U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
July 9, 2010April 22, 2011
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
This report provides legislative and policy background concerning U.S. examines U.S. foreign assistance programs in
activities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The,
including U.S. Department of State and 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 $9.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly
for democracy assistance and aid to Tibetans, to $35.3 million during the 2005-2009 period.
During the latter period, the United States supported not only democracy and Tibetan 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 authorized or made available nearly $275 million for foreign operations
programs in China, of which $229 million 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.
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 the United States and
China. Despite growing contacts and common interests among these entities, Chinese civil
society groups remain subject to PRC restrictions and periodic 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
Additional Programs .............................................................................................................5
Restrictions on Foreign Aid...................................................................................................6
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011..................................................................6
Legislative History: Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000-FY2007 ..................................9
FY2000-FY2003...................................................................................................................9
FY2004-FY2007...................................................................................................................9
Tables
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, FY2000-FY2010 ......................................................8
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
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 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 $9.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and
aid to Tibetans, to $35.3 million during the 2005-2009 period, which included not only
democracy and Tibetan assistance but also new funding for HIV/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, 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 development using special allocations from the Department of State’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). 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 foreign operations appropriations for China
than it does for most 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. 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
contrast, most countries with USAID missions receive most of their assistance through the
Department of State’s regional bureaus, which play principal roles in determining aid levels
through annual congressional budget justifications.
Despite its growth, U.S. assistance to China remains relatively limited. Between 2001 and 2010,
the United States government authorized or made available nearly $275 million for foreign
operations programs in China, of which $229 million was devoted to rule of law and civil society
programs and to Tibetan communities. In FY2010, total funding for U.S. assistance programs in
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 2010 were Indonesia (an
estimated $218 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
The bulk of U.S. assistance to Vietnam is HIV/AIDS program support.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), China’s top
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 2002-2006.6 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).7 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 between 1988 and 2006. The
Foundation extended grants worth $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 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 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
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. 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
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.
13
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.
15
Gewirtz, op. cit.
10
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
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.
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 DRL’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF), 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
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)
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. 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
10programming, foreign operations appropriations, policy history, and legislative background.
International programs supported by U.S. departments and agencies other than the Department of
State and USAID are not covered in this report.
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC aim to promote human rights, democracy, the rule of
law, and environmental conservation in China and Tibet and to support Tibetan livelihoods and
culture. The United States Congress has played a leading role in initiating programs and
determining funding levels for these objectives. Congressionally mandated rule of law, civil
society, public participation, and related programs together constitute an important component of
U.S. human rights policy towards China. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the United States is the largest provider of “government and civil
society” programming among major bilateral foreign aid donors.
During the past decade, the U.S. Department of State and USAID have administered a growing
number and range of programs in China. Between 2001 and 2010, the United States government
authorized or made available nearly $275 million for Department of State foreign assistance
efforts in the PRC, of which $229 million was devoted to human rights, democracy, rule of law,
and related activities, Tibetan communities, and the environment. U.S. program areas include the
following: promoting the rule of law, civil society, and democratic norms and institutions;
training legal professionals; building the capacity of judicial institutions; reforming the criminal
justice system; supporting sustainable livelihoods and cultural preservation in Tibetan
communities; protecting the environment; and improving the prevention, care, and treatment of
HIV/AIDS in China. The direct recipients of State Department and USAID grants have been
predominantly U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities. Some
Chinese NGOs, universities, and government entities have participated in, collaborated with, or
indirectly benefited from U.S. programs and foreign aid grantees.
Some observers have debated the efficacy of U.S. foreign assistance efforts in China. Some
policy analysts argue that U.S. democracy, rule of law, and related programs have had little effect
in China due to political constraints and restrictions on civil society imposed by the PRC
government. Furthermore, some policy makers contend that the United States should not provide
assistance to a country, like China, that has significant foreign aid resources of its own. Other
observers argue that U.S. assistance activities in China have helped to build social and legal
foundations for political change and bolster reform-minded officials in the PRC government.
Some experts also propound that U.S. programs have nurtured relationships among governmental
and non-governmental actors and educational institutions in the United States and the PRC, which
have helped to develop common understandings about democratic norms and principles.
