Most people who go on hunger strikes seem to be, by nature, proponents of non-violence. When Mahatma Gandhi, the poster child for non-violence, wanted to protest the British rule of India, he went on a hunger strike. When that was taken care of, he starved himself again to protest the autocratic rule in the newly independent India.
Those who take this course of non-violent resistance are usually guided by integrity and courage. Among them are Marion Dunlop, the British suffragette and Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, the advocate of civil liberties in the former Soviet Union.
That's why I was taken aback when I found out that Saddam Hussein -- the last person I would expect to take such a high road -- did just that. What happens to this non-violent tradition if someone like Hussein signs himself up for it?
With all the confidence of a man who believes he is still the president of his country, Saddam announced that he too was embarking on his own hunger strike. He declared, "we have been holding a hunger strike protesting against your way in treating us -- against you and your masters." Apparently, the man and his buddies, former intelligence chief, Barzan Ibrahim, and two other defendants, Awad Bandar and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice-president, had not eaten for three days.
Hussein's hunger strike, far from signifying the making of a peaceful protester, was his latest attempt to disrupt a trial that has been highly problematic. Pseudo non-violence advocate that he is, Hussein was previously ejected from the court for his boisterous behavior by Judge Abdel-Rahman. At his own hands, his trial has been plagued by political infighting, assassinations of judges and lawyers and ambiguous witness testimony. On top of all this, Hussein pledged to boycott the trial, and missed several sessions and only reappeared soon after being coerced back into the courtroom. In a trial that is broadcasted around the world, this represents nothing more than Hussein's own desire to delay his impending justice.
Beyond how amusing his whole circus show of a trial is, does anyone really -- I mean really -- care if Saddam starves himself into insanity, death, depression or la-la-land? On trial for the murder of 148 Iraqis in the village of Dujail, this is a man whose own people were shown rejoicing when his statue collapsed nearly three years ago in the main square in Baghdad. Beyond the 148 Iraqis he's on trial for murdering, there is no telling how many other Iraqis have died and suffered unnoticed at his will.
As a person of limited free will, Hussein can strike as he sees fit, as long as his only domain of influence is his body alone. For many people, including Hussein, a hunger strike is less about upholding tradition set forth by Gandhi, and more about publicity.
Al Sharpton went on a self-induced, 90-day hunger strike to publicize the Navy bombing exercises on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques and to protest his subsequent arrest on the issue. His full intentions were questionable. He garnered much media attention for his efforts and soon announced that he was making a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Although others may think otherwise, if Hussein and Sharpton can engage in hunger strikes to further their own agendas, there's no telling who else might be inspired to follow a similar course of action.
Certain issues at Dartmouth are even suitable appropriate for hunger strikes. For example, it would be perfectly appropriate to stage a hunger strike against Dartmouth Dining Service's plans to curb DBA purchases at Topside to $100 per term. For the majority of us who are big fans of Topside, DDS's decision is almost criminal. Or perhaps a hunger strike will be more appropriate at the Off Campus Programs office, where students have to apply more than a year in advance to go on certain FSP and LSA programs.
However fitting my scenarios for more appropriate hunger strikes are, there's no doubt that Hussein's actions are ill-intentioned.
Considering that those who die during a hunger strike are subsequently considered martyrs, I doubt that anyone would find this fitting in the case of Hussein. Oddly enough, Hussein did not state any conditions for ending his hunger strike. A spokesman for the Iraqi court trying Hussein did offer that the court was "was looking" into the claim, I have the feeling that people don't really care what the outcomes of Hussein's self induced starvation really is.
