U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
April 24, 2009July 9, 2010
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 This report provides legislative and policy background concerning U.S. assistance programs in
the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote democratic change in China.
. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
does not have an official presence in China. The majority of congressional foreign operations
appropriations for the PRC promotes the rule of law, civil society, and political development in
the country. These programs constitute a key component of U.S. efforts to promote democratic
change in the PRC. 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.
democracy assistance to China has grown in size and breadth.
Funding has grown from an annual average of
$11.1 $9.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly
for democracy assistance and aid to Tibetans,
to $31.535.3 million during the 2005-2008 period, which included2009 period.
During the latter period, the United States supported not only democracy and Tibetan
assistance but also new funding for programs
but also HIV/AIDS programs, educational exchanges, and expanded rule of law programs in the
PRC that include environmental law and criminal justice. Between 2001 and 2010, the United
States government and health care programs (HIV/AIDS
awareness, prevention, and treatment). Between 2000 and 2008, the United States government
authorized or made available roughly $182nearly $275 million for foreign operations
programs in China, of which $159229 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 was devoted to rule of law and civil society programs
and to Tibetan communities.
The Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) has been the principal
means of support for U.S. rule of law and civil society activities in China. The Development
Assistance (DA) account, administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), has been a growing source of funding for rule of law programs. 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.
substantial democracy-related assistance to the PRC.
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 and
China. Despite growing contacts and common interests among these entities, Chinese civil
society groups remain subject to PRC restrictions and occasionalperiodic crackdowns on their activities.
Some of these groups also have been affected by the ups and downs of the U.S.-China bilateral
relationship. 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.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Policy Debates ......................................................................................................................2
Program Development ................................................................................................................3
Other Restrictions on Foreign Aid ..Additional Programs .......................................................................................4
FY2008-FY2009 Appropriations .................................................................................................5
Earthquake Relief ............................5
Restrictions on Foreign Aid.....................................................................................................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...........................................6
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011..................................................................6
Legislative History: Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000-FY2007 ..................................9
FY2000-FY2003...................................................................................................................9
FY2004-FY2007.................................................................... 10
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to China by Type, 2000-2008...............................................................59
Tables
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, 2000-2009.....FY2000-FY2010 ...........................................................78
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 (democracy assistance) in the
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,
the U.S.-China bilateral human
rights dialogue, public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies.1 During the past
decade, U.S.
assistance to the China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an
annual average
of $11.19.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and
aid to
Tibetans, to $31.535.3 million during the 2005-20082009 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 treatmentHIV/AIDS programs and expanded
rule of law programs, such as environmental law and criminal justice.
Compared to U.S. assistance missions in most other Asian countries, which focus largely upon
U.S. foreign operations
programs in China play less significant roles in the areas of development (health, education, and
economic growth), good governance (through direct assistance to government entities), and
international security. The majority of U.S. funding for programs in China promotes rule of law,
civil society, and political developmenteconomic 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
The U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)’s Development Assistance (DA) account has provided growing support for rule of law
programs since 2006. Other foreign operations appropriations provide for aid activities related to
promoting sustainable development and protecting the culture and natural environment of Tibet
and Tibetan areas of China.
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining aid levels for China foreign operations appropriations for China
than it does for most
other countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) other aid recipients. 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
rights abuses. Democracy
programs in China are mostly administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor (DRL), which follows
Congress’ authorizations in annual foreign
operations appropriations measures, and the Regional Development Mission for Asia. By
. By contrast, most
countries with USAID missions receive most of their assistance through the
Department of State’s regional
bureaus, which make annual requests that are approved by Congressplay principal roles in determining aid levels
through annual congressional budget justifications.
Despite its growth, U.S. assistance to China remains relatively limited. Between 20002001 and 20082010,
the United States government authorized or made available roughly $182nearly $275 million for foreign
operations programs in
China, of which $159229 million was devoted to human rights and democracy activities and to Tibet.
