The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is more than a boundary between two countries. For millions of Afghans, crossings such as Torkham and Spin Boldak are vital trade routes for food, fuel, medicine, agricultural supplies and other everyday necessities. But repeated closures and restrictions have increasingly turned these crossings into instruments of political and security pressure.
The paper argues that this is not simply a problem of poor border management. Trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has increasingly been shaped by security considerations. Crossings are often closed following political tensions, military incidents or security threats, even when the underlying dispute has little to do with trade itself.
For traders, the effects are immediate. Shipments are delayed or stranded, costs rise and businesses are left uncertain about when a crossing will reopen. Much of that cost eventually reaches consumers through higher prices.
Afghanistan is especially exposed. The country depends heavily on imported food, fuel, medicine and other essential goods, while Pakistan’s larger and more diversified economy is better able to absorb interruptions in bilateral trade. Even a relatively short closure can therefore push up prices and disrupt supplies in Afghan markets.
Repeated disruptions also change the way traders do business. Faced with uncertainty, some hold back stock, add extra costs to prices to cover possible delays, avoid longer-term contracts or shift goods through informal routes. Over time, this weakens formal trade and makes markets less predictable.
The burden falls most heavily on ordinary households. Higher prices for food, fuel and medicine can force low-income families to cut consumption, delay medical care or education expenses, borrow money or sell household assets. Border instability, in other words, does not remain at the border. It reaches directly into family budgets and can deepen already widespread poverty.
The paper does not argue that legitimate security concerns should be ignored or that border crossings must remain open under every circumstance. Instead, it calls for a system in which security measures are targeted and essential trade is protected from wider political disputes.
Among its recommendations are clearer bilateral rules for managing border closures, independent mechanisms for resolving disputes, protected trade lanes for food and medicine, and gradual responses to security incidents rather than immediate blanket shutdowns. It also proposes emergency support for vulnerable households, strategic food reserves and better market information to reduce panic and speculation.
For Afghanistan, the paper argues that reducing dependence on a single trade route is equally important. Expanding links through Iran and Central Asia, while investing in domestic agriculture, irrigation, food storage and production, could make the country less vulnerable when relations with Pakistan deteriorate.
Ultimately, the paper makes the case that trade should help stabilize relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than become another tool in their political disputes. When commercial routes are repeatedly used as leverage, governments may send political messages, but ordinary people pay the price.
Read the full paper
This article presents the main arguments and recommendations from Nasrat Esmaty’s full analysis. The complete paper, including supporting data, detailed economic analysis and the author’s full policy recommendations, is available below.