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Comparisons with Other Aid Providers..................................................................................1
Policy Debate........................................................................................................................2
Developments in Civil Society in China ..........................................................................3
Program History....................................................................................................................4
Major Programs ....................................................................................................................4
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (DF)—Democracy Programs..................................4
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and Environmental Programs ....................5
Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Tibet ............................................................................6
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs ..................................7
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)—Criminal Law
and Procedure ..............................................................................................................7
Other Programs and Assistance .............................................................................................8
ASHA.............................................................................................................................8
Disaster Assistance..........................................................................................................8
Legislative Restrictions on Foreign Aid to China...................................................................8
Foreign Operations Appropriations FY2010-FY2011...................................................................9
Tables
Table A-1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2012 ............. 10
Table A-2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History .................... 11
Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Overview
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC aim to promote human rights, democracy, the rule of
law, and environmental conservation in China and Tibet and to support Tibetan livelihoods and
culture. U.S. assistance to China generally does not focus on development objectives such as
poverty reduction, economic growth, basic health care and education, and governmental capacity.
Congressionally mandated human rights and democracy efforts—rule of law, civil society, public
participation in government, and related programs—constitute an important component of U.S.
human rights policy towards China, along with the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, public
diplomacy efforts, and reporting on human rights conditions in the PRC.1 The U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) does not have an aid mission in China and administers PRC
programs through its regional office in Bangkok, Thailand.
During the past decade, U.S. assistance to China has grown in size and breadth. Between 2001
and 2010, the United States government authorized or made available nearly $275 million for the
State Department’s foreign operations programs in China, of which $229 million was devoted to
human rights, democracy, rule of law and related activities; Tibetan communities; and the
environment.2 (See Table A-1.) U.S. program areas include the following: promoting civil
society, the rule of law, and democratic norms and institutions; training legal professionals;
building the capacity of judicial institutions and reforming the criminal justice system; supporting
sustainable livelihoods and cultural preservation in Tibetan communities; protecting the
environment; and improving the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The direct
recipients of State Department and USAID grants have been predominantly U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and universities, although Chinese NGOs, universities, and
some government entities have participated in, benefited from, or collaborated with U.S.
programs and grantees. In 2010, USAID provided the following overview of its programs:
The USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) works with its partners to
promote, change and solidify China’s role as a stable, secure and reliable stakeholder in the
international community. The U.S. Government’s (USG) priorities are to work with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities and other partners to promote the rule of
law and human rights and effective action on environmental and health issues. Activities
promote transparency, citizen participation and good governance. The Mission will also
continue to support activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities.3
Comparisons with Other Aid Providers
According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
in 2009 the largest bilateral aid donors, in order of the amount of official development assistance
(ODA) provided to China, were Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the
United States. With the exception of the United Kingdom and the United States, the top bilateral
donors all provided over half of their assistance in the form of concessional loans. In terms of
1
See U.S. Department of State, 2010 Human Rights Report: China, April 8, 2011.
Including Peace Corps programs.
3
USAID, Congressional Notification #185, September 9, 2010. The notification does not refer to programs
administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
grant disbursements, in 2009, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom provided $300
million, $361 million, $179 million, and $86 million, respectively, largely focused on education
programs. 4 The United States government extended $65 million in grant assistance to China in
2009, and was the largest source of “government and civil society” programming, providing $19
million per year on average between 2007 and 2009, according to OECD data.5
European Union (EU) aid efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development,
reportedly have exceeded those of the United States in terms of funding, but have placed greater
emphasis on commercial rule of law. The EU also has set up a joint law school administered
through the University of Hamburg and located at the China University of Politics and Law in
Beijing. According to the European Commission, during the middle of the last decade EU
assistance to China moved away from the areas of infrastructure and rural development and
towards support for social and economic reform, the environment, sustainable development, good
governance, and the rule of law. The EU funded aid projects and programs in China worth €128
million ($182 million) in 2007-2010.6 Recent program areas and funding levels include the
following: Democracy and Human Rights (€ 1.9 million); NGO Co-financing (€7.2 million);
Gender (women migrant workers–€.7 million); Health (€1 million); Environmental programs
(€8.5 million); Urban Development (environmental, social, and cultural programs–€5.3 million);
Business Cooperation (cooperation, training, and technical assistance–€7.9 million); Higher
Education (€5.2 million); and Information Technology and Communication (€5.3 million).7
In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S. government
support, has offered grants worth $275 million for programs in China since 1988. The Ford
Foundation aims to “develop the social sector and help marginalized groups access opportunities
and resources.” Working with research entities, civil society organizations, and government
institutions, Ford Foundation efforts promote transparent, effective, and accountable government;
civil society; criminal and civil justice system reform; access to secondary and higher education;
community rights in sustainable development; and education in the areas of sexuality and
reproductive health.8
Policy Debate
As with many other efforts to promote human rights and democracy in China, U.S. assistance has
not led to fundamental changes. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law, civil society,
and related efforts in China have produced 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 civil liberties and the ability of Chinese citizens to perform social functions
independently of state control. Some analysts suggest that the limited influence of China’s
judicial, legal, and civil society institutions, organizations, and actors significantly reduces their
4
Spain provided $4.6 million in grant assistance to China in 2009.