In FY2008, rule of law and civil society
programs and to Tibetan communities. In FY2010, total funding for U.S. assistance programs in China represented about 6.5% of total U.S.
foreign aid to East Asia.
the East Asia and the Pacific region was an estimated $776 million while appropriations for China
was $48.9 million.2 The top recipients of U.S. assistance in East Asia in 2008 were
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, which received an 2010 were Indonesia (an
estimated $189218 million), the Philippines ($144 million), and Vietnam ($122 million).3
1
See CRS Report RL34729, Human Rights in China: Trends and Policy Implications, by Thomas Lum and Hannah
Fischer.
2
U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justification, FY2011. Appropriations for China includes DRL grants
of an estimated $17 million and Peace Corps funding of $2.7 million.
3, $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.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
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.bilateral official development assistance (ODA) donors are Japan, Germany, France, and the
United Kingdom. In terms of grant disbursements, in 2008, Japan, Germany, and France provided
$283 million, $391 million, and $174 million, respectively. By contrast, the United States
extended $65 million in grant assistance, according to OECD data.4 With the exception of the
United States, major bilateral aid donors to China provide concessionary loans that exceed grant
assistance in dollar value. In 2008, Germany and France extended $493 million and $178 million,
respectively, in ODA loans to the PRC while Japan provided $922 million in loans in 2007. Some
policy makers in these countries have advocated reducing their development aid to China, due
largely to China’s rise as an economic power. According to OECD statistics, Japanese, German,
and French ODA to China in 2008 was devoted predominantly to education programs. In 2008,
the United States provided the greatest funding for “government and civil society” sector
programs ($27.7 million), compared to the largest donors.5
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 2002-2006.46 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).57 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 duringbetween 1988- and 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.6worth $14.4 million and $21.4 million in 2007 and 2008,
respectively. Ford Foundation program areas in China include government transparency and
accountability, civil society, criminal justice, secondary education, community rights over natural
resources, and reproductive rights.8
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 marginal results due to PRC political constraints, such as
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 and civil
4
OECD data includes funding that is not reflected in the U.S. State Department’s annual budget justification for China,
such as Department of Energy and Department of Health and Human Services funding. OECD data also includes
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) programs funded through congressional appropriations to NED.
5
OECD: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW.
6
European Commission: External Cooperation Programs http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/countrycooperation/china/china_en.htm.
7
European Union, China: Country Strategy Paper 2007-13 (Draft).
8
Ford Foundation, 2008 Annual Report: http://www.fordfound.org/grants.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
institutions, organizations, and actors significantly reduces their value as real agents for
democracy, and contend that the U.S. focus should be on changing the way the law is used rather
than expanding existing rule of law programs. 9 Some human rights activists also advocate more
rigorous methods of evaluating the effectiveness of democracy programs in China.10
Other analysts contend that foreign-funded rule of law, civil society, and democracy programs in
the PRC have helped to build foundations for political change – more comprehensive laws, more
professional judicial and legal personnel, more worldly and assertive NGOs or social
organizations, and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers – and have bolstered reformminded officials in the PRC government. 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.11 Many foreign and Chinese
observers have noted that awareness of legal rights in many areas of PRC society is growing.12
Another study suggests that rule of law and civil society programs are especially valuable through
their direct impact on local officials, social organizations, lawyers, and others.13
PRC civil society groups and social organizations, 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.14 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. 15
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 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
programs be provided only to NGOs located outside the PRC. The
9
Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.
“Funding the Rule of Law and Civil Society,” China Rights Forum, no. 3 (2003).
11
Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
12
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).
1013
William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.
14
Paul Mooney, “How to Deal with NGOs—Part 1, China,” YaleGlobal Online, August 1, 2006.
1115
Gewirtz, op. cit.
10
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 InternationalFY2003 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.
