Order Code RS22663
Updated January 28, 2008
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
United States foreign assistance to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) primarily
supports democracy-related programs, particularly rule of law training, and assists
Tibetan communities. The U.S. Congress has played a leading role in providing funding
for democracy programs, which has grown from $10 million in FY2002 to an estimated
$23 million in FY2007. Major program areas include legal training, legal aid, criminal
defense, labor rights, and civil society development in China, monitoring human rights
conditions in the PRC from outside China, and preserving Tibetan culture. This report
will be updated annually.
Overview
United States foreign assistance to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) primarily
supports democracy-related programs and assists Tibetan communities, from both inside
and outside of China. USAID does not have a presence or mission in the PRC, due in part
to the Chinese government’s reported human rights abuses. However, the Peace Corps
has been involved in English language and environmental education in China since 1993,
and USAID and the State Department have funded or administered programs in China and
Tibet since 2000. The U.S. Congress has played a leading role in promoting democracyrelated programs in the PRC. In the past five years, annual foreign operations
appropriations for democracy programs in China and Tibet have grown from $10 million
in FY2002 to approximately $23 million in FY2007. Major recipients of U.S. grants for
China programs include Temple University (rule of law), the International Republican
Institute (village elections), the Asia Foundation (civil society), and the Bridge Fund
(Tibet).
The Department of State’s East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau and the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have allocated funding from two
accounts, the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and the Democracy Fund,1 primarily for
U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in China, which in turn have
provided some funding to Chinese non-governmental organizations. The East Asia
1
Also referred to as the Human Rights and Democracy fund (HRDF).
CRS-2
Regional Democracy Fund also has provided some ESF for rule of law and Tibet
programs. Since 2006, Congress has appropriated Development Assistance (DA) to
American educational institutions for exchange programs related to democracy, rule of
law, and the environment in China. In 2007, the U.S. government began funding
HIV/AIDS programs in China using Child Survival and Health (CSH) account funds.
Some experts argue that legal reform efforts in China have produced limited benefits
due to the lack of judicial independence, weak enforcement of laws, constraints on
lawyers, and political corruption. Others contend that U.S.-funded rule of law programs
in China have helped to build foundations for
democratic change — more professional
Commonly Used Acronyms
judicial personnel, more transparent lawmaking
processes, and more sophisticated laws — and
ABA: American Bar Association
have bolstered reform-minded officials in the
CSH: Child Survival and Health
Chinese government. Many foreign and
Development Assistance
DA:
Chinese observers have noted that awareness of
DRL: Bureau of Democracy Human
legal rights in many areas of PRC society is
Rights and Labor
growing.
FY2008 Appropriations
ESF: Economic Support Funds
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy
Fund
NED: National Endowment for
Democracy
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
OECD:Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
For FY2008, the Bush Administration
requested a total of $9.2 million for China,
primarily CSH account funds for HIV/AIDS
programs ($7.2 million).2 Economic Support
Funds ($2 million) are to support rule of law
programs, judicial independence, and the role
of NGOs in Chinese society. Tibetan programs
include public health efforts, education, environmental conservation, and job skills
training in Tibetan communities. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provides $15 million for democracy and rule of law programs in
the PRC, Hong Kong, and Taiwan out of the Democracy Fund.3 The FY2008
appropriations measure also mandates $5 million from the ESF account for activities that
preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental
conservation in Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) for human rights and democracy programs related to Tibet. In
addition, $10 million in Development Assistance is to be provided to American
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to
democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
2
3
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
Since 2004, the annual congressional authorizations for democracy funds for China have
included Hong Kong and Taiwan. Funding for legal and political reforms in Taiwan shall only
be made available to the extent that they are matched from sources other than the United States
government. Taiwan receives approximately $500,000 annually to develop its export control
system and combat trafficking in persons. Hong Kong receives assistance for strengthening
political parties and supporting democratization ($840,000 in FY2007).
CRS-3
Foreign Operations Appropriations, 1999-2007
Between 1999 and 2007, the United States government made available or authorized
roughly $133 million for democracy-related programs in China. In FY2007, total funding
for U.S. assistance programs in China represented about 7% of total U.S. foreign aid to
East Asia.4 In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S.
government support, provides grants for projects in several areas, including rule of law,
civil society, rural development, education, and public health ($220 million during 19882006). European aid efforts, particularly in the area of PRC legal reform, reportedly have
far surpassed those of the United States in terms of funding, with greater emphasis on
commercial rule of law.5 According to OECD data, the top donors of bilateral official
development assistance (ODA) to China (2006) are Japan ($1.5 billion), Germany ($441
million), and France ($186 million). However, some major aid donors, such as Japan and
Germany, provide a large share of their foreign assistance in the form of loans rather than
grants.6 Some policy makers in these countries have advocated reducing their
development aid to China, due largely to China’s rise as an economic power.
