Source — AITW Ep059 — Malabar and an Emerging Balancing Coalition; Senator Abetz and Loyalty Tests; Diplomacy and Quarantine¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	59
Title	Malabar and an emerging balancing coalition; Senator Abetz and loyalty tests; diplomacy and quarantine
Publication date	2020-10-29
Recording date	Monday, 26 October 2020
Guests	None — Allan and Darren only
Allan present	Yes
Format	Regular discussion — three topics

Summary¶

Three topics: (1) Malabar naval exercises — Australia joins India/US/Japan for first time since 2007; Allan and Darren both accept "balancing coalition" as apt description, noting India's residual non-alignment instinct; Australia also announces withdrawal from Middle East Gulf presence — "the end of an era that began in 1991"; (2) Senator Eric Abetz's "loyalty test" questioning of Chinese-Australian witnesses at Senate committee — Allan: "an ugly moment for the country," echoes of McCarthyism, directly harmful to national security by chilling ASIO's community engagement; confirms he held a conversation with Dennis Richardson for the ACT branch of AIIA the previous week on the same theme; (3) diplomacy and quarantine — quarantining keeps leaders talking to allies rather than adversaries; personal relationships essential ballast for digital diplomacy. Major biographical fragment: very early DFAT career — signed a letter to the Canberra Times opposing racist anti-Asian immigration language in parliament; reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as "Envoys Attack [name]"; called before the Department secretary who consulted the Crimes Act. Reading: Anne Applebaum, Twilight of Democracy — "personal and sad, and its outlook is pessimistic."

Key Quotations¶

"Not engraved for eternity on tablets of stone"¶

"Any Australian has the right within the law to support or to oppose particular policies or actions whether they're those of the Chinese Communist Party or Donald Trump or Jabba the Hutt and the Australian national interest, indeed Australian values as well as that, are not engraved for eternity on tablets of stone. If they were, we'd still have a discriminatory immigration system and pay women less than men for the same work."

— [00:20:53.510 --> 00:23:22.630] (approx.)

The "Jabba the Hutt" inclusion is characteristic — a ridiculous example inserted among real ones to underline the point's universality. But the philosophical argument underneath it is serious and consistently held: Australian national values are not fixed, they are the outcome of ongoing democratic argument. Allan has already cited this position in earlier episodes ("creeping McCarthyism," Ep051). Here he gives it its most direct formulation, with the historical proof: if values were fixed, women would still earn less and immigration would still be discriminatory. The sentence is both analytical and a reminder of how far Australian society has actually moved — and in the direction he approves of.

"The secretary had closely examined the Crimes Act"¶

"The following day, the Sydney Morning Herald had a front-page article headed Envoys Attack [name]. Now, envoys, we were not — I was an ASO 6 equivalent or something at the time — and I got called in before the then secretary of the department to be told that he'd closely examined the Crimes Act and was very disappointed DFAT couldn't throw me immediately into prison, but he would be watching my every move."

— [00:25:52.790 --> 00:28:18.910]

Allan's characteristic comic delivery: the secretary's threat is delivered through the impossible wish (he'd like to imprison him but the law won't cooperate) rather than by any actual sanction. Allan then reads the aftermath charitably — his superiors "probably secretly agreed with everything we said" but "thought it was a very stupid way of doing it." The whole story is told with evident pleasure and no embarrassment. "You probably didn't intend that question to be an advertisement, Darren" — and the Crimes Act story certainly wasn't intended as a cautionary tale, either.

"An ugly moment for the country"¶

"I was personally affronted that a question like this with such direct echoes of McCarthyism could be asked by an Australian Senator and not immediately repudiated in the room by those from the other side of politics. I thought it was an ugly moment for the country."

— [00:18:34.290 --> 00:20:53.510]

Direct and unhedged — no "in my view," no "perhaps." Allan reserves this register for moments of genuine moral clarity. He then extends the critique to the national security implications (chilling community engagement with ASIO), but the moral verdict comes first: ugly, not just tactically counterproductive. His use of "personally affronted" is also unusual — he does not often speak in personal emotional terms.

"Not engraved for eternity on tablets of stone" — on the AIIA's founding purpose¶

"It owes its origins to the group of allied peacemakers in Paris after the First World War, who looked about them at the carnage of the conflict and agreed that the active engagement of an informed public in the debate about foreign and defence policy was essential if tragedies like that were to be avoided in future. And I believe that's as true now as it was then, but the informed public part of it is as important as the active engagement."

