Source — AITW Ep040 — Coronavirus; Huawei in the UK; the WTO, and UK/EU Trade Deals¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	40
Title	Ep. 40: Coronavirus; Huawei in the UK; the WTO, and UK / EU trade deals
Publication date	2020-02-10
Recording date	Friday, 7 February 2020
Guests	None (Allan and Darren only)
Allan present	Yes
Format	News episode: coronavirus → Huawei/5G UK decision → WTO → UK and EU trade deals

Summary¶

A dense four-topic news episode recorded the evening of Friday 7 February 2020. Opens with coronavirus: Allan provides a detailed breakdown of what the Wuhan consular evacuation actually involved, praises DFAT's speed, and delivers one of his bluntest criticisms — "a rather spineless piece of finger-pointing" — at the Morrison government's attempt to blame officials for the reversed decision to charge evacuees. On the UK's Huawei decision: Allan frames it as a genuine on-balance call (security people on both sides), defends the British decision as "not reckless," and resists the crusader position for Australia. On WTO: praises Simon Birmingham ("real weight and substance") and describes minilateral arrangements as "a sanctuary in which we can shelter while something else is being worked out." On trade deals: the UK deal is "useful but modest" in agriculture, none of it substituting for Asian markets; the EU deal will require a strong environmental dimension ("sure as hell"). Reading segment: completes the Krastev/Holmes Light That Failed recommendation foreshadowed in Ep039 — "one of those books that changed my understanding."

Key Quotations¶

"A rather spineless piece of finger-pointing"¶

"I don't think this was the government's finest hour... the answer was to blame officials for incorrect advice that was always nonsense from the beginning, the government always had the capacity to impose or to waive such costs so look given what the department had just been through to put the evacuation arrangements in place I thought it was a rather spineless piece of finger-pointing yourself."

— [00:07:19.770 --> 00:07:19.770]

One of the bluntest criticisms Allan delivers in the entire corpus. "Spineless" is strong language in his register. The context is specific: DFAT had just completed a complex, multi-element consular operation (extracting hundreds of citizens from a quarantine lockdown zone, managing family-relationship complexities, negotiating with a Chinese government preoccupied with its own crisis) with remarkable speed — and the government then blamed "incorrect advice" from officials to cover its political retreat on charging evacuees $1,000. Allan does not hedge. The judgment is delivered in a single compound sentence that recapitulates the evidence ("given what the department had just been through") before naming the action. The combination of institutional loyalty to a professional corps and political candour about the government's cowardice is characteristic.

"I'm a fan of the Westminster system and with every new piece of news out of US politics I've become more so"¶

"My view is still no, I'm a fan of the Westminster system and with every new piece of news coming out of the dysfunction we're seeing in US politics I've become more so."

— [00:03:04.010 --> 00:03:51.710]

Context: Darren asks whether Australia needs a US-style permanent National Security Council. Allan's answer is no — the capacity exists, coordination is the problem, not structure, and responsibility lies with PM&C (policy coordination) and ONI (intelligence/security). The "with every new piece of news" clause is a wry updating of a prior view in light of new evidence — consistent with his empirical method. He is not merely asserting preference; he is citing the American dysfunction as data.

"Not a path forward — they are the creation of a sanctuary in which we can shelter while something else is being worked out"¶

"They're not a path forward but they are the creation of a sanctuary in which we can shelter while something else is being worked out."

— [00:29:36.010 --> 00:29:43.430]

Context: Darren asks whether minilateral arrangements (like Australia's interim WTO appellate process with the EU, Norway, Canada) are "the most plausible path forward to preserve some kind of rules-based system." Allan's response — seven words on the negative ("not a path forward") followed by a complete alternative framing ("sanctuary in which we can shelter") — is one of the most precise analytical distinctions in the corpus. It does not dismiss the value of the arrangement; it correctly describes its function. Darren's follow-up ("how many long-term solutions conceived as temporary fixes end up becoming the new status quo") is exactly the right challenge, and Allan's non-dismissal of it ("we will see") is honest.

"I can't see Australian interests being served by identifying ourselves as the lead crusader"¶

"I've got no problem with decisions we take in our own national interest and I see no likelihood of any reversal of the Australian decision on Huawei and 5G but I can't see Australian interests being served by identifying ourselves as the lead crusader on all of this."

— [00:23:11.150 --> 00:23:34.270]

The "boring pragmatist" position on 5G (cf. Ep032 on China). The decision to exclude Huawei is right; becoming a global crusader against Huawei is not in Australia's interest. Darren disagrees (mildly), arguing Australia is already at the forefront because it acted early and should share its analysis. Allan's position is structural: the decision serves our interest; a leadership posture in advocating it to others is a different question. The "crusader" word is deliberately chosen — it connotes ideological fervour, which Allan always treats as analytically suspect.

"Some books deepen your understanding, but there are a valuable few which change your understanding"¶

"Some books deepen your understanding of an issue but there are a valuable few which change your understanding and this was one of those for me."