FY2000-FY2003 Appropriations. Prior to 2000, China received only Peace
Corps assistance. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113)
provided $1 million for U.S.-based NGOs (to preserve cultural traditions and promote
sustainable development and environmental conservation) in Tibet as well as $1 million
to support research about China, and authorized ESF for NGOs to promote democracy in
the PRC. For FY2001 (P.L. 106- 429), Congress authorized up to $2 million for Tibet.
In FY2002 (P.L. 107-115), Congress made available $10 million for assistance for
activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in China, including up
to $3 million for Tibet. The FY2003 foreign operations funding measure (P.L. 108-7),
provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China, including up to $3 million
for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
FY2004-FY2007 Appropriations. In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor became the principal administrator of China democracy programs. The
FY2004 appropriations measure (P.L. 108-199) made available $13.5 million for China,
Hong Kong, and Taiwan, including $3 million for NED. Appropriations for FY2004
provided a special earmark for Tibet ($4 million). In FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), Congress
provided $19 million for China, including $4 million for NED, and authorized $4 million
4
For FY1999-FY2003, totals are taken from General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance:
U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs,” February 2004. For information on U.S.
assistance to Asia, see CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected
Recipients, by Thomas Lum.
5
The European Union reported “co-operation projects” worth $325 million (250 million Euros)
during 2002-2006, including legal and judicial assistance, social reform, education, the
environment, and economic development. See Delegation of the European Commission to China,
available at [http://www.delchn.cec.eu.int/en/Co-operation/General_Information.htm].
6
Approximately 90% of Japanese ODA to China has come in the form of loans, according to
some sources. See The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Overview of Official Development
Assistance to China” [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/region/e_asia/china/index.html].
German aid to the PRC reportedly also includes a substantial loan component. See “As China
Booms, Germany Politicians Question Continuing Aid,” Deutsch Welle, July 27, 2007.
CRS-4
for Tibet and $250,000 for NED in Tibet. In addition, the FY2005 appropriations
measure authorized the use of Development Assistance for American universities to
conduct U.S.-China educational exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and
the environment. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-265) on the FY2006 foreign
operations appropriations bill (H.R. 3057, signed into law as P.L. 109-102) extended $20
million for China. For Tibet, P.L. 109-102 authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan
communities in China and $250,000 to NED in Tibet. The FY2006 appropriations
measure also provided $5 million in Development Assistance to American educational
institutions for legal and environmental programs in the PRC. Because of the late
enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), many
U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not specified but funding continued at or near
FY2006 levels.
Table 1. Selected U.S. Grant Assistance to China, 2000-2006
(thousand dollars)
Account
FY07
est.
FY08
est.
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
CSH
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4,800
7,290
DA
—
—
—
—
—
—
4,950
5,000
10,000d
ESF a
1,000
28,000b
10,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
19,000
17,000d
ESFTibet
—
—
—
—
3,976
4,216
3,960
3,960
5,250d
1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,886
1,953
—
—
6,400
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,435
29,298
17,959
15,977
18,339
24,692
30,593
34,646
41,493
Peace
Corps
Laborc
Total
Sources: U.S. Department of State congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; congressional foreign
operations appropriations legislation.
a. Not specified in State Department annual budget justifications.
b. Compensation for the accidental NATO bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade.
c. Department of Labor programs to promote workers’ rights, greater awareness of labor laws, legal aid services to
women and migrant workers, and health and safety standards in China, pursuant to P.L. 106-286 (granting China
permanent normal trade relations status, or PNTR).
d. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provides $10 million for U.S.-China educational
exchanges (DA), $15 million for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan democracy programs (ESF), and $5.25 million for
Tibetan community assistance (ESF).
Foreign Aid Restrictions. Many U.S. sanctions on the PRC in response to the
Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989 remain in effect, including some foreign aidrelated restrictions, such as “no” votes or abstentions by U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions regarding loans to China (except those that meet basic
human needs).7 The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 lifted the
7
Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section
(continued...)
CRS-5
restrictions (effective since FY2000) requiring that ESF for China democracy programs
be provided only to NGOs located outside the PRC. Tibet programs are still restricted to
NGOs. Congress has required that U.S. representatives to international financial
institutions support projects in Tibet only if they do not encourage the migration and
settlement of non-Tibetans (the Han Chinese majority) into Tibet or the transfer of
Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which some fear may erode Tibetan culture
and identity.
