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 li