Taliban Opponents Call For Afghan Political System Based On Popular Vote | Afghanistan International
Taliban Opponents Call For Afghan Political System Based On Popular Vote
A group of politicians and representatives of anti-Taliban groups said after a two-day meeting in London that Afghanistan’s future political system must be based on the will and vote of the people, within the framework of a modern constitution.
The statement also stressed the need for broad public participation in the structure of power.
Participants also emphasised the protection of Afghanistan’s independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity; the establishment of a citizen-centred, democratic rule of law; the protection of citizens’ rights and respect for ethnic and social diversity; the strengthening of the role of local communities in governance; and religious moderation.
According to the statement, participants agreed to adopt all of those principles as the basis for their joint work.
The two-day meeting was organised by the group Women for Afghanistan and aimed to strengthen co-ordination among Taliban opponents and create a shared framework for addressing Afghanistan’s crisis.
The chairs of the British Parliament’s defence and international development committees, the head of the UK Parliament’s friendship group with Afghanistan, and several MPs with an interest in Afghan affairs also attended and spoke at the meeting.
Britain is among the Western countries that have called on the Taliban to form an inclusive government and respect women’s rights.
The closing statement said participants underlined the importance of continuing such meetings in order to reach practical, lasting solutions based on national consensus.
Taliban border police say reports that the Torkham crossing will reopen are false and that the key Afghanistan-Pakistan route remains closed.
Obaidullah Oqab Farooqi, spokesman for the Taliban’s border police, said claims that the crossing would reopen on March 25 are incorrect and baseless.
Earlier, Pakistani sources had said the Torkham crossing would reopen on Wednesday, March 25.
Taliban border officials insist the information about reopening is not accurate.
Sources had said Pakistan was preparing to deport undocumented migrants to Afghanistan and planned to reopen the crossing.
According to Pakistani sources, the decision was made at the request of the Taliban, a claim denied by Taliban officials.
The continued closure of the Torkham crossing, one of the most important trade routes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, has had a significant impact on people’s lives and businesses.
Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to the US president, said efforts are continuing to secure the release of two Americans still believed to be held in Afghanistan after the Taliban freed Dennis Coyle.
Gorka said work was under way to bring home Mahmood Habibi and Paul Overby, adding that US efforts would continue until all American citizens held in Afghanistan are released.
He said President Donald Trump had promised Coyle’s sisters he would bring him home, a pledge that has now been fulfilled.
Gorka also said Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decision earlier this month to designate the Taliban as responsible for wrongful detention was part of a process that helped secure Coyle’s release.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that the fate of Afghan American Mahmood Shah Habibi remains unclear.
Habibi was detained in the summer of 2022 by armed men on a street in Kabul, according to witnesses, who said the men identified themselves as Taliban intelligence agents. He was blindfolded and driven away in his own vehicle.
The report said intelligence personnel later searched his apartment, seizing his laptop, books and documents. No information about his whereabouts or condition has been made public since then.
The Taliban have repeatedly said they are not holding Habibi and have no information about him.
However, The New York Times reported that information and witness testimony shared with US officials indicate he was, at least initially, held by Taliban intelligence.
The newspaper added that it remains unclear whether Habibi is alive. His brother has repeatedly told media outlets that he believes Mahmood Shah Habibi is alive and in Taliban custody.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said calls to extend the ceasefire are primarily directed at Pakistan, insisting the group did not initiate the conflict.
In an audio message broadcast on Wednesday by Radio Television Afghanistan, which is under Taliban control, Mujahid said the Taliban is acting in self-defence and does not enter Pakistani territory. He added that protecting the population is a duty.
His remarks came after Afghan and Pakistani religious scholars called on Tuesday for the ceasefire between the Taliban and Islamabad to be extended until Eid al-Adha.
In a letter, the scholars urged both sides to extend the expired truce until May 27, marking Eid al-Adha, and to prioritise dialogue and negotiations to ensure peace.
The ceasefire between the Taliban and Pakistan, brokered by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Qatar, expired at midnight on Monday, March 23.
During Eid, the Taliban accused Pakistan of violating the truce. Residents in Nuristan and Kunar provinces also reported that Pakistani forces carried out mortar strikes in border areas during the ceasefire, resulting in civilian casualties.
Knowledgeable sources told Afghanistan International that the Taliban have recently detained two Polish nationals. The sources said the men had travelled to Afghanistan for business purposes.
