Source — AITW Ep028 — PM's Trips to Vietnam & G7; Alliance Management in the Gulf; Kashmir; PNG¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	28
Title	Ep. 28: PM's trips to Vietnam & the G7; alliance management in the Gulf; Kashmir; PNG
Publication date	2019-09-09
Guests	None (Darren and Allan only)
Allan present	Yes
Format	Four-topic news analysis: Vietnam/G7, Gulf/Iran, Kashmir, PNG; reading segment

Summary¶

Dense four-topic episode recorded 6 September 2019. Morrison's Vietnam visit generates a biographical fragment — Allan was on Keating's first visit to unified Vietnam in the early 1990s. The Gulf deployment section contains one of Allan's frankest admissions of alliance management as the real driver of a decision the government officially justified on other grounds. The Kashmir section produces a sharp named inconsistency: Australia speaks publicly about China honouring One Country Two Systems but says nothing about India's constitutional changes in Kashmir. The PNG section revisits the Lowy Institute connection (Peter Varghese quote). Reading segment: Allan recommends the Chinese sci-fi film The Wandering Earth as a sociological and political document about how China sees itself.

Key Quotations¶

"I was on that trip" — Keating's first visit to unified Vietnam¶

"Let me go back to the past first and bring in some history here... although this was a very positive visit, Australia has had a stronger bilateral relationship with Vietnam for longer than most Western countries. You mentioned Paul Keating's visit in 1991, which was the first by an Australian Prime Minister to a unified Vietnam. I was on that trip, and Australia was the first Western country to resume aid to Hanoi after the Cambodian settlement. And on the aid, by the way, as a reminder that infrastructure is not a new thing in Australia's aid program, that was when we announced the funding of the Mitwan Bridge, the first cable-stayed bridge over the Mekong River."

— [00:06:21.500 --> 00:08:30.500]

"I was on that trip" — a direct biographical claim. Allan places himself on Keating's first visit to unified Vietnam. He gives the year as 1991 (Keating became PM in December 1991, so an early 1992 visit is more likely — the date may be slightly misremembered, or it was a very early 1992 trip close to his December 1991 PM investiture). The Cambodian peace settlement was finalised October 1991. Australia's resumption of aid to Vietnam — and the Mitwan Bridge announcement — are things Allan has institutional memory of from direct participation. He also notes the Australian Vietnamese community's hostility to early engagement and John Howard declining the state dinner for the Communist Party secretary in 1995: "That now seems to have passed, and that's interesting." This is his standard method: long history before current judgment.

Alliance management — frank admission¶

"I'm sure everyone in the government would deny it. But yes, I think despite our interests in freedom of shipping, it's hard to think that alliance management, especially in advance of The PM's visit to Washington, is not front and centre here."

— [00:17:51.500 --> 00:18:30.180]

One of Allan's frankest candid assessments in the corpus. He names the gap between the official justification (freedom of navigation interests) and the real driver (alliance management before Morrison's Washington visit). "I'm sure everyone in the government would deny it. But yes..." — the structure of the sentence is characteristic: acknowledge the official position, then give the honest reading. No anger, no gotcha — just the analyst's obligation to say what is actually happening.

Calling out behaviour, not perpetrator¶

"It's blindingly obvious that the references are to China. But the emphasis is on the underlying principle that both Australia and Vietnam want to preserve... I can't for the life of me imagine that if they had done that, China would be more likely to back away. In fact, I think it would probably harden its own position. So the objective is to try to alter behavior. It's not as though there's anything unusual about this in international diplomacy. Think about the delicate way we express our concerns about the erosion of the international trading order, for example, without ever mentioning the Trump administration."

— [00:03:35.500 --> 00:05:32.500]

A principle, not evasion: calling out behaviour rather than the perpetrator is a general diplomatic technique — Allan extends it to cover Australia's own delicate handling of Trump. The underlying logic: naming the perpetrator provokes defensiveness and hardens positions; focusing on the principle preserves the room to influence conduct. The Trump parallel is characteristic — equating the two diplomatically uncomfortable situations that official language also treats symmetrically.

Kashmir vs Hong Kong — naming the inconsistency¶

"If I was being provocative, I might contrast our public position on the need for China to abide by its commitments to the One Country, Two Systems agreement on Hong Kong and the absence of any public position on India's abandonment of constitutional commitments to Kashmir. Now, my point here is not to have a go at governments or our government because they're forever balancing the different stakes that we have in interests and values, and you can never have complete consistency. My point really is just to remind all those outside government that these stakes are always hard to weigh and are never clear cut."

— [00:23:37.500 --> 00:25:33.980]

"If I was being provocative" — his signal that a sharper point is coming. He names the inconsistency precisely (HK: public pressure on China; Kashmir: silence on India) and then refuses to leave it as a simple gotcha. The analytical move is characteristic: name the inconsistency, explain the logic that produces it (balancing interests and values), and use it to illuminate the general difficulty rather than to condemn the specific government. "You can never have complete consistency" — not a defence of bad choices, but an honest account of what foreign policy actually requires.

"Governments aren't think tanks"¶

"I just say that there's a difference between the way governments grapple with the issue and the way the public in a democracy like Australia is able to talk about it... It's just that that's not the role of government. Governments aren't think tanks and they aren't academics and they aren't advocacy groups. They're there to pursue Australia's interests and to protect our values to the extent that they can."