The U.S. government suspended funding for the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA) in 2002 because of the UNFPA’s programs in China, where the State
Department determined that coercive family planning practices had occurred. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 makes funds available again to the UNFPA,
if they are determined to be eligible under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment, but
forbids such funds from being used for any UNFPA programs in China.8
Key Actors
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In the past decade,
Congress has supported increased funding for DRL’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund
(HRDF). Appropriations for HRDF grew from $13 million in FY2001 to $71 million in
FY2007 (a total of $261 million between 2001 and 2007). In addition, the U.S.
government provided a total of $65 million for National Endowment for Democracy
(NED)-administered HRDF programs between 2003 and 2007. China programs account
for about 25% of allocations from the Democracy Fund. Most DRL funding to China
goes to U.S.-based NGOs, including universities, while some sub-grants go to PRC
“partner NGOs.”9
National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for
Democracy is a private, non-profit organization that promotes democracy around the
world. NED was created by and obtains nearly all of its funding from the United States
government. The Endowment’s China programs receive grants through three channels:
the annual foreign operations earmark for NED — the “core fund” — ($50 million in
FY2007), out of which approximately $2 million is devoted to China programs each year;
the annual congressional earmark for democracy-related programs in the PRC ($2.9
7
(...continued)
710(a) of the International Financial Institutions Act. For further information, see CRS Report
RL31910, China: Economic Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack.
8
The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment to the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88)
bans U.S. assistance to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive
family planning programs. For further information, see CRS Report RL33250, International
Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs: Issues for Congress, by Luisa
Blanchfield.
9
For a listing of HRDF projects, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, HRDF Projects, 1998-Present [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/c12440.htm].
Because of political sensitivities, DRL does not disclose the names of its grant recipients.
CRS-6
million to NED in FY2007); and DRL grants to NED’s “core institutes.”10 During the
FY1999-FY2003 period, about 38% of U.S. government funding for democracy-related
programs in China was allocated through the Endowment.11 NED began awarding grants
to U.S.-based organizations supporting democracy in China in the mid-1980s and funded
significant in-country programs in the 1990s (worth nearly $20 million). Through its
grant-making program and core institutes, NED supports pro-democracy organizations
in the United States and Hong Kong, helps to advance the rule of law, promote the rights
of workers and women, and strengthen village elections in China, and assists in the
development of Tibetan communities.12
Selected U.S.-Funded Programs
Rule of Law. Since 2001, the State Department and USAID have provided $12
million for the Temple University rule of law program in China, launched in 1999 in
collaboration with Tsinghua University in Beijing and two U.S. partners or sub-grantees
— New York University and Brigham Young University.13 Temple University’s Master
of Laws (LLM) program in China is the first and only of its kind, educating over 600
Chinese legal professionals, the majority of whom are officials in the executive (State
Council), legislative, and judicial branches of government.14 In 2006, USAID
administered a grant of $1.1 million for a rule of law program bringing together two U.S.
universities (University of the Pacific and American University) and three Chinese
universities. Since 2002, the American Bar Association (ABA) has conducted several
rule of law programs in China with the support of USAID, including the China
Environmental Governance Training Program and the China Legal Aid project.
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA). During the
past eight years, USAID’s ASHA has supported the construction and equipping of the
Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. ASHA has also assisted
the Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American Studies in Nanjing and provided
a grant to Project Hope to support training for the Shanghai Children’s Medical Center.
10
NED’s core institutes or grantees are: the International Republican Institute (IRI); the
American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Center for International Private
Enterprise (CIPE); and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).
11
General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related
Programs,” February 2004.
12
Eric T. Hale, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the National Endowment for
Democracy, 1990-1999” (Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2003), pp. 173-4. For
a listing of NED projects, see National Endowment for Democracy, Grants — 2005 Asia
Programs.
13
DRL supports eight U.S. universities conducting rule of law programs in China.
Approximately 150 U.S. law schools operate programs in China, mostly offering courses and
short-term programs for American students to study PRC law; about one dozen U.S. law schools
have developed exchange programs. See National Committee on United States-China Relations
at [http://www.ncuscr.org].
14
Temple University Beasley School of Law, Rule of Law Projects in China: 2005-06 Annual
Report; Adelaide Ferguson, Temple’s Rule of Law Programs in China, March 2006.April 24, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22663
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Summary
U.S. government support of rule of law and civil society programs in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote democratic change in China.