They were reportedly planning to explore opportunities to export cars from Europe to Afghanistan. According to the sources, the Polish nationals had obtained their visas from the Taliban embassy in Qatar.
No further details have so far emerged about the precise reasons for their detention, where they are being held, or their condition.
The Polish government has not yet commented on their situation. Taliban officials have also made no formal statement about the detention of the two foreign nationals.
The development comes on Tuesday, when the Taliban released an American citizen, Dennis Coyle, after holding him for more than a year.
US officials have said the Taliban use detained foreign nationals as leverage in negotiations and as part of what they describe as hostage diplomacy.
The conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan has entered a dangerous new phase since late February, raising serious concerns about regional stability.
Pakistan has carried out multiple airstrikes in the provinces of Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia, Paktika and Nangarhar, while the Taliban have responded with ground assaults and drone attacks.
The United Nations said 143 people were killed in a Pakistani airstrike on a drug treatment centre in Kabul, although the Taliban put the death toll at as many as 400.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, or UNAMA, reported that from late February to the present, between 75 and 212 Afghan civilians have been killed, with hundreds more wounded.
A key question remains: if civilians are being hit, why is Pakistan not targeting the Taliban’s senior leadership?
What is Pakistan’s Calculated Approach to War?
Based on strategies previously used against leadership figures in Iran, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, and al-Qaida, eliminating leaders in ideologically driven militant groups often leads to the rapid emergence of successors who may be even more radical and harder to contain.
Retired Pakistani General Inam-ul-Haq said Islamabad is not pursuing an all-out war against the Taliban, but is instead applying what he described as “calibrated” pressure. According to him, Pakistan is deliberately avoiding direct strikes on Taliban leaders and is not cutting ties with the ruling authorities. Instead, it is focusing on weapons depots, mid-level commanders and border posts in an effort to keep the Taliban under sustained pressure.
Haq said Pakistan does not want to cross a “red line” that could turn the conflict into a full-scale crisis.
He said one of Islamabad’s concerns is that killing senior Taliban leaders could create a power vacuum in Afghanistan, widen the conflict and further destabilise Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, making both provinces harder to control.
Pakistan’s assessment, he said, is that the Taliban do not have a well-organised replacement leadership, and that the loss of top figures could endanger the wider region. Foreign militant groups now operating under Taliban influence could expand their activities into China, Central Asia and Pakistan itself if the Taliban leadership were removed.
For that reason, one option for Islamabad is to seek co-operation from within the Taliban and among aligned groups.
Haq said Pakistan is also monitoring networks of influence inside the Taliban. Groups such as the Haqqani network are viewed as relatively close, while greater pressure is being applied to other factions that have more limited co-ordination with Pakistan. Most of the areas targeted in Pakistani airstrikes lie outside Haqqani Network’s influence, he said.
Local sources say many Taliban fighters deployed along the Durand Line are from Kandahar and aligned with Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, with little involvement from the Haqqani network. One reason, they say, is that Hibatullah has appointed many loyalists in districts in south-western Afghanistan to military and government posts.
Haq views this distribution of power within the Taliban as part of an “internal balance” policy that helps preserve the group’s structure.
Several Afghan analysts share a similar assessment, interpreting Pakistan’s decision to spare the Taliban leadership as a deliberate choice.
Military Analysts’ Perspective
Azim Rahimi, a former professor at Kabul University and an expert in military affairs, said targeting the Taliban leadership remains an option for Pakistan, but one that is neither used constantly nor immediately.
“Pakistan will only use this option when there is a ‘need’ and a ‘political and security calculation’,” he said. “At this time, Pakistan does not genuinely seek the fall of the Taliban regime, but is instead applying limited pressure.”
He added that regional experience from past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that toppling a ruling system can create long-term crises.
Why Are TTP Leaders Not Being Targeted?
From February 27 to March 13, Pakistan’s airstrikes in Afghanistan primarily targeted Taliban border posts, brigades, battalions, and arms and ammunition centres.
Retired Pakistani Brigadier Mahmood Shah said the main driver of Pakistan’s conflict with the Taliban is the activity of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP. After the Taliban returned to power, he said, attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas increased, including assaults on military bases and police, as well as attempts to seize border posts, deepening Islamabad’s concerns.
He said Pakistan initially tried to negotiate with the Taliban, but turned to airstrikes after those efforts failed.