OECD, http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW. OECD totals include U.S. disaster assistance, U.S.
Trade and Development Agency funding, National Endowment for Democracy programs, and other, non-State
Department programs in China, such as activities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Health and
Human Services.
6
European Commission: External Cooperation Programs, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/countrycooperation/china/china_en.htm. The Euro-U.S.Dollar conversion rate in April 2011 is €1 = $1.4.
7
European Union, China: Strategy Paper 2007-13, http://eeas.europa.eu/china/csp/07_13_en.pdf.
8
http://www.fordfoundation.org/regions/china
5
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
value as real agents for democracy, and suggest that U.S. programs should focus on changing
China’s approach to the law rather than expanding existing rule of law programs. 9 Some policymakers contend that a country such as China, which has significant government resources, should
not receive U.S. foreign assistance.
Other analysts contend that U.S. human rights and democracy programs in the PRC have helped
to build foundations for political change – more comprehensive and detailed laws, more
professional judicial and legal personnel, more worldly and assertive NGOs and social
organizations, and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers – and have bolstered reformminded officials in the PRC government. Some experts add that efforts that support incremental
rather than fundamental change have the best chance of achieving results in the current political
environment, in part through increasing “the capacity of reform-oriented individuals in China to
be effective in their own work,” including those within the government and without.10 Many
foreign and Chinese observers have noted that awareness of legal rights in many areas of PRC
society is growing.11 Another study suggests that rule of law and civil society programs are
especially valuable through their direct impact on social organizations, lawyers, local officials,
and others.12
Developments in Civil Society in China
U.S. democracy programming operates in a difficult but resilient Chinese social environment. In
the past decade, civil society organizations have mushroomed while a small network of human
rights activists and lawyers has emerged. China now has roughly 190,000 lawyers, compared to
roughly 110,000 in 2005, or about one for every 7,000 people. 13 This ratio compares to about one
lawyer for every 6,000 people in Japan and every 300 in the United States. However, in the past
few years, the PRC government has stepped up harassment of lawyers and closed law firms that
work on politically sensitive or human rights cases. In 2010, six prominent human rights lawyers
were detained by government authorities, along with dozens of other political activists and
bloggers.14
According to PRC official estimates, there are over 400,000 officially registered civil society
groups or social organizations in China, compared to 288,000 in 2004. When unofficial,
grassroots groups are included, the total number of social organizations is estimated to be several
million. 15 PRC civil society groups, some of which have participated in U.S. assistance programs,
have raised concerns among China’s leadership about their growing influence and foreign
contacts. In 2005, Beijing began to tighten restrictions on social organizations while expressing
suspicions towards foreign NGOs in China and their support for Chinese civil society groups. As
one example of the increasingly restrictive environment for NGOs, in 2010, leading Chinese
9
Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.
Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
10
11
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.
12
William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.
13
Glenn Norris and Daniel Ren, “Legal System Less Arbitrary but Still a Work in Progress,” South China Morning
Post, April 4, 2011.
14
“China: Arrests, Disappearances Require International Response,” Human Rights Watch Asia, March 31, 2011.
15
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report, October 10, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
HIV/AIDS activist Wan Yanhai, founder of an organization that supports HIV/AIDS awareness
and prevention, left China for the United States, expressing concerns for his personal safety.16
Program History
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining foreign operations appropriations for China
than it does for many other bilateral aid recipients. Congress has determined funding levels for
democracy programs in China and aid activities in Tibet through annual foreign operations
appropriations earmarks. Over the past decade, funding to support other purposes, such as
HIV/AIDS programming and other efforts, has been supported by Congress as well (see
Appendix).
