SYDNEY: Britain and Australia urged China on Thursday to do more to persuade North Korea to drop its nuclear and missile programs.
Earlier this month North Korea, which has warned Australia could be the target of a strike, said it had conducted its first test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which experts say could reach Alaska.
The United States and other countries have indicated frustration that China, North Korea’s sole major ally, has not done more to rein in the regime of Kim Jung Un. China maintains it does not hold the key to a resolution.
“With international influence comes responsibility. It is now for Beijing to use the influence it has over the North Korean regime to get it to abandon its program,” British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told reporters in Sydney.
North Korea has been under UN sanctions since 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programs and the Security Council has ratcheted up measures in response to five nuclear weapons tests and two long-range missile launches.
Fallon said North Korea continues to receive help in developing its missile and nuclear ambitions as he called on enforcement of the sanctions.
North Korea’s missile and nuclear program was a central element of the fourth annual meeting of Australia and British ministers.
“We are seeing a level of uncertainty that we have not witnessed in a very long time,” Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told reporters in Sydney.
“It is more important than ever before for like-minded countries to find common cause in supporting that international rules-based order.”
Earlier, Bishop told the Australian Broadcasting Corp’s Radio National that China “has much more leverage over North Korea than it claims.”
“The export relationship with North Korea, the provision of remittance to workers, the foreign investment flows, the technology flows — these are all in China’s hands,” she said.
China has rejected the criticism and urged a halt to what it called the “China responsibility theory,” saying all parties needed to pull their weight.
“Of course, as an important neighbor of the Korean peninsula, China has always proactively dedicated itself to working with the international community to appropriately resolve the peninsula nuclear issue via political talks,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a daily news briefing on Thursday.
The United States could impose new sanctions on Chinese firms doing business with Pyongyang, senior US officials have said.
UK, Australia urge Beijing to do more on N. Korea threat
UK, Australia urge Beijing to do more on N. Korea threat
London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe
- ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
- Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’
LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.
All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.
On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.
Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.
But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.
“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.
Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”
She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”
The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.
It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.
A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.
“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