Since 2006, Congress has appropriated Development Assistance (DA) to American educational
institutions for exchange programs related to the rule of law and the environment in China. In
2007, the U.S. government began funding HIV/AIDS programs in China using Global Health and
Child Survival (GHCS) account funds. Criminal justice programs funded through the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account began in 2009.
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
DRL’s
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 AppropriationsHRDF), which draws from the Economic Support Fund
(ESF) account. In the past decade, Congress has supported increasing support for the Democracy
Fund. Appropriations for the HRDF grew from $13 million in FY2001 to an estimated $70
million in FY2010. China programs have accounted for roughly one quarter of allocations from
the Democracy Fund.
Democracy funding has been channeled largely to U.S.-based non-governmental organizations
and educational institutions with operations or exchange programs in China, which in turn have
provided some support or sub-grants to Chinese “partner NGOs.” Democracy program areas
include human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, information, and the press,
media reform, transparency, judicial independence, criminal and civil rule of law, electoral
reform, public participation, labor rights, minority rights, and migrant rights. The East Asia
Regional Democracy Fund and the HRDF global fund also have provided some ESF for China
and Tibet programs. Because of political sensitivities, DRL does not openly disclose the names of
its grant recipients in China.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a major role in promoting democracy
in China through congressional appropriations. NED is a private, non-profit organization that
promotes democracy around the world. The United States government established NED in 1983
and provides most of its funding. 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 Endowment’s China programs have received grants through three channels: the
annual foreign operations appropriation for NED (an estimated $118 million in FY2010), out of
which approximately $2 million has been devoted to China programs each year since 1999;
annual congressional earmarks to NED for democracy-related programs in the PRC and Tibet;16
and DRL grants to NED’s “core institutes.”17 NED began awarding grants to U.S.-based
organizations supporting democracy in China in the mid-1980s and supporting significant incountry programs in the 1990s.18 Compared to the U.S. government, NED’s non-governmental
16
Congress provided special authorizations out of the Democracy Fund to NED for programs in China between 2001
and 2007 and Tibet between 2004 and 2009.
17
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).
18
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 list of NED China projects, see
http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/asia/china.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
status affords it greater ease and flexibility with which to support relatively overt democratic
groups.
U.S. universities and organizations involved in U.S.-funded rule of law programs include the
University of Massachusetts (judiciary reform), University of the Pacific McGeorge School of
Law and American University Washington College of Law (legal training), Vermont Law School
(environmental law), Western Kentucky University (environmental health), and the American Bar
Association (criminal justice). Implementing partners for Tibet programs include the Bridge
Fund, the Mountain Institute, the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund, and Winrock International. The
Asia Foundation’s administrative law and procedures program also receives USAID support. 19
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. The program has educated over 950
Chinese legal professionals, the majority of which (80%) work in the public sector, including
judges, prosecutors, government officials, law professors, and NGO legal staff. “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.”20
Additional Programs
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 society. 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
Studies in Nanjing, and providing a grant to Project Hope for its efforts at the Shanghai
Children’s Medical Center.
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
19
Asia Foundation: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/china/.
Temple University Beasley School of Law, Summary of Achievements (March 2010); 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” (March 2006); http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/RetrievePage?site=TempleLaw&page=
China+Program.
20
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
million grant to the National Safety Council to help improve mine safety and health conditions in
China.
Restrictions on Foreign Aid
Some U.S. sanctions on the PRC in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including required “no” votes or abstentions by U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions on loans to China (except those that meet basic human
needs).21 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. Furthermore, U.S. laws
that can be invoked to deny foreign assistance on human rights grounds include Sections 116 and
502B (security assistance) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195).
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 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-117) authorized $55 million for the UNFPA. However,
none of these funds may be used for a country program in China.22
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $15 million (through the
HRDF) for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC. 23 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. China received approximately $7 million in HIV/AIDS program
support in FY2008.
21
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.
22
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.
