Recent Pakistan–Afghanistan border clashes, rising diplomatic tensions, and three unsuccessful negotiation rounds have pushed bilateral trade relations to a critical strategic juncture. After talks between Islamabad and Kabul collapsed, the Afghan government announced that it would end its trade dependence on Pakistan and begin exploring alternative routes.
Addressing industrialists and traders in Kabul, Afghanistan’s Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, instructed the business community to immediately halt all trade via Pakistan and shift to other states.
Baradar warned:
“From today onwards, any trader who continues imports or exports through Pakistan will be solely responsible for any future complications. The Islamic Emirate will not intervene on their behalf.”
He further stated that if Pakistan seeks to continue trade, it must provide international guarantees ensuring that trade routes will never be closed on political or security grounds. According to him,
“If Pakistan truly wants trade, it must guarantee that trade routes will never be shut down.”
Sources indicate that Afghanistan is now making efforts to develop new corridors via Central Asia, Iran, and Türkiye. The Afghan government argues that repeated disruptions via Pakistan have pushed the Afghan economy into a state of strategic uncertainty; therefore, alternative options are necessary. However, economic experts and leading business associations are calling this decision unrealistic and economically destructive.
This Is the Economic Destruction of Afghan Traders
Khan Jan Alokozai, one of Afghanistan’s largest business tycoons and former head of the Afghan Chamber of Commerce, labelled the government’s decision “economic suicide.”
At a press conference in Kabul, he stated:
“If trade with Pakistan is suspended, Afghanistan’s economy will move straight toward collapse. This is the economic massacre of Afghan traders.”
Alokozai added that Afghan traders, industries, and workers are already facing a severe financial crisis:
“If trade with Pakistan stops, Afghanistan’s factories will shut down, food prices will skyrocket, and the country will slip into economic anarchy.”
It is notable that out of roughly 500 major factories in Afghanistan, almost 490 are either owned by Alokozai or linked to his business network.
He argued:
“We cannot sell our national dignity, but we must also recognize that ending trade with Pakistan threatens our very survival.”
Alokozai further stated that Afghanistan still has legal rights under the APTA treaty, and Pakistan is obliged under international norms to provide transit access to landlocked states:
“The Indian Ocean is not Pakistan’s sea alone is a global ocean, and we have the right to benefit from it.”
Border Closure and Massive Economic Losses
The Pakistan–Afghanistan border has remained completely shut for 32 days, paralyzing commercial flows. Key border crossings Torkham, Chaman, Ghulam Khan, Angoor Adda, and Dand-e- Patan non-functional. Around 8,000 trucks are stuck on both sides, with goods worth $50–70 million at risk of spoilage.
Annual bilateral trade stands at approximately $1.2 billion, of which over 70% consists of Pakistani exports to Afghanistan, including medicines, food, textiles, construction materials, and fuel. Afghanistan’s exports to Pakistan include dried fruits, herbs, coal, and vegetables. Nearly 150,000 people directly rely on these trade sectors.
According to the Afghan Chamber of Commerce, both states are currently losing nearly $200 million per month.
Afghanistan Will Suffer Irreversible Economic Damage
Speaking to HTN, Shahid Hussain, Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, stated that 60% of Afghanistan’s total trade depends on Pakistan.
“Afghanistan is a landlocked country with no direct maritime access, and it lacks the logistical infrastructure needed to trade effectively via Iran or Central Asia.”
He added:
“If the trade suspension continues, Afghanistan will face the heaviest losses.”
He argued that Iran’s Chabahar route is longer and logistically far more expensive—almost double the cost of the Pakistan corridor.
Former Ambassador Abrar Hussain’s Strategic View
Former Pakistani Ambassador to Afghanistan, Abrar Hussain, called Kabul’s decision strategically impractical:
“Afghanistan may attempt to use the Chabahar or Sanglakh routes, but these pathways are extremely costly and unsustainable. They exist only on paper; ground realities do not support them.”