— [00:23:23.150 --> 00:25:01.230]

Allan, in the role of AIIA National President, gives a precise and evidently well-rehearsed account of the organisation's founding rationale. The First World War as the origin point; the lesson that public understanding prevents catastrophe. Then the self-aware twist: "you probably didn't intend that question to be an advertisement, Darren." The advertisement is real — he ends with the AIIA branch contact details — but the historical argument is also serious and consistent with his worldview.

"The end of an era that began in 1991"¶

"This does feel to me like the end of an era that began in 1991 with all those hopes for a new international order at the end of the Cold War as the UN mobilised to respond to the threat to peace... Gee, we're a long way from the position where Robert Hill, the former Howard Government Defence Minister, could claim that Australia had a vital interest in the peace and security of the Middle East. The spotlight is now intensively on our own region once again."

— [00:09:56.130 --> 00:11:36.550]

Allan historically situates the Australia-Middle East military relationship from its origins (lines of communication to Britain via Suez Canal → Gallipoli, North Africa) through the First Gulf War (1991, the beginning of the "era" he is now noting ends) to the current withdrawal. "Those hopes for a new international order" — a personal memory, not a textbook citation. He was in government (PM&C/Keating office) when those hopes were at their height. The Robert Hill reference is pointed: the Howard government's formulation of Australian vital interests in the Middle East is now definitively superseded.

"Just before we recorded this" — virtual conference with Interprefy¶

"Just before we recorded this, I was actually participating in a virtual conference run by an Australian think tank with some Asian participants at the other end. And the technology worked really effectively and an app which was new to me called Interprefy, I don't know if you've come across that. It provided simultaneous translations into English through my phone, so it all worked very nicely. But the people we were talking to were a mass of blurry pixels on a screen. There was zero chance to follow up issues over coffee, or if your brain was sparked by a new idea that wasn't on the agenda, you couldn't do anything with the ideas."

— [00:30:59.550 --> 00:32:48.150]

A small window into Allan's work life at the time: AIIA-connected virtual conferences with Asian interlocutors, immediately before recording the podcast. "New to me called Interprefy" — again the "non-techie" persona, but engaged and willing to adapt. The critique of virtual formats is not technophobia but a precise identification of what is lost: informal follow-ups, spontaneous ideas, the corridor pull-aside. He has been making this argument across several episodes; here he has just experienced it concretely twenty minutes before speaking.

Biographical Fragments¶

Evidence type: New — Very early DFAT career: letter to the Canberra Times opposing racist immigration speech; "Envoys Attack" in the SMH

Signed letter to the Canberra Times very early in DFAT career, opposing racist parliamentary speech on immigration: "Very early in my career in DFAT, I signed a letter to the Canberra Times with a couple of other colleagues complaining about a speech which [a politician — see note] had got up in parliament and made denouncing those who were trying to liberalise Australia's immigration policy and create what he called a chocolate-coloured Australia. Asians, he said, bred like flies and lived off the smell of an oily rag. This was so offensive to me that with little regard for my own future, I willingly signed a letter. Now, in the letter, we didn't say that we were government officials from DFAT, but even in those pre-social media days, information gets around the place quickly. And the following day, the Sydney Morning Herald had a front-page article headed Envoys Attack [name]." (Ep059)

Allan was "an ASO 6 equivalent or something at the time." He was called before the then-secretary of the Department, who jokingly told him he'd "closely examined the Crimes Act and was very disappointed DFAT couldn't throw me immediately into prison, but he would be watching my every move." Allan suspects his superiors "probably secretly agreed with everything we said" but objected to the manner. The politician in question had subsequently said in parliament "that the public service had never acted like this in his day." Allan found the SMH article when "cleaning out the garage" recently. He explicitly qualifies: "not something I'm saying because I think that it should be repeated by young people now."

Note on the politician's identity: The transcript is garbled at this point (medium transcription model); the names given — "Ralph Whitlam," "Bedartha Cornwall" — are almost certainly transcription errors. Based on context (early DFAT career, ~1969–early 1970s; ALP politician making anti-Asian immigration remarks about "chocolate-coloured Australia"), the most likely candidate is Arthur Calwell (ALP leader until 1967; remained in parliament until 1972), who was associated with anti-Asian immigration positions. The article "Envoys Attack [name]" should be findable in the SMH archive.

