> By overtly, I mean I personally cannot see a way forward, but I admit, I'm very surprised to see this bill be rescinded. Tactically speaking, I would have expected the same thing from the Umbrella Revolution. Which was basically let the protestors occupy the streets and let the public become annoyed to the point where the oppressed (protestors) become the oppressors.
>
> Why wasn't the waiting game played this time around? I'm not sure. I'm super happy they were successful in this, and I hope/pray for long term change as my heritage is from HK. But... I'm extremely skeptical.

As we are not Xi, we could only speculate why this time is different, that the anti-extradition protest in 2019 achieved something (the suspension of the law), unlike the Umbrella protest in 2014 which achieved effectively nothing.

One key difference is that, the 2014 Umbrella protest concerns only Hong Kong--China internal politics: other parties (US, UK, Canada, etc.) have less to say for Hong Kong's universal suffrage; meanwhile the 2019 anti-extradition protest concerns citizens of other countries, so they have a say in this particular event.

Quoting Simon Shen (in Chinese [1], section six there, translation mine + Google translate):

> VI. Diplomacy of Diaspora: The Dispute of the "Fugitive Offenders" Breaks Through the Diplomatic Missions in Hong Kong Standardized by "the Vienna Convention"

> ...

> However, the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" dispute is a rare opportunity for these diplomats to find reasons to comment on Hong Kong, because the regulations directly cover their own citizens and chambers of commerce in Hong Kong. With this starting point, comments are their basic responsibility and there is room for manoeuvre. It is said that the Office of the Special Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong will release the doubts from the collective and their meetings. One of the reasons is naturally that the SAR Government can speak at the level of the Basic Law and is not interested in the other party. The SAR Government does not seem to be interested in a local regulation covering foreign businessmen and expatriates. This has already exceeded the pure legal issue, but opened a dangerous Pandora's box because "protecting the diaspora" is well known to the international community. "Universal Key", many acts that could have been classified as "interference in internal affairs" have become crowned with such reasonable reasons. For example, the United States intervenes in Venezuela to protect the diaspora, and Russia annexes Crimea to protect the diaspora. In recent years, embassies around the country have also stepped up publicity to protect the diaspora.

> More importantly, this time the countries have made great comments on Hong Kong and set a number of precedents. In addition to the collective actions of the EU countries, the United Kingdom and Canada are also issued a "Joint Statement" by Hong Kong foreign ministers to Hong Kong, suggesting that the British will start "England after the Brexit". The possibility of the Australian-New Zealand Commonwealth is an example of other diplomatic work with Hong Kong; other diplomats seem to have a lot of cases in the past month. During the Disputes of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the SAR Government has been unable to successfully dispel the doubts of various countries, and even more and more, the consulates in Hong Kong have created more working relationships because of the need for direct exchanges. The importance of this consular mission was first activated in the twenty years after the reunification. It would be almost impossible without a draft that covered all the people of the world and caused a lot of local controversy.

And from a previous discussion, some one claimed that the real reason that the 2019 protest achieved something has to do with Taiwan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20196738

[1]: https://simonshen.blog/2019/06/16/%e5%be%9e%e5%9c%8b%e9%9a%9...