrust and conflicting expectations that continue to shape relations between Islamabad and Kabul.

Pakistan accuses the Taliban-led administration of harboring or failing to restrain the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has intensified assaults on Pakistani security forces in recent months. Islamabad’s delegation arrived in Istanbul demanding firm guarantees that Afghan soil would not be used by militants. 

Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar insisted  on his X account that the “onus lies on Afghanistan” to honor long-standing counterterrorism commitments. He emphasized that Pakistan would take “all necessary measures” to protect its sovereignty if these assurances were not met.

The Taliban delegation, however, saw the talks differently. According to spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, the representatives of the “Islamic Emirate” participated “in good faith and with full authority,” expecting a serious and balanced discussion. 

Instead, the Afghan side contends that Pakistan attempted to place the entire burden of its domestic security failures on Afghanistan while refusing to acknowledge its own responsibilities. 

The Taliban reiterated their position that Afghanistan will not allow anyone to use its territory against another country, yet will not accept external interference or demands that undermine its sovereignty and independence.

This diplomatic exchange revealed a familiar impasse: Pakistan demands concrete security action, while the Taliban frame such demands as infringements on Afghan sovereignty. Both sides left Istanbul repeating positions they have long maintained, leaving mediators without leverage to bridge the divide. 

Analysts note that Islamabad’s approach remains primarily security-driven, while the Taliban’s increasingly assertive foreign policy uses sovereignty both as a shield and as a political statement.

Complicating matters further are internal divisions within Pakistan. Former U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad recently drew attention to Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s remarks suggesting that certain understandings reached during earlier meetings in Kabul could not be implemented because Pakistan’s own “system” blocked them. 

Khalilzad’s commentary hints at competing civil-military interests in Islamabad that constrain its diplomacy and contribute to policy inconsistency toward Afghanistan.

For the Taliban, the Istanbul outcome reinforces their narrative of standing firm against external pressure. Their messaging portrays Afghanistan as a sovereign state unfairly blamed for Pakistan’s security troubles. 

For Pakistan, the failed talks underscore frustration at what it perceives as Taliban unwillingness or inability to curb militant activity. Each side is now shaping public opinion domestically and internationally through competing claims of cooperation and blame.

Without a cooperative security framework, the Durand Line will remain volatile, with recurring skirmishes, trade disruptions, and mutual recriminations. 

Pakistan may resort to unilateral military actions or tighten restrictions on Afghan refugees, while the Taliban could respond by hardening their stance and rallying nationalist sentiment. 

For mediators like Turkey and Qatar, the Istanbul round demonstrated both their diplomatic utility and their limits; goodwill alone cannot compensate for the absence of mutual trust.

The Istanbul talks revealed that relations between Pakistan and the Taliban are shifting from uneasy interdependence toward open estrangement. Without renewed dialogue grounded in realistic expectations and reciprocal accountability, the Durand Line will remain not just a contested frontier, but a symbol of the growing distance between two uneasy neighbors.

Kazim Jafari is a political science student at the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

Note: The contents of the article are of sole responsibility of the author. Afghan Diaspora Network will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in the articles.