Dennis Richardson and ACT branch of AIIA — conversation on loyalty tests: "I engaged Dennis Richardson in a conversation last week for the ACT branch of the AIIA which I think will soon be on the YouTube channel and he recounted exactly the same responses to efforts to subject Australian citizens to loyalty tests like this after 9/11." (Ep059) Confirms Allan held a public conversation with Richardson for the AIIA ACT branch approximately late October 2020 — findable on the AIIA YouTube channel. Richardson's 9/11 precedent (loyalty tests being counterproductive) directly parallels the Abetz case.

Style and Method Evidence¶

"Not something I'm saying because I think that it should be repeated by young people now": Before disclosing the Canberra Times letter, Allan explicitly pre-empts the story being read as a recommendation. Characteristic care about the conclusions others might draw.
The AIIA advertisement: Allan turns Darren's question about public engagement into a precise historical account of the AIIA's founding purpose — then catches himself: "you probably didn't intend that question to be an advertisement, Darren." Self-aware about when he is promoting his institutional role.
McCarthyism as the historical frame: Second deployment of this comparison (first was "creeping McCarthyism," Ep051, in the context of his own tabloid front page). In Ep059 it is applied to the Senate committee hearing. The word carries weight for someone of his generation who watched McCarthyism's effects and worked in intelligence during the Cold War.
"Jabba the Hutt" alongside Trump and the CCP: The fictional villain inserted to underscore the point's generality. If the argument is right (Australians are free to oppose any policy), then it must apply to Jabba the Hutt too. The absurd example is not a joke but a logical completion.
Darren: "The deep state, Allan. The deep state": In response to Allan's Canberra Times letter story, Darren jokes that Allan was "the deep state" — a junior diplomat writing to the press. Allan: "we were really, really far down." The exchange illustrates the warmth of their relationship and Allan's comfort being the subject of gentle ribbing.

Reading / Listening Segment¶

Allan: Anne Applebaum — Twilight of Democracy: The Failure of Politics and Departing of Friends (Doubleday/Allen Lane, 2020).

"A companion piece, in a way, [to Krastev/Holmes] because it's a book that shows, in effect, the human side of that failure... She was a critic of the authoritarian left, but the world she knows and writes about here is that of the centre-right transatlantic liberal and cosmopolitan establishment... She was running around with people like Boris Johnson, and the book describes the deep breach of relationships which accompanied the 21st century split between liberalism and populism, as lifelong friends started excusing and facilitating the populists like Orban and Trump... It's personal and sad, and its outlook is pessimistic. 'Given the right conditions, she writes, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all our societies eventually will.' So it's a warning note."

Framed explicitly as the "human side" of the Krastev/Holmes argument (Ep040): where that book gave the structural explanation for Eastern European populism, Applebaum gives the personal dimension — the destruction of friendships and intellectual circles across the liberal-populist split. Allan endorses the pessimistic outlook without qualification. Applebaum's American-Polish position (married to a Polish politician, writing for The Atlantic and The Spectator) mirrors his own interest in non-Anglophone perspectives on liberalism's crisis.

Darren: Francis Fukuyama (essay on liberalism and its discontents) and David Brooks (Atlantic essay on social trust and liberalism's failures). Allan on the Brooks piece: "I thought it was very sobering and worrying. Both were well worth reading."

Open Questions¶

The "Envoys Attack" SMH article: Should be findable in the Sydney Morning Herald archive, probably 1969–1972. The politician's name would be confirmed; the article would also reveal the full names of the co-signatories. This is a primary-source biographical document.
AIIA ACT branch conversation with Dennis Richardson (late October 2020): Expected on the AIIA YouTube channel. Would add to Richardson's corpus statements on loyalty tests post-9/11 and on Allan's relationship with Richardson.
"ASO 6 equivalent": Is this consistent with "very early" in his career? ASO 6 is not entry level. Allan entered in 1969; if this incident is ~1970–1972, that would be 1–3 years in — possibly rapid progression, or the APS grade systems may have worked differently for graduate trainees in the diplomatic service.
Robert Hill's claim of Australian vital interest in the Middle East: Was this a specific speech or policy document? Allan cites it as though it were a known formulation. Worth locating in the public record.