OPINION – Pakistan Fights Terror While Trying To Keep Border Trade Alive
A mix of raids, aid, and tariff relief defines Islamabad’s new approach to balancing security and commerce
[Islamabad] Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan is once again testing the state’s ability to juggle two competing priorities: crushing armed groups and keeping cross-border trade alive. In early August, the army announced it had killed 33 fighters in an overnight raid in Balochistan’s Zhob district, part of a wider campaign against cross-border threats. Days later, it claimed another 50 fighters had been eliminated over four days of clashes. Farther north, a limited offensive in Bajaur displaced nearly 100,000 people. To ease the blow, the provincial government promised 50,000 Pakistani rupees (about $180) per family. These are not minor clashes—they are large-scale military operations designed to make sure Afghan territory cannot be used to strike Pakistan.
Yet this same border is also an economic lifeline. Despite years of volatility, trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan was surprisingly strong in the first half of 2025, reaching nearly $1 billion (Pakistan exported about $712 million; Afghanistan exported $277 million). Recognizing this interdependence, the two governments launched what they called an “Early Harvest Program” on August 1, cutting tariffs on selected farm goods for a year. Afghan tomatoes, grapes, pomegranates, and apples will enter Pakistan more cheaply, while Pakistani mangoes, potatoes, and citrus fruit will move into Afghan markets at lower cost. The signal is clear: Pakistan wants to hit terrorists hard while shielding legitimate commerce from disruption.
That balance is difficult. Border crossings can close without notice when violence flares. Trucks have piled up at Ghulam Khan, while major gateways at Torkham and Chaman have been shut repeatedly this year. One earlier closure stranded 5,000 trucks and caused an estimated $15 million in losses in just a few days. When gates do reopen, perishable goods rot in the backlog, forcing some trade into smuggling routes that are costlier and less safe. The human side is visible too: In August, thousands of Afghans queued for days at Chaman waiting for permission to return, with estimates of 4,000 to 5,000 people stuck at one time.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Pakistan is now trying a two-track strategy: targeted military action combined with structured trade facilitation. Officials describe the Bajaur offensive as limited and time-bound, paired with compensation and aid to avoid the backlash that past blanket crackdowns generated. On the economic side, tariff cuts are designed to keep commerce moving even when security tightens. With nearly $1 billion in trade in the first half of the year, there is a sturdy base to protect.
Still, policymakers face three clear risks. First, fighters may deliberately attack crossings because closures cause massive economic pain. That means Pakistan needs humanitarian exemptions built in—fast lanes for students, patients, and urgent cargo. Second, if crossings close too often, traders may shift permanently to alternate routes through Iran. Once supply chains move, they don’t always come back. Third, the lack of clear messaging allows narratives to harden on both sides. Pakistan would benefit from a communications strategy that explains why raids and tighter border checks protect communities, without making ordinary cross-border movement seem criminal.
What might work is to formalize what August previewed. A standing border-management cell could link the army, customs, and trade authorities. Clear rules could outline how to manage partial closures—such as designating specific lanes for perishable goods or limiting restrictions to certain hours. Tariff concessions under the Early Harvest Program should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are tied to measurable trade flows and compliance. When military action is unavoidable, mitigation steps—like temporary border passes for medical emergencies, escrow systems for perishable shipments, and published timelines for reopening—should kick in automatically.
Pakistan’s end goal is straightforward: a frontier that is secure against infiltration but dependable for families and traders who rely on it. August demonstrated that this balance is achievable through a combination of military operations, compensation, and tariff reductions. The real test will be whether Islamabad can apply this approach consistently—so that the border is not just defended in crises, but managed daily in ways that let stability pay dividends.