— [00:34:14.130 --> 00:36:01.630]

Allan's own taxonomy of books. The distinction between "deepen" and "change" is careful: deepening means more evidence for a view you already hold; changing means you now see the structure of the problem differently. Krastev and Holmes The Light That Failed is in the "change" category. This is his highest book recommendation endorsement yet — above Macintyre ("thrillingly written"), above Hugh White ("hard thinking"), above the Packer ("revelation"). The formulation is worth capturing as his reading standard.

"Sure as hell won't get any agreement without a strong environmental dimension to it"¶

"Climate change pervades so many areas of our international diplomacy from the trade deal with the EU but we sure as hell won't get any agreement without a strong environmental dimension to it."

— [00:33:41.630 --> 00:34:01.850]

The second instance of mild profanity in the corpus ("sure as hell"), after "poor old bloody rules-based order" in Ep031. In both cases the register marks a moment of emphasis — Allan uses profanity rarely, which means it registers as emphasis rather than habit. The observation itself is both accurate and impatiently delivered: this should be obvious to any Australian minister negotiating with the EU in 2020.

"I'm amazed at the speed and efficiency with which it's been done"¶

"Australia is trying to extract several hundred Australian citizens, almost all of them of Chinese heritage, many of them underage from an area under quarantine lockdown in China where we don't have a permanent consular presence... I'm amazed at the speed and efficiency with which it's been done."

— [00:04:26.370 --> 00:05:39.130]

Allan's detailed anatomy of the consular operation is revealing of his professional knowledge: permanent consular presence (Australia has none in Wuhan); registration requirements; citizenship verification; family relationship complexities (Australian kids with Chinese grandparents); Chinese-language capacity on hotlines; negotiating with a Chinese government in crisis mode. He knows what a hard consular operation looks like from the inside. The praise is genuine and specific — not a general endorsement of DFAT but an acknowledgement of a specific, difficult task done well.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: Corroborating

Detailed knowledge of consular operations mechanics — his anatomy of the Wuhan evacuation (permanent presence requirements, citizenship verification, family-relationship complexities, language capability) is consistent with his career in PM&C and DFAT, and his earlier reference to consular work as a "perennial curse" during his Singapore posting (Ep020). No new dates or roles — corroboration only.
"I've always believed that the idea that you treat information about your own intelligence capabilities and relationships with great discretion has a lot to commend it" — on Australian MPs writing to British media about Five Eyes intelligence matters. Consistent with the Ep013 Five Eyes formation ("I began working in this area in the days when the existence of the agreement was among the most highly sensitive intelligence secrets"). The discretion norm was lived, not theoretical. (Ep040 — corroborates Ep013)

Style and Method Evidence¶

"Spineless": One of three direct blunt character judgements Allan makes in the series (alongside "deliberate obfuscation" in Ep031 and "no irony at all" on Trump in Ep005). Each instance is earned — preceded by a complete evidential account before the verdict is delivered.
The sanctuary/path distinction: Allan often clarifies what a policy is by naming what it is not. "Not a path forward but a sanctuary" does the work of two paragraphs in seven words.
The reading taxonomy: "Deepen vs. change" is a precision distinction applied to books as analytical instruments. Allan reads for understanding, not merely information; the distinction between types of understanding is characteristic precision.
The "with every new piece of news... I've become more so": Allan updates views explicitly on-air as new evidence arrives. This is consistent throughout the corpus — he does not hold fixed positions against evidence.

Reading, Listening and Watching¶

Allan — Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, The Light That Failed: A Reckoning (Penguin, 2019)

"Some books deepen your understanding of an issue but there are a valuable few which change your understanding and this was one of those for me... the answer is pretty persuasive to me... just one single fascinating point among many others — the authors make a powerful case that the reason for the emergence of populism in states like Poland and Hungary was not at all concerned about an influx of new immigrants of whom there were very few, but a deeper anxiety about the impact of emigration and depopulation in those countries."

Foreshadowed in Ep039 (not yet finished); completed and fully recommended here. Krastev (Bulgarian political scientist, now in Vienna) and Holmes (NYU law professor) argue that Eastern European imitation of Western liberalism after 1989 generated resentment rather than conversion. Allan's chosen insight: the Polish/Hungarian populism is not an immigration backlash (there were almost no immigrants in those countries) but an emigration anxiety — young people leaving, populations declining, communities hollowing out. This is the non-obvious conclusion he prizes. He also notes: "how regrettably rare European and especially East European voices have been in the international policy debate in Australia — or maybe it's just in my own reading" — a self-correcting aside that treats his own reading habits as a potentially biased sample.

Rating language: "changed my understanding" — Allan's highest endorsement category, explicitly defined in this episode as above "deepen your understanding."

Open Questions¶

Allan praises Simon Birmingham as "a minister of real weight and substance" — one of the stronger ministerial endorsements in the corpus. Does he maintain this assessment in later episodes as Birmingham continues in the trade portfolio?
"A sanctuary in which we can shelter while something else is being worked out" — does the interim WTO appellate arrangement actually become a permanent structure? Allan's reluctance to call it a path forward is tested by subsequent developments.
The "spineless finger-pointing" criticism is unusually direct. Does Allan draw from or return to the Morrison government's handling of the early pandemic period in later episodes?