Source — AITW Ep007: Jerusalem and the Iran Nuclear Deal; Khashoggi and Myanmar; INF and UPU; Quieter Australian Diplomacy¶
Metadata¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Episode | 7 |
| Title | Jerusalem and the Iran nuclear deal, Khashoggi and Myanmar, Trump vs. the INF and UPU, and quieter Australian diplomacy |
| Publication date | 2018-11-02 |
| Speakers | Allan Gyngell, Darren Lim |
| Guest | None |
| Duration | \~35 min |
Summary¶
The most telling moment in this episode is its opening: Allan calls the Morrison government's flirtation with moving the Jerusalem embassy and reviewing the Iran deal "an example of both bad policy and bad politics — a double whammy." The phrase is deliberately colloquial, almost cheerful, and that is the point. Allan reserves his sharpest critique not for dramatic failures but for unnecessary ones. He doesn't need to lecture; the "double whammy" does the work in two words. His counter-argument is institutional and precise: Australia has "carefully differentiated its relationships with Iran from those of the US" for decades; the Tehran embassy is a strategic asset for allies; both sides of politics have supported the nuclear deal. When he says "I firmly expect" the review to reaffirm current policy — sometime "the week before Christmas, or Boxing Day" — the dry timing note is not a throwaway. It signals that he already knows how this ends and is slightly impatient with the performance.
The Khashoggi-Myanmar juxtaposition is one of Allan's clearest analyses of how media attention distorts foreign policy priorities. He does not dismiss the Khashoggi case — it is, he agrees, a grave event — but he names the mechanism honestly: "one particular person, and this one particular person was a journalist, and journalists are understandably interested in that angle." He contrasts this with "10,000 civilian deaths" in Yemen and the Rohingya crisis, which matter more to Australia's strategic interests and are more tractable. There is no cynicism here; the observation is analytical, and his sympathies are evident. What he is doing is the thing he does throughout the corpus: insisting that distorted attention produces bad policy, and that the job of the analyst is to correct it.
The two smaller items at the episode's close are the most revealing for biography. When Allan says he was moved to read a book on cyber because he had told Darren "I thought I really badly needed to update my knowledge of cyber policy" — that combination of self-diagnosis, personal disclosure, and deliberate self-education is characteristic. He does not pretend expertise he hasn't earned. And his praise for Australia's death penalty abolition strategy — a policy that "generates a press release and nobody pays attention to it" — captures something important about his foreign policy values: the quiet, bipartisan, patient work of shaping norms is precisely what he considers most valuable and most undervalued. "Diplomacy goes on with trying to shape the world in ways that accord with our beliefs and norms." He says it without rhetoric, as a simple statement of what diplomacy is for.
Key Topics¶
- Morrison's Jerusalem/Iran review as Wentworth by-election manoeuvre
- Australia's Tehran embassy as diplomatic asset
- Khashoggi killing: media attention vs. scale (Yemen, Myanmar)
- Human rights and trade-offs in foreign policy
- Gareth Evans era: the only consistent Australian human rights diplomacy
- Universal Postal Union (UPU): history, e-commerce subsidies, US withdrawal
- INF Treaty withdrawal: arms control consequences for Europe and Asia
- Australia's death penalty abolition strategy: a case study in quiet diplomacy
- WTO reform and middle-power coalition (Cairns Group precedent)
Key Quotations¶
On the Jerusalem/Iran proposal as bad policy and bad politics¶
"What's interesting to me is that I thought it was an example of both bad policy and bad politics, so sort of a double whammy, if you like. It obviously was to do with the Wentworth by-election, so I'm not sure that this will encourage other politicians to inject foreign policy into the election any time soon."
— Allan Gyngell [00:04:09.370]
"Australia has, for a very long time now, carefully differentiated its relationships with Iran from those of the US and other, the Brits and other Europeans. We kept our diplomatic mission in Tehran for long periods. Both sides of politics have supported the Iran nuclear deal."
— Allan Gyngell [00:04:09.370]
The phrase "double whammy" is deliberately colloquial — a mild jab that makes a serious point lightly. Allan consistently defends institutional continuity and bipartisanship.
On Australia's Tehran embassy as diplomatic asset¶
"There's always been a lot of interest from other friends and allies in talking to us about our understanding of the situation in Iran. So it has been an asset for us, I think, in terms of Middle East policy generally."
— Allan Gyngell [00:06:59.610]
Practitioner's knowledge: the Tehran embassy matters to allies. This kind of specific institutional intelligence is what distinguishes Allan's analysis.
On Khashoggi vs. Yemen and Myanmar¶
"One particular person, and this one particular person was a journalist, and journalists are understandably interested in that angle as well. So that elevated it in a new way. But there's, in fact, not very much that Australia can do, apart from what we've already done."
— Allan Gyngell [00:11:31.370]
"There are some stomach-churning accounts that we've heard. But it's an example of how human stories affect foreign policy in a way that, for example, Saudi involvement in the Yemen civil war with 10,000 civilian deaths there hasn't."
— Allan Gyngell [00:11:31.370]
Frank about how media attention shapes foreign policy response — and critical of the distortion without being cynical about the importance of individual cases.
