Khalilzad: Pakistan Army’s Remarks Misinterpret Doha Agreement
Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Special Representative for Afghanistan Peace, has criticized recent statements by the Pakistan Army spokesperson, describing them as a misinterpretation of the Doha Agreement. Khalilzad emphasized that the Doha Agreement was not designed to regulate relations or resolve issues between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He highlighted that the Doha Agreement was solely signed between the United States and the Taliban and does not apply to bilateral relations between Kabul and Islamabad. However, he noted that the two sides might reach a separate agreement to curb militant activities and address security concerns.
This former American diplomat, who has faced widespread criticism for his central role in the Doha Agreement, stated that based on his recent meetings and talks, the Taliban administration is ready to enter similar negotiations with Pakistan. He claimed such an agreement could prevent ISIS, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and other armed groups from using Afghan or Pakistani soil against the security of other countries.
Khalilzad added that the Taliban administration has also shown willingness to accept a third-party monitoring mechanism to build trust between the two sides, a step that, if implemented, could play a crucial role in reducing border tensions.
These remarks come a day after Pakistan Army spokesperson Sarfraz Choudhry claimed that there is “no government” in Afghanistan and again described the country under Taliban rule as a haven for terrorist groups.
Hours after these statements, Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban administration’s spokesperson, strongly rejected these claims, calling them far from reality. He asserted that the Taliban have a strong security structure, a decisive leadership, and full control over all areas of Afghanistan.
Mujahid urged Pakistan to adopt a more responsible stance and measured language regarding Afghanistan, understanding the sensitivity of bilateral relations. This indicates that verbal tensions between the two sides persist, and the lack of a transparent and accountable framework has further fueled distrust.
