Source — AITW Ep045 — The WHO; Mask Diplomacy; DFAT & Covid-19¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	45
Title	Ep. 45: The WHO; "mask diplomacy"; DFAT & Covid-19
Publication date	2020-04-23
Recording date	Late April 2020
Guests	None (Allan and Darren only)
Allan present	Yes
Format	Regular news episode — three COVID-related topics: WHO, mask diplomacy, DFAT

Summary¶

Three-topic COVID news episode. On the WHO after Trump's funding freeze: Allan's position — "it doesn't stand outside international politics. It's part of them" — and support for Marise Payne's independent review proposal (noting he made a similar argument in the East Asia Forum the previous week). He deflates the "global megalith" perception: WHO's budget is $8.8 billion Australian, compared with $104 billion for the Australian Health Department alone. On mask diplomacy: Allan reaches back to "ping pong diplomacy" (Mao era) as a precedent and is less impressed by its novelty than Darren. "All donors use aid for multiple purposes." On DFAT: "I'm certain, I'm really certain that there's been nothing so testing for the department in the past 70 years" — detailed description of DFAT's transformed workload (consular, aid, trade, policy, all under lockdown conditions). On the withdrawal of Ambassador Gary Quinlan from Indonesia (age 69, recalled due to COVID risk): Allan finds the Indonesian Deputy FM's complaint "surprising" and quotes Sirigarh's parting line — "you don't get to choose your neighbor" — as an echo of the long rhythm of bilateral spats. Reading segment: a major biographical disclosure — Peter Edwards' biography of Justice Robert Hope, "one of my public policy heroes," whom Allan met as "a young ONA analyst in Washington" and whose name he successfully urged Julia Gillard to attach to the ONA building in Canberra.

Key Quotations¶

"If not WHO, WHO?"¶

"Well, the question you have to ask is, if not WHO, WHO? To deal with global health problems, you obviously need universal membership."

— [00:10:50.320 --> 00:12:28.280]

A rare piece of wordplay from Allan — the WHO acronym turned into a rhetorical question. Not merely a pun: the logic is genuine. He is saying that criticism of WHO only has force if you have an alternative universal health organisation in mind, and there is none. The compressed form does the analytical work: naming the absence of alternatives is itself the argument. He then lists the non-negotiable requirements (universal membership, medical specialists, democratic plenary, no enforcement powers over sovereignty) and concludes: "whatever you can do to increase WHO's efficiency and responsiveness, in my view, you're left with something that looks pretty much like what we've already got." Pragmatist defence of imperfect institutions, characteristically grounded in structural logic.

"There's been nothing so testing for the department in the past 70 years"¶

"There's no doubt about the scale of the impact that the coronavirus has had on the Australian public service broadly and on DFAT in particular. I'm certain, I'm really certain that there's been nothing so testing for the department in the past 70 years."

— [00:22:12.160 --> 00:25:19.600]

The doubled "certain" — "I'm certain, I'm really certain" — is an intensifier rarely deployed. He lists the components: consular evacuations at scale; wholesale recasting of the Pacific aid program; every trade exporter and tourism matter; the broader international policy questions — all simultaneously, under lockdown conditions, with NSC meetings up to three times a week. "Seventy years" dates the claim to the department's post-WWII formation — which is approximately the modern DFAT era. A strong institutional verdict, delivered after being a department officer himself.

"All donors use aid for multiple purposes"¶

"All donors use aid for multiple purposes. For Australia, development assistance is the primary objective. But the form in which we give aid and the places to which we direct it are also shaped very much by our own strategic ambitions. You just have to look at the specific step up to see that."

— [00:18:43.480 --> 00:19:42.320]

Allan's counter to Darren's "mask diplomacy is somewhat novel" argument. He relativises it: what China is doing is not qualitatively different from what all aid donors do — strategic objectives shape the form and direction of assistance. The "Step Up" Pacific policy is Allan's example: Australia directs aid to the Pacific not only for development but to maintain regional influence against Chinese inroads. He is defending the logic of mask diplomacy (it is normal state behaviour) while implicitly also admitting that Australian aid has the same dual character.

"Those sound to me like the words of a foreign policy realist, Darren"¶

"Those sound to me like the words of a foreign policy realist, Darren. All major powers influence multilateral institutions in ways to suit their interests. Look, I think that's a really interesting interpretation, and I agree with it."

— [00:15:02.600 --> 00:15:24.560]

Allan labels Darren's analysis with its theoretical name and immediately endorses it. Characteristic move: he identifies the theoretical frame, validates it, and then moves on. He does not dwell on theory — having named it, he returns to the empirical question (why the AIIB doesn't seem to touch PRC sensitivities in the way health policy does). The labelling is also mildly teasing — "the words of a foreign policy realist" has a slight edge coming from someone who has repeatedly described himself as not a theorist.

"You don't get to choose your neighbor" (attributed to Indonesian Deputy FM Sirigarh)¶

"I couldn't help as I sort of read Sirigarh's world weary language. He ended up by saying, this is not the first time and it won't be the last, as wise people say, you don't get to choose your neighbor."

