• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "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.

About the Author

Petr Topychkanov

Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center

Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Entanglement: Chinese and Russian Perspectives on Non-nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Risks
      • +3

      James M. Acton, Alexey Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, …

  • In The Media
    Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global System

      Petr Topychkanov

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 Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    No, A Democratic Congress Won’t Save Europe

    A blue wave has swept over the U.S. midterms, with Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress. But Europeans hoping for a return to business as usual should think again.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Article
    Turkey’s Four Headaches Are Also Europe’s

    Between stalled economic ties and a push for greater security cooperation, EU-Turkey relations remain uncertain. Ankara’s continued slide toward autocracy is the likeliest common denominator in these competing dynamics.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Member States Must Make Enlargement Their Own

    The European Commission is preparing the EU for its next enlargement. But member states need to make it a project that European citizens can understand, shape, and support.

      Iliriana Gjoni

  • Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention
    Research
    Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention

    Geoengineering is becoming a geopolitical question as much as a climate one. The way states and the private sector pursue these technologies, assess risks, and drive research increasingly appears focused on gaining a strategic edge. In a field where governance in lagging behind, Europe should keep track of the geopolitical implications if it is to develop effective regulatory frameworks.

      Olivia Lazard, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is Burnham’s EU Policy Bold Enough?

    Resetting relations with the EU is a central plank of the UK’s current foreign policy. Is Andy Burnham being bold enough or is he falling into the same trap as his predecessors, misreading the power dynamic?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe Communiqué
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe Communiqué
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.