AFGHANISTAN’S opposing sides have started negotiations towards ending decades of war, bringing together delegates appointed by the Afghan government and the Taliban.
US secretary of state Mike Pompeo attended the opening ceremony in Qatar, where the meetings will take place.
It is the latest in a flurry of diplomatic activity by the Trump administration ahead of the US presidential election in November.
The discussions are important in the search for lasting peace that will also provide an exit for US and Nato troops after nearly 19 years.
The sides will try to tackle tough issues including the terms of a permanent ceasefire, the rights of women and minorities and the disarming of tens of thousands of Taliban fighters and militias loyal to warlords, some of them aligned with the government.
READ MORE: Nancy Pelosi: Boris Johnson has 'no chance' of passing deal if he undermines GFA
The talks in Doha follow the US-brokered recognition of Israel by two Gulf nations – Bahrain on Friday and the United Arab Emirates earlier this month.
The Afghan sides are also expected to discuss constitutional changes and power-sharing.
Even seemingly mundane issues like the flag and the name of the country – the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or, as the Taliban’s administration had been known when it ruled, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – could roil tempers as they find their way on to the negotiation table.
Among the government-appointed negotiators are four women, who vow to preserve women’s rights in any power-sharing deal with the fundamentalist Taliban.
This includes the right to work, education and participation in political life – all denied when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan for five years.
The Taliban were ousted in 2001 by a US-led coalition for harbouring Osama bin Laden.
There are no women on the Taliban’s negotiation team, led by their chief justice Abdul Hakim.
Pompeo has said he expected the discussions to be contentious.
Washington’s peace envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on Friday that launching the talks is an important achievement, but that “there are difficulties, significant challenges on the way to reaching agreement”.
READ MORE: It’s about time the UK stops watching and starts acting on Belarus dictatorship
He said: “This is a test for both sides, for the Taliban and the government.
“Can they reach an agreement despite differences, in terms of their visions for the future of Afghanistan?”
The intra-Afghan negotiations were laid out in a peace deal Washington signed with the Taliban on February 29.
At that time the deal was touted as Afghanistan’s best chance at peace in 40 years of war.
The talks were originally expected to begin within weeks of the February 29 signing.
But delays disrupted the timeline from the outset. The Afghan government baulked at releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners, which was stipulated in the deal as a sign of good faith ahead of the negotiations.
The Taliban were required to release 1000 government and military personnel in their custody.
Political turmoil in Kabul further delayed talks as Afghan president Ashraf Ghani and his rival in controversial presidential polls the year before, Abdullah Abdullah, squabbled over who won, with both declaring victory.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here