• Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Petr Topychkanov"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Secret Meeting Brings Taliban to China

The success of the Urumqi meeting between the representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban, also attended by Chinese and Pakistanis, is doubtful. The role of Pakistan in the organization of the meeting is the most controversial issue.

Link Copied
By Petr Topychkanov
Published on May 28, 2015
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: Russia & India Report

Representatives from the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban secretly met on May 19-20 in Urumqi, the capital of Chinese Xinjiang’s Uygur Autonomous Region. The meeting was also attended by Chinese and Pakistanis.

Reports about the meeting first appeared in the American newspaper Wall Street Journal (WSJ) earlier this week, giving a positive assessment of the meeting. The article underlined three crucial features of the meeting.

  • First, the Afghan government was represented by a very senior official, Mohammed Masoom Stanekzai, the acting defence minister since May 24. The high level of representation is unprecedented.
     
  • Second, the Pakistan army’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was actively involved in the organization of the meeting which, according to the writers, proves Islamabad’s desire for a peaceful settlement of the situation in Afghanistan.
     
  • Third, China, which hosted the meeting, showed that it wants to be more involved in the Afghan problem than it has before.
Most of the world’s media, including Russian, replicated the WSJ's positive assessment of the meeting in Urumqi. However, reasons for optimism are much fewer than reasons to doubt the success of this initiative.

The meeting was reportedly not a negotiation, but preliminary consultations about the beginning of negotiations. The fact that several years after negotiations started between the Afghan government and the Taliban, they decided to restart negotiations from scratch indicates the failure of the previous efforts and casts doubt on the prospects of future ones.

The choice of head of the Afghan delegation at the meeting is quite intriguing. If these were no more than preliminary consultations, why would such a senior politician participate in them? Perhaps the Afghan authorities expected a more conclusive outcome from the meeting, which Taliban representatives did not accept?

The Taliban who arrived in Urumqi were not of the same level of seniority as Stanekzai. While Mullah Abdul Jalil (Head of the Taliban’s Committee on Internal Affairs), Mullah Mohammad Hassan Rahmani (former head of Kandahar Province) and Mullah Abdul Razak (former interior minister) occupy prominent positions in the Taliban hierarchy, unlike Stanekzai, they do not have the authority to represent all of the Taliban.

These Taliban representatives were chosen to come to Urumqi because of their contacts with Pakistan's ISI, the writers said, raising questions about their dependence and links with Pakistan’s intelligence service.

The role of Pakistan in the organization of the meeting between the Afghan authorities and the Taliban is the most controversial issue.

The WSJ article portrays it as evidence of Pakistan's constructive approach to the Afghan problem. Such an assessment may be both correct and incorrect. It is not, however, the main reason for the active role of Pakistan in the meeting.

The primary reason why Pakistan and China chose to host the secret negotiations is that it enabled Islamabad to increase its influence over the political processes in Afghanistan. In earlier years, Pakistani felt that its participation in Afghan affairs was deliberately limited by other countries, demonstrated by NATO's decision not to invite Pakistan to the Lisbon summit in 2010. Pakistan had felt its influence curtailed during the tenure of Hamid Karzai as President of Afghanistan.

The strengthening of Pakistan's influence, evident from the Taliban's list of participants of the meeting, will not necessarily create the best conditions for successful negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Pakistan's vision for Afghanistan’s future is not shared by everyone, not only in Kabul but also in the Taliban itself.

What is China’s interest in this controversial initiative? Despite providing support for the new format of talks in Beijing, China is hardly ready to settle for being a “broker” in the negotiation process between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, as media reports in 2014 suggested.

China's involvement in the Afghan theatre is growing. Beijing is involved in all major dialogue formats related to Afghanistan, including at the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Istanbul dialogue, the ‘China-Afghanistan-Pakistan’ dialogue and the ‘Russia-India-China’ format, not to mention the active bilateral Sino-Afghan contacts.

In the summer of 2014, the Chinese Foreign Ministry introduced a position of special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and named Sun Yuxi, a former ambassador to Afghanistan in 2002-2005, to the post.

If the Urumqi meeting leads to full-fledged negotiations between Kabul and the Taliban, it will be a political outcome supported by Beijing to achieve a certain goal. In case contacts between the Afghan authorities and the Taliban go forward, China’s goal is not only to achieve a political solution to the Afghan problem through peaceful negotiations.

It would also give China an opportunity to establish stable channels of communication with the Taliban, while getting a better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of Pakistan in Afghanistan.

This article originally appeared in Russia & India Report.

Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Petr Topychkanov
SecurityForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistanEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    ASEAN-China Digital Cooperation: Deeper but Clear-Eyed Engagement

    ASEAN needs to determine how to balance perpetuating the benefits of technology cooperation with China while mitigating the risks of getting caught in the crosshairs of U.S.-China gamesmanship.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.