Topics: Telstra network outage, China's nuclear-capable weapon launch, US-Iran conflict
E&OE.......................
BILL WOODS: Liberal Senator for New South Wales, Dave Sharma, who's also the Shadow Assistant Minister for International Development and the Indo-Pacific and has served as Australian Ambassador to Israel from 2013 to 2017. David, thanks for your time today.
DAVE SHARMA: It's great to join you, Bill. Thanks for having me on.
BILL WOODS: I'm glad your phone's working for a start. Did you have any trouble this morning?
DAVE SHARMA: I didn't, but I am with Telstra as my carrier. I haven't had troubles, but I've been following this story across the day and look, obviously the public deserves an answer as to what's gone on. I know Telstra is still investigating it, but obviously we're all very dependent on our mobile devices today for work and home and school and staying in touch with families and children. So this needs to be treated as the highest priority, and I think we all deserve an answer as the public as to what's gone wrong here.
BILL WOODS: Just on— look, I don't want to go down a road that maybe, you know, lead us to an incorrect conclusion, but But let's just say this is indicative of a potential cyberattack. And on the strategic side of the equation, do you think we're well prepared for that sort of thing? Could you be? I mean, is it possible for a modern society to actually prepare itself for these sorts of attacks?
DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, what's— I mean, obviously this is a vulnerability that really didn't exist in this way 20 or 30 years ago, our dependence upon mobile and electronic and digital forms of communication. There were always, it was always part of our means of communication, but today it's the dominant means, which shows it is a vulnerability. And you can't always prevent these attacks or stop these attacks, but you can have some level of redundancy built in. And I think that's what we need to be looking to our critical infrastructure providers to make sure we've got that. If one system is attacked or is vulnerable, there is the ability to divert traffic or utilize another system of communications here. And I think- Are we prepared enough for that? No, I don't think we are. think that has to be a work in progress, and all modern societies are grappling with this. But increasingly, is the nature of— hasten to add here, there's no evidence o sharp eye or malicious actions here, and Telstra said as much. But it does show the vulnerability in modern societies to attacks that seek to take out particularly communications infrastructure or anything on which the modern economy depends.
BILL WOODS: Yeah, it just reminds us, doesn't it, of what that capability is. And as you say, we're not for a moment saying that this is one such attack. But on the point of overt capabilities, what's your assessment of China's nuclear-capable ICBM launch this week?
DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, it was, it was clearly an act of intimidation. It was dangerous. It was provocative. The notice that was provided to countries in the region was clearly not genuine or sufficient. And I think it's a dangerous and destabilising action. I mean, the Coalition has condemned this, I think, and the government has too, correctly. We need answers from China about what the purpose was of this test, why the notice was insufficient. And I think we also need to be working closely with our Pacific Islands allies and neighbours who are obviously on the flight path or adjacent to the flight path or near the flight path, who would have the same level of concern or a higher concern to us. It's important we cooperate internationally to express the world's condemnation of this dangerous and provocative action.
BILL WOODS: There was a comment from a listener yesterday on the text line which pointed out the US has also conducted similar tests in the Pacific. Can you put into context for us why this is different?
DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, I think why this is different is because the notice— level of notification that was provided was very short. We did get a small amount of notification, as I understand it, from the Defence Minister, but he clearly views it as insufficient, as do our authorities. I don't know what level of notification was provided to countries like Papua New Guinea and Nauru and Fiji and Vanuatu, who are all in or near the flight path of this missile. But just as importantly, it's not clear— China hasn't provided a rationale or an explanation for why this test needed to be done here. In previous instances, they've conducted tests across their own territory in the western deserts of China. So why this needed to be conducted across international airways and waterways, why the level of notification to aviation, for instance, the notification to Airman, was not sufficient, and how this fits with China's, purported aim to rise peacefully and cooperate with the countries of the region. I think they're all fundamentally inconsistent, and it's quite different to when the US tests its own missiles and facilities, it's normally done with a large amount of advance notification, with a significant amount of reassurance and explanation as to the purpose of these tests, and it's couched in a way that's made clear that this is for a defensive purpose. China hasn't done any of those things.
BILL WOODS: It's funny, we get texts occasionally from time to time saying, "Oh, come on, why are we poking the bear?" as in China. Well, if you live in the Philippines, they're very concerned because clearly in contested waters— some would say fairly hard to dispute that they're international waters. China has been occupying, expanding, increasing its military capability by taking up islands and other places in there and putting military establishments on them. And it makes you wonder. It's not just us. It's the Philippines and perhaps Taiwan. mean, there's a lot of concern through the region for these sorts of behaviours?
