Was it wise for Singapore to impose sanctions on Russia?

As war wages on in Ukraine, American president Joe Biden leans on reluctant NATO allies in Europe, long dependent on Russian gas, to stand with the Ukrainians against the invasion. Russia must be punished, yet not hard enough that it could spark another World War. Biden instigates his European allies to propose and vote to condemn the war in the United Nations, while many others refrain from taking a stand. Like most of the world outside NATO, in fact.

Mykhailo Khmelko depicts the Treaty of Pereyaslav in a 1951 painting.

The few Asian nations to impose sanctions on Russia are America's closest allies: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. And then, there is Singapore. This move has international observers scratching their heads. It is unexpected, uncharacteristic, and unprecedented. Singapore does not live in the shadow of Russia nor is it a NATO member. Nor would most people describe it as a close ally of America. Singapore's brand of diplomacy has been quiet and low key; it rarely sticks out, if ever, from the ASEAN consensus position.

There are those who argue that Singapore should have stayed on the sidelines like its neighbours. That it should play the role of a neutral peacemaker. That Singapore's pro-Ukraine positioning is too extreme, and going further to impose sanctions against Russia is a mistake.

Did Singapore bite off more than it can chew?

There's a difference between expressing concern over the invasion of a sovereign nation and overdoing it like what Singapore has done. On the floor of the United Nations, the Singapore ambassador made such a full throated, highfalutin defense of Ukraine that the Ukrainian ambassador gave him a bear hug at the end of his speech. This is political theatre of the highest order. As a consequence, Singapore now finds itself on the Kremlin list of "hostile nations".

In a not so distant past, the Soviet Union had done far worse and yet Lee Kuan Yew continued to offer his hand in friendship and maintain and even deepen ties and communications. Is Lee Hsien Loong's apparent repudiation of his father's realpolitik and turn to idealistic principles the correct move?

Is Singapore's turn to idealistic principles a brave and courageous decision, as Sir Humphrey might put it, and as Bloomberg's characterisation of its decision to sanction Russia as "unprecedented" suggests? Or is Singapore playing a different game altogether?

Is there a different way to understand Singapore's actions and words?

When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew, while an unabashed capitalist, was wary of unbridled individualism and liberalism and sought of a set of alternate values and morality to guide Singapore. He settled on a narrative of "Asian Values", casting Singapore as a "Confucian state". Alas, the senior Lee was taken too literally by the Anglosphere. While Confucianism officially triumphed over Legalism with the fall of the authoritarian Qin dynasty, China's succeeding rulers governed on the basis of being outwardly Confucian and inwardly Legalist (外儒内法). They promoted Confucian pieties to the public while maintaining Legalist methods of government and control, and thus ruled with an iron fist in a velvet glove.

Under Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's international diplomacy takes on a similar dual logic. While Singapore promotes universal principles, it assesses global politics with stone cold realism and acts in pragmatic self interest. Singapore's diplomats often offer the public narrative that small states rely on the international rules-based order being stable and predictable. What they understand privately is that the "international rules-based order" is conditional to the Great Powers agreeing to abide by and enforce a set of arbitrary rules while also agreeing that they have the dispensation to bend them, but not to the point of breaking them.

Read in this context, the global sanctions against Russia are in fact an admission that NATO has ruled out direct confrontation and the use of force against Russia and expects Ukraine to capitulate at the peace table, sooner or later. Sanctions will not hurt Russia to the extent that Mr Putin will be deposed; the Castros and the Ayatollahs still thrive despite decades of sanctions.

Why then go through all this? The sanctions were never about Russia. 

It's all about sending a message to Xi Jinping after China and Russia declared a new "no limits partnership" that is "superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era", during the opening of the Genocide Olympics in February. It is not inconceivable but highly probable that "no limits partnership" exceeding the old Soviet-Chinese alliance meant Putin and Xi have decided to declare their imminent invasions of the Ukraine and Taiwan, and to secure the Black Sea and the South China Sea. With Russia initiating its invasion, China would no doubt strike sooner rather than later. And a "no limits partnership" would quite likely entail mutual support and aid of these allies.

Realistically, economic, financial and banking sanctions may hurt Russia but won't bring it down; economic, financial and banking sanctions will cripple and destroy China's export economy and plunge the nation into chaos. Singapore's trade with Russia amounts to less than 1% of its GDP; Mr Putin may be miffed but he wouldn't even feel a sting from Singapore. It is not inconceivable that he and Mr Lee will make up easily once this is over.

Singapore's role in the global sanctions was to provide a piece of political theatre that could convince diplomats across the world to join in the cancellation of Russia. Singapore understands that a rules-based international order only works if members agree and are incentivised to enforce rules and punish transgressions, and then moved to help create such an atmosphere. In addition, this also establishes a standard for which any future act of aggression by China (such as aiding the Russian invasion or helping Russia circumvent sanctions, even if Taiwan is not yet invaded) can and will be seen as equally unforgivable and deserving of similarly harsh sanctions. And the cherry on top of all this would be to remind America that Singapore is still a close partner despite being left out by Biden from his democracy summit.

So what's in it for Singapore? What are its self interests in this affair?

As a member of ASEAN and a South China Sea neighbour, Singapore faces an existential threat from China's attempts to enforce its claims on the South China Sea.

The UN Law of the Sea governing the freedom of navigation and exploitation of the natural resources of the oceanic region are the brainchild of Singapore ambassador Tommy Koh. China's actions not just challenge the rules that Singapore designed to protect its self-interests, but directly disrupt the foundation for peace and framework for conflict resolution in the maritime region. China's diplomatic attempts to split ASEAN directly threaten Singapore's diplomatic investments in the regional grouping. That's decades of creating a non-aligned alliance that can speak and act with one unified voice on important global and regional matters should the need arise.

Singapore is simply defending itself and the region against China. And being the only ASEAN member that does not purchase military hardware from Russia, Singapore was always the only member appropriate to join the sanctions against Russia.

Ordinarily, Singapore would not be able to stand against China but Xi Jinping's "unlimited partnership" agreement with Putin is a strategic mistake that allows America to stand preemptively against China.

The current talks between America and China vindicates Singapore's stand: Washington's diplomats have threatened sanctions against Peking for any form of "aid" to Moscow. And by refusing to draw any red line on what constitutes military or economic aid, America has moved into an advantageous position of strategic ambiguity and China has lost its strategic ambiguity. China has put itself in a position where any aggressive move by China, even in the South China Sea, will be viewed by America through the prism of China's new "unlimited partnership" with Russia.

So should Singapore start looking over its shoulder?

Both Russia and China are in free-fall demographic collapse. Nations on the eve of extinction do terrible, desperate things such as last gasp attempts at expansion, avenging perceived historical wrongs, forcibly reuniting wayward territories. Singapore acted in this manner because one of these dangerous nations poses an existential threat to it, but knowing both threats will burn themselves out if the international world order plays its cards right.