AMBIGUITY – Diplomatic Art of using Words to Mislead the Receiver!
March 17, 2007
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
In the early sixties I was placed in charge of a shift at the MWWC in the Federal Office building in Kansas City, Missouri. The government of an Islamic nation, who shall go nameless, sent one of their officers to us for training.
He was placed on my shift and I was assigned the task of training him for a year. I will not go into detail as to his shortcomings because I have no desire to be recalled. Let me simply say that at the end of the year there wasn’t a way I could see how it would be possible for me to write a good performance report for him.
When I finished the report, I submitted it to my immediate superior, who passed it on to his superior, both of which shall go nameless, and the fur hit the fan. I was called on the carpet by both of them, and told to write a new performance report. Neither of them had ever worked with the Arabic Officer and I had been told to treat him with kid gloves.
They were afraid of an unfavorable reaction from his home country.
It was at this point in time that I became acutely aware of how to write a diplomatically AMBIGUOUS manuscript for a performance report.
The word “ambiguous” means: having one or more possible meanings, such as, “Henry is a funny boy,” which can mean he is comical and a joy to be around, or that he is very strange.
To tell a preacher he has just “delivered a most unique message,” could mean it was the worse you had ever heard, or the best. The meaning is often crouched in what the listener wants to hear, and the writer knowing that in advance. It took me a long time thumbing through the dictionary, but I finally was able to put together a performance report that said what I said in the first one, as far as how I meant the ambiguous terms to apply, but to the Arab government would mean the opposite. When I turned it in, I will never forget the comment of the head shed – “Now! That’s more like it, Mac!”
I said all that to illustrate what represents an ambiguous document – An agreement that came out of the recent Mecca Conference between the Hamas and Fatah. The document means one thing to the Hamas, and another to Fatah, another to Israel, another to the U.S., and another to the European Union. I suppose one aspect of “ambiguous” in Arkansas terminology is simply a diplomatic way of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth. The Mecca Conference document is so ambiguous it is as worthless as a frog would be in a punch bowl at a wedding reception.
The final Resolutions that come out of the United Nations have been filled with so many ambiguous words that each country involved in their drafting interprets them in a different way.
Begin Jerusalem Post Article
Analysis: Strategically crafted ambiguity
Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST
March 16, 2007
The political program of the new Palestinian Authority unity government, which constitutes a compromise between the relatively pragmatist policies of Fatah and the radical ideology of Hamas, contains many contradictions and ambiguities.
The wording of the program has been drafted in such a way so as to allow both Hamas and Fatah to argue that neither party had totally abandoned its traditional position.
The equivocal tone is designed to appease not only Hamas and Fatah, but also the Americans and Europeans. After all, the main goal behind the formation of the new coalition is to get the international community to resume desperately needed financial aid to the Palestinians.
With regard to the three demands of
the Quartet – renouncing terrorism, recognizing Israel and abiding by previous agreements with Israel – the program leaves the door wide open for different interpretations.
On the issue of terrorism, the program states, on the one hand, that the new government “stresses that resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people… and our people have the right to defend themselves against any Israeli aggression.” On the other hand, the program says that the new government will “work toward consolidating the tahdiya [period of calm] and extending it [to the West Bank] so that it becomes a comprehensive and mutual truce.”
The program sets a number of conditions for halting the “resistance,” ending the “occupation” and achieving independence and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as well as an end to Israeli security measures in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including the construction of the security fence.
In other words, Fatah and Hamas are saying that the violence will continue as long as Israel does not meet these demands.
Regarding recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the program does not mention the name Israel.
Instead, it refers to Israel as “The Occupation.” It also makes no mention of the two-state solution.
Rather, it reiterates the Palestinians’ opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders.
Although the document declares that the “key to peace and stability is contingent on ending the occupation of Palestinian lands and recognizing the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination,” it does not specify which “lands” – those captured by Israel in 1967 or 1948.
Fatah representatives, of course, argue that the program refers only to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
Hamas, on the other hand, will be able to argue that the phrase “Palestinian lands” applies also to all of Mandatory Palestine.
Referring to the third demand of the Quartet – abiding by agreements between the PLO and Israel – the political program states that the new government will only “respect” agreements signed by the PLO.
Hamas leaders have already explained that there is a huge difference between “respecting” an agreement and making a pledge to fulfill it.
In other words, Hamas is saying that while it accepts the agreements with Israel as an established fact, it will not carry them out.
Elsewhere in the program, the new government says that it will abide by unspecified United Nations and Arab summit resolutions, leaving the door open for Fatah to claim that this is tantamount to recognizing the two-state solution and all the agreements with Israel. Fatah will cite the 2002 Arab peace plan that implicitly recognizes Israel.
Hamas, on the other hand, can always claim that among the Arab summit resolutions that it intends to abide by is the one taken in Khartoum, Sudan, in September 1967.
The resolution contains what became known as “the three nos” of Arab-Israel relations at that time: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
Although the program makes it clear that the PLO, and not the new Hamas-led coalition, will be responsible for conducting negotiations with Israel, it also seeks to tie the hands of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas by stating that any “fateful” agreement must be approved by the Palestinians in the PA-controlled areas and abroad through a referendum.
The program, moreover, closes the door to any potential concessions on the problem of the refugees by emphasizing their “right of return to their lands and property inside Israel.”
As far as Israel is concerned, perhaps the immediate ray of hope lies in a promise by the unity government to “encourage” and “back” efforts to release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been in the Gaza Strip since last June.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.