Introduction
Ambiguity is the form in which a sentence, a phrase or a word generates more than one meaning. In diplomacy, ambiguity is used to generate meaning that must be incompatible and unrelated for such a sentence to be positively ambiguous (Pehar, pp. 123).
Diplomatic ambiguity is the kind of language which is used in diplomacy particularly in peace agreements. Such a language is said to be ambiguous when it is used in a manner that two parties are able to agree on an issue without having to offend one another but arriving at justifiable conclusions. This kind of diplomacy is utilized by states at times of peace agreements and treaties (Gore-Booth pp 1-7).
Pros of diplomatic ambiguity
These formulations of language are utilized in diplomacy in situations where two parties are unable to agree to a negotiation. Diplomatic ambiguity plays the role of providing a level ground of consensus among parties in a dispute. In such situations where parties have interests that are hard to agree on, this kind of diplomacy can be effective (Scott, pp. 45-49). Here the lead mediator creates a special formula for both parties involved in the conflict. Such a formula must have two interpretations for both parties each party with one.
Taking the parties to be A and B, then one interpretation must justify the interests of A and the other meaning must fit the interests of B. The ambiguity here comes in where each party keeps its interpretation and at the same time owing to the key objective of their survival and corporation. This kind of conflict resolution mechanism is applicable to states, international organizations and even individuals (Pehar, pp. 123).
Diplomatic ambiguity is very instrumental in influencing negotiating parties to come to an agreement and stop or reduce physical violence between them. Although this system at times does not guarantee confidence in a lasting solution, it gives dialog a chance than enduring friction among parties that could even be resulting to deaths.
This kind of conflict resolution mechanism gives the opportunity for a cooperative conflict resolution. Gone are the situations when in times of conflict parties used to resolve by “the winner takes it all” system. Here it allows all parties to share if it is power, and corporate to avoid division in the country or region(Pehar, pp 117-147). This kind of an agreement will only fail when parties to conflict realize that they have provisions that are favoring them there by insisting on them. When this occurs, it thus opens a chance for further cooperative efforts to get better interpretation of the provision aimed at strengthening the cooperation. Here Pehar Drazen provides the abortion example that hit Cairo’s program on population in 1994 towards its interpretation of the abortion law. A provision was developed that satisfied all parties by saying that abortion was supposed to be safe in the country on circumstances that it did not break the law but was considered unsafe once it broke the law. Such a provision gave equal weight to parties concerned although it needed corporation for success.
The other advantage is that politicians obtain public office due to their own political nature of gaining while in the political class and at times serving their supporters (Morgenthau, pp. 70). This therefore implies that political life of politicians is always predictable, from this premise that most negotiating parties are politicians fighting for political survival, then it can be predicted that after signing the agreement fighting still continues though this time its verbal (Raid, pp 40-92. This kind of ambiguity channels more politics to an issue although this is predictable. For instance the Palestine has always been politicizing the agreements they always made with Israel which is better than physical war.
It is however emphasized that states should adopt this kind of diplomacy owing to the fact that at times human beings become very hard to agree on some issues based on their vested interest. Tolerated diplomatic ambiguity favors agreement in this kind of situation. It is argued by proponents that those societies that support this king of ambiguous kind of diplomacy become developed both psychologically and economically (Pehar, pp. 123). It is purported that such such states tend to cope more easily with emotional situations.
Cons of diplomatic ambiguity
It is pointed out that that diplomatic ambiguity does not derive a lasting solution in solving diplomatic problems. What it does is that it tries to put off the kinds of the parties to problem by developing a goal expectation from the agreement. However, since the agreement is not party to a single interpretation, it becomes hard for such an agreement to last. In other words, it tries to put of the problem to a later time which is not predictable. This kind of agreement is just aimed at binging to end physical violence but not a lasting political solution (Rimmon, pp. 115-153).
Diplomatic ambiguity is a tool used by parties who are not willing to take up their duties and responsibilities. This is in respect to relations among states (Goodale, pp. 94-112). With this kind of ambiguity then it is never easy to to seek redress on failure of one of the parties to fulfill its stipulated tasks in the agreement. This a because non of the parties feels like coming its time serving the interest of the other party. This mechanism is used where parties want to escape fulfillment of their provisions but just enhance their survival in the environment based on the “vague” agreement.
In peace agreements, ambiguous diplomacy is likely to introduce a temporary satisfaction which opponents say it is deceptive (Scott, pp. 45-49). This is so due to its ambiguity which makes parties to conflict easily interpret it and only follow the interpretation which favors them. These parties feel very comfortable when they realize that their interpretation of the agreement favors their irreconcilable positions with their hostile parties. Many kinds of peace agreement reached that are based on this are likely to come to an end once an argument arises turning to disagreements after parties have exploited the provisions and found it was unnecessary (Bourdieu, pp 66-90). This new kind of misunderstanding originating from such an agreement generates more disagreement since parties feel like they have been conned thus creating more hostilities thereby re-igniting the war again.
According to Thomas Frank, a theoretician of international law quoted in Pehars article says that an ambiguous diplomacy cannot produce a fair agreement between parties. This because the legal interpretation is not clear meaning that such an agreement lacks transparency. He goes ahead and says that those who abide by it should fully understand it. With this kind of understanding, then the level of compliance reduces. Frank goes ahead adding that this kind of diplomacy is likely to steer intellectual conflicts between parties sine these parties do not actually agree to the dictated of the agreement.
References
Bourdieu, P. Language power. Cambridge: Harvard Uni. Press, 1995.
Gore-Booth, L. Language forms of diplomatic discourse. London: Long man, 1997.
Goodale, M. The language of Intellectuals. Hove: Language teaching pub. 2000.
Hall, E. Types of ambiguity, 2nd Ed. London: Hogarth press, 1927.
Mutecci, A. Practitioner’s language in diplomacy. Malta :Diplo publishing press, 2001.
Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations. New York, Prentice Hall, 1956.
Pehar, D. Language ambiguities in peace agreements. Malta: Diplo projects, 2001.
Raid, M. Middle east looks for peace. London: Sage publishers, 1981.
Rimmon, S. The meaning of ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 1977.
Scott, N. Terminologies used in conference diplomacy. Essex, Hogarth press, 2000.