On the Gareth Evans era as the gold standard for human rights consistency¶
"The only Australian government that I can remember that has addressed the human rights issue consistently and firmly was Gareth Evans' foreign ministership when we did, I think, more consistently than at any other time go in and complain, to the human rights violations occurring, making an absolute pest of ourselves. The Australian diplomats hated it because they sent in to lecture people all over the world, but there was a consistency about it then."
— Allan Gyngell [00:16:37.590]
A revealing evaluation. Allan admires the Evans era even while noting the diplomatic discomfort it caused. The phrase "making an absolute pest of ourselves" is fondly ironic — he approves of the persistence.
On the UPU (Universal Postal Union)¶
"I'd like to tell you that until one of our podcast listeners drew my attention to this, I had barely thought about the Universal Postal Union. It was established in 1874. It's the oldest, second oldest multilateral organization in existence."
— Allan Gyngell [00:20:30.510]
Self-deprecating intellectual honesty: admits ignorance until a listener prompted him. Values the education he receives from listeners.
On the INF Treaty withdrawal¶
"I think the Russians aren't fully in compliance. Certainly NATO, not just the US, agrees with this. But the consequences of pulling out and opening up a new arms race in Europe itself, but also in this part of the world..."
— Allan Gyngell [00:20:30.510]
"Treaties have a life. They're perfectly respectable and consistent with the rules-based order to amend treaties from time to time as circumstances change... I've got no particular problem with the idea of the US announcing that [it wants to amend the treaty], but the consequences for its allies will be very considerable."
— Allan Gyngell [00:26:22.530]
Nuance: not defending a treaty for its own sake, but distinguishing between legitimate treaty reform and reckless abandonment without a plan.
On quiet diplomacy and the death penalty¶
"There's a lot that goes on in foreign policy and in Australian quite creative policy making that receives almost no attention from the media or from the public. And the actions that the government is taking on the [death penalty]... it's something which is distinctively Australian. It's important. It's bipartisan. There are some of our close allies, the US, of course, is still in favour of the death penalty."
— Allan Gyngell [00:28:37.530]
"Diplomacy goes on with trying to shape the world in ways that accord with our beliefs and norms."
— Allan Gyngell [00:28:37.530]
On middle powers and the Cairns Group precedent¶
"Involvement in the Cairns Group during the Uruguay Round did shame or force open the agricultural markets of the major powers in a way that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gotten engaged and hadn't formed coalitions of other like-minded states to do it. So yeah, you can have an effect."
— Allan Gyngell [00:34:32.190]
Optimistic about middle-power agency grounded in specific historical precedent. Not theoretical hopefulness but empirical evidence.
Reading Recommendation¶
Allan recommends a book by a New York Times security correspondent on cyber policy:
"I've just read the new book by the New York Times security correspondent, who talks about the new concept of cyber... One reason for this, he says, is that it's the first weapon to come out of the intelligence community rather than out of the military and an excessive and unnecessary secrecy about what's going on is inhibiting the discussion. I think he's got a point there. A good book anyway."
— Allan Gyngell [00:34:40.530]
(Title not clearly identified in transcript; likely David Sanger's The Perfect Weapon. Allan was updating his cyber policy knowledge deliberately.)
Evidence Relevant to Allan's Views¶
- Domestic politics corrupting foreign policy: Jerusalem/Iran episode as case study
- Institutional continuity on Iran matters: Tehran embassy is a strategic asset
- Human rights diplomacy is most effective when consistent (Evans era) not episodic
- The UPU and INF cases show Trump systematically targeting multilateral institutions
- Middle powers can have real effect through coalitions (Cairns Group precedent)
- Quiet diplomacy on death penalty is distinctively Australian and genuinely valuable
Evidence Relevant to Allan's Style and Persona¶
- "Double whammy" — prefers deflating colloquialism to formal condemnation
- Admits ignorance prompted by a listener ("I had barely thought about the Universal Postal Union")
- Fondly ironic about Evans-era human rights pestering: "making an absolute pest of ourselves"
- Careful distinction: legitimate treaty reform vs. reckless abandonment
- Historical groundedness: knows Cairns Group history from experience
Biographical Fragments¶
- Has knowledge of the Evans era's human rights diplomacy (possibly from personal experience, though not stated explicitly in this episode)
- Was deliberately updating his cyber policy knowledge before this episode (mentioned explicitly)
- Engaged with a podcast listener who raised the UPU issue
Characteristic Phrases¶
- "Both bad policy and bad politics — a double whammy"
- "Making an absolute pest of ourselves"
- "Diplomacy goes on with trying to shape the world"
- "You can have an effect" (on middle-power coalition-building)
Relevance to Central Biographical Question¶
Allan's admiration for the Evans era's consistency in human rights diplomacy — even noting that "Australian diplomats hated it" — suggests a principled foreign policy vision that accepts short-term discomfort for long-term norm-building. His willingness to say "I hadn't thought about the UPU" is part of his intellectual honesty; he does not pretend to omniscience. His confidence comes from depth where he has it, and admission where he doesn't.
Open Questions¶
- Does Allan mention Gareth Evans elsewhere? Their relationship (Evans was ANU Chancellor; both connected to Canberra policy world) could be significant.
- Does the death penalty strategy produce visible results in subsequent episodes?