However, Pakistani Taliban leaders, whose presence Islamabad has used to justify its operations, have not been targeted, or at least no evidence of such strikes has been shared with the media.
Sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas told Afghanistan International that some TTP leaders returned to their areas of influence in Pakistan at the same time as the attacks in Afghanistan. They also said signs of TTP activity and influence have increased near cities including Peshawar, Bannu, Lakki Marwat and Mardan.
That has raised further questions about the true targets of Pakistan’s airstrikes.
If Pakistani militants were the main target, why were strikes carried out at Bagram Airfield, in Kabul, and against Afghan brigades where there is no known TTP presence and no confirmed bases?
Many analysts believe Islamabad is seeking to destroy American weapons in Afghanistan, a goal they say aligns with joint US-Pakistan interests.
US Weapons In Afghanistan
Official US reports show that from 2004 to 2016, the United States supplied the Afghan National Army and police with 599,690 firearms, including light and heavy weapons. Most were light arms, including 358,530 rifles such as M16s, M4s and sniper rifles.
During the same period, 16,191 support devices were also delivered, including night-vision goggles, communication monitors, small reconnaissance drones such as the ScanEagle, and surveillance balloons. The overwhelming majority were night-vision goggles, totalling 16,035 units.
In aviation, a total of 208 aircraft were delivered to Afghan security forces between 2004 and 2016. They included 110 MI-17 and MD-530 helicopters, 60 transport aircraft, including the C-208, C-128, C-130, T-182, G-222 and AN-32, 20 A-29 attack aircraft and 18 PC-12 reconnaissance planes.
In addition, the US supplied 75,898 vehicles, including Rangers, Humvees, lorries and tanks. Of those, 42,604 were Rangers and 22,174 were Humvees, making them the most widely used. Some of the vehicles later became inoperable because of explosives, suicide attacks or prolonged use.
Over the past five years, Pakistan has repeatedly complained to the UN Security Council about US weapons left behind by Afghan forces and the United States, saying some of them ended up in the hands of TTP fighters.
Taliban Mediation And Relations With Pakistan
The Taliban government has officially acknowledged mediating negotiations twice between Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Pakistan, saying the process had reached 90 percent progress. However, it said changes in Pakistan’s military leadership and the fall of Imran Khan’s government disrupted those efforts.
A significant faction within the Taliban sees Pakistan’s top military leadership as an obstacle to relations, referring to them as the “special circle”. Members of that faction believe the new Pakistani military leadership opposes talks with armed Pakistani groups and instead pushes them towards taking up arms.
Those uncertainties, combined with the fact that neither TTP leaders nor Taliban leaders have been targeted, have fuelled conspiracy theories about the Taliban-Pakistan conflict.
Political analyst Roshan Karwar described the crisis as a “manufactured war”, arguing that external threats can sometimes help strengthen states. He said Pakistani airstrikes on Kabul gave the Taliban an opportunity to build public support. He added that the fact TTP and Taliban leaders have been spared lends weight to the theory of an engineered conflict.
Pakistan’s Recent Approach
Mohammad Fayyaz, a professor at Lahore University, described Pakistan’s foreign policy over the past two years as “co-ordinated and systematic”.
He said Pakistan does not want to trigger a new domestic or regional crisis, and is instead prioritising border security, economic support and avoiding steps that could threaten the survival of the Taliban regime.
He said expanding the war against the Taliban would fuel new waves of radicalisation. In his view, Islamabad is seeking to contain Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, as an immediate threat without challenging the Taliban’s overall hold on power.
Since the conflict began, however, trade routes between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been closed. The Taliban have shifted their trade focus towards Central Asia and India, while the border between the two countries has been marked by violence and disruption.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the operations are part of Islamabad’s counterterrorism strategy. Analysts, however, say the actual targets remain unclear.
Although the strikes are publicly framed as an effort to contain the TTP threat, TTP leaders have not been targeted in practice, their Taliban supporters have been spared, civilian casualties have mounted, and tens of thousands of people have been displaced on both sides of the Durand Line.
The movement of residents out of the area, along with tightened security measures, could leave the border exposed to new waves of insecurity.
Analysts suggest several possible explanations. One is that Pakistan has not yet finalised its strategy and is still testing pressure tactics. Another is that its real objectives are more complex, and more concealed, than officially stated.