The British Foreign Office has long believed in the merits of careful diplomacy. It comes as a surprise therefore that the Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, responded so quickly and publicly to the sentences handed down in Saudi Arabia to two British nurses. One apparently has been convicted of murder and may face beheading, the other has been convicted of accessory to murder and has been sentenced to eight years in jail and 500 lashes.
It is the prospect of the lashes which has gripped British public opinion. Mr Cook said that such a punishment "was wholly unacceptable in the modern world" and yet he did not seem half as worked up about the beheading sentence. In fairness, he did later say, quite rightly, that the object must be to avoid any death penalty and any lashes, but his comments have not helped to contain the Islam-phobia that the sentences unleashed in Britain.
Saudi Arabia was a founder member of the United Nations and subscribes to its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The same sentiments were included in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights - also supported by Saudi Arabia. On the assumption that nothing of consequence was lost in the translation, it seems clear that Saudi Arabia (along with many other UN members) does not share the Western world's concept of what constitutes cruel punishment.
And yet the Western world is pretty divided too. President Clinton is a strong supporter of capital punishment. Soon after taking office he signed legislation increasing the number of federal crimes punishable by death from two to 60. The Catholic Church in the United States is opposed to capital punishment in any circumstances. The Pope is not. He said in Evangelium Vitae that it is permissible in cases of absolute necessity, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
Saudi Arabia's sentencing policy - usually over 100 executions per annum, mostly for drug trafficking - might suggest an over-cautious approach to defending society. The truth, however, is that its sentencing is dictated by Sharia law, a divine law which highlights cultural relativism. Sharia shows much concern for the victims of crime and almost none for the perpetrators. It would have some admirers in most Western countries today.
The issue should not be the sentences but whether or not the nurses are guilty. The main evidence against them - perhaps the only evidence - is their signed confessions which they later retracted cogently. As we know too well, signed confessions on their own are not sufficient to determine guilt. One of the nurses was said to have had the victim's cash dispenser card and to have known the PIN number; she denies it. The trial was held in camera and if any other evidence was produced the Saudis are keeping it to themselves. The victim was battered and stabbed 14 times; it would be curious if the Saudis could not uncover any forensic evidence whatsoever to support the prosecution. The sentences are still subject to appeal. The British government needs to shift its focus away from the nature of the sentences and concentrate on ensuring that the defendants get a trial which is fair and is seen to be so.