23
Since 2004, annual congressional authorizations for democracy funds to China have included Hong Kong and
Taiwan (if matching funds are provided). Hong Kong has received assistance for strengthening political parties
($840,000 in FY2006). Taiwan has not offered matching funds for legal and political reform programs and hence has
not received democracy grants.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2009
Earthquake Relief
(P.L. 111-8) appropriated $17 million for the
In July 2008, the U.S. government (USAID and the
promotion of democracy in China. The
Department of Defense) provided a total of $4.8 million
measure authorized $7.3 million in ESF for
in humanitarian relief to areas and victims affected by the
NGOs to support activities that preserve
May 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province that killed
nearly 70,000 people. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign
cultural traditions and promote sustainable
Disaster Assistance awarded $1.2 million to the Asia
development and environmental conservation
Foundation to promote rural housing reconstruction and
in Tibetan communities in the Tibet
raise public awareness about natural disasters. Other
Autonomous Region and other areas of China.
funding went to the International Federation of the Red
The measure also included an appropriation of
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for relief
supplies and to the Los Angeles County and Fairfax
$250,000 for NED programs in Tibet. In
County Fire Departments for related support. The
addition, $11 million in Development
Department of Defense provided $2.2 million for tents
Assistance account funding was made
and emergency relief supplies.24
available to American educational institutions
and NGOs for programs and activities in the
PRC related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment. China received $7.3 million for
HIV/AIDS programs in 2009. The United States government established a resident Legal Advisor
at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing aimed at promoting criminal law reform, professionalizing the
criminal justice system, and enhancing U.S.-China law enforcement cooperation, using $600,000
in INCLE account funds.
In FY2010, democracy programs in China are to receive $17 million out of the HRDF. In
addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010 (P.L. 111-117) provided $7.4 million for
NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development
and environmental conservation in Tibet and Tibetan communities in the PRC. The act
appropriated $12 million in Development Assistance to U.S. educational institutions and
nongovernmental organizations for programs and activities related to governance, the rule of law,
and the environment in China.25 INCLE funding for criminal justice and HIV/AIDS programs are
to total $800,000 and $7 million, respectively, in 2010.
For FY2011, the State Department requested $5 million out of the ESF account for Tibet
programs, GHCS funding of $7 million for HIV/AIDS efforts, and $850,000 for INCLE
programs. According to the FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification, human rights and
governance remain “high priorities” for the United States. “U.S. assistance helps foster the
development of civil society, and increases cooperation on global health and environmental issues
of mutual concern.”26
24
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance,
China – Earthquake, Fact Sheet #6, FY2008, August 8, 2008.
25
H.Rept. 111-366, Sec. 7071(a).
26
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
7
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, FY2000-FY2010
(thousand U.S. dollars)
Fiscal
Year/
Account
(Program)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Totals
GHCS
USAID
(HIV/AIDS)
4,800
4,960
4,000
4,000
17,760
GHAI State
(HIV/AIDS)
1,950
2,000
3,308
3,000
10,258
4,950
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
42,869
DA (Rule of
Law)
1,000
0
10,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
17,000
147,500
ESF (Tibet)
0
0
0
0
3,976
4,216
3,960
3,960
4,960
7,300
7,400
35,772
INCLE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
800
1400
ESF
(Democracy
Programs) a
Peace
Corps b
1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
2,057
2,718
17,794
Totals
2,435
1,298
11,559
15,977
18,339
24,692
30,593
37,458
38,819
45,265
46,918
273,353
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a.
Congressional appropriations – not specified in State Department annual budget requests for China.
b.
The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993.
CRS-8
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Legislative History: Foreign Operations
Appropriations, FY2000-FY2007
FY2000-FY2003
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. In 2007, NGOs in China began to receive
assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and control efforts ($6.75 million).
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Acronyms
CSH: Child Survival and Health
DA: Development Assistance
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHCS: Global Health and Child Survival
GHAI: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
NED: National Endowment for Democracy
NGO: Non-governmental Organization
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
Author Contact Information
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
Congressional Research Service
10