Other related U.S. activities include participation in official bilateral dialogues on human rights,
public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies. During the past decade, U.S.
assistance to China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an annual average of
$11.1 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and aid to Tibetans,
to $31.5 million during the 2005-2008 period, which included not only democracy and Tibetan
assistance but also new funding for educational exchanges and health care programs (HIV/AIDS
awareness, prevention, and treatment). Between 2000 and 2008, the United States government
authorized or made available roughly $182 million for programs in China, of which $159 million
was devoted to human rights and democracy activities and to Tibetan communities.
Most U.S.-funded programs in the PRC aim to promote the rule of law and civil society in China
using special allocations from the Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund
(HRDF). The U.S. Congress has played a leading role in initiating programs and determining
funding levels for these objectives. Non-governmental organizations such as the Ford Foundation
and other countries also provide substantial democracy-related assistance to the PRC.
Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law and civil society efforts in China have
produced limited gains due to PRC political constraints. Others contend that such programs have
helped to build social foundations for political change and have bolstered reform-minded officials
in the PRC government. Some analysts advocate greater efforts at evaluating the effectiveness of
rule of law, civil society, and democracy-related programs.
U.S. rule of law and civil society programs have created a web of relationships among
governmental and non-governmental actors and educational institutions in both the United States
and China. Despite growing contacts and common interests among these entities, Chinese civil
society groups remain subject to PRC restrictions and occasional crackdowns on their activities.
Some of these groups also have been affected by the ups and downs of the U.S.-China bilateral
relationship.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Policy Debates ................................................................................................................2
Program Development ................................................................................................................3
Other Restrictions on Foreign Aid .........................................................................................4
FY2008-FY2009 Appropriations .................................................................................................5
Earthquake Relief ...........................................................................................................6
Foreign Operations Appropriations: Legislative History (1999-2007) ..........................................7
FY2000-FY2003 Appropriations ...........................................................................................7
FY2004-FY2007 Appropriations ...........................................................................................7
Key Actors and Programs............................................................................................................8
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) (Department of State).....................8
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (Department of State) ..............................8
Department of Labor .............................................................................................................9
National Endowment for Democracy.....................................................................................9
Temple University............................................................................................................... 10
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to China by Type, 2000-2008...............................................................5
Tables
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, 2000-2009................................................................7
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Overview
U.S. government support of rule of law and civil society programs in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote democratic change in China.
Other related U.S. activities include participation in official bilateral dialogues on human rights,
public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies. During the past decade, U.S.
assistance to the China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an annual average
of $11.1 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and aid to
Tibetans, to $31.5 million during the 2005-2008 period, which included not only democracy and
Tibetan assistance but also new funding for educational exchanges and health care programs such
as HIV/AIDS awareness, prevention, and treatment.
Compared to U.S. assistance missions in most other Asian countries, which focus largely upon
development (health, education, economic growth), counterterrorism, and good governance
objectives, U.S.-supported aid activities in China do not play roles in the areas of economic
development and international security. Most U.S.-funded programs in the PRC aim to promote
political development and civil society using special allocations from the Department of State’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). Other appropriations provide for helping to protect
Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and the environment in Tibetan areas of
China.
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining aid levels for China than it does for most
other countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have an
official presence or mission in the PRC, due in part to the PRC government’s reported human
rights abuses. Foreign assistance appropriations for China have been administered chiefly by the
Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), which follows
Congress’ authorizations in annual foreign operations appropriations measures. By contrast, most
countries with USAID missions receive assistance through the Department of State’s regional
bureaus, which make annual requests that are approved by Congress.
Despite its growth, U.S. assistance to China remains relatively limited. Between 2000 and 2008,
the United States government authorized or made available roughly $182 million for programs in
China, of which $159 million was devoted to human rights and democracy activities and to Tibet.
In FY2008, funding for U.S. assistance programs in China represented about 6.5% of total U.S.
foreign aid to East Asia. The top recipients of U.S. assistance in East Asia in 2008 were
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, which received an estimated $189 million, $119 million,
and $102 million, respectively. 1 After 2001, Indonesia and the Philippines received large
increases in U.S. annual assistance as front-line states in the Bush Administration’s war on terror.
The bulk of U.S. assistance to Vietnam is HIV/AIDS program support. See Figure 1 and Table 1.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), China’s top
aid donors are Japan, Germany, and France, which provided $1.2 billion, $454 million, and $196
million, respectively, on an annual average basis in 2006-2007.2 However, some major aid
1
For information on U.S. assistance to Asia, see CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients, by Thomas Lum.
