Keir Starmer has come to China on a mission: thawing relations from what he's called an "ice age"; and nudging them back toward something resembling the old "golden age."
That's why, when he sat down with President Xi this week, he talked up building a long-term, stable comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership. Hong Kong's stability? That serves both countries' interests, he said. The message couldn't be clearer: Starmer wants cooperation and mutual benefit to pull Britain out of its economic doldrums—not political roadblocks like the Jimmy Lai case getting in the way of a fresh UK–China relationship.
Before Starmer left London, a pack of hawkish British politicians urged him to demand that China free Lai. After his meeting with Xi, Starmer told the BBC that he had "raised the case." Full stop. That's it. He skimmed right over it—a perfunctory tick-box exercise if there ever was one.
After this morning's meeting with President Xi, Starmer told the BBC he had mentioned the Jimmy Lai case. But the truth is, he only raised it lightly—a perfunctory box-ticking exercise, nothing more.
Sound familiar? It mirrors exactly how Trump handled the Jimmy Lai case earlier: both men made a token remark, just enough to say they'd "addressed it." Jimmy Lai's son, Sebastien Lai, still clings to hope. Yesterday he kept up his appeals and pleaded for the release of Jimmy Lai. The reality is, he's chasing a pipe dream.
When a BBC reporter pressed Starmer after the meeting—did he bring up the Jimmy Lai case?—he said he had raised concern about the issue, "as you would expect". Look at that phrasing. He "expressed concern." No concrete demand. No ultimatum. Just concern.
A Brush-Off, Not a Bargaining Chip
This cursory nod is worlds apart from what Britain's hawks wanted. They had signed a joint letter demanding that Starmer make "the release of Jimmy Lai" a prerequisite for any trade deal—put it at the very top of the agenda, they said. The Prime Minister clearly had other ideas.
Starmer's cold treatment of the Jimmy Lai case has been evident for some time. A year ago, Sebastien Lai traveled to London seeking a meeting with Starmer to plead for his father's release. He got the door slammed in his face. One single security guard was dispatched outside Downing Street to collect a petition letter—a calculated insult.
Six months ago, Sebastian Lai sent another plea for help. It sank without a trace. Even Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper refused to meet him. The reason was simple. By then, Starmer already has his mind all set—mending ties with China—and he’s not about to let the Lai case derail it.
Starmer's neat "box-ticking" follows Trump's playbook to the letter. Months ago, when Trump met Xi in Busan, South Korea, he also only briefly touched on the Jimmy Lai case during their talks—less than five minutes. Afterward, when Trump briefed the press, he didn't mention it at all. Only days later did White House officials float it to the media, and even then it was never officially confirmed. Thoroughly evasive.
Trump's Playbook: Mention It, Move On
Analysts at the time said Trump didn't want to damage relations with China—he was planning a visit of his own—so he only gave the Jimmy Lai case a token mention. Enough to account for it in front of the cameras, not enough to actually matter.
Last month, Trump sat for an interview with a right-wing radio host and was asked about the matter. He downplayed it again, saying that when he met Xi in Busan, he had mentioned the Jimmy Lai case: "I'll leave it to him to decide… and so far there's still no result." But he wasn't the least bit anxious about it. The message was clear: he brought it up, whatever happens next, he couldn't care less.
Trump said he brought up Lai's case too. But he downplayed it just the same, and never pressured China to "free Lai."
Whether it's Starmer or Trump, both leaders see the Jimmy Lai case as a card that brings harm and no benefit. With relations with China currently on an upswing, it's best not to play that card at all.
Even so, Sebastian Lai refuses to give up. During Starmer's China visit, he has continued writing op-eds for British media and giving interviews, urging Starmer to pressure China with Jimmy Lai. But anyone paying attention can see it: the sob-story routine isn’t going to work. It’s time he woke up from that fantasy.
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
One month into war with Iran, an estimated 1,750 Iranians have died—many of them women and children. People with any conscience, including America's allies, hope Trump will stop and spare the people, but he remains characteristically reckless, with ground forces standing ready. One order in a moment of madness could kill far more.
Pope Leo XIV is deeply appalled by the continued killing and has finally spoken out forcefully: those who initiate wars have blood on their hands and should not justify war in God's name. Though the Pope did not name names, Trump is clearly one of them—he recently gathered Christian leaders at the White House to pray for his 'Christian crusade,' putting Jesus on the war chariot. No wonder the compassionate Pope is outraged.
Pope Leo blasts “war‑makers” with blood on their hands, warning that Jesus will not hear their prayers—an unmistakable rebuke of Trump and Hegseth.
More shocking still: Defense Secretary Hegseth was revealed to have made inflammatory remarks at a Pentagon prayer meeting, saying 'we must use overwhelming violence against those who do not deserve mercy.' The brutality is terrifying. The Pope Leo XIV's remarks appear well-aimed, calling the world to recognize the evil face of these so-called Christian zealots.
At the Pentagon, War Secretary Hegseth was exposed urging “overwhelming violence” against those he deems unworthy of mercy—a chilling call to brutality.
Since the US and Israel began war against Iran, the Pope has spoken out several times calling for a ceasefire and urging those who started the war to lay down their weapons. But this speech was the harshest yet, showing his anger has reached a critical point.
On Palm Sunday before Easter, he addressed the faithful in St. Peter's Square, saying those who initiate wars have blood on their hands, God will not listen to their prayers, and they should not justify war in God's name.
Trump and Hegseth's Religious War Framing
The Pope's remarks target two recent events. First, shortly after launching the war, Trump assembled conservative evangelical pastors and leaders at the White House. They stood behind him, hands on his shoulders, praying for divine guidance to victory. The scene carried an eerie religious intensity never before witnessed at the White House.
Second, War Secretary Hegseth, author of American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, drew parallels between the conflict with Iran and the Crusades—when Christian armies attacked Islamic nations a thousand years ago. He institutionalized this framing through monthly prayer meetings at the Pentagon, promoting extreme Christian ideology to subordinates.
Pope's Theological Stance Against War
The Pope watched these two troubling phenomena unfold with deep concern and anger. Framing this conflict as a "religious war" doesn't just contradict Christian teaching—it's dangerous, inviting catastrophe. He was unequivocal: "This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war." He then invoked Scripture itself, quoting Jesus: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood."
The Pope directly condemned priests who pray for "war makers," insisting that Christian leaders bearing responsibility for war must repent. His message was clear: supporting a conflict that causes mass suffering is wrong, period—both theologically and morally.
Escalating Conflict and Religious Fanaticism
The Pope had voiced his grave concerns right from the start. Shortly after the conflict erupted, he warned that unchecked escalation would trigger catastrophe, urging all sides to "stop the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss." His prescience proved accurate—yet the leaders of both nations, each pursuing their own agenda, have only intensified the flames. They ignore his pleas.
Military leadership has matched political fervor with religious conviction. The War Secretary overseeing operations, Pete Hegseth, has embraced what amounts to religious fanaticism, recently revealed to have sanctified violence during an internal Pentagon prayer meeting. According to the Associated Press, he appealed for ‘overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.’ He was referring to Iran and other Islamic adversaries. To complete this "sacred mission," he suggested, killing is justified.
Call for Unity Against War and Evil
Whether Trump or Hegseth, both rationalize and sanctify mass-killing warfare—a truly terrifying prospect. The Pope’s firm stand today against this "heresy" has greatly heartened those standing on the side of justice.
As long as all anti-war forces unite and continue to grow stronger, we believe we can ultimately overcome evil with righteousness and force the 'warmongers' to back down.
