Pakistan welcomes US help to facilitate talks with the Taliban, but only if Kabul takes verifiable action against militant groups
Pakistan’s Foreign Office said on Sunday it would welcome sincere efforts by the United States and other friendly countries to facilitate dialogue with Afghanistan, provided the Taliban authorities take concrete, sustained and verifiable action against militant groups.
Pakistan has said it would welcome help from the United States to facilitate talks with Afghanistan, attaching a clear condition to that welcome: Kabul must first take concrete, sustained and verifiable action against militant groups that Islamabad says operate from Afghan soil. The position was set out by the Foreign Office on Sunday, 1 November, and reported by Pakistan Today from remarks by Foreign Office spokesman Sajjad Haider Khan to Independent Urdu.
“Pakistan would welcome sincere efforts by friendly countries, including the United States, to facilitate dialogue with Afghanistan,” Khan said, according to the report. He added that any meaningful dialogue must rest on a “clear commitment” by the Afghan Taliban authorities to take concrete, sustained and verifiable action against the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Balochistan Liberation Army and other groups. “Pakistan remains open to constructive engagement, provided it leads to tangible outcomes addressing our legitimate security concerns,” he said.
The statement was a direct response to remarks by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Atlanta on Saturday, 31 October. Rubio said Washington had “obviously heard” Pakistan’s concerns about attacks “sponsored from the territory of Afghanistan” and that “if there’s a productive role for us to play, we’ll play it,” The Express Tribune reported. He added that the United States did not “necessarily have the closest relationship with the Taliban” but had “seen some of those attacks that they point to”, and that Washington was “against terrorism no matter where it emanates from and who it targets.”
It is important to be precise about what has, and has not, been agreed. No date, venue, format or mediator has been announced, and Washington has not said it will formally take on the role of facilitator. Rubio’s remarks were framed as a willingness to play a productive role if one exists, not as a mediation plan with an envoy or a timetable. Pakistan’s statement, in turn, was a conditional welcome rather than an agreement to talks, and no full official transcript of the spokesman’s remarks to Independent Urdu has been published.
The background is a relationship that has deteriorated sharply over the past year. Islamabad has repeatedly urged the Taliban administration to prevent the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and other groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks inside Pakistan, and it has rejected Taliban assurances that Afghan territory is not used against neighbouring countries, arguing that the ground situation tells a different story. Security officials estimate that up to 70 per cent of the Fitna al-Khawarij militants infiltrating Pakistan are of Afghan origin, according to The Express Tribune. Pakistan Today reported the Foreign Office’s account that around 4,700 Pakistanis have been killed over the past three years in militant attacks originating from Afghanistan; that figure is Pakistan’s own claim and has not been independently audited.
Earlier rounds of talks were mediated by Qatar and Türkiye, and China also tried to narrow the gap between the two sides. On 31 October, the Taliban said its final efforts at dialogue had failed, while Pakistan’s information ministry called cross-border terrorism a red line. A United States role would therefore change the shape of the diplomacy, giving Pakistan a channel that does not depend solely on the Qatari and Turkish mediators who handled earlier rounds, and potentially adding pressure on Kabul to address Islamabad’s security demands.
But the arrangement also carries risks for both sides, and the key phrase in Pakistan’s statement is “verifiable action”. Pakistan has not published a list of the specific steps it expects, a monitoring mechanism or a timeline for judging compliance. Earlier talks foundered on exactly that question: Pakistan demanded action against groups it says launch attacks from Afghan soil, while the Taliban denied responsibility or said it could not control armed groups that do not answer to it. The demand is also broad, covering the Balochistan Liberation Army, which operates mainly in Balochistan and is not an Afghan Taliban affiliate, alongside the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
There is no public indication that Kabul has accepted a United States role. The Taliban has not responded directly to Pakistan’s welcome, and its spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on 31 October that Afghanistan had made its final efforts through talks and that they had produced no results. The Taliban continues to deny that Afghan territory is used for attacks on Pakistan. Pakistan’s condition therefore sets a test before any United States-facilitated process can begin, and it is not a ceasefire offer: it does not commit Pakistan to pause its military campaign along the border.
What happens next will depend on decisions that have not yet been announced. Washington would need to decide whether its willingness becomes a formal offer, with an envoy and a format; Kabul would need to decide whether it will engage with a United States intermediary at all, and whether it will discuss the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or the Balochistan Liberation Army in that setting; and Pakistan would need to say what “verifiable action” looks like in practice and whether it would ease military pressure during any talks. Until those steps are taken, the two governments have moved from trading accusations to discussing a possible United States role — but a discussion is not yet a process.
For now, the honest summary is narrow: the United States has said it would play a productive role if one exists, Pakistan has said it would welcome sincere facilitation efforts on condition of verifiable action against militant groups, and no talks have been scheduled. Whether that becomes a new diplomatic track, or another round of public positioning in a dispute that has already cost many lives, will only become clear when one side names a next step.
More in Pakistan News
PakistanLahore High Court seeks reports on extended detention of Imran Khan’s sisters and Noreen Niazi’s health
PakistanPakistan’s revised petrol pricing forces refineries to surrender war-time premium, giving consumers Rs14.71 a litre relief
Pakistan