Afghanistan Times
Related Articles
KABUL — A newly signed Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) between Pakistan and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is being hailed by both parties as a major economic breakthrough—but critics warn it may be a dangerous step toward legitimizing an internationally shunned regime, with far-reaching consequences for human rights, counterterrorism efforts, and regional stability.
The agreement, which slashes tariffs on key agricultural goods—from 60% down to 27% on items like Afghan fruit—has been framed by Islamabad and Kabul as a win for bilateral trade and cross-border cooperation. But beneath the headlines, analysts argue it reflects a strategic gamble by Pakistan that could undermine global pressure on the Taliban to reform, and even bolster terrorist networks that threaten Pakistan’s own security.
“This is not just about fruit and customs rates,” said Dr. Sahibzada M. Usman, a regional analyst. “It’s about normalizing a regime that systematically oppresses women and harbors transnational jihadist groups, in the name of economic pragmatism.”
The Taliban regime, which remains unrecognized by every major Western government, now stands to gain legitimacy and new revenue streams through the deal—despite its well-documented suppression of women’s rights, clampdown on civil society, and protection of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Ironically, the TTP is responsible for hundreds of deadly attacks inside Pakistan, raising alarm over Islamabad’s decision to economically empower a regime that shelters its own enemies.
Critics say the PTA gives the Taliban more than it gives Afghanistan’s people. While a drop in tariffs may benefit some farmers and traders, the real winners are likely to be those with close ties to Taliban power structures, leaving ordinary Afghans—especially women and ethnic minorities—marginalized. “Trade doesn’t equal justice,” a Kabul-based rights activist said. “You can’t build economic self-reliance in a country where half the population is banned from work and school.”
Even the oft-cited goal of “people-to-people ties” is being questioned. “How can you have real exchange,” asks Afghan economist Wahid Nazari, “when one side has shut down free speech, punishes dissent, and enforces gender apartheid?”
Observers warn that Pakistan’s rationale—reducing refugee pressure, gaining leverage in Kabul, and securing economic dividends—sacrifices long-term regional security for short-term gains. Far from stabilizing the region, the deal may embolden the Taliban, reinforce its ideological grip, and weaken the international community’s already fragile efforts to demand reform through isolation.
Western policymakers, human rights defenders, and civil society actors are urging a coordinated international response. “Trade with the Taliban,” said one EU diplomat, “must come with ironclad conditions: girls in school, women in work, and terrorists out of safe haven. Anything less is complicity.”
As Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis deepens, and Pakistan grapples with internal militancy, the world faces a stark choice: reward expedient deals with authoritarian regimes, or insist that human rights and counterterrorism remain non-negotiable pillars of engagement.
