Strong advocacy for Bali pair has strayed into dangerous territory

However distant the prospects for clemency may seem, the campaign being waged on behalf of Chan and Sukumaran in Australia remains undaunted. It has been spurred on not just by public abhorrence of capital punishment but also by admiration for the pair's efforts at rehabilitation in a prison where such matters are given little official encouragement. The focus of Chan's re-education has been religion and writing, while for Sukumaran it has been art. Sukumaran's brush skills – and his resolve in establishing a studio and classes in Kerobokan prison – has won him at least one prominent admirer and advocate, award-winning artist Ben Quilty.

Sympathy for Chan and Sukumaran, and indeed for the rest of the Bali nine, may have been strengthened too by the fact the group's plans to smuggle heroin into Australia were known to the Australian Federal Police at the time of planning in 2005. Rather than let the Australians fly home and arrest them, the AFP tipped off their Indonesian counterparts, knowing that in so doing they could face a death sentence. That single operational decision has lent the Bali Nine saga enduring notoriety.

Many Australians, it must be said, remain unsympathetic to the predicament of the Bali nine, believing their punishment to be appropriate for a crime that has devastating social consequences. Indonesians, too, remain strongly supportive of their government's hardline stance against drug-dealing. That salient fact, along with a desire not to imperil Australia's most important bilateral relationship, ensured that federal government representations on behalf of Chan and Sukumaran remained low key. Indeed, when the pair's second plea for clemency was turned down in January, and their application for a judicial review rejected by a Denpasar court not long afterwards, Prime Minister Tony Abbott reiterated that while concerned about developments in their case, maintaining good ties with Indonesia remained a much higher priority.

However, in the past week the government has taken up their cause very vocally. Their advocacy for the men as reformed and deserving of clemency has been generally commendable. But some of their comments have gone too far. Late last week, Foreign Minster Julie Bishop said on radio that she hoped Indonesia didn't underestimate Australian public opinion, and warned that some people might be moved to boycott Indonesia, particularly the tourist magnet Bali, if the executions went ahead. Then on Wednesday, Mr Abbott confessed he would feel "grievously let down" if the pair faced the firing squad, arguing that since Australia had helped Indonesia with $1 billion worth of assistance after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 "we hope you might reciprocate in this way at this time".

Whatever pressure the Australian government feels, due to public sentiment, to adopt a tougher stance over the fate of Chan and Sukumaran, the comments of Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop are probably unhelpful and potentially very harmful. They may play right into the hands of Indonesians still smarting at the way the country's sovereignty was violated during the Abbott government's campaign to turn back boatloads of asylum seekers. It seems highly unlikely that Chang and Sukumaran would win a reprieve through moral blackmail and suggestions of boycotts.

Having made vigorous representations on behalf of its own citizens sentenced to die in other countries, the Indonesian government could hardly claim to be affronted by Mr Abbott's remarks. It has, however, asserted the right of sovereign nations to conduct their internal affairs free of foreign interference – a privilege impossible to deny.

Also difficult to contradict is the theory that Tony Abbott, by riding rough-shod over Indonesian sensibilities in 2014, probably contributed to President Widodo's self-portrayal as a strong leader, capable of standing up for Indonesian interests against foreign pressure, whatever the cause and consequences.