Saddam Hussein was hanged in Baghdad, Iraq, on Dec. 30, the day before Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday. He was executed after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity for the massacre of 148 male Shiite Muslims in the Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982.
Noel Pugach, a history professor at UNM who has taught classes on the Middle East, said Hussein's execution did not help tensions in Iraq, but it didn't make things much worse either.
Daily Lobo: Why did the United States try to delay Hussein's execution?
Pugach: There are several reasons. No. 1 was this Muslim festival known as Eid (al-Adha), which ends the pilgrimage to Mecca. It consists of three days of feasting and celebration and so forth. It's not the time for an execution. Second, some people - various experts - pointed out that the judicial process had not yet been finished. There were supposed to be more trial proceedings for other crimes. In other words, the process was not completed from the standpoint of a number of people. In addition, important countries for the United States such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are Sunni dominated, were opposed.
DL: Will Hussein's execution increase tensions between Sunnis and Shiites and create more problems?
NP: I don't know how much it will increase. It certainly doesn't make things better, but this is a situation we've had ever since the Shiites came to power and Saddam Hussein and the Sunnis lost power. He (Hussein) favored the Sunnis, and particularly certain groups within the Sunni community, and often persecuted the Shiites, even though they constituted something like 50 to 60 percent of the population of Iraq. That pattern has existed a long, long time. Even before Saddam Hussein came to power. It goes back at least the early 20th century, as far as I know, that the Sunnis dominated the majority of Shiites.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
DL: Was Hussein's trial a human rights trial for the purpose of education and prevention?
NP: No, not entirely. I can make an analogy to the Nuremberg trials. There are two aspects here. Those criminals who were tried before the Nuremberg Tribunal and subsequent tribunals were guilty of crimes, of actual crimes, and so here is a matter of justice. On the other hand, there was another element in it, and that was to educate the world to prevent anything like this occurring again. There were both aspects present at Saddam Hussein's trial. For a lot of the victims or survivors of victims of his crimes, it was a matter of revenge and justice -- much more so than the Nuremberg trials. The element of revenge, and I studied it, didn't come out as strongly. There was clearly an element of revenge (in Hussein's trial). Was it done to also educate the public and the world? I think less so than Nuremberg, much less so.
DL: Does the United States give Iraq sovereignty when it is convenient to do so?
NP: At times, yes. Certainly. There have been other instances where the prime minister, Mr. (Nouri al-) Maliki, has put his foot down and resisted the pressure of the United States, and that causes problems. We are in a real dilemma on this whole question. On the one hand, we still want to wield control. On the other hand, we've got to give them sovereignty, because in the end, we've got to get out. So we do and we don't want them to have sovereignty.
- Jeremy Hunt
