• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Frederic Grare"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Pakistani Politics and the Afghan Peace Process

Over the past few years Pakistan has been trying to signal that its foreign policy has changed, yet Pakistan’s strategic objectives in Afghanistan remain largely the same.

Link Copied
By Frederic Grare
Published on Jun 18, 2014
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: Tony Blair Faith Foundation

While Pakistan is signalling a change in its policy on Afghanistan, its strategic objective of undermining Indian influence remains. This entails strengthening its central control over the Taliban, but also reaching out beyond its traditional allies.

Over the past few years, Pakistan has been trying to signal that its foreign policy has changed and that interference in the political affairs of Afghanistan was a thing of the past. As evidence of this new brand of responsible behavior, Islamabad has reached out to its enemies in the former Northern Alliance (now largely working with the government or in the non-violent opposition), promoted a reconciliation process between the Taliban and the Afghan government, and called for regional discussion of a policy of non-interference in Afghanistan. Pakistan has moreover cooperated in the Afghan elections, allowing Afghan refugees to cross the border to vote and restraining its Afghan proxies from disrupting the poll.

Yet Pakistan's strategic objectives in Afghanistan remain largely unchanged, and there are few reasons to believe that the shift is anything more than a tactical adjustment to meet new regional and international realities. Islamabad's overarching goal is still to promote a relatively friendly government in Afghanistan, while preventing Indian influence from becoming too great. Islamabad is likewise attempting to re-enter the good graces of the United States by assisting in the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, though simultaneously exploiting the situation to weaken the strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi. Pakistan also wants Afghan refugees to be able to return to their country and so prevent their potential involvement in Pakistani politics.

But on-the-ground realities in Afghanistan have demanded new policies to achieve these unchanged objectives. Islamabad now acknowledges that the prospect of a Taliban military victory is neither realistic nor desirable in the short term, so it has moved away from using the Taliban as a primary or sole proxy in denying India influence in Afghanistan.

At the same time, Pakistan has strengthened its control over the Taliban by removing key commanders whenever they showed independence from Islamabad, and promoted a bilateral reconciliation process aimed at forging a power-sharing agreement between the Taliban and the government. This tactic has the additional benefit of helping to grow a perception of the Taliban as a legitimate interlocutor in the international community.

Pakistan's reaching out to the former Northern Alliance – an expansion from its traditional Pashtun focus – is primarily a response to India's successful use of development programmes to enhance its influence with every Afghan ethnic group since 2002. Pakistan, systematically blamed in Afghanistan for whatever goes wrong in the country, cannot expect to generate the same level of sympathy. However, by brokering a power sharing agreement in which its proxies would dominate the provinces adjacent to the Afghan-Pakistani border and forego interference in areas controlled by the members of the Northern Alliance, Islamabad is trying to fragment the anti-Taliban camp.

The biggest difference between these new policies and Pakistan's previous approach is the integration of the covert anti-India operation that Pakistan has been conducting in Afghanistan into a much larger and subtler picture. Officials in Islamabad understand that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will make the US dependent on Pakistan. While President Barack Obama's recent decision to withdraw all troops by the end of 2016 surprised Islamabad, Washington's concern about a potential power vacuum in Afghanistan may lead the US to draw Pakistan closer as a regional partner.

By contrast, India's position remains unchanged and is unlikely to be affected in the short term, including by the result of the recent Afghan elections. It has managed to isolate Pakistan regionally (a situation Islamabad is trying to reverse through the proposal of a non-interference agreement) and will continue to support the Afghan government, but is adamantly opposed to Taliban participation in government, whether in Kabul or in the provinces. However, with the US departure from Afghanistan there will be no international force capable of restraining Pakistani activism in the country. Moreover, as India's legitimacy in Afghanistan depends upon being perceived as a reasonable partner it is compelled to tolerate US–Pakistani cooperation.

However, New Delhi's policy in Afghanistan is validated by the evolution of the Afghan and regional situation it helped to shape. The challenge for the new Indian government will be adjusting to the shifting regional reality.

This piece was originally published by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. 

About the Author

Frederic Grare

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Frédéric Grare was a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on Indo-Pacific dynamics, the search for a security architecture, and South Asia Security issues.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    France, the Other Indo-Pacific Power

      Frederic Grare

  • Article
    What Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election Means for Foreign Policy

      Frederic Grare

Frederic Grare
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Frederic Grare
SecurityForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A shadow man holds a shadow drone against a blue sky with clouds.
    Article
    The New Revolution in Military Affairs

    How Ukraine is driving doctrinal change in modern warfare.

      • Andriy Zagorodnyuk

      Andriy Zagorodnyuk

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.