— [00:26:13.120 --> 00:27:31.520]

Allan quotes Sirigarh's parting line and hears in it the entire history of the Australia–Indonesia relationship. "World weary language" is precisely observed — it is not anger but resigned familiarity. The phrase "you don't get to choose your neighbor" as diplomatic commentary on Australia is a formulation that dates back through decades of bilateral friction. Allan's response: he recognises the pattern, finds it characterising, and does not expect lasting damage. The capacity to hear the echo of a long bilateral history in a single borrowed aphorism is characteristic.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: NEW — Justice Robert Hope as formative figure; Julia Gillard building-naming; East Asia Forum writing

Justice Robert Hope as "one of my public policy heroes" — met as "a young ONA analyst in Washington": Allan: "Hope's always been one of my public policy heroes. I met him as a young ONA analyst in Washington." Justice Robert Hope conducted the Whitlam, Fraser, and Hawke royal commissions into the Australian intelligence community and was the founding architect of ONA. Meeting Hope as "a young ONA analyst in Washington" suggests Allan was posted to or visiting Washington in his analyst years — a new career fragment. The phrase "young ONA analyst" matches his confirmed mid-1980s ONA analyst period. (Ep045 — new)
Persuaded Julia Gillard to name the ONA building after Robert Hope: "I was very pleased that I was able to persuade Julia Gillard to name the ONA building in Canberra after him." This is a significant career data point. Allan was ONA Director-General during at least part of Gillard's tenure (June 2010 – June 2013). The fact that he "persuaded" Gillard personally — that this was a direct approach to the Prime Minister — confirms ONA DG's direct access to the PM and his personal initiative within that role. The building is now called the Robert Hope Centre. (Ep045 — new, corroborates Ep041's Maude succession dating)
East Asia Forum piece on WHO review, mid-April 2020: Allan says "I in fact said something similar in the East Asia Forum last week." He was writing for the East Asia Forum at the same time as co-hosting the podcast — confirming that the Lowy Interpreter and East Asia Forum are both active writing venues during the podcast period. (Ep045 — new writing venue confirmed)

Style and Method Evidence¶

Deflating with numbers: Allan notes WHO's $8.8 billion budget against Australia's own $104 billion Health Department budget to pre-empt the "global megalith" narrative. Characteristic: he finds the number, names it precisely, and lets it do the argumentative work without elaboration.
Historical reach through analogy: "Ping pong diplomacy" — the term used when China under Mao re-engaged internationally through table tennis in the early 1970s. Allan is "certainly the only person on this podcast old enough to remember it." The analogy is deployed to relativise mask diplomacy's novelty; having made the comparison, he immediately concedes the difference (South-to-North reversal). Analogy used precisely, not exhaustively.
The doubled certainty: "I'm certain, I'm really certain" — when Allan intensifies a claim in this way, it signals a considered verdict, not a casual assessment. He has been inside DFAT's world; the 70-year claim is not hyperbole.

Reading, Listening and Watching¶

Allan — Peter Edwards, Law, Politics and Intelligence: A Life of Robert Hope (New South Books)

"It's the first ever biography of Justice Robert Hope, the man who more than any other created the Australian intelligence community as we know it. Following the series of royal commissions he conducted for the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments into the Australian agencies, he was the creator, really, of the Office of National Assessments, where I worked, now the Office of National Intelligence... Hope's always been one of my public policy heroes. I met him as a young ONA analyst in Washington, and I was very pleased that I was able to persuade Julia Gillard to name the ONA building in Canberra after him."

A recommendation delivered with unusual personal investment. This is not just a good book on an interesting subject — it is a biography of a man Allan calls "one of my public policy heroes," whose institution he led, whose memorial building he personally campaigned for. The recommendation is also an implicit autobiography: by describing what Hope did and why it mattered, he is describing the institutional world that made him. "He was the creator, really, of the Office of National Assessments, where I worked" — the understated "where I worked" compresses decades of career. He also notes the COVID timing: the book launched during lockdown and "hasn't received quite the attention it should have." Allan is trying to correct that.

Open Questions¶

The Robert Hope biography (Law, Politics and Intelligence, Peter Edwards, New South Books) — this is a directly accessible primary source for understanding the institutional world in which Allan spent much of his career. What does it say about the Whitlam/Fraser/Hawke intelligence reforms? Does it mention Allan?
The ONA building named the Robert Hope Centre — when was the naming ceremony? Allan persuaded Julia Gillard; Gillard was PM June 2010 – June 2013. The naming would have occurred in that window and is probably on public record.
"I met him as a young ONA analyst in Washington" — when was Hope in Washington in an official capacity during Allan's analyst years (mid-1980s)? A Royal Commission was conducted in 1983–1984 (the third Hope review); the Washington visit may be associated with that.
East Asia Forum piece on WHO review (mid-April 2020) — is it recoverable in the EAF archive? Would confirm the text of Allan's position before Payne's announcement.