Afghan border closed after Rs4.4trn losses, officials say

ISLAMABAD: The closure of Pakistan’s Afghan border on October 11 was prompted by massive economic losses — over PKR 3.4 trillion yearly from smuggling, plus nearly PKR 1 trillion in illegal backflow of Afghan transit goods. Pakistani officials insist the move is not a reaction to political tensions but a calculated, long-term strategy to dismantle an illicit trade corridor long linked to narcotics trafficking, illegal weapons movement, and militant infiltration.

Authorities point out that only those routes were closed that had become the primary channels for smuggling, drug trafficking, and cross-border terrorism. The decision, they argue, reinforces national security, strengthens economic sovereignty, and helps restore state control over key trade arteries.

While Pakistan remains largely unaffected, Afghanistan is facing the harshest economic consequences. The closure has already caused more than USD 200 million in losses, with USD45 million stemming from Torkham alone in just one month. Over 5,000 trucks have been stranded at border points, while Afghan fruits and seasonal produce spoiled as they awaited entry into Pakistani markets.

Transport timelines have doubled or tripled; goods that previously reached Afghanistan via Karachi in 3-4 days now take 6-8 days through Iran, and over 30 days through Central Asian routes. The cost of shipments via Iran has surged by 50–60 percent, adding nearly USD2,500 per container.

Pakistani, Afghan security forces clash at closed main border crossing

The crisis has exposed Afghanistan’s overwhelming dependence on Pakistan, with 70–80 percent of its trade reliant on Pakistani ports and road networks. More than half of Afghanistan’s medicines also transit through Pakistan. Analysts say Afghanistan’s fragile economy is ill-equipped to absorb the increased costs, delays, and risks associated with alternative routes.

Inside Afghanistan, the impact has been socially disruptive as well. With smuggling halted, over 200,000 people linked to illegal trade, backflow operations, and under-invoicing networks have reportedly lost their income sources. Pakistani officials argue that breaking these networks will curb the movement of illegal arms, narcotics, and militant financing in the long run.

In contrast, the trade freeze has had almost no effect on everyday life in Pakistan. Afghan-origin goods entering through smuggling channels were largely luxury items rather than essential commodities. With Pakistan maintaining secure trade through CPEC and direct land links with China, authorities foresee no disruption to vital supply chains.

Policymakers believe Pakistan will begin to see long-term gains over the next 5–10 years, including improved border security, reduced economic leakages, and a more regulated cross-border trade environment. At the same time, the shift may push Afghanistan to diversify its trade beyond eastern provinces such as Paktia and engage more with Iran and Central Asia —potentially fostering greater inclusivity in its economic structure.

Analysts conclude that Afghanistan’s leadership now faces a critical decision: either continue providing space to militant groups or work jointly with Pakistan to restore stability and pursue shared economic progress.