Source — AITW Ep076 — Morrison's Perth Speech; PM Lee's China Advice; An Energised G7; Bilaterals with UK & France¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	76
Title	Morrison's Perth speech; PM Lee's China advice; an energised G7; bilaterals with UK & France
Publication date	2021-06-19
Recording date	Thursday, 17 June 2021
Guests	None — Allan and Darren only
Allan present	Yes
Format	Regular news episode — four items plus reading segment

Summary¶

Four items structured around Morrison's overseas trip: (1) Perth speech ("A world order that favours freedom") — Allan calls it "a final definitive shift" from 30 years of Australian foreign policy, traces the language shift from the 2017 White Paper, and notes the normative distinction between "rules-based order" and "balance that favours freedom"; (2) Singapore stopover — PM Lee Hsien Loong's China advice: "I would say to that too right, but Australian policymakers basically said nothing at all"; (3) G7 (Cornwall) — "rebadging itself because of who's not there rather than who is there"; "grim truth" on G20 vs G7; (4) UK FTA ("I'm one of the last remaining members of an endangered species") and France bilateral (submarines still intact — three months before AUKUS). Reading segment: Sam Harris / Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Are We Alone in the Universe?" — "I really loved [these topics] as a teenage sci-fi fan."

Biographical significance: First disclosure of teenage sci-fi enthusiasm. One of the few moments of genuine self-assertion: "to be a bit immodest, I've left a long trail of statements on the public record well before it became the conventional wisdom" on the post-war order's end.

Key Quotations¶

"A final definitive shift from the Australian foreign policy of the past 30 years"¶

"For me, it seemed like a final definitive shift from the Australian foreign policy of the past 30 years or so... I went back and compared it, for example, with the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, which declared that Australia would promote an open, inclusive and prosperous Indo-Pacific region in which the rights of all states are respected... A strategic balance in the region that favours freedom and indeed a world order that favours freedom."

— [00:01:35.480 --> 00:03:08.620]

The speech-reading method applied: he compares the Perth speech language directly to the 2017 White Paper. The 2017 formulation was "open, inclusive and rules-based" — normatively neutral on governance systems, framing the goal as procedural (rules followed) rather than substantive (freedom). The Perth formulation adds a normative dimension: "a balance that favours freedom." His analysis of the distinction is precise: "a rules-based order is different from a balance that favours freedom because it adds a normative component to the objective." The normative component has real operational consequences — "it also complicates, by the way, in other situations, our insistence on the centrality of sovereignty in the international system." This is the practitioner's reading: not whether the formulation is rhetorically satisfying but what it commits you to operationally.

"To be a bit immodest" — intellectual priority on post-war order diagnosis¶

"Well, to be a bit immodest, Darren, I've left a long trail of statements on the public record well before it became the conventional wisdom, the effect that the international order had fundamentally changed. And I'm not sure now that there's anyone left who doubts it. And as you can guess, my problem is not with acknowledging the change, it's with the primary division, freedom versus autocracy, without too much definition about what that means."

— [00:09:34.620 --> 00:10:11.620]

One of the few moments of genuine self-assertion in the corpus. He signals the immodesty explicitly ("to be a bit immodest") rather than leaving it implicit — which is itself characteristic: he is transparent about claiming priority rather than just claiming it. The claim is accurate: the post-war order's end has been one of his central arguments since at least Ep012 (2018). The pivot is then immediately to the substantive objection — his problem is not with Morrison acknowledging the change (he agrees) but with the "freedom vs autocracy" framing as underdefined. The self-assertion serves a polemical purpose: he is establishing that he is not a defender of the status quo ante, but an analyst who had the diagnosis earlier and reaches a different prescription.

PM Lee's China advice — "I would say to that too right"¶

"I would say to that too right, but Australian policymakers basically said nothing at all. So I was surprised that there was more commentary about that difference, particularly because if that's coming from Singapore, then we can assume that the other ASEAN countries are from Vietnam, for example, further away than that. So I just wonder whether it foreshadows greater drift between Australian and Southeast Asian positions."

