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. **
Trump is a master of staging a "television reality show," and his nationwide address this morning was filled with theatrical flair. His chief aim was to impress the American public with a sense that the US military wields overwhelming power—decimating a longtime foe threatening the nation—and that he alone leads this victorious force.
Yet the specifics—actual battlefield gains, ceasefire timing, negotiation progress, next steps, or reopening the Strait of Hormuz—were all vague or glossed over. Trump carefully crafted narrative designed to build a grand finale for his imminent exit.
Trump’s war speech sold a big win. US media saw big gaps.
The New York Times, ever sharp, reviewed the string of dazzling claims he made and found several numbers heavily exaggerated. Reuters also noted that on several unresolved issues, Trump skimmed past or ignored them altogether, apparently trying to avoid the impression of unfinished or failed efforts.
Trump’s message selection was clearly intentional. He emphasized the war lasted about 30 days and culminated in a massive victory, contrasting this with the long, grueling Vietnam and Iraq Wars—to showcase strength and efficiency. Yet whether the US actually won remains mostly rhetoric. The New York Times compared his cited achievements with reality and found stark contradictions.
Negotiation Claims vs. Reality
First, Trump claimed negotiations with Iran were ongoing and had earlier said Iran was "begging" for a ceasefire. The New York Times reported that Iran’s government clearly stated it had no intention of substantive talks and denied requesting a ceasefire. Trump’s claim that "progress has been made in talks" was false. The paper cited US intelligence officials who assessed that Iran is not currently ready to reach an agreement.
Iran’s tough negotiating stance reflects its belief that it holds the upper hand in the conflict and is in no hurry for peace. It also deeply distrusts the United States, viewing Trump as unpredictable and lacking sincerity in negotiations.
Military Impact on Iran Questioned
Second, Trump asserted that the US military has severely weakened Iran's missile and drone launch capabilities, destroying large missile stockpiles and production facilities, thereby dismantling the military threat.
However, The New York Times reported that Iran still maintains a substantial arsenal of missiles and a significant number of drones. This enables Iran to continue recent attacks against Israel and Gulf countries. Earlier, Reuters cited US internal assessments showing that the US-Israel coalition has destroyed only about 30% of Iran's missiles. Another 30% have unknown status, while the remaining missiles remain intact—indicating Iran retains a considerable missile inventory.
Trump said Iran was crippled. Its missile stocks say otherwise.
Third, Trump claims that US military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities have achieved "great success," eliminating the nuclear threat to the United States.
The New York Times however, cites sources revealing that a stock of enriched uranium remains stored in tunnels and was not destroyed. The effectiveness of the June airstrike on the nuclear site last year remains unclear. As a result, the claim of " Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated" cannot be verified.
False Regime Change Claims
Fourth, Trump claimed that Iran's original leaders have all been eliminated and replaced by a new group of moderates, signaling that a "regime change" has taken place. Although he no longer names regime overthrow as a goal, by emphasizing this point he clearly implies "that objective has also been accomplished."
The New York Times strongly contradicted this, noting that the current government still wields significant authority and maintains full control over the country. Its "anti-American" stance remains unshaken as it continues to lead the "resistance against America." Trump also boasted that "the command structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being weakened", another exaggerated claim of a major victory.
Ignored Issues and Vagueness
Beyond boasting about major achievements, Trump glosses over unresolved issues and brushes them aside with vague assurances.
Reuters noted that while he had previously pressured Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—threatening warship escorts and even deployment of ground forces—this time he omits that from stated objectives, merely saying that once the conflict ends, Iran will naturally reopen the strait.
Moreover, Trump offers no concrete plan for handling Iran's enriched uranium. The so-called elimination of the nuclear threat remains empty rhetoric—talk that sounds like action but delivers nothing.
US media also highlight that Trump fails to clarify what comes next, including whether ground troops will be sent, leaving these questions unanswered. His bluster about "bombing Iran back to the Stone Age" reads as mere bravado aimed at strengthening his negotiation position. Having dealt with him repeatedly, Iran sees through these tactics and remains calm and unfazed.
In his nationwide address today, Trump listed a series of "brilliant achievements" against Iran to showcase the "great victories" the United States has won under his leadership—victories unseen in years. However, as several media outlets have pointed out, many of these claims are blown out of proportion. It’s like a struggling CEO who inflates the company’s results to reassure shareholders—here, the audience being the public.
What he’s doing is easy to understand: this war is teetering on the edge of collapse, and he has to set up a way to exit with some grace.
Lai Ting-yiu
