Muttaqi called Pakistan’s crises long-standing and reminded that the country’s security problems are not related to Afghanistan. Referring to the more than 25-year-old activity of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the past bloody attacks in Islamabad, Karachi and Peshawar, he emphasized that Islamabad should not attribute its inability to control the internal situation to its western neighbor.
The Foreign Minister added that Pakistan’s disputes with India, Iran, internal groups and even its economic crisis cannot be placed on the shoulders of Afghanistan. According to him, instead of finding solutions to internal problems, Islamabad has focused its pressure on Afghan migrants and traders. Mottaqi recalled that the Islamic Emirate had tried to mediate between Islamabad and the TTP and 90 percent of the problems had been resolved, but Pakistan had refused to accept the final agreement.
In another part of his speech, Mottaqi, by asking sharp questions to Pakistani military officials, placed the main responsibility for border insecurity on that country’s army and exposed Islamabad’s long-standing projection policy. He asked in a questioning tone:
Didn’t Pakistan build barbed wire along the Durand Line during the republic?
Were there no patrol roads and security checkpoints built behind that barbed wire?
Were there no regular patrols and large military bases built along the Durand Line?
So how is it possible that armed individuals can cross the border with all this equipment and Afghanistan is still held responsible?
A clear critique of Islamabad’s contradictions
These questions were a clear critique of Islamabad’s contradictions. While Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harboring members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, it has itself laid thousands of kilometers of barbed wire and established hundreds of checkpoints and advanced surveillance systems along the Durand Line. If such a claim of control is true, then how can the passage of several armed groups remain hidden from the eyes of its army and security agencies?
In fact, by raising these questions, Mottaqi presented a kind of reverse argument: if every crisis in Pakistan must be attributed to Afghanistan, then that country’s wars with India, its disputes with Iran, Imran Khan’s political crisis, and even the collapse of the rupee should be blamed on Kabul – which is completely unacceptable from the perspective of political and diplomatic logic.
The truth is that Islamabad’s claims about the entry of fighters from Afghan soil are more a tool to cover up the country’s internal security, economic, and political failures than they are based on reality on the ground. By repeating such accusations, Pakistan is trying to divert public opinion from its deep internal crises and shift the responsibility for its incompetence onto others.
A clear message to neighbors and the international community
The statements of Maulvi Amir Khan Muttaqi, while being frank, carry a clear message to neighbors and the international community: the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan does not want tension and hostility, but rather emphasizes the principle of respectful interaction, peaceful coexistence, and the responsibility of governments towards their territory and security.
This stance can be considered the beginning of a new stage in relations between Kabul and Islamabad - provided that the Pakistani side abandons the policy of pressure and projection and, instead of confrontation, takes the path of joint security and economic cooperation.
Consequently, the words of the Afghan Foreign Minister have two basic messages for Islamabad and the region:
1. Afghanistan has not interfered in Pakistan's internal affairs and does not accept being held responsible for its instability.
2. Instead of making accusations, Pakistan should accept responsibility for the security of its borders and internal crises and seek solutions within its borders.
Muttaqi's remarks were not only a diplomatic response to Pakistani media propaganda, but also a clear reminder of the fact that peace and stability require honesty in behavior, transparency in politics, and mutual commitment to the interests of both nations.