DAWN Editorials 4th September 2026

Ties with Kabul

WHILE diplomatic efforts are underway to restore dialogue with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, as the Foreign Office has pointed out, talks can only succeed when there is a firm commitment from Kabul to end support for terrorist groups based on Afghan soil.

During a briefing on Wednesday, the FO welcomed China’s efforts to bridge the gap between Kabul and Islamabad, but cautioned that only firm action from the Taliban could take the process forward. Beijing’s envoy for Afghanistan was recently in Pakistan reportedly to restart the Urumqi process. The FO also downplayed the recent engagement of the Afghan ambassador to speak at the NDU as “not unusual”.

This may be true, but the fact that the Afghan diplomat spoke at the nation’s top defence university at a time when bilateral ties are near rock bottom is significant. But, despite these efforts, the fact remains that terrorist groups based in Afghanistan are the biggest obstacle to peace. The ISPR announced yesterday that several terrorists trying to infiltrate Pakistan at the Afghan border were eliminated. The military’s media wing highlighted that “the Afghan Taliban regime has consistently failed to ensure border management”.

The efforts by sincere friends like China are welcome. Beijing wants calm in the region to protect its investments in Afghanistan, as well as to neutralise anti-China militant groups such as ETIM based on Afghan soil. Yet, as the FO pointed out, these endeavours can only succeed when there is determination from Kabul to take action against terrorist groups. The Taliban regime has taken steps such as relocating TTP fighters and their families away from the common border, while the Taliban supreme leader has also reportedly asked the banned TTP to stop attacks on Pakistan. But these are cosmetic moves, and as the latest firefight at the border indicates, they have had a limited impact on the TTP and other terrorist groups.

If diplomatic efforts are to succeed, then the roadmap, as identified by the FO, must be followed. This entails “verifiable, written assurances” from the Afghan Taliban that their territory will not be used against Pakistan. If this apparently simple principle is followed, engagement and long-term peace are possible. It may be worth reviving the Urumqi process, but Kabul must affirm its resolve to act against anti-Pakistan terrorists.

While sustained hostilities are not good for either country, Pakistan has shown that it can defend itself against terrorist groups, as well as states that host them. Pakistan has said time and again that it is ready for dialogue if Afghanistan withdraws its support for violent groups. It is now up to Kabul to create a conducive atmosphere for talks, primarily by stopping all cross-border movement of terrorists.

Published in Dawn, September 4th, 2026

GM maize concerns

THE Committee on Genetically Modified Corn has approved GM maize cultivation alongside hybrid and organic varieties. The decision itself is not the problem. But the lack of transparency around it and the framework for conducting open-field trials of new technology to test its behaviour in the local environment are problematic. While the committee’s statement cites a “practical, well-defined framework” and stakeholder consultations, it says little about independent field trials for Pakistani soil and climatic conditions, as distinct from controlled environments. International protocol for GMO food crops exists because laboratory performance and open-field behaviour diverge, and the contamination risk to neighbouring crops is real. Both stages of testing need to happen before commercialisation. The results should be published so that farmers and the public can make an informed decision.

Coexistence with existing varieties, endorsed in principle, needs more than a promise. It needs a mandated buffer distance between GM and non-GM plots, and separate harvesting, transport and packaging for GM maize. Pollen drift and seed mixing in transport are the two main routes of contamination. If the state wants to protect the non-GM seed base, these details must be worked out. There is also the question of timing. Maize, by the committee’s own account, is a thriving crop in Pakistan on hybrid seed alone. The push for commercialisation has apparently come from the US administration and from American firms holding trial licences, not from a domestic productivity crisis. That doesn’t make the technology bad. It does, however, mean the government owes the public an account of what GM maize solves that hybrid seed does not. If GM maize proves suitable for local conditions after proper testing, the companies bringing it to the market should compete with hybrid and organic varieties on the same footing as any other seed technology. No government guarantees, no subsidised entry, no regulatory shortcuts should be allowed. Farmers need training on cultivation requirements before GM seed reaches the market. Also, consumers need transparent labelling. Most countries that allow GM crops into the food supply mandate it so that buyers can choose. Pakistan should not leave GM and non-GM maize indistinguishable on the shelf.

Published in Dawn, September 4th, 2026

Beyond listings

PAKISTAN’S request to Unesco to consider Rani Ghat and Banbhore for the World Heritage List is welcome. It follows the recent expansion of the country’s tentative list from 25 to 37 properties, with 12 new cultural and heritage sites added this year.

Both Rani Ghat and Banbhore speak to civilisations that flourished on this land long before the modern state existed, and greater international recognition could help attract scholarship, tourism and conservation funding.

Plans to take Gandhara exhibitions abroad, establish “Gandhara Corners” and facilitate longer visits to Buddhist sites are also sensible. Pakistan has for too long treated its archaeological wealth as a niche interest rather than a cultural and economic asset. But enthusiasm for adding names to Unesco’s list must be matched by equal seriousness about the six Pakistani properties already inscribed on it.

Similar vigilance is required at Lahore Fort and Shalamar Gardens, where planning and development around the property must not compromise its heritage value.

The record there is mixed. The World Heritage Committee this year acknowledged conservation progress at Mohenjodaro and Makli, while making clear that considerable work remains. Mohenjodaro still requires attention to drainage, salinity and an integrated management plan; Makli needs sustained conservation and adequate financial and human resources.

Recognition cannot become an end in itself. Federal and provincial authorities should publish conservation plans and budgets for every listed site, maintain specialist teams, improve visitor facilities, signage and access, and promote these places intelligently and consistently at home and abroad.

Tourism revenues should be transparently reinvested in preservation, with local communities given a stake in protecting the sites. Seeking recognition for Rani Ghat and Banbhore is worthwhile.

But Pakistan’s strongest case for adding new treasures to the World Heritage List is to show that those already recognised by the world are being cared for as if they matter.

Published in Dawn, September 4th, 2026