Tony Abbott has been criticised for the perceived overreach of invoking Australia's billion dollar aid to Indonesia following the Boxing Day tsunami as he tried to save Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran from the firing squad.

But was it really wrong? His well-intentioned comments may have been cumbersome but if anything, it was a previous under-reach that was the more egregious error.

Abbott had started out reassuring Jakarta that there'd be no consequences associated with killing Australians by saying Canberra was opposed to the death penalty but it would not put the bilateral relationship at risk in pursuit of a presidential clemency for the pair.

That said, if these executions proceed as it now looks certain they will, it will not be down to Abbott's tsunami reference or indeed to any comments across the political class at this end.

And plainly, the government has moved to put the relationship on the line in recent weeks, pulling every lever available as the barbarism of these executions has loomed.

It was no doubt Abbott's frustration at the lack of effect that led to his February 18 statement when he said Australia felt "grievously let down".

"Let's not forget that a few years ago when Indonesia was struck by the Indian ocean tsunami, Australia sent a billion dollars worth of assistance," he said.

"We sent a significant contingent of our armed forces to help in Indonesia with humanitarian relief and Australians lost their lives in that campaign to help Indonesia …we in Australia are always there to help you and we hope that you might reciprocate in this way at this time."

The reference, we're told, went down badly in Jakarta where it was received as a kind of moral blackmail.

It has also been argued that some in the Indonesian elite who may have harboured reservations about the death penalty or doubts about President Joko Widodo, fell in behind him  and his decision to proceed with the executions as a gesture of Indonesian national sovereignty.

If so, it suggests an open and shut case: Abbott was wrong to raise the tsunami aid.

But was it really? Or was it just the way he expressed it? Might it not have been legitimate if he had said something like this: "The reason Australia put up a billion dollars, deployed defence personnel and sacrificed Australian lives following the tsunami, was this nation's commitment to all human life – Indonesian and Australian. That has been demonstrated repeatedly with our aid and other assistance and it is that core Australian value, that respect for the sanctity of life that we ask Indonesia to recognise now – especially as it was Australia's intelligence that led to the arrests."

Of course, there's no suggestion this would have made the difference, given the new president's craven populism, but at least he wouldn't have had the refuge of an Australian insult to his sovereignty to point to.

In the end, Abbott's performance, and that of his Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, has been energetic and well targeted. The harsh truth is, this was probably always a lost cause - yet one that had to be pursued.

The real lesson for the government from all of this is, don't grass up Australian nationals to foreign governments who retain the death penalty.

Once you have, you've lost all control.

Follow us on Twitter