Source — AITW Ep057 — Foreign Interference & the Australia-China Relationship; Trilaterals; PM Suga; Thai Protests¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	57
Title	Foreign interference & the Australia-China relationship; trilaterals; PM Suga; Thai protests
Publication date	2020-09-26
Recording date	Friday, 25 September 2020
Guests	None — Allan and Darren only
Allan present	Yes
Format	Regular discussion — four topics

Summary¶

Four topics: (1) foreign interference investigations (raids on Chinese journalists, deportation of academics, Paul Kelly piece in The Australian); (2) trilateral meetings — Australia-India-France and Australia-India-Indonesia; (3) Japan's new PM Suga Yoshihide; (4) Thai protests against monarchy and military. Allan discloses he attended an Australia-India-France 1.5-track meeting in New Delhi "a couple of years ago" — the first confirmed semi-official diplomatic participation post-ONA DG. Several characteristic formulations: "foreign ministries have greater status than they do power"; Paul Kelly as "the Bob Woodward of Australian reporters"; "three flamboyant Quad leaders" (excluding Morrison); Southeast Asia's marginalisation from Australian foreign policy discussion. Reading: Joseph Nye, Do Morals Matter?

Key Quotations¶

"Foreign ministries have greater status than they do power"¶

"It's a truth universally acknowledged that foreign ministries, and it doesn't matter whether it's China or the US or Australia or Kiribati, have greater status than they do power, particularly when it comes to domestic and security issues. We've got standing on international questions, but it tends to diminish rapidly, that standing, once you get back to home soil."

— [00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:56.520]

One of the most concise institutional characterisations in the corpus. The Jane Austen opener ("a truth universally acknowledged") is self-consciously ironic — it flags the received wisdom before Allan asserts it as genuine observation. DFAT's institutional position is precisely described: high status, limited power, especially at home. The "complaints desk" description that follows — DFAT officers listening "calmly to whatever protests were delivered by angry ambassadors after the event" — is more vivid still. This is insider institutional knowledge delivered with wry precision.

Paul Kelly as "the Bob Woodward of Australian reporters"¶

"You can think of Kelly as the Bob Woodward of Australian reporters. He's got the same sort of gravitas and age, and he writes the histories in a series of books, including The End of Certainty, his history of the Hawke-Keating governments — he's produced the influential first drafts of Australian political history. And as with Woodward, this makes him influential with politicians and public servants who naturally enough, like all of us, want history to treat them well."

— [00:16:16.680 --> 00:17:49.400]

Allan's literary-journalistic canon is consistent across the corpus. The Woodward comparison is precise: both produce the first-draft histories that politicians and officials must reckon with, because their books become the record. "Like all of us, want history to treat them well" — the inclusion of himself ("like all of us") is characteristic; he does not exempt himself from the human desire for a good historical verdict. The reference to The End of Certainty shows familiarity — that book (1992) covers the Hawke-Keating era in which Allan served.

"The unusual position of three flamboyant leaders"¶

"We've had in the Quad the unusual position of three, at least if you exclude Scott Morrison, flamboyant leaders in Modi, Abe and Trump and the reversion to type, which I suspect we'll be seeing with Suga and Japanese politicians will be interesting to observe."

— [00:27:07.180 --> 00:27:29.340]

A wry aside that accomplishes two things: assesses Suga's likely style (reversion to the LDP norm of careful rather than flamboyant) and parenthetically excludes Morrison from the flamboyant category — "at least if you exclude Scott Morrison." The parenthetical is the point; it is delivered without elaboration. Characteristic: the analytical observation and the political one arrive simultaneously in the same sentence.

"What's become almost a mono-focus on China"¶

"This looks like another illustration of a trend we've talked about before, which is the marginalisation of Southeast Asia in Australian public discussion of foreign policy and in government priorities in the face of what's sort of become almost a mono-focus on China... If you're an ambitious journalist and you want your story on the front page, you know, find a China angle and that'll get you there."