He emphasised:
“Pakistan’s ports, roads, and railway networks are Afghanistan’s economic lifeline.”
Minimal Impact on Pakistan, Devastating Blow to Afghanistan
Afghanistan affairs specialist, Salman Javed, argued that Pakistan’s economy relies only 5% on Afghanistan, whereas 60% of Afghanistan’s entire trade apparatus depends on Pakistan.
“To assume that Pakistan will collapse due to an Afghan trade boycott is naïve. Afghanistan’s entire trade system will disintegrate first.”
He added:
Pakistan survived global sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests. If global restrictions could not collapse Pakistan, how will a limited Afghan boycott do so?”
Trade Suspension and Soaring Prices
According to the UN World Food Programme, food prices in Afghanistan have surged sharply due to the trade halt:
• Wheat flour up by 50–100 Afghanis per 50 kg bag
• Rice prices up by 50 Afghanis per bag
Pakistan is also witnessing rising fruit and vegetable prices due to halted Afghan imports.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s internal economic pressure is intensifying:
• Foreign investment down 60%
• Inflation rising to 12%
• The currency market is becoming unstable
Trade route closures have pushed the country deeper into financial distress.
Uzbekistan–Afghanistan “New Corridor”: Hope or Illusion?
Afghanistan and Uzbekistan recently signed a “historic” land and air corridor agreement, being framed as a replacement for Pakistan. However, trade experts call this symbolic rather than substantive. Recent Afghan actions, such as removing Uzbek-language signboards, have already eroded trust between the two sides.
According to analysts, reaching European markets via Uzbekistan may be theoretically possible but will be multiple times more expensive, with estimated freight charges rising by 60%.
Why Alternatives Are Not Realistically Viable for Afghanistan
A practical geographic and logistical analysis reveals that Chabahar, Wakhan, and Central Asian corridors are not immediate or cost-effective replacements. Trade via Iran requires long inland transport, repeated border checks, transshipment, container inspections, and high insurance costs. Karachi-to-Kabul remains the fastest and cheapest route—nearly 40% more cost-efficient than any Iran or Central Asia alternative. Switching to other routes would increase freight, insurance, demurrage, and transit fees by 60–100% overall. Fresh agricultural goods and perishables lose market value due to long travel times and repeated unloading. Thus, while alternative corridors exist on paper, they are not viable in reality, especially for a fragile economy like Afghanistan’s.
Is Kabul Ignoring Pakistan’s Contributions Due to India’s Strategic Influence?
Many analysts argue that India’s diplomatic and political influence is visible behind some of Kabul’s recent decisions. While every nation has the right to craft its foreign policy, the perception that Afghanistan is disregarding decades of Pakistan’s support for short-term geopolitical gains raises uncomfortable questions. From Pakistan’s perspective, its primary and consistent demand remains unchanged: Afghan soil must not be used by groups such as TTP. Islamabad insists on verifiable security guarantees and joint mechanisms for monitoring cross‑border threats. Without a formal, evidence-based security arrangement, diplomatic and trade tensions between the two states are likely to persist—hurting Afghanistan far more than Pakistan.
The Most Dangerous Decision for Afghanistan?
The Afghan government’s announcement to end Pakistan-dependent trade appears driven by short-term political considerations rather than long-term strategic planning. Most Afghan economists and business leaders agree that the decision is equivalent to pushing Afghanistan toward economic collapse. For Afghanistan, trade with Pakistan is not just an economic need—it is a geostrategic inevitability. Alternative routes such as Chabahar, Wakhan, and Lapis Lazuli exist in theory but are unsustainable, expensive, and insecure in practice. If Afghanistan fails to align its trade policy with ground realities, the coming months may bring severe shortages, inflation, unemployment, and a new wave of economic instability. Experts argue that for Afghanistan’s economic survival, maintaining trade relations with Pakistan is essential; otherwise, the losses will be irreversible.
