Rights and Responsibilities: The Treatment of POWs in WWII Relating to the Geneva. Conventions

Transcription

1 Feingold 1 Tom Feingold Mrs. Benton Honors World Literature 8 November 2013 Rights and Responsibilities: The Treatment of POWs in WWII Relating to the Geneva Conventions The cruel treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) throughout history has influenced millions of soldiers defending their countries, even with guidelines from the Geneva Conventions to keep POWs in hospitable conditions. The Geneva Conventions of 1929, 1939, and 1949 all created specific constraints concerning the treatment of POWs and the definition of a POW. Jean Pictet, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross, defines a POW as a person participating in an international armed conflict as a member of the armed forces of a party of the conflict who acts under the orders of a responsible commander, wears a fixed distinctive emblem, carries arms openly, acts in obedience to the laws and customs of warfare, and falls into the hands of an opposing party (472; Prisoners of war 1). Even though institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) protect the rights of POWs and enforce international law in times of conflict, many countries have still disobeyed those rules. In the past, including World War Two, POWs have been treated poorly, in spite of the strict rules and regulations imposed by the Geneva Conventions of 1929, 1939, and 1949; however, those criteria relating to POW treatment have had an increased impact in recent years. World War II was a prime example of how the Geneva Conventions affected wars in earlier years. The International Committee of the Red Cross conducted surveys of

2 Feingold 2 POW camps during WWII, but was only partially successful in its attempt to eradicate improper treatment of POWs, although many countries general living conditions for POWs were acceptable (Vourkoutiotis 690, 706). Beaumont specifies that while many POWs were treated fairly in WWII, many others were not, and that the treatment of some POWs was left up to the ruling countries or even the POW camp supervisors (537). During the beginning of WWII, officials considered German POW treatment acceptable to good, although it rapidly declined towards the concentration camp standards that people associate with Nazi Germany today (Vourkoutiotis ). Surveys of officers from the International Committee of the Red Cross also significantly decreased throughout the war as German and Allied forces grew ever-closer to the camps, which may account for the decline of the camps, as the supervision became worse. ICRC officers reported the American camps for POWs as markedly better than the Germans camps, although there were less surveys conducted. Furthermore, in Camp Hearne, Texas, the Americans treated POWs so well that the POWs were able to endanger America s internal security (Beaumont 542). The provisions of the Geneva Conventions straddle an infinitely fine, ever-changing line between POW mistreatment and an imposing internal POW threat to the countries that capture them. The Geneva Conventions offer standards for nearly every aspect of POW life, including room, board, mail, and exercise. Some criteria state that POWs must have food rations equivalent to those given to their capturing country s troops, labor performed by POWs should have no direct connections to the war, and that POWs should have the rights of the conventions without regards to their lives before the war, or their previous professions and ways of life (Pictet 473). These provisions of the conventions had

3 Feingold 3 profound impacts on the treatment of POWs in WWII, though were not as successful as world leaders had hoped for them to be. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) officers reported on conditions under the headings of: General Description, Capacity and Present Personnel, Interior Arrangements, Bathing and Washing Facilities, Toilet Facilities, Food and Cooking, Medical Attention and Sickness, Clothing, Laundry, Money and Pay, Canteen, Religious Activity, Recreation and Exercise, Mail, Welfare Work, and Complaints and General Impression (Vourkoutiotis 690). ICRC officers were required to report on all of theses subjects to cross a broad range of topics. They were also required to ask the POWs opinions of camp life and how it could be improved. Conditions in WWII camps were reported across a wide variety of ratings, ranging from excellent to wholly inadequate (Vourkoutiotis 690). Unfortunately, most POWs during WWII were in cramped conditions, malnourished, and sometimes forced into labor, although officers were given special treatment because of their lofty statuses (Beaumont 539). All in all, the Geneva Conventions failed to significantly impact the outcome of many POWs in WWII, although they were never wholly ineffective. One example of how the Geneva Conventions succeed in changing the fate of POWs, or at least sounded alarms, was in the early 2000s concerning Al Qaeda operatives in Guantanamo Bay ( Decision Regarding Afghanistan POWs 475). Officials from the United Nations, ICRC, and European countries were becoming increasingly frustrated with the United States stubbornness and the fact that it was withholding information regarding the prisoners to them. When the US did reveal the conditions of the prisoners treatment, many officials became outraged at the hidden implications they sensed in the president s speech concerning the POWs. The president first stated that Al

4 Feingold 4 Qaeda operatives were not POWs and should not be treated as such, nor were Taliban prisoners. Next he edited his reasoning for both decisions, and after that he changed the decision regarding Taliban members. President Bush was almost forced to change his public outlook on the matters because of global scrutiny. Even at its outset, the fiasco was widely unpopular and unappealing to citizens and foreign lawmakers alike, and cost the US dearly ( Decision Regarding Afghanistan POWs ). The United Nations and most globally important countries held the Bush administration and the U. S. government in bad graces. This penalty illustrates the impact that the Geneva Convention s provisions for POWs have had an increased impact in recent years and may have an even more significant outcome in years to come. In WWII, the treatment of POWs was poor and attempts to change it were overall unsatisfactory; however, in past years the Geneva Conventions of 1929, 1939, and 1949 have been able to affect many decisions regarding to the treatment of POWs or alter the punishments to countries disobeying POW guidelines. The Geneva Conventions specifically detail the rules applying to POWs and so may have an even greater impact in coming years or wars. The future implications concerning the Geneva Conventions could control the outcome of any war, including another World War, by forcing countries to forgo painful treatment and interrogations such as waterboarding. The Geneva Conventions will continue to regulate the treatment of POWs indiscriminately in any major conflict and so provide both a major asset and detriment to any forces of a war by providing them with set guidelines on POW treatment. All POWs have the rights to hospitable treatment, and all countries have the responsibilities to provide rights to POWs.

5 Feingold 5 Works Cited Beaumont, Joan. Confronting Captivity: Britain and the United States and their POWs in Nazi Germany by Arieh J. Kochavi: The Colditz Myth: British and Commonwealth Prisoners of War in Nazi Germany by S. P. Mackenzie: Lone Star Stalag: German Prisoners of War at Camp Hearne by Michael R. Walters: Mark Long: William Dickens: Sam Sweitz: Anne Lee Presley: Ivan Buvit: Michelle Raisor: Bryan Masan: Hilary Standish: Norbert Dannhaeuser. Journal of Contemporary History 42.3 (2007): JSTOR. Web. 20 October Decision Not to Regard Persons Detained in Afghanistan as POWs. The American Journal of International Law 96.2 (2002): JSTOR. Web. 20 October Pictet, Jean. The New Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims. The American Journal of International Law 45.3 (1951): JSTOR. Web. 17 October Prisoners of war and detainees protected under international humanitarian law. International Committee of the Red Cross. N. p., 29 October Web. 13 October Vourkoutiotis, Vasilis. What the Angels Saw: Red Cross and Protecting Power Visits to Anglo- American POWs, Journal of Contemporary History 40.4 (2005): JSTOR. Web. 17 October 2013.