In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed upon a U.S.-China Rule of
Law Initiative, though funding for the program was not provided until 2002. In 1999, Congress
began authorizing assistance for the purpose of fostering democracy in China. 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 the PRC. 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. In 2002, Congress made available $10 million from the Economic Support Fund (ESF)
account for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in China, including
up to $3 million for Tibet.
Since 2006, Congress has set aside special Development Assistance account funds for American
universities for education and exchange programs related to the rule of law and the environment
in China. The United States government began implementing HIV/AIDS programs in the PRC in
2007. Criminal justice and other programs conducted by the Resident Legal Advisor at the U.S.
Embassy in Beijing expanded later in the decade.
Major Programs
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (DF)—Democracy Programs
Congress plays an important role in determining the size of U.S. human rights and democracy and
programming in China. The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
(DRL) administers democracy programs in China using Democracy Fund account appropriations
as determined by Congress. DRL aims to promote or empower the rule of law, civil society, and
citizen input into government decision making, and to build the capacity of related institutions in
the PRC.
DRL directly funds U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and U.S. universities.
Some funding passes through U.S. NGOs to Chinese social organizations as part of projects to
train local NGOs. Through the Bureau’s programs, U.S. government and non-governmental
entities engage and influence Chinese NGOs; government-sponsored social organizations and
institutions, such as women’s groups and universities; reformist or progressive government
16
Edward Wong, “AIDS Activist Leaves China for U.S., Citing Pressure,” New York Times, May 10, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
bodies; and legal and judicial institutions and individuals. Due to political sensitivities and to
protect its grantees working in China, DRL does not openly disclose the names of its grant
recipients. By comparison, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports relatively
overtly pro-democracy groups and activities, including NGOs in China and the efforts of Chinese
dissidents in exile (see textbox).17 Major DRL program areas in China include the following:
•
Rule of Law: strengthen legal and
judicial institutions and promote their
independence; train legal and judicial
professionals; increase public access
to the justice system; promote
criminal and civil law reform. Temple
University’s Master of Laws degree
program in Beijing has been a major
recipient of USAID grants and
Democracy Fund support.20
National Endowment for Democracy
Established by the U.S. government in 1983, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes freedom around the
world. NED has played a major role in promoting
democracy in China since the mid-1980s. Activities of
NED and its core institutes include supporting Chinese
pro-democracy organizations in the United States and
Hong Kong, helping to advance the rule of law,
promoting the rights of workers and women, and
assisting in the development of Tibetan communities. The
Endowment’s China programs have received support out
of the annual foreign operations appropriation for NED
(an estimated $118 million in FY2010) and congressional
earmarks to NED for democracy-related programs in the
PRC and Tibet.18 In addition, NED’s core institutes have
received grants from NED and DRL.19
•
Civil society: strengthen the capacity
of non-governmental organizations,
foundations, and charitable groups in
fund-raising and NGO management.
•
Citizen participation: promote public
input in policy formation and public dialogue.
•
Labor: advance labor law, rights, and advocacy; develop collective bargaining
mechanisms; strengthen migrant worker rights.
•
Good governance: support government transparency and electoral reform.
•
Civil liberties: promote freedom of expression, the press, and information;
advance mass media development; support freedom of religion.
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and Environmental Programs
Since 2006, Congress has earmarked Development Assistance (DA) account funds for rule of law
and environmental programs through annual foreign operations appropriations measures. U.S.
assistance helps to provide Chinese law students with legal training, build the capacity of Chinese
law colleges and judicial institutions, develop citizen awareness of the legal system, and enhance
legal safeguards for human rights. U.S. institutions involved in these programs include the
17
Some experts suggest that NED’s non-governmental status affords it greater ease with which to support democracy
efforts in China due to its relative insulation from the political tensions of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship.
18
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs
(China), February 27, 2004. 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.
19
NED’s core institutes 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).
20
Temple University received $13 million in USAID grants (2001-2003) and Democracy Fund support between 1999
and 2009. Goldie Blumenstyk, “In China, Thinking Like an