Source — AITW Ep039 — The 2020 Raisina Dialogue¶
Episode Metadata¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Episode number | 39 |
| Title | Ep. 39: The 2020 Raisina Dialogue |
| Publication date | 2020-01-30 |
| Recording date | Late January 2020 (after Dialogue: 14–16 January) |
| Guests | None (format inversion: Allan interviews Darren, who attended Raisina) |
| Allan present | Yes — as interviewer |
| Format | Role reversal: Darren reports from Raisina; Allan interrogates |
Summary¶
A format experiment: Darren attended the 2020 Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi (14–16 January) and reports back, with Allan doing the questioning. PM Morrison had been scheduled to attend but cancelled due to the bushfires; only Foreign Minister Marise Payne flew the Australian flag. Darren's Raisina brief covers: the Dialogue's origins in the Modi government's confidence agenda; India's cautious, observer posture on US-China-Iran tensions; direct but moderate discussion of China (unprecedented compared to 2019); the citizenship law protests and Indian deflection of criticism; Stephen Harper's defence of Indian nationalism; Matt Pottinger's "Trumpy affect"; Marise Payne's avoidance of climate change; the Quad panel's absence of a US participant; Iranian FM Zarif's "goofy smile" disarming human presence.
Allan's contributions are compact but pointed: he provides comparative context (Shangri-La Dialogue, which he attended "for a number of years, both as a think tanker then as an official"); a protocol objection to Payne being on a panel with civil servants; a coal aside on Morrison's possible relief at not attending; and the episode's most analytically important moment — a brief, prescient reference to "a new strain of coronavirus in China" as evidence of "the real limits of national sovereignty." Published 30 January 2020, the day the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The reading recommendation — Krastev and Holmes, The Light That Failed — connects back to the Ep037 sovereignty theme.
Key Quotations¶
"I really enjoy being the interrogator for a change"¶
"Well, Thanks, Darren. I really enjoy being the interrogator for a change."
— [00:01:49.870 --> 00:02:00.350]
A mild self-disclosure: the format inversion is pleasurable to Allan. Not a complaint about his usual role — the podcast is his project as much as Darren's — but a genuine expression of enjoyment at sitting on the other side. His questioning throughout this episode is disciplined: short setups, pointed follow-through, willingness to make a judgement before asking for Darren's ("Or indeed questions about the promotion of thermal coal exports"). He is a better interviewer than a generalist might expect from someone whose usual mode is expansive analysis.
On the Shangri-La Dialogue: "an excellent place to test the temperature of the conventional wisdom"¶
"My own impression after attending for a number of years, both as a think tanker then as an official, was that it was an excellent place to test the temperature of the conventional wisdom about security policy in Asia at a particular point in time and valuable for the opportunities that provided ministers and officials to interact. But it probably wasn't the place you'd look to for striking new insights and fresh ways of thinking about the world."
— [00:03:35.290 --> 00:05:29.070]
Two things of biographical significance: (1) Allan attended Shangri-La "for a number of years, both as a think tanker then as an official" — confirming attendance in his Lowy Institute capacity and in his ONA DG capacity, in that sequence, which is consistent with the career chronology (Lowy → ONA). (2) His verdict on elite security conferences — "test the temperature of the conventional wisdom" rather than a venue for "striking new insights" — is a quietly significant critical assessment. Allan values unconventional analysis; places that produce consensus-testing rather than consensus-challenging are useful but limited.
"My own rule of thumb on the value of conferences like this"¶
"That's interesting. Look, my own rule of thumb on the value of conferences like this is that if you can come away with three new thoughts, you're doing pretty well."
— [00:28:40.620 --> 00:28:50.990]
A practical benchmark that Allan deploys without elaboration. The "three new thoughts" standard is low enough to be achievable, high enough to be a real test. It functions as an implicit critique of the conference circuit as an industry: most participants come away with fewer than three new thoughts; the ones who come away with more are the exception. Characteristic pragmatism.
"[Rory Medcalf] probably deserves more credit than anyone else for bringing the framing concept of the Indo-Pacific into Australian strategic discourse"¶
"Yeah, looking shout outs to Rory, who probably deserves more credit than anyone else for bringing the framing concept of the Indo-Pacific into Australian strategic discourse and then exporting it more widely."
— [00:09:11.510 --> 00:09:58.750]
Allan's assessment of Rory Medcalf's intellectual contribution. The claim is specific and deliberate: not "was important" but "probably deserves more credit than anyone else." He attributes both the domestic coinage and the international export of the concept to Medcalf. Coming from Allan — who has been in the strategic discourse for five decades — this is a significant judgement.