DAVE SHARMA: There is, from the Philippines, from Japan, from Korea, from Taiwan, from other maritime countries in Southeast Asia. I mean, none of them are looking to have an argument with China for the sake of it, and nor are we in Australia. But it takes two sides to have a good relationship, and the truth is that a number of the actions taken by the People's Republic of China in recent years, whether it's land reclamation in the South China Sea, whether it's whether it's aggressive maritime patrols in international waterways, whether it's the testing of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, as this was, um, those actions are destabilising and are concerning to the region. That's why you're seeing the level of regional response that you are.
BILL WOODS: This is classic, um, diplomacy, and it's been going on for centuries. But first of all, you need to demonstrate that you have an overt military capability, because otherwise all the other stuff really doesn't have a perspective. So there's that. Which brings me to the question, and I'm sure a few people have been texting about it as well, um, the real threat though is probably the COVID one, is it not? As in what we've seen today, the capability of a country like China— it may not be China— to shut down our electronics, our data, all those things.
DAVE SHARMA: Look, I think today the threat we're likely to face is multi-spectrum, so it's partly conventional, and you have to remember that what previously protected us in Australia was our geography, our level of distance from theatres, and the inability of adversaries generally to be able to threaten or coerce Australia, other than the Soviet Union at the time of the Cold War. These days, and China's demonstrating this capability, their missile ranges and the range of their military capabilities allows them to project power much more further than they would have been able to 30 years ago, and including into our region. But then, as you point out, there's also new ways to threaten or impact or coerce a country these days which do not require distance to be overcome, and they're electronic or cyber or communications or critical infrastructure targeting. And that's equally a threat today in a way that it wasn't really during the time of the Cold War. These days, a society needs to be able to— a country like Australia wants to preserve its freedoms, needs to be able to defend against these threats on multiple fronts, multiple fronts, conventional military, but also increasingly digital, cyber, and asymmetric type capabilities.
BILL WOODS: Look, and I'm sure you're like me as someone with a stack of history books in the library, it's mind-boggling the acceleration of technology and how all that, that we've just been discussed has been affected by this incredibly rapid growth of technology in this century. But let's get back to the Middle East now. A new round of strikes launched by the US on Iran following attacks on 3 commercial ships. They're calling this a ceasefire broadly. But where are we going with this, Dave? What, what is— what's the endgame here? What's likely to happen? Do you have any idea?
DAVE SHARMA: Look, I think what we're seeing play out is significant internal divisions within Iran. Now, they're not easy for us to see because it's not a society that's open. There's not a lot of journalists operating there, but there's clearly a division of views within Iran about whether they should be abiding by this ceasefire or not. And there's hardline elements within Iran that don't believe any sort of compromise or ceasefire should be reached. And there are elements, those that signed the ceasefire agreement, that believe that Iran needs a way out of this conflict. So I don't know whether there are rogue elements that are operating in Iran that are conducting these strikes. I think the United States was right to respond to them. I mean, you can't have a ceasefire where Iran continues to target, I think, at least 3 commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz and expect there to be no response. And I think Iran or elements of the Iranian system are testing US resolve here and saying, well, can we have our cake and eat it? Can we have sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization and the unfreezing of our assets and still exercise a chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz? And the United States is right to say, no, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you abide by the ceasefire and you get the benefits of the ceasefire, or you break the ceasefire and the benefits are off the table. And I think that's why this US response, which has been quick and prompt and decisive, I think is important to signal to Iran that they can't have it both ways.
BILL WOODS: As you say, we can only speculate, of course, on the leadership, who's pulling the strings. But the Revolutionary Guard Corps, it seems most likely are still incredibly powerful, incredibly hostile. For a regime change, or at least a softening of the existing regime, there seems to have to be change within that element of Iranian society. That's not easy.
DAVE SHARMA: No, it's not easy, and I think there are— look, even the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is not a monolithic entity. There are parts of that system that have been involved in the negotiations with the United States and a ceasefire. But there are other parts of the system that are more hardline, and sometimes they're not within the IRGC, who have been very critical within Iran of this deal. Now, I think ultimately, I think if we in the outside world and the United States can convince them that their only path to a better future is through a ceasefire and through allowing commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, then that case needs to be made. But at the moment, there are parts within the Iranian system that are, that are not supportive of that. And I think what's been striking to me in the past week is that there have been all these funeral commemorations, if you like, for the Supreme Leader. The new Supreme Leader has not yet been seen publicly at all. Now, that is, I think, quite strange. And I don't think anyone can explain what are the internal power dynamics that are happening there that mean that Iran's newly anointed Supreme Leader is not up there commemorating his father's death with other senior Iranian figures. And I don't know what the reason is or the explanation for that is, but it tells you, I think, that there's some unusual tensions internally within Iran at the moment that we don't have a complete grasp of here in the West.
BILL WOODS: Well, we live in hope of a better outcome for everybody. Dave Sharma, thank you very much for your time, mate.
DAVE SHARMA: Glad to join you, Bill. Thanks so much.
BILL WOODS: Liberal Senator for New South Wales, Dave Sharma.
[ENDS]