— [00:26:28.500 --> 00:27:26.500]

A clean statement of what government is for — and implicitly, what think tanks and academics are for. Allan defends the right of public commentary to range further than official positions can. The phrase "to protect our values to the extent that they can" — the qualifier is important: governments pursue values only "to the extent they can," constrained by the interests they also must pursue.

PNG as "barometer of Australian foreign policy success"¶

"When he was Secretary of DFAT, I remember Peter Varghese telling the Lowy Institute that more than any other single relationship, the state of Australia's relationship with PNG was seen as the barometer of Australian foreign policy success. And Peter was right, I think."

— [00:34:09.500 --> 00:36:03.500]

Allan at the Lowy Institute — consistent with his founding ED role. He attributes the formulation to Peter Varghese (Secretary of DFAT 2012–2016) but endorses it: "And Peter was right, I think." The PNG relationship's importance is structural, not sentimental.

The Wandering Earth — China as "servant of humanity"¶

"The Wandering Earth... based on a novella by the Hugo Award-winning Chinese writer Liu Shiqin. The basic story is that a dying sun threatens to engulf Earth and the people of the planet unite in a vast global Belt and Road initiative. And they build fusion thrusters that will propel the Earth on a 2500-year journey to a new star system... It's not a Chinese nationalist rant. It's more a portrayal of China as a servant of humanity... For my part, I particularly like the Confucian respect for the wise grandfather who helps save the day. And I'm going to advise my own grandchildren to pay close attention to that."

— [00:36:12.500 --> 00:38:59.040]

Allan reads science fiction as political document. His analytical frame is explicit: "science fiction usually reveals as much about the time it is written as about the future it foresees." He is interested in the film not as entertainment but as evidence of how China wants to be seen — "servant of humanity" rather than dominant power. The "global Belt and Road initiative" framing of the plot is his own addition; he notices the parallel. The Confucian grandfather note is personal — he says he will advise his own grandchildren. First mention of grandchildren in the corpus.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: Confirmed

Was on Keating's first visit to unified Vietnam (early 1990s) — "I was on that trip." Allan gives the year as 1991, though Keating became PM in December 1991; the visit was likely early 1992 or possibly 1994 (date uncertain, may be slightly misremembered). The substance is confirmed: he was present on the trip, Australia was the first Western country to resume aid to Hanoi after the Cambodian settlement, and the Mitwan Bridge funding was announced. This is consistent with his confirmed PM's office posting under Keating (Ep014). (Ep028)
Attended a Lowy Institute talk by Peter Varghese — "I remember Peter Varghese telling the Lowy Institute..." — places Allan in the Lowy Institute audience for a talk by the DFAT Secretary. Consistent with his founding ED role. (Ep028)
Recently in Seoul — "I was on a plane back from Seoul last week" — a minor detail; he had been travelling to Seoul in early September 2019. No further context given. (Ep028)
Has grandchildren — "I'm going to advise my own grandchildren to pay close attention to that" — first mention of grandchildren in the corpus. (Ep028)

Style and Method Evidence¶

"If I was being provocative": his signal phrase for a named inconsistency. He uses the qualifier to maintain analytical honesty without seeming adversarial.
Alliance management candour: "I'm sure everyone in the government would deny it. But yes..." — the structure of conceding the official line before giving the honest reading is among his most characteristic analytical moves.
Long history before current judgment: Vietnam section begins with the early-1990s Keating visit, the Vietnamese community's hostility, John Howard's absence from the state dinner — then returns to 2019. History is not decoration; it sets the baseline against which the current moment is assessed.
Science fiction as political document: The Wandering Earth recommendation is explicitly analytical — he uses the film as evidence about Chinese self-image and ambition. "China as a servant of humanity" vs. nationalist rant is the distinction he is making for his audience.

Reading, Listening and Watching¶

Allan — The Wandering Earth (流浪地球, dir. Frant Gwo, 2019; based on novella by Liu Cixin)

"Science fiction usually reveals as much about the time it is written as about the future it foresees... It's not a Chinese nationalist rant. It's more a portrayal of China as a servant of humanity... sociologically and politically, it's worth a look and it's now on Netflix."

Recommended as a cultural-political document, not primarily as entertainment. Allan notes: Chinese characters are central to saving the planet; Russians and Brits also present; familiar Hollywood tropes "with Chinese characteristics"; notable absence of any love story; the wise grandfather (Confucian note). He announces he will recommend the grandfather subplot to his own grandchildren — the personal and the analytical run together.

Open Questions¶

Exact date of the Keating Vietnam visit: Allan says "1991" but Keating became PM in December 1991. Was this a very early 1992 visit, a different Keating trip, or does Allan slightly misremember? Cross-referencing with the confirmed June 1994 Indonesia trip (Ep014) suggests he was in the PM's office from at least 1993–1994. Was the Vietnam trip an earlier assignment?
Grandchildren: first mention. How many, what ages? Not central to the biographical project but worth noting for completeness.
Seoul trip: why was Allan recently in Seoul in early September 2019? AIIA event, conference, or personal?