Was it just me who thought the presence of the US ambassador at last Monday’s celebrations outside parliament, when the civil unions/same-sex adoption bill went to the vote, completely inappropriate? “We are all for inclusiveness,” she told the press. No doubt about it – she is, after all, the ambassador of the United States of America, and not the Saudi ambassador.

But in that case, why wasn’t the ambassador protesting with members of human rights groups and others outside the Police Headquarters when the government decided to push back African immigrants and was stopped only by an interim injunction from the European Court of Human Rights? Perhaps, as an ambassador, she distinguishes between the will of the people as expressed through the parliamentary vote, and government action. Or perhaps she is simply not in a position to speak because the United States pushes back anyone who tries to cross the US/Mexican border and is not, for reasons that should be obvious, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ambassadors have never participated openly in public celebrations of a political nature, and not only when they know them to be about matters which are highly contentious and controversial, as last Monday’s vote was. People don’t really object to same-sex marriage – it’s just a contract between two consenting grown-ups, after all – but adoption by same-sex couples is still a major hornets’ nest. Eleven years ago, the ambassadors of all European Union member states, and even Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley’s predecessor at the US Embassy, were beyond delighted when Malta voted Yes to EU membership. The streets and squares of Malta and Gozo were packed with people going wild with relief, and unlike last Monday’s poor showing (for think about it, it was a poor turn-out for something so highly stage-managed) it was all spontaneous. It was not only Joseph Muscat who was conspicuous by his absence because he had voted against membership and was licking his wounds (and planning how to use the situation to his own advantage, as it turned out). There wasn’t a single ambassador anywhere to be seen. No doubt, they were celebrating – but doing so privately in their offices and residences. When they did turn out in force to celebrate, it was for the formal, official reception hosted by the prime minister at the Upper Barakka Gardens in Valletta, on Accession Day a year later.

I find the US ambassador’s attitude a little strange. When she replaced the man whose posting was prematurely terminated, many were relieved to see that Malta had its first non-grace-and-favour US ambassador since the Nationalist Party was elected in 1987. Before that, during the troubled and very dangerous 16 years when Labour was in government, the US dispatched seasoned career diplomats to its highest posting in Malta. After that, the US relaxed, and began sending a procession of non-diplomats who had helped raise funds or similar for whomsoever the incoming president happened to be. That went on for almost 25 years.

Now the US has sent to Malta a career diplomat with an extensive background in the Middle East and my perception is that she is a little too friendly with the Labour Party and its tal-pepe or pretentious camp followers, some who are switchers, some who have always been Labour. I find this a little peculiar. No ambassadors have made political statements, in public, with the exception of one famously outspoken French ambassador who was posted to Malta in the run-up to the EU vote, and who doggedly tore into Alfred Sant and the Labour Party for their ‘stupid’ stance against membership. He was never forgiven. Though he was the only senior member of the diplomatic corps who spoke publicly, he pretty much spoke for all of them.

I am left with the impression, however, that the US ambassador does not see the Labour Party for what it is. For some reason I can’t exactly put my finger on, she comes across as dazzled by it. She has been photographed at a fashion show organised by Michelle Muscat at the Auberge de Castille (why – because she is a woman before she is an ambassador?). She has appeared as a solo guest on a show on the Labour Party television station, called ‘One Night Stand’. Whenever I have met or seen her socially, other than at the US national day reception, it has been at parties hosted by the ‘we’ve switched to Labour’ social set (that was largely before I fell out with most of them, of course). It is as though she landed in Malta, began finding her feet, and before she found her feet, the ‘we’ve switched to Labour’ social set found her and made her their own. And she probably now thinks that they are Malta’s social leaders and that they are representative of the way the so-called cream of society thinks. There was a little too much Americanisation of the Labour Party general election campaign last year. It was far too ‘Obama’ for it to go unnoticed. And Aaron Farrugia of the Labour Party (now CEO of Malta Freeport) was selected by the US embassy for a month’s sponsored visit to observe electoral campaigning across the United States. What to make of that? I don’t really know, except to say that Aaron Farrugia would have been the last person I’d have chosen, even from within the Labour Party itself.