Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the outgoing US ambassador to Malta adopted an unorthodox approach to diplomacy. Her tour coincided with a change in government and a deteriorating situation in Libya. She speaks to Kurt Sansone.
How would you describe your term in Malta?
It is probably not diplomatic to say it, but wonderful. It met and exceeded my expectations, professionally and personally.
When you arrived here what were you expecting?
Coming to what is considered a small embassy is very typical for most diplomats in the US diplomatic corps. I did not have a lot of information about Malta. I had to get smart very quickly. Malta’s position became internationally known during the Libya crisis and, like most Americans, I came out feeling grateful to the government and people of Malta for assisting in the evacuation of American citizens and many others. I had a positive idea of Malta and it got even better when I saw the many ways we could cooperate to further a better international system.
You have engaged publicly in ways deemed by some to be unorthodox for an ambassador. You were present in St George’s Square when the gay community celebrated Parliament’s passage of the civil unions law. You also produced a video. How do you explain this?
I was there in my official capacity and it was absolutely in line with American diplomacy and the priorities set out by the Obama administration that is absolutely supportive of human rights. This includes civil rights for everyone, regardless of colour, race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Happily, this dovetails with my personal beliefs. We did the ‘It Gets Better’ video after seeing such productions in the US and felt that every nation should have such material because young people, particularly LGBT youth, face high incidences of suicide. Many times they are not in public and despairing privately. We all know everyone is on the internet and the video was a way to reach out to them and give them hope for a better future.
Did you receive criticism for the video and your participation in the LGBT celebrations that day?
I have received criticism in the sense that people questioned whether this was the role of an American diplomat and whether it was an internal affair. I would argue, and generally people would agree, that the loss of any life is all our business. I am not the only ambassador to do videos.
The Civil Unions Bill is something the American administration would support but my miscalculation was that it could be so controversial. It was not the Civil Unions Bill that was controversial as the adoption portion of it. My judgement in being there for something that is supported by the US government is fine. What I did not anticipate was the controversy over adoption. My personal belief is that any time you can provide a family to a child is a very good thing.
The US, France and Britain got involved in Gaddafi’s overthrow and when that happened they pulled out, Libya fractured and this situation allowed ungoverned space to be created. Did the US misjudge the post-Gaddafi era?
Where we are now is certainly not where we anticipated or hoped Libya would be today. The genuine yearning of the Libyan people for access to good governance, the participation of civil society and how the country moves forward was evident from the very beginning.
To argue that we pulled out is inaccurate. From the beginning and to this day we continue to work [in Libya] with journalists, civil society, women’s groups and youth groups. We have continued to do this because what we are hoping and anticipating is that all these groups, with all the exposure they received after Gaddafi’s removal, will help them build a strong and inclusive society and governance.
Libyans are devastated, deeply dismayed and disturbed about the increase in foreign fighters in their country and the loss of control over their country
Keeping in mind they were under a tight dictatorship for 42 years, perhaps the miscalculation might have been not anticipating the damage Gaddafi might have done. There is a lot of learning to be done but we have not abandoned them.
Mr Obama expressed regret on how assistance and attention to Libya was maintained because indeed spaces were made for the various groups that are there now and the Libyan people have to come together to take the country back from the terrorists. It is not something outsiders can do. They are trying very hard to set up a government of national accord and when they do they will be able to say to those foreign fighters and terrorists, this is our country and there is no place for those actions here.
UN talks to forge a unity government in Libya took their time but towards the end of last year the US seems to have lost patience and pushed hard for the Morocco agreement, despite not all Libyan factions being on board. Doesn’t this risk creating a third, powerless government in Libya?
It is our judgement that this is the best way forward. What the process allows till now is for enough people from different factions to be involved and space for others to join as it goes forward. To get every single person or group agreeing to the same way forward is impossible in anybody’s system.
The first thing is getting enough people with credentials and standing from the House of Representatives [the internationally-recognised Tobruk parliament] and the Tripoli government to come together. That part has been achieved. But now the hard work has to be done by the Libyans themselves and I think you will find that Libyans are devastated, deeply dismayed and disturbed about the increase in foreign fighters in their country and the loss of control over their borders and their country. They want it back and that is a powerful driver to bring people together.
The UN accord speaks of timelines. The unity government should be in place by the end of January. Do you realistically see it functioning? Does it have an army to control, a police force?
No, you know the answer to those questions. They do not have them yet but deadlines certainly slip from time to time. If the process is sufficiently strong it will survive the slip of a deadline and it has in the past. What is going to be most important is that those involved continue to work together to forge a government that can exercise the basic responsibilities of a sovereign nation. We believe they will do that because the danger of not doing so is extremely clear.
Did Isis’ ascendency in Libya spur the US to push for the UN agreement to be reached by the end of last year?
