On February 29, 2020, the United States and the Afghan Taliban signed a peace agreement in Doha, Qatar, to end the long war in Afghanistan. The agreement contains much of the same terms that were agreed in September 2019, but were cut by President Trump. Essentially, this agreement requires the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the Afghan coalition in exchange for a promise that the Taliban would not allow terrorist groups to operate on Afghan soil. However, the agreement is based on several assumptions that will make its success problematic. This agreement requires an Afghan government operating in Kabul, with which it will be possible to negotiate. The recent Afghan presidential elections have not upset those responsible, but the waters. The failure of the presidential election took place last September, but the vote counting process was so confusing and controversial that the winner was not announced until 18 February 2020, almost five months after the election. The erroneous and controversial elections led to a controversial and divided government in Kabul, which led to a deadlock over those responsible and made it difficult to implement the next stage of the peace agreement. As a result, the Taliban, with a weak or divided government in Kabul, will be in a stronger position to dictate the terms of an agreement on the future of Afghanistan that would be favourable to their position. For the agreements to be effectively implemented, it is essential to assist third parties in peacekeeping, training, elections and surveillance, in order to ensure transparency and promote the confidence of both parties.
It is much more effective if there is a regional power that has an interest in resolving the conflict, that power must have economic and military influence to provide resources, as well as a credible threat of sanctions for non-enforcement of an agreement (Stedman, 2001, 11). The other important role of a third party is the securing of easily marketable goods, which are an important source of war gains such as diamonds or wood. According to a 2001 study on the implementation of peace agreements in civil wars, no peace agreement has ever been successfully implemented if there is such a valuable loot (Stedman, 2). 28The indefinite economic provisions indicate that the agreement is part of a process of gradual transformation of the conflict in Nepal. Overall, the agreement was reached to resolve two elements of the Nepalese conflict: the Maoist insurgency and the struggle for power between the king and political parties in Kathmandu. The agreement did not, however, address « the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of small elites at the expense of many marginalized groups. »  By including only general goals for socio-economic change, the agreement creates the conditions for a political process to determine how to transform Nepal`s economy. Most peace agreements address three main concerns: procedure, content and organization. Peace agreements are treaties that aim to end a violent conflict or significantly modify a conflict so that it can be dealt with in a more constructive manner. There are different types of agreements that can be reached during a peace process. Each type of agreement has its own purpose and serves in itself to give a positive impetus to a final settlement.