> “Just like Tienamen, the Chinese government offered concessions but the student/protesters did not take that”
What concessions, in both cases?
If you mean the withdrawal of the bill that sparked the initial protests in HK’s case, it was way too late because by then, the government had created more serious problems with unchecked police power that is to this day still getting worse by the day.
Moderate elements in the Chinese government were negotiating while hard liners were pushing to roll in the tanks. This was during a period of radical opening up. Deng Xiaoping was the Premier, hardly one to advocate hard line tactics if conciliatory gestures would work.
The Students went on a hunger strike which could make the case they were not thinking rationally any longer. The Chinese asked the students to clear Tienanmen Square so it could hold a traditional greeting for the Russian President (Gorbachev?) that was coming for a State visit. That was a big deal. The government was forced to select an alternate and lesser location. If you understand Chinese culture, that was not a small deal. The hardliners prevailed and in rolled the tanks.
Also, you can't look at Tienanmen though the eyes or our experience. Historical factors come into play, most notably the Cultural Revolution and the insanity and cultural horror brought on by students.
Most Chinese do not look favorably on student protests not wanted to go down that road again. Political stability and prosperity are not given up easily when the alternative led to so much terrible times.
In Hong Kong, the concession may have come late but it was offered. In the long view, that victory is better than what is coming would be my guess.
I'll admit I am not completely up to speed on Hong Kong situation presently.
I understand both judicial systems - I have direct experience in both. The people of Hong Kong are certainly correct to protest and resist any imposition of the Mainland Chinese legal system on the Hong Kong people.