— [00:28:36.140 --> 00:31:16.740]

Allan names a structural problem in Australian foreign policy commentary and government attention. Southeast Asia — including significant political crises like the Thai protests — is being crowded out by China coverage. He makes this self-aware: "which you can see from our own podcast." The journalism observation is sharp: the China angle gets you to the front page, and that incentive distorts coverage. His Thailand point has a values dimension: similar protests in China or Hong Kong would generate government statements; in Thailand (an ASEAN member, a US ally), the government stays quiet.

"And other riffraff like that"¶

"I attended a one-and-a-half track, as they call them, and that means including not just officials, but also academics and other riffraff like that, between Australia, India and France in New Delhi a couple of years ago."

— [00:19:03.720 --> 00:21:06.820]

Self-deprecating description of the non-official participants in 1.5-track dialogues (officials + academics/think-tankers). Allan is placing himself in the "riffraff" category with characteristic mock-modesty. But the disclosure is substantive: he attended this Australia-India-France 1.5-track in New Delhi approximately 2017–2018, well into or shortly after his AIIA National Presidency. Confirms continued participation in semi-official diplomatic activity post-ONA DG.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: New — New Delhi 1.5-track meeting (c. 2017-2018)

Attended Australia-India-France 1.5-track meeting in New Delhi, "a couple of years ago": Recording date is September 2020; "a couple of years ago" places this at approximately 2017–2018. This is consistent with his AIIA National Presidency (from at least 2018) and possibly earlier. He describes it as "a really rewarding conversation because of the different angles of view on subjects of common interest you got from those three different national perspectives." Confirms continued active participation in semi-official diplomatic formats after leaving ONA. (Ep057)

Style and Method Evidence¶

"A truth universally acknowledged": The Austen opener is used deliberately — it signals a received wisdom being invoked, which Allan then proceeds to affirm rather than subvert. The irony is in the register, not the content. He uses literary openers rarely; this one works because it genuinely does apply to foreign ministries everywhere.
Confirmation bias acknowledged: "To be honest, I found myself in pretty close agreement with everything he wrote. And however hard we try, confirmation bias is difficult to eradicate, so I thought it was good." This is a genuinely self-critical admission — he cites agreement with Paul Kelly as evidence of bias risk, and names it before listing two other more substantive reasons. Characteristic intellectual honesty about the limits of his own objectivity.
Self-inclusion in the desire for historical approval: "Politicians and public servants who naturally enough, like all of us, want history to treat them well." He does not exempt himself from this human desire when explaining Kelly's influence. A small but telling moment of self-awareness.
The Thailand/Hong Kong values asymmetry: Allan makes a structural observation — identical protests would generate different Australian government responses depending on the country's strategic alignment. Not advocacy for consistency at all costs, but an honest naming of the gap between stated values and actual behaviour.

Reading / Listening Segment¶

Allan: Joseph Nye — Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump (Harvard University Press, 2020).

"Nye has been at Harvard since 1964, with stints in government dating back to the Carter administration. So his analysis is informed by practical experience and deep knowledge." Framing: the book "forces the reader to think about whether there are differences between a values-based foreign policy and a moral foreign policy. And if there are, where do they lie? A moral foreign policy, Nye argues, involves not just the intentions of the policymaker, but the consequences that flow from their actions and the means that were used."

The Nye recommendation connects directly to the episode's Thailand discussion: Australia speaks about values but stays quiet about Thailand's protests. Nye's distinction (values-based vs moral foreign policy) is the analytical tool Allan is reaching for to make sense of that gap. He examines all post-WWII US presidents — exactly the kind of historical survey across the full range of cases that Allan consistently finds more useful than individual case studies.

Darren: The Social Dilemma (Netflix documentary, 2020) — highly recommended, leads Darren to delete Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram from his phone. Not directly relevant to Allan's preferences.

Open Questions¶

The Australia-India-France 1.5-track in New Delhi — is this recoverable from public records? It likely had a track record or report. What institution organised it on the Australian side?
Allan's familiarity with The End of Certainty — does he cite this Kelly book elsewhere? He was a serving official during much of the Hawke-Keating period it covers.
"A values-based foreign policy vs a moral foreign policy" — does this distinction appear in Allan's own writing? The Nye framing seems to resonate with him; it may inform his later AFA or AIIA publications.