Protocol objection: the Australian Foreign Minister on a panel with civil servants¶
"Well, I have to say, as a matter of principle and protocol, I'm a bit surprised I would expect and want to see any Australian Foreign Minister at a conference like this, in a speaking slot of her own, or if she's on a panel of peers, rather than civil servants."
— [00:25:36.080 --> 00:25:59.150]
Allan has strong views on diplomatic rank and protocol. A Foreign Minister does not sit on panels with secretaries and departmental officials — that is a breach of the hierarchy that signals Australia did not manage the conference slot well. He acknowledges there may have been program constraints but does not withdraw the objection. The directness is notable: he is criticising the management of an Australian ministerial appearance without hedging.
"Or indeed questions about the promotion of thermal coal exports"¶
"Or indeed questions about the promotion of thermal coal exports."
— [00:23:22.030 --> 00:23:25.790]
Darren has suggested Morrison's inner circle might have been "slightly relieved" not to face questions about creeping illiberalism in India's democracy. Allan's addition — a five-word aside — doubles the critique: Morrison might also have been relieved to avoid climate and coal questions. The brevity is deliberate. One sentence, no development, no qualification. He trusts the listener to do the work.
First mention of coronavirus — and sovereignty's limits¶
"...in a couple of weeks in which we've seen the impact of climate change and the emergence of a new strain of coronavirus in China, we're also reminded of the real limits of national sovereignty in addressing the most important of the looming problems of our age."
— [00:21:09.070 --> 00:22:19.470]
Published 30 January 2020 — the day the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Allan's first mention of what will become COVID-19 is not a pandemic alarm; it is an analytical observation about sovereignty. He connects coronavirus immediately to the larger conceptual frame he has been building: sovereignty is resurgent but ultimately insufficient for the problems that matter most. Climate and pandemic are used as paired examples of global challenges that cannot be nationalised. The analytical reflex is instant and precise: new virus → sovereignty limits → same argument he has been making about the rules-based order.
Biographical Fragments¶
Evidence type: Corroborating
- "Attending for a number of years, both as a think tanker then as an official" at the Shangri-La Dialogue — corroborates the Lowy Institute and ONA DG career placements. The explicit sequencing ("think tanker then as official") is consistent with career chronology: Lowy first (~2003–~2007/8), ONA DG second (~2007/8–~2014). Already established; adds the specific Shangri-La context and the sequence confirmation. (Ep039)
Style and Method Evidence¶
- Allan as interviewer: In the host role, his questions are short setup + pointed follow-through. He does not use leading questions but frames in a way that almost forces the analytical reply he is after ("How did that description line up with what you found at Raisina this year?"). The coal aside is the sharpest move — pure Allan; a five-word interruption that doubles the critique without argument.
- The "three new thoughts" benchmark: A characteristic pragmatic standard — concrete, low-drama, implicitly critical of conference culture. He drops it without elaboration.
- Analytical reflexes in passing: The coronavirus observation is the clearest example in the corpus of Allan's mind working in real time: a new fact (novel coronavirus) → immediately assigned to a pre-existing analytical frame (sovereignty's limits). He does not develop it — it is a parenthesis — but the reflexive connection is made instantly.
- Historical credit where it is due: The Rory Medcalf attribution ("probably deserves more credit than anyone else") is unsolicited and unqualified. Allan does not distribute credit casually.
Reading, Listening and Watching¶
Allan — Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, The Light That Failed: A Reckoning (Penguin, 2019)
"This is a terrifically stimulating and original account of the reasons for the failure of liberalism to take root at the end of the Cold War. So you can understand why sovereignty is coming back into favour."
Allan's preview-recommendation: he has not yet finished it ("a book I'm not yet quite through"). The recommendation is introduced as a connection to the Raisina/sovereignty discussion and to his Ep037 word of the year. Krastev (Bulgarian political scientist) and Holmes (American legal scholar) argue that Central and Eastern European "imitation" of Western liberalism after 1989 generated resentment rather than conversion — explaining the retreat from liberal norms in Poland, Hungary, and Russia. The book grounds the Raisina observation about sovereignty and nationalism in a historical diagnosis: liberalism failed to take root not despite but partly because of how it was imposed.
Note: Allan says "I'll be recommending a book" and "not yet quite through" — he is flagging it as a coming recommendation rather than a completed one. Deferred to next episode with a reading segment.
Open Questions¶
- Allan's first coronavirus reference (30 January 2020) is immediately analytical rather than alarming. How does he track COVID-19 as it develops into a pandemic in subsequent episodes?
- The Krastev/Holmes recommendation is "deferred" — he says he will recommend it properly once he has finished. Does he return to it in the next episode's reading segment?
- Does Allan ever revisit the India-Australia relationship and the Morrison cancellation in later episodes? The diplomatic groundwork laid by Australian mission staff was described as potentially wasted.