T

his refers to '€œAustralia lacks cultural competence to understand RI'€, (The Jakarta Post, May 5) by Pierre Marthinus.

I am the first to enjoy cultural differences and historical dimensions, but this is a fawning article, wrapped in the softest possible arguments. Indeed, the tactic to be diplomatically effective varies from country to country, but this case is different. Here we are not playing capital punishment like we'€™re in a children'€™s playground playing seek-and-hide. There is nothing unclear about the death penalty.

It is quite definitive, irreversible. So the transparency should be on the Indonesian side because it is responsible for holding a fair trial. The whole procedure and outcome (in almost all cases under scrutiny) in fact meets no international standards. So Australia should keep its own standards on this subject: straightforward questioning of what is going on.

Too much understanding, backstage diplomacy and cultural relativism would bring Australia on the wrong side of history. The cheapest method would have been if Australia had bribed Indonesian judges and politicians. That would have displayed the cultural competence of understanding RI at its best.

But don'€™t dilute and compromise the cultural message of Australia that way. Give a strong message, no matter the outcome. There are non-negotiable principles. Convince other countries to abolish the death penalty.

Vincent van Hall
The Netherlands