Prisoner Release as Conflict Management

Abstract

Asymmetric prisoner release initiatives (APRI), such as Israel's trade of 1027 security prisoners for one soldier, differ in kind from diplomatic POW exchanges and remain both undertheorized and unexamined. Most explanations tend toward the psychological or sociological. My data-driven plausibility probe finds that regime (democratic) and conflict (counterinsurgency) type are likely background conditions for APRI. Cross-case comparison of four democracies (Israel, UK, US, Spain) uncovers specific commonalities. Prisoner Discourse (international law/norms; "terrorist" belligerents; "worthy" prisoner) dictates state negotiation posture; societal support for asymmetric exchange, and underlies counterinsurgency praxis. These practices, the "Democratic Counterinsurgency Complex", paradoxically lead to prolonged conflict; favor recourse to "counterinsurgency through capture", and consequently create a "prisoner marketplace" which makes kidnapping state personnel a viable insurgent tactic. But APRI is contingent; not all democracies executed an asymmetric exchange during counterinsurgency. An Historical Institutionalist, within-case study of Israel from 1978-2011, shows that Menachem Begin faced a critical juncture of energy insecurity, Egypt peace negotiations, and electoral pressures. Begin's APRI (76 prisoners/one soldier) was socially and politically contested in 1979. By 1988, Israeli APRI had hardened into path-dependent praxis, and "social fact" by 2011. Specific cross-case factors strongly linked to APRI are a "no negotiation with terrorists" stance; external safe haven for insurgents; and family access to leaders. Denying cross-border access to insurgents, and limiting family access to leaders is important. But without a diplomatic posture/negotiation structure which allows direct talks with belligerents, democratic regimes are unlikely to be successful in counterinsurgency, and also more likely to execute APRI.