Islamabad — Pakistan says its expectations from Afghanistan are “simple and straightforward,” but behind those words lies a familiar and deepening tension between the two neighbors, according to TOLOnews.
Speaking at a press conference, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi pointed to recent talks held in Urumqi, where officials from both sides discussed security concerns. At the center of those talks, he said, was one key demand: Afghan soil must not be used for attacks against Pakistan.
“Our demand is simple,” Andrabi said. “Afghan territory should not be used to plan, sponsor, or carry out attacks against Pakistan, including those involving Afghan nationals.” He described this as Islamabad’s “one-point agenda,” adding that Pakistan intends to pursue the issue with full seriousness.
According to Andrabi, this commitment is not new. He noted that it was part of the Doha Agreement and has been repeated in later understandings between Afghanistan’s current authorities and neighboring countries. From Pakistan’s point of view, he said, the time has come to move from promises to action.
But not everyone agrees with Islamabad’s approach.
Some political and military analysts argue that Pakistan is placing too much blame on Afghanistan for its internal security challenges. They warn that linking domestic instability to Kabul could worsen already fragile relations.
Political analyst Miyanojarat Nouri said Pakistan’s military establishment is using “pressure-driven and incorrect demands” to shape a negative global image of Afghanistan. He added that Afghan authorities have already committed to ensuring their territory is not used against other countries, in line with the Doha Agreement.
The exchange reflects a broader pattern of strain between Kabul and Islamabad. In recent months, relations have shifted between cautious cooperation and renewed distrust. Regional meetings, including the Urumqi talks, are part of ongoing efforts to ease tensions but the path forward remains uncertain.
As both sides hold firm to their positions, the question remains whether dialogue can bridge the gap, or if mistrust will continue to define their uneasy relationship.