It was a factor but it was so for everyone involved as we watched the increased presence of foreign terrorist fighters in Libya. And most importantly, the Libyans themselves saw it as well.
In December, just days before the Morocco signing, Malta hosted talks between the heads of Libya’s two rival parliaments. At the end of that meeting they called on the UN not to rush things. Did the US government complain with Malta about this meeting?
We are fully supportive of the UN process. We think it was the right path that had enough people from all sides and international support to move forward. The process did move forward by the signing of the Morocco accord a couple of days after Malta acted as host, not participant, of the meeting [between the rival parliament heads].
We did not and do not believe it is useful to have other groupings draw attention away from the UN process. It has been hard fought and was a lengthy effort trying to get the right people in the room to focus on the challenges facing Libya. Other meetings, we believe, could be detrimental and a distraction.
Was the Malta meeting a distraction?
In the end it did not slow down the timetable, it did not interfere with the signing. We maintain the UN process is the one that all of us do well to focus on. It is the best chance to success we have.
Was the US unhappy with Malta hosting the meeting?
I think the fact that nothing was delayed is important.
You are being very diplomatic.
I am.
Did you speak to the government about your concerns?
That is a private diplomatic communication.
In his address to ambassadors accredited to Malta, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said a long-term solution for Libya would be feasible and durable only if it came from Libya and enjoyed the undivided support of all Libyans. Does the UN accord deliver this?
I believe it begins to deliver. It is the beginning of a process not the end. It does have broad support among all Libyan factions – [even if] not all, and not every member of each faction – and enjoys wide international support. The combination of these two things along with a clear view of the dangers of non-cooperation make this the best chance we have at success.
With all that is going on in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, how important is Libya in US foreign policy?
They are all important. The range of attacks over the past week attributed to Daesh [the Arab name for Isis] in Turkey, Indonesia and Iraq is a clear sign, if we needed one, of the interconnectedness of it all. Gone are the times when we can ignore this or that. Libya is just as important as Syria and Iraq and we have to pay attention to it as well.
This is election year in the US. Do you foresee any significant shift in US foreign policy as a result of this?
No, I do not. The American people do not like big shifts in policy and you have a long history of elections to see that. Regardless of where people start out in the primaries when it gets down to the general election, and whoever is going to be US president, we move gradually not abruptly. We move incrementally and change happens over a period of time.
How would you describe US-Malta bilateral relations?
They are excellent. I am delighted to leave this for my successor. We have cooperated in a wide variety of ways. Our basic values and interests are very closely aligned and we have worked very well together.
We have cooperated in a wide variety of ways. Our basic values and interests are very closely aligned and we have worked very well together
Throughout your stay have you pushed for Malta to enter into a Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA – an arrangement that delineates how US military personnel would be treated in a host country from a legal perspective]?
Certainly there have been discussions for the last 20 years or so and a government official, who I shall leave nameless, told me recently that every time an American ambassador leaves they say they are leaving this issue for their successor to deal with. We believe it would benefit all parties if Malta entered into a SOFA agreement. I’ve said it before and I say it as I leave, the decision to do so has to be understood by the Maltese that it is in your interest to do so and until that is the case, then clearly there will not be an agreement.
The US has had a generous resettlement programme for refugees from Malta. Do you believe this programme could be in jeopardy given the seemingly hardening approach in the US on immigration ahead of the presidential election?
It is not just the US. My sorrow is that we are not being very exceptional in this discussion. I do not think the resettlement programme will be in danger at all. Most of the critical comments have been about illegal immigration not legal migration.
Legal immigration is part of the foundation of our nation. [Republican frontrunner] Donald Trump, two out of his three wives were immigrants, for God’s sake. What may have an impact on the programme is the fact that Malta has very few migrants coming. The need of the programme is something we will continue taking a look at.
The process where people emigrate to US via this programme is very thorough and not very quick. So even though very few refugees have come to Malta over the past 18 months we could possibly still be processing hundreds of people. We are a nation of immigrants and although our compassion may wax and wane if you get an entertaining voice out there, the basic openness to immigration is not changeable.
Are you worried about the Donald Trumps, the far right in Europe and governments generally hardening their stance on immigration?
I am not sure worry is the right word. The tone of the discussion saddens and disappoints. There are real and legitimate concerns that nations have to confront because the basic responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens. Looking at vetting programmes, legal ways of migration, taking that longer look at why people have to move and whether the international community is doing enough to ensure safety and security in other countries are issues that have to be examined, discussed and resolved.
But the tone of discussion is saddening. Certainly the US has never had anything associated with religion to keep someone out of the country and there is no groundswell of popular support to start that. When people talk about the support a candidate is mustering it has to be dissected. Is it a percentage of Americans? No. Is it a percentage of one party or another? No. Is it a percentage of those intending to vote?
It is one thing in this period when we are being entertained by the primary season but the first vote has not yet been cast.
It is a very different thing when we reach the general election stage.