Diplomacy of Bridge Burning

Diplomacy is an old art of interstate engagement to build relationship and to improve and protect the interests of states. When diplomacy fails, the likely outcome is war between states or strained relations. This is something that the art of diplomacy would want to avoid so that states can work and live with each other peacefully. The last thing in diplomacy is Bridge Burning.
 
Is there a Diplomacy of Bridge Burning being practiced by the diplomats and state officials? In the recent tense relations between Singapore and China, ok I may be wrong as Singapore did not see it this way and claimed that Singapore’s relation with China is as good as ever, I would say a few cardinal sins of diplomacy were committed on the Singapore side. Ok, please feel free to disagree with me as this is just my perception of the events.
 
What were these cardinal sins? 1. Singapore demanded that China obeyed the rulings of the Hague Tribunal on the South China Sea. 2. Singapore demanded that China followed the rule of law. 3. Some Singapore officials commented that China was adopting a policy to divide Asean. 4. Some Singapore officials said China had been pressuring Singapore to be on the side of China on some issues.
 
To me, these are the cardinal sins Singapore committed in this fracas that led to a very strain relation with China. Of course I stand to be corrected as some Singapore officials said Singapore did not do anything or say anything to provoke China or things that would affect the relations negatively. If this is so, then all my comments are hogwash, even fake news.
 
Did Singapore say or do anything to offend China? Did Singapore know that the above four points that I mentioned are as good as Diplomacy of Bridge Burning? The positions taken, cannot be uttered unthinkingly as the statements were very serious in nature, were as good as telling China that Singapore was prepared to cut off relations with China if needed to. And to take such a position, it would be expected that Singapore would have thought through this very carefully and weighed the consequences of offending China and possibly breaking all ties with China, diplomatically, commercially, economically and culturally.
 
It is foolish to think that when Singapore took that position that was openly unfriendly to China, ok, I agree to disagree with those that thought Singapore was friendly with China and did not do anything against China, it did not do any homework to consider the consequences. To take such an unfriendly position, to shout so loudly, daily, to China and for the rest of the world to hear, it must be a properly thought out position, that Singapore was prepared to burn bridges with China. Or maybe Singapore thought China was hapless and would not do anything to harm its relation with Singapore as Singapore was more important to China to lose. China would swallow the bitter pill and would keep relations as per normal despite the utterance of Singapore.
 
Oops, was there an after thought, that burning bridges with China was not a good idea after all? Or this was not even discussed or considered, that taking that position would not lead to such an eventuality? The subsequent flurry of activities to make amends to China, to tell China that Singapore was a friend and is still a friend said it all, that Singapore cannot afford to burn bridges with China. There are too much at stake economically for Singapore to do so.
 
Funny, why didn’t they thought of it in the first place and avoid the Diplomacy of Bridge Burning? When a bridge is burnt, it takes time to rebuild a new bridge and the new bridge would not be the same again.
 
The big question going forward is whether Singapore would adopt another Bridge Burning Diplomacy again in the name of national interests and sovereignty, in the name of rule of law? From the noises heard recently, Singapore does not regret its Bridge Burning Diplomacy and would do it again for the same reasons, ie when Singapore’s interests are at stake, when the rule of law affecting small states are challenged. Singapore has strong principles and would stand on its principles come what may. Do not triple of the Little Red Dot.
 
Did I get Singapore’s principled position right? Lee Kuan Yew’s time was all about pragmatism and survival. Things must have changed.