September 18, 2024
ANDY PARK: Well, nine people are dead, including a child, and thousands are injured in Lebanon and Syria after pagers were used by the militant group Hezbollah, which exploded simultaneously across two countries. CCTV footage shows the devices exploding in a crowded supermarket, and there are unsubstantiated claims that 500 Hezbollah members have been blinded in these attacks. Some analysts believe the devices were likely tampered with during the manufacture or transit to Lebanon. Hezbollah has pointed the finger at Israel, which has so far declined to comment. Senator James Paterson is the Opposition's spokesman for Home Affairs and cyber security. Senator, welcome back to Drive.
JAMES PATERSON: Good afternoon.
PARK: This is an incredibly brazen and sophisticated attack. I think most people would be pretty shocked that this sort of technology could be deployed on this sort of scale. Were you shocked?
PATERSON: I was shocked by the sophistication and the patience required to roll out an operation like this. Israel has not claimed responsibility, but media reporting is widely attributing this to Israel.
PARK: What do you think?
PATERSON: I think it's a safe assumption to make that the only actor with the sophistication to carry out an attack like this and the intent to do so is likely to be Israel. I think it's highly likely it's them. It's interesting on a couple of levels. One, earlier this year, Hezbollah's head, Hassan Nasrallah, said that Hezbollah fighters were to stop using mobile phones. And the reason why they were to stop using mobile phones is that Israel was apparently using the mobile phones to locate and kill Hezbollah fighters. And so instead, they returned to what they thought was safer and older technology, and they rolled out and purchased these pagers and distributed them to their fighters, because these were a closed circuit and relied on radio frequency rather than modern telecommunications. They thought that it would be safer. What they didn't anticipate is that it could have been intercepted in production and tampered with, as it appears to have happened here.
PARK: I mean, a lot of innocent people appeared to have been injured as a result of these attacks. We know at least one young girl died. Is it proportionate, in your view?
PATERSON: Well, I don't think it's yet clear that a lot of innocent people have been targeted and hurt.
PARK: I didn't say targeted I said injured, whether it be intentional or not.
PATERSON: Yeah, I'm not sure that's clear based on the media reports yet either. What's clear is that the people who were holding the devices have been injured and the only people who would have been in possession with these devices would be Hezbollah members, because it was Hezbollah that purchased them and handed them out to their own members. And they were members who they wanted to evade Israeli surveillance and reconnaissance, so it suggests that they were very involved in Hezbollah. You're right, one innocent civilian was killed, and that is a tragedy. But the reality of war, particularly against a terrorist organisation that's embedded in a civilian environment, is that civilians unfortunately always die in conflict. And if it is the case that only one civilian has died, then that will be relatively low civilian casualties compared to other methods of targeting them like aerial bombardment or let alone a ground invasion, which of course would result in many more civilian casualties like this. So it's possible that this has been actually quite a targeted and precise attack by Israel on a listed terrorist organisation, which only a few months ago killed 11 Druze Israelis playing on a soccer field in the Golan Heights.
PARK: Is Lebanon really a war zone, as you said?
PATERSON: Well, yes, it is. Hezbollah is operating from Lebanon and launching attacks on Israel. They've been doing so ever since the 8th of October in support of Hamas's attacks on Israel on the 7th of October. They've been operating with impunity, particularly from southern Lebanon, but they operate throughout Lebanon in a way that is incredibly harmful for the Lebanese people. And Hezbollah obviously has no regard for the impacts on the civilian population by dispersing themselves within civilian areas.
PARK: I mean, it's entirely possible that this technology could one day be deployed against us or other allied partners. You have long raised the alarm about the power of technology, particularly drones and CCTV cameras, for example. I mean, we rightly have global treaties that ban certain weapons, I'm thinking chemical weapons, for example. So why is something like this which can be deployed seemingly indiscriminately in public with absolutely no control over who's injured, acceptable, in your view?
PATERSON: Well, it's not for me to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable. What I would say is that it does highlight the risks of supply chain security, and it also highlights the risks of connected devices. And we should be concerned about that as Australians, because we would also be vulnerable to this. Now, I don't think Australia is currently the target of a actor that has this level of sophistication or intent towards Australia. But if it's technologically possible then we should be prudent about our supply chain security and these connected devices and take steps to protect ourselves from it happening here.
PARK: I mean, if it does appear that Israel is behind these attacks and responsible. I ask you again if they're proportionate because, I mean, a ten year old girl, I don't think anyone, any parents or anyone would think that that is just easy collateral for war, you know?
PATERSON: Of course not. But what we also have to ask ourselves is what were the other options available to Israel? Israel and Hezbollah are at war. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation that indiscriminately attacks Israel and sometimes even deliberately targets civilians. And so Israel has to look at the military options that are available to it. An aerial bombardment by the Israeli air force would be far more costly in terms of civilian lives. Ground invasion, which is being contemplated openly in Israel, would be far more costly in terms of civilian lives. So while no one should ever condone or excuse any civilian deaths, the reality of war is that civilians do die. And what is required of combatants in war is to take every step to minimise civilian casualties while still pursuing legitimate military objectives.
PARK: It's 4:14 on Radio National Drive. I'm speaking with opposition Home Affairs spokesperson James Paterson. Let's shift topics. It's been announced that Australia's major security agreement with the US and the UK, AUKUS could be expanded to include collaboration with South Korea, Canada and New Zealand, not with nuclear submarines as part of the deal, but with the advancing capabilities and technology sharing component of that agreement. What would this mean for the deal if they were allowed to collaborate? Would you support it?
PATERSON: Yes, in principle, I think this is a good idea. The first pillar of AUKUS, as you say, is the nuclear submarines. And there's a lot of work to do on that with the existing three members of AUKUS. And I think that should continue to be the focus for the original AUKUS partners. But as you say, we have a second pillar of AUKUS, which is the advanced capabilities, and that includes things like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonic missiles and counter hypersonics, cyber security and other technologies. And it does make sense in that pillar of AUKUS to collaborate with like minded partners who share our values and who are technologically advanced economies. Now South Korea, New Zealand, and Canada all fit into that category, as does Japan. And a few months ago collaboration with Japan in this area was announced. So I think it is a welcome and sensible step.
PARK: Just while I've got you, a major review into the nation's military justice watchdog was accidentally made public after the federal government sat on the report. For six months. It has found there's a widely held perception the military justice system is too closely linked with the ADF's top brass. The Government has now been forced to table the report in Parliament to make it public. What's your reaction?
PATERSON: Well, it should have been released by the government in the normal way instead of relying on it being accidentally uploaded apparently to the Royal Commission website in an error, and now having to be forced to bring it forward. The substance of the report's recommendations, I think, will gel with a lot of the experiences of our men and women who've served our country in uniform. And I think the concerns they have about the independence of the IGADF are reasonable and should be followed up. It's a very important institution. This is an independent inspector of the ADF, which is supposed to give us all confidence about how the ADF operates, consistent with our values as a nation. And it must be beyond reproach and seen to be beyond reproach.
PARK: Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson, appreciate your time this afternoon.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
