A ceasefire between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains fragile despite sustained diplomatic efforts by Qatar, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and China, according to an analysis published by Modern Diplomacy.

The article by Sher Ali Ranjha, published on August 22, says the four countries have helped contain tensions at critical moments but have so far been unable to resolve the underlying security disagreements between Islamabad and Kabul.

The diplomatic process intensified after serious border clashes in October 2025, when Türkiye and Qatar helped facilitate a ceasefire in Doha. Subsequent talks in Istanbul explored ways to strengthen the agreement, including a possible monitoring and verification mechanism.

However, the two sides continue to differ over what constitutes a ceasefire violation. Pakistan has raised concerns about attacks by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which it says are carried out from Afghan territory. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has rejected allegations that it provides a safe haven to the group and has maintained that Pakistan should address its own security challenges.

The article says this disagreement remains at the centre of the diplomatic impasse. Pakistan is seeking verifiable measures to prevent militant activity from Afghan territory, while Kabul has expressed concern over Pakistani military actions inside Afghanistan and the impact on its sovereignty.

The relationship between Afghanistan and India has added another dimension to the dispute. India has increased its engagement with Kabul, including through diplomatic and trade initiatives and cooperation involving Iran’s Chabahar Port.

The article notes that Pakistan views closer Afghan-Indian relations through the wider context of its rivalry with New Delhi. Pakistani allegations that India supports militant groups operating from Afghanistan remain disputed and have not been independently established, but they contribute to Islamabad’s security concerns.

The involvement of four mediators has provided important diplomatic channels, but the article argues that their efforts have not always operated within a single framework.

Qatar has strong access to Afghan officials and extensive experience in negotiations, Türkiye maintains relations with both sides, Saudi Arabia has financial and diplomatic influence, while China has significant economic and strategic interests in both countries.

China subsequently hosted Pakistani and Afghan representatives in Urumqi in 2026, helping bring the two sides back to negotiations.

The article argues that these efforts should not be considered complete failures. Rather, the mediators have been more successful in managing periods of tension than in addressing the deeper causes of the dispute.

For a more durable arrangement, the article proposes measurable security commitments, including restrictions on militant movement, disruption of financing, intelligence cooperation and measures to prevent cross-border attacks.

It also suggests that any Afghan commitments could be accompanied by greater restraint from Pakistan, including reducing reliance on unilateral military action.

The article says an independent verification mechanism could help both sides address their competing concerns. Such a mechanism could allow Kabul to demonstrate that Afghan territory is not being used for attacks against Pakistan while providing Islamabad with a process for raising specific security concerns.

Among the four mediators, the article identifies China as potentially best placed to coordinate such a framework because of its relationships with both Pakistan and Afghanistan and its interest in regional stability and economic connectivity.

It suggests that China could coordinate the overall process, with Qatar supporting diplomatic engagement, Türkiye assisting with technical negotiations and Saudi Arabia providing economic incentives.

The article concludes that another temporary ceasefire may not be enough to prevent renewed confrontation. A lasting arrangement would require clear definitions of violations, credible verification, measurable security commitments and corresponding restraint from both sides.

It argues that the four mediators have helped keep diplomacy alive, but a more coordinated framework may be needed to turn repeated crisis management into a longer-term peace process.