— [00:10:40.620 --> 00:12:20.620]

Lee's advice, quoted directly by Allan: "You need to work with the country, it's going to be there, it's going to be a substantial presence, and you can cooperate with it, you can engage with it, you can negotiate with it. And you don't have to become like them, neither can you hope to make them become like you... deal with them as issues in a partnership which you want to keep going and not issues which add up to adversity which you're trying to suppress." Allan endorses this completely and identifies the Australian silence as telling. The analytical inference is structurally important: Singapore is the Southeast Asian country closest to Australia in policy terms. If even Singapore is saying this, the gap between Canberra and the rest of Southeast Asia is wide — "if that's coming from Singapore, then we can assume that the other ASEAN countries are from Vietnam, for example, further away than that." The drift prediction extends the marginalization/irrelevance warning from Ep074.

"This is not hard. There's nothing different in that from what we learn about any human interaction of any sort"¶

"You're probably right about the unlikelihood of anything happening. But I'm not asking for that. That's where the problem lies. The whole question is the language you use about yourself and your interlocutor, the sort of framing you deploy. And this is not hard. There's nothing different in that from what we learn about any human interaction of any sort."

— [00:14:22.620 --> 00:15:02.620]

In response to Darren's marital discord metaphor — the two sides have no overlapping win-sets. Allan's reply distinguishes between what he is asking for (not rapprochement, not a resolution) and the prior question (tone, framing, language). "This is not hard" is the practitioner's impatience: the basic principles of managing a difficult relationship are not a specialist secret. You use different language with a counterpart you need to work with than with an adversary you are trying to defeat. "There's nothing different in that from what we learn about any human interaction of any sort" — diplomacy is continuous with ordinary human relationship management, not a separate art form.

"One of the last remaining members of an endangered species"¶

"I'm increasingly conscious these days, Darren, that I'm one of the last remaining members of an endangered species, which is people who believe that open multilateral trade delivers better results than managed trade, meaning better outcomes for the citizens of our country. I think the evidence is overwhelming for that. And you just have to look at the second half of the 20th century to see it."

— [00:27:35.620 --> 00:29:15.620]

He knows this is a minority position and says so explicitly. The "endangered species" framing is self-deprecating but the conviction is absolute: "the evidence is overwhelming." This is not a tentative hedge — it is the firmest empirical claim he makes about trade in the corpus. He pairs it with a historical invocation: "the second half of the 20th century" — the period of post-war trade liberalisation, the GATT rounds, the growth of emerging economies through export-led development. He adds the cultural diagnosis: "What was driving the forces of American protectionism was xenophobia and nostalgia" (quoting Martin Wolf in the FT). He reads the FT and cites it specifically by writer — suggesting regular engagement with the FT's economic coverage.

"Honestly, get over it"¶

"I slightly cringed hearing Dan Tehan describe the agreement as a righting of a wrong, because this, in his view, made it up for Britain's perfidy, you know, 50 years ago, and joining the common market. Honestly, get over it."

— [00:27:35.620 --> 00:29:15.620]

One of the blunter formulations in the corpus — three words, no elaboration. He does not explain why this framing is wrong (the analytical point — that Britain joining the EEC in 1973 was a legitimate sovereign act, not "perfidy" — is left implicit). The cringed preamble and the abrupt dismissal are characteristic: he sets up the thing that annoys him, names it precisely ("righting of a wrong," "Britain's perfidy," "50 years ago"), then disposes of it. "Honestly" is the tell — the adverb that signals his patience with the framing has expired.

Biographical Fragments¶

"As a teenage sci-fi fan" — first disclosure of youthful reading¶

Evidence: Ep076 [00:32:42.570]. "I really loved [these topics] as a teenage sci-fi fan." Confidence: High (direct statement).

Allan discloses for the first time in the corpus that he was a science fiction enthusiast as a teenager — specifically interested in "the size of the universe, the search for extraterrestrial life." This is consistent with the reading portrait established elsewhere (Mantel, O'Brian, The Bureau) — he has always ranged beyond policy into imaginative fiction and speculative thought. The sci-fi interest being teenage suggests a formative reading pattern that extended to the widest possible horizons. The recommended podcast (Sam Harris / Neil deGrasse Tyson) is sought because it activates that teenage enthusiasm: he is not recommending it as foreign policy analysis but as imaginative horizon-broadening.

Reads the Financial Times — Martin Wolf cited specifically¶

Evidence: Ep076 [00:27:35.620]. "I was sort of reading Martin Wolf in the Financial Times this morning." Confidence: High (incidental, direct).

Allan reads the FT and cites Wolf by name and publication. The FT citation pattern appears in multiple episodes — he draws on it as a regular source of economic analysis. Martin Wolf is the FT's chief economics commentator; citing him specifically (not just "I read something in the FT") indicates the kind of careful readership that follows individual columnists, not just headlines. The "this morning" detail confirms it is current reading, not a recalled reference.

Intellectual priority claim — post-war order analysis¶

Evidence: Ep076 [00:09:34.620]. "To be a bit immodest, Darren, I've left a long trail of statements on the public record well before it became the conventional wisdom." Confidence: High (direct, self-acknowledged, somewhat unusual).

Allan claims explicit intellectual priority on the diagnosis that the post-war international order has fundamentally changed — noting that he made this argument "well before it became the conventional wisdom." He signals the immodesty, which is characteristic: he names the self-assertion rather than leaving it implicit. This is one of the few moments where his intellectual confidence surfaces directly as a claim rather than as analysis. The claim is internally consistent with the corpus: the post-war order's end has been a central argument since Ep012 (2018).

Style and Method Evidence¶

Speech-reading method: The Perth speech is analysed by direct comparison with the 2017 White Paper — he retrieves the precise text and reads against it. The method is the same as his approach to Chinese leaders' speeches: rhetoric first, then implications.
Operational consequences of language: "Freedom vs autocracy" is not wrong as a description but creates operational complications — it "complicates our insistence on the centrality of sovereignty." He always asks: what does this commit you to?
Multilateralist conviction: "Endangered species" framing — he holds a minority position, knows it, and states it more firmly because it is unpopular. The evidence is "overwhelming."
Diplomatic principles as continuous with human interaction: "This is not hard. There's nothing different in that from what we learn about any human interaction of any sort." He refuses the mystification of diplomacy as a separate discipline requiring special knowledge — the basics apply.
Prescience claimed: "To be a bit immodest" — one of the few times he explicitly asserts priority rather than letting the analysis stand alone.

Reading / Watching / Listening Segment¶

Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson — "Are We Alone in the Universe?" (Making Sense podcast)¶

Episode: Ep076 (2021-06-19) Context: "Even I, even I Darren, sometimes feel a need to elevate my mind to broader horizons." Allan's comment: Covers "all the things that I really loved as a teenage sci-fi fan — the size of the universe, the search for extraterrestrial life and the renewed interest we've seen in UFOs." Tyson's sobering point: if COVID-19 was the nearest equivalent to preparation for an alien invasion, "the signs for our survival don't look particularly good." Reveals: He is a listener of Sam Harris's Making Sense podcast — extending the established podcast inventory. The teenage sci-fi enthusiasm being reactivated by a popular astrophysics conversation suggests his range as a reader/listener has always extended to speculative and scientific horizons beyond foreign policy. The self-deprecating setup ("even I, even I") signals that this is explicitly a break from the policy focus that dominates his recommendations — he is not pretending there is a foreign policy angle. He recommends it for its own sake.

Open Questions¶

AUKUS foreshadowing: The Australia-France submarine contract ($90 billion, 12 submarines) is discussed approvingly in June 2021. AUKUS is announced in September 2021 (Ep078 or thereabouts), cancelling this contract. Does Allan anticipate the cancellation, or does it come as a surprise? How does he respond?
"Freedom vs autocracy" framing without definition: Allan's objection is that the binary lacks definition. Does he develop this critique further, or does he eventually accept the framing?
Southeast Asian drift: Allan predicts greater drift between Australian and Southeast Asian positions. Does this appear as a confirmed theme in subsequent episodes?
Martin Wolf / FT: Does Wolf or the FT appear again as a cited source? The "this morning" timing suggests Allan is a regular FT reader.