2
OECD http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/21/1880034.gif.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
donors, such as Japan and Germany, provide a large share of their foreign assistance in the form
of loans rather than grants.3 Some policy makers in these countries have advocated reducing their
development aid to China, due largely to China’s rise as an economic power.
European Union aid efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development, reportedly
exceed those of the United States in terms of funding and place greater emphasis on
commercially-oriented rule of law. According to the European Commission, EU assistance to
China has moved away from the areas of infrastructure and rural development and towards
support for social and economic reform, the environment and sustainable development, and good
governance and the rule of law. The EU funded aid projects and programs worth €181 million
($235 million) in 2002-2006.4 For the 2007-2013 period, the EU plans to allocate €10 million
($13 million) for democracy and human rights programs and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).5 The European Union also has set up a joint law school administered through the
University of Hamburg and located in the China University of Politics and Law in Beijing.
In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S. government
support, offered grants worth $220 million for programs in China during 1988-2006. The
Foundation extended grants totaling $19.6 million, $16.8 million, and $17.9 million in 2006,
2007, and 2008, respectively. Most Ford Foundation funding in China has supported governance,
democracy, and civil society programs, followed by health, education and cultural activities and
economic development and environmental projects.6
Policy Debates
As with many efforts to help reform China’s political system and conduct from without, there has
been little evidence of fundamental change. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law
and civil society efforts in China have produced limited benefits due to PRC government political
constraints, including the lack of judicial autonomy, restrictions on lawyers, weak enforcement of
laws, and severe curbs on the ability of Chinese citizens to organize and perform social functions
independently of state control. They suggest that the limited influence of China’s judicial, legal,
and civil institutions, organizations, and actors precludes their value as real agents for democracy.
Some human rights activists advocate more rigorous methods of evaluating the effectiveness of
democracy programs in China.7
Other analysts contend that foreign-funded democracy, rule of law, and civil society programs in
the PRC have helped to build foundations for political change—more comprehensive laws, more
professional judicial and legal personnel, more cosmopolitan and assertive non-governmental
organizations, and a cadre of rights activists—and have bolstered reform-minded officials in the
PRC government. Many foreign and Chinese observers note that awareness of legal rights in
3
Approximately 90% of Japanese ODA to China has come in the form of loans, according to some sources. See The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Overview of Official Development Assistance to China” http://www.mofa.go.jp/
policy/oda/region/e_asia/china/index.html. German aid to the PRC reportedly also has included a substantial loan
component. See “As China Booms, Germany Politicians Question Continuing Aid,” Deutsch Welle, July 27, 2007.
4
European Commission: External Cooperation Programs http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/countrycooperation/china/china_en.htm.
5
European Union, China: Country Strategy Paper 2007-13 (Draft).
6
Fiscal Year to Date http://www.fordfound.org/grants.
7
“Funding the Rule of Law and Civil Society,” China Rights Forum, no. 3 (2003).
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
many areas of PRC society is growing.8 Some experts add that policies that support incremental
rather than fundamental change have the best chance of succeeding in the long run, through
increasing “the capacity of reform-oriented individuals in China to be effective in their own
work,” including those within the government and without.9
PRC civil society groups and NGOs, key targets of U.S.-funded democracy programs, have raised
concerns among China’s leadership about their growing influence and foreign contacts. Many of
them reportedly have experienced a tightening regulatory environment in recent years.10 Some
experts argue that to be more effective, U.S.-supported civil society programs in China should be
insulated as far as possible from U.S. government involvement and the vagaries of U.S.-China
bilateral relations.11
Program Development
United States foreign assistance to the PRC primarily has supported rule of law, civil society, and
democracy-related programs and assistance to Tibetan communities since 2000. Since 1999,
Congress has played a leading role in funding these programs through annual foreign operations
appropriations measures. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have
an official presence or mission in the PRC, due in part to the Chinese government’s reported
human rights abuses. U.S. laws that can be invoked to deny foreign assistance on human rights
grounds include Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195). In
addition to democracy and Tibet-related aid, American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA)
has provided support for university and hospital projects in China since 1997, while the Peace
Corps has been involved in teaching English language and topics such as environmental
awareness in the PRC since 1993.
In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed upon a U.S.-China Rule of
Law Initiative, although U.S. funding for the program was not provided until 2002. In 1999,
Congress began authorizing assistance (to non-governmental organizations located outside China)
for the purpose of fostering democracy in the PRC (P.L. 105-277). In 2000, the act granting
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106-286) authorized programs
to promote the rule of law and civil society in China. The FY2002 appropriations measure (P.L.
107-115) removed China from a list of countries prohibited from receiving U.S. indirect foreign
assistance and lifted the requirement that Economic Support Funds (ESF) for democracy
programs be provided only to NGOs located outside the PRC. The FY2003 appropriations
measure (P.L. 108-7) continued the requirement that Tibet assistance be granted to NGOs but
lifted the stipulation that they be located outside China.
Major recipients of U.S. grants for China programs have included Temple University (rule of
law), the International Republican Institute (village elections), the Asia Foundation (civil society),
and the Bridge Fund (Tibet). The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a major
role in promoting democracy in China through congressional appropriations. U.S. universities
8
Jamie P. Horsley, “The Rule of Law in China: Incremental Progress,” The China Balance Sheet in 2007 and Beyond,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2007.
9
Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
10
Paul Mooney, “How to Deal with NGOs—Part 1, China,” YaleGlobal Online, August 1, 2006.
11
Gewirtz, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
involved in educational exchanges have included the University of Massachusetts (judiciary
reform), the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and American University
Washington College of Law (rule of law), Vermont Law School (environmental law), and Western
Kentucky University (environmental protection). Implementing partners for Tibet programs have
included the Bridge Fund, the Mountain Institute, and Winrock International.
The Department of State’s East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau and Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have administered China programs primarily through the Human
Rights and Democracy Fund (ESF account). Funding has been channeled largely to U.S.-based
non-governmental organizations operating in China, which in turn have provided some support to
Chinese NGOs. The East Asia Regional Democracy Fund and HRDF global fund also have
provided some ESF for rule of law and Tibet programs. Since 2006, Congress has appropriated
Development Assistance (DA) to American educational institutions for exchange programs
related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment in China. In 2007, the U.S. government
began funding HIV/AIDS programs in China using Child Survival and Health (CSH) account
funds.
Other Restrictions on Foreign Aid
Many U.S. sanctions on the PRC in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including some foreign aid-related restrictions, such as required “no” votes or
abstentions by U.S. representatives to international financial institutions regarding loans to China
(except those that meet basic human needs).12 Congress also has required that U.S.
representatives to international financial institutions support projects in Tibet only if they do not
encourage the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans (majority Han Chinese) into Tibet or the
transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which some fear may erode Tibetan culture
and identity.
The U.S. government suspended funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) from
2002 through 2008 because of the UNFPA’s programs in China, where the State Department
determined that coercive family planning practices had occurred. In February 2009, the Obama
Administration announced that it would restore U.S. funding for the UNFPA. The Omnibus
Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-8), allocated $50 million for the UNFPA. However, none
of these funds may be used for a country program in China.13
12
Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section 710(a) of the
International Financial Institutions Act. For further information, see CRS Report RL31910, China: Economic
Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack.
13
The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment to the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88) bans U.S. assistance
to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs. For further
information, see CRS Report RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by
Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to China by Type, 2000-2008
Appropriations ($US million)
40
35
Peace Corps
30
Tibet (ESF)
25
20
Educational Exchange
(DA)
15
Democracy/Tibet (ESF;
ESF/HRDF)
10
Health (CSH)
5
FY
20
00
FY
01
FY
02
FY
03
FY
0
FY 4
05
FY
0
FY 6
07
FY
08
0
Year
Source: U.S. Department of State
Notes: FY2000-2003 democracy assistance for China included funding for Tibet; For FY2004-08, Tibet programs
received special earmarked funds.
FY2008-FY2009 Appropriations
For FY2009, the State Department requested a total of $7 million for China with the objective of
enhancing China’s capacity to “engage cooperatively, constructively, and transparently with
international, regional, and U.S. institutions.”14 Major program areas include rule of law, civil
society, global health, environmental issues, and Tibet. The largest funding stream in the
Administration’s request was for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs (CSH account).
ESF was requested to support U.S.-China educational exchanges and NGO work in the areas of
rule of law and good governance as well as cultural preservation, sustainable development,
healthcare, and education in Tibetan communities. The State Department also funds a Department
of Justice Rule of Law advisor on topics such as anti-money-laundering and intellectual property
rights (INCLE account).
14
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) appropriated $17 million out of the
HRDF for the promotion of democracy in China.15 The measure authorized $7.3 million in ESF
for NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous
Region and other areas of China. The act also included an appropriation of $250,000 for NED
programs in Tibet. In addition, $11 million in Development Assistance account funding is to be
made available to American educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the
PRC related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested a total of $9.2 million for China, primarily CSH
account funds for HIV/AIDS programs ($7.2 million).16 Economic Support Funds ($2 million)
were requested to support judicial independence, rule of law programs, and the role of NGOs in
Chinese society. Tibetan program areas included job skills training, public health efforts,
education, and environmental conservation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L.
110-161) provided $15 million for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC. The FY2008
appropriations measure also mandated $5 million from the ESF account for activities that
preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation
in Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy
programs related to Tibet. In addition, $10 million in Development Assistance was appropriated
to American educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to
democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
Earthquake Relief
In July 2008, the U.S. government (USAID and the Department of Defense) provided a total of
$4.8 million in humanitarian relief to areas and victims affected by the May 2008 earthquake in
Sichuan province that killed nearly 70,000 people. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) awarded $1.2 million to the Asia Foundation to promote rural housing
reconstruction and raise public awareness about natural disasters. Other funding went to the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for relief supplies to
the Los Angeles County and Fairfax County Fire Departments for related support. The
Department of Defense provided $2.2 million for tents and emergency relief supplies.17
15
Also includes Hong Kong and Taiwan (if matching funds are made available). The bulk of the funding is expected to
go to China. Since 2004, annual congressional authorizations for democracy funds to China have included Hong Kong
and Taiwan. Hong Kong has received assistance for strengthening political parties ($840,000 in FY2006). Taiwan has
not offered required matching funds for legal and political reform programs and hence has not received democracy
grants. Taiwan has received U.S. assistance (an estimated $635,000 in FY2008) for developing its export control
system and combat trafficking in persons. In 2008, Taiwan “graduated” from its need for trafficking assistance.
16
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
17
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance,
China – Earthquake, Fact Sheet #6, FY2008, August 8, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, 2000-2009
(thousand dollars)
Account
(program)
FY00
FY01a
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
CSH (HIV/AIDS)
4,800
GHAI
1,950
DA (educational
exchange)
4,950
FY08
est.
5,000
FY09
req.
4960
5,000
9919
11,000
ESF
(democracy/Tibet)
ESF (HRDF—
democracy)b
1,400
1,000
10,000
15,000
ESF (Tibet)
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
3,976
4,216
3,960
3960
4712
7,300
600
INCLEc
Peace Corps
(English language)
1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
2,057
Totals
1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
39,357
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional
foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a.
In FY2001, $28 million was appropriated in order to provide compensation to China for the accidental
NATO bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade.
b.
Congressional appropriations – not specified in State Department annual budget requests for China.
c.
Technical assistance for combating money laundering and enforcing intellectual property rights.
Foreign Operations Appropriations: Legislative
History (1999-2007)
FY2000-FY2003 Appropriations
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) provided $1 million for U.S.based NGOs (to preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and
environmental conservation) in Tibet as well as $1 million to support research about China, and
authorized ESF for NGOs to promote democracy in the PRC. For FY2001 (P.L. 106-429),
Congress authorized up to $2 million for Tibet. In FY2002 (P.L. 107-115), Congress made
available $10 million for assistance for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule
of law in China, including up to $3 million for Tibet. The FY2003 appropriations measure (P.L.
108-7), provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China, including up to $3
million for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
FY2004-FY2007 Appropriations
In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor became the principal administrator
of China democracy programs. The FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
made available $13.5 million for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, including $3 million for NED.
Appropriations for FY2004 provided a special earmark for Tibet ($4 million). In FY2005 (P.L.
108-447), Congress provided $19 million for China, including $4 million for NED, and
authorized $4 million for Tibet and $250,000 for NED in Tibet. In addition, the FY2005
appropriations measure authorized the use of Development Assistance for American universities
to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and the
environment. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-265) on the FY2006 foreign operations
appropriations bill (H.R. 3057, signed into law as P.L. 109-102) extended $20 million for China.
For Tibet, P.L. 109-102 authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and
$250,000 to NED in Tibet. The FY2006 appropriations measure also provided $5 million in
Development Assistance to American educational institutions for legal and environmental
programs in the PRC. Because of the late enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution
for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), funding levels for many U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not
specified but continued at or near FY2006 levels.
Key Actors and Programs
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)
(Department of State)
The Bureau’s mission is to lead U.S. efforts to “promote democracy18, protect human rights19 and
international religious freedom20, and advance labor rights21 globally.” In the past decade,
Congress has supported increased funding for DRL’s Democracy Fund. Appropriations for the
HRDF grew from $13 million in FY2001 to an estimated $74 million in FY2009. China programs
account for roughly one quarter of allocations from the Democracy Fund. Most DRL grants to
China go to U.S.-based NGOs and educational institutions, while some sub-grants go to PRC
“partner NGOs.”22
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (Department of
State)
The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) of the Department of State’s
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance provides grants to private and nonprofit educational and medical institutions in foreign countries. The purposes of such assistance
include fostering mutual understanding, introducing foreign countries to U.S. ideas and practices
in education and medicine, and promoting civil societies. Since 1997, ASHA has supported
programs in China, including helping to establish the Center for American Studies at Fudan
University in Shanghai, supporting the Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American
18
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/.
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/.
20
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/.
21
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/lbr/.
22
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, HRDF Projects, 1998-Present. Because
of political sensitivities, DRL does not disclose the names of its grant recipients.
19
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Studies in Nanjing, and providing a grant to Project Hope for its efforts at the Shanghai
Children’s Medical Center.
Department of Labor
The measure granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to China (P.L. 106-286)
authorized the Department of Labor to establish a program to promote worker rights and related
rule of law training. In 2002, the Bush Administration released two grants totaling $6.4 million
for labor programs in China. A grant of $4.1 million was awarded to a consortium of Worldwide
Strategies, Inc., the Asia Foundation, and the National Committee on United States-China
Relations to conduct education, training, and technical assistance to help improve labor laws and
to promote greater awareness of labor laws among workers and employers as well as to provide
legal aid services to women and migrant workers. The Department of Labor also awarded a $2.3
million grant to the National Safety Council to help improve mine safety and health conditions in
China.
National Endowment for Democracy
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, non-profit organization that
promotes democracy around the world. NED supports Chinese pro-democracy organizations in
the United States and Hong Kong, helps to advance the rule of law, promote the rights of workers
and women, and strengthen village elections in China, and assists in the development of Tibetan
communities. The United States government established NED in 1983 and provides most of its
funding. The Endowment’s China programs have received grants through three channels: the
annual foreign operations appropriation for NED (an estimated $99 million in FY2008), out of
which approximately $2 million has been devoted to China programs each year since 1999;
annual congressional earmarks for democracy-related programs in the PRC and Tibet;23 and DRL
grants to NED’s “core institutes.”24 During the FY1999-FY2003 period, about 38% of U.S.
government funding for democracy-related programs in China was allocated through the
Endowment. 25 NED began awarding grants to U.S.-based organizations supporting democracy in
China in the mid-1980s and supporting significant in-country programs in the 1990s.26 Compared
to the U.S. government, NED’s non-governmental status affords it greater ease and flexibility
with which to support relatively overt democratic groups.
23
Congress has appropriated annual earmarks to NED out of the Democracy Fund for human rights and democracy
programs in China between 2001 and 2007 ($2.9 million FY2007) and in Tibet since 2004 (an estimated $250,000 in
FY2009).
24
NED’s core institutes or grantees are: the International Republican Institute (IRI); the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE); and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).
25
General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs,” February 2004.
26
Eric T. Hale, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the National Endowment for Democracy, 1990-1999”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2003), pp. 173-4. For a listing of NED China projects, see National
Endowment for Democracy, Grants—Asia Programs http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html#china.
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Temple University
In 1999, Temple University established the first foreign Master of Laws degree program in China.
The LLM program, conducted in collaboration with Tsinghua University School of Law in
Beijing, educates Chinese judges, prosecutors, government officials, law professors, and lawyers
in U.S. and international legal principles. The State Department and USAID have provided
roughly $12 million for Temple’s activities in China, which also include non-degree legal
education, scholarly research, and curriculum development.27 The program has educated nearly
800 Chinese legal professionals, the majority of which (78%) work in the public sector.
“Graduates report that they are drawing on their Temple legal education as they write judicial
decisions, apply rules of evidence in trial practice, draft laws for national and regional legislative
bodies, and infuse their scholarship with principles of U.S. law.”28
Acronyms
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
NGO: Non-governmental Organization
NED: National Endowment for Democracy
CSH: Child Survival and Health
DA: Development Assistance
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHAI: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
Author Contact Information
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
27
DRL has supported several U.S. universities conducting rule of law programs in China. According to a database
compiled by the National Committee on United States-China Relations earlier this decade, approximately 150 U.S. law
schools conduct programs in China, mostly offering courses and short-term programs for American students to study
PRC law; about one dozen U.S. law schools have developed exchange programs.
28
Temple University Beasley School of Law, Rule of Law Projects in China: 2007-08 Annual Report; Adelaide
Ferguson, “Temple’s Rule of Law Programs in China,” Temple University Beasley School of Law, March 2006.
Congressional Research Service
10