States that fail to treat prisoners of war justly risk further bloodshed

Nick Donaldson / Getty

The war between Russia and Ukraine has raged for more than 14 months, with substantial casualties sustained by each side. Both Russia and Ukraine have accepted the surrender of thousands of enemy troops, and have also negotiated a series of prisoner exchanges returning hundreds of captives.

The requirements of proper treatment of enemy captives are well-established in international law, although managing thousands of prisoners of war (POWs) while fighting a war presents a serious challenge. The Geneva Conventions require the captor to evacuate captured enemies away from conflict zones; provide adequate shelter, food and medical care; and return them to their home nations upon the cessation of hostilities.

However, in a shifting environment of chaotic operations, with few clearly established front lines, the care of enemy prisoners is often relegated to a low priority. Nevertheless, the repeated exchange negotiations between Russia and Ukraine offer hope that some of the worst aspects of modern war might be mitigated.

Ancient societies viewed enemy captives as a form of property, to be killed, enslaved or returned at the whim of the captors. High-ranking personnel were often retained for ransom, but the rank-and-file could expect little consideration in return for their capitulation. In the early-modern era, a growing appreciation of human rights included a recognition that the state owed a duty to troops fighting in its service. Rather than abandoning those taken by the enemy, a state had the responsibility to secure their release, through exchange, ransom or as a provision of a peace treaty.

By the end of the 19th century, a common understanding developed that enemy captives deserved humane treatment in anticipation of repatriation after the conflict. The massive sizes of armies in the industrial period meant that surrender became the surest and least costly means of removing such forces from the battlefield. However, only the guarantee of humane treatment could induce such a surrender. In exchange for proper treatment, POWs could expect to face interrogation by their captors, and enlisted prisoners might be pressed into non-war-related labour to offset some of the costs of their upkeep.

The First World War included the largest battles fought to date, resulting in slaughter on an unprecedented scale. It also included the surrender of millions of troops, who in turn consumed enormous resources for their upkeep. Neutral states, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), adopted the role of “protecting power”, conducting regular inspections of camp facilities. They exchanged lists of POWs held by each side, facilitated humanitarian exchanges of sick and wounded prisoners, and sought to mitigate the worst consequences of war for POWs.

The Second World War saw by far the largest number of POWs held in a single conflict. Belligerents who signed the 1929 Geneva Convention tended to adhere well to its requirements, with the result that POWs protected by it had the best chance to survive the war. For example, only one per cent of German POWs held by the US died in captivity, along with four per cent of Americans held by Germany. Most succumbed to wounds sustained prior to capture, or communicable illnesses. In comparison, the Eastern Front included a 90 per cent mortality rate for German and Soviet prisoners – a brutal outcome caused in part by the Soviet refusal to sign the convention.

Cold War conflicts included the capture of hundreds of thousands of POWs. However, despite the 1949 revisions to the Geneva Conventions, designed to improve the conditions of wartime captivity, many belligerents came to view POWs as instruments of propaganda. By proclaiming them victims of callous enemies, states sought to rally support for their own cause. Also, perceived mistreatment often resulted in retaliatory measures, leading to a downward spiral of atrocities.

During the Gulf War in 1991, Saudi Arabia volunteered to assume responsibility for the internment of all Iraqis captured by the US-led coalition forces, a move designed to account for religious and cultural sensitivities. However, despite the high praise of that system, when the War on Terror commenced a decade later, little planning went into how the US would hold enemy combatants in captivity. Shocking allegations soon emerged from the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, Iraq. Allegations of mistreatment at other locations in Iraq and Afghanistan soon followed, with the suggestion that if the US could not follow international norms, no other nation or non-state actor would be likely to do so.

In the past decade, there have been a number of high-profile exchanges of POWs, often in very lopsided numbers. In 2011, Israel announced the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held for five years by Hamas. The move was essentially forced by a public pressure campaign from Israeli citizens to influence president Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On May 31, 2014, US president Barack Obama announced the release of five Afghan prisoners from Guantanamo Bay into Qatari custody, in exchange for the release of Bowe Bergdahl, an American sergeant who was being held by Taliban-aligned militants near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Critics of the deal argued that it incentivised taking American personnel as hostages to force the return of enemy combatants, although no US military personnel have been captured since Sgt Bergdahl’s return.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, in 2015, ISIS attempted to negotiate the release of attempted suicide bomber Sajida Al Rishawi in exchange for captured Jordanian pilot Muath Safi Yousef Al Kasasbeh. After Jordan demanded proof that Al Kasasbeh was alive, ISIS released a video showing the pilot being burned to death in a cage. Jordan retaliated by executing Al Rishawi and increasing its commitment to the war against the terrorist group.

Although the war in Ukraine has been characterised by extreme violence, poor discrimination between military and civilian targets, and a substantial number of allegations of international law violations, it has also included evidence of humane treatment of captives and a number of exchanges. Some have included equal numbers of personnel, while others have been uneven but reflected the needs of each belligerent, such as the recent swap of three Russian pilots for 45 defenders of the Azovstal plant in Mariupol. Both sides have claimed to provide excellent treatment for their captives, but apart from a few instances of visits by the ICRC, neither has granted full access to POWs to a protecting power.

Despite hopes that large-scale international conflicts were a relic of the past, it seems that societies will continue to rely upon violence and coercion in pursuit of political objectives. So long as wars occur, enemy troops will be captured, and only adequate planning for POW operations ensures the ability to handle them in a safe and just manner.

To truly demonstrate adherence to international norms, states should be prepared to grant access to the prisoners they hold to neutral observers. Failure to adhere to international law regarding POWs serves no military purpose, but threatens to increase the humanitarian crises brought on by modern war. And, of course, the expectation of humane treatment is a key element of the decision to surrender, without which, any struggle is likely to devolve into a brutal fight to the death, with little hope of resolution before the last drop of blood is spilled.