.svg) | |
| Long title | An Act to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq. |
|---|---|
| Acronyms(colloquial) | ILA |
| Nicknames | Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 |
| Enacted by | the105th United States Congress |
| Effective | October 31, 1998 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 105-338 |
| Statutes at Large | 112 Stat. 3178 |
| Codification | |
| Titles amended | 22 U.S.C.: Foreign Relations and Intercourse |
| U.S.C. sections amended | 22 U.S.C. ch. 32, subch. I § 2151 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
TheIraq Liberation Act of 1998 is aUnited StatesCongressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed bySaddam Hussein from power in Iraq."[1][2] It was signed into law by PresidentBill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for theauthorization of military force against Iraq.
The bill was sponsored by RepresentativeBenjamin A. Gilman (Republican,NY-20) and co-sponsored by RepresentativeChristopher Cox (Republican,CA-47). The bill was introduced asH.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360–38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it withunanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3][4]
PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who followed Clinton, often referred to the Iraq Liberation Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton administration supported regime change in Iraq – and, further, that it believed Iraq was developingweapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the CongressionalAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.[5]
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998Iraq had:
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360–38 in theU.S. House of Representatives[6] and byunanimous consent in theSenate.[7]US PresidentBill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition todemocracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry ofUnited Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed bySaddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandatedOperation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...
— President Clinton ~ 1998[8]
This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, respect for human rights, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were
The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
In November 1998 President Clinton stated that "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."[9]
The Act contemplated the future need forwar crimes tribunals in Iraq stating, "The Congress urges the President to call upon theUnited Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible forcrimes against humanity,genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
A generalized statement of policy toward the post-Saddam Iraq was also set forth stating,
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who followed Clinton, often referred to the Iraq Liberation Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton administration supported regime change in Iraq – and, further, that it believed Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the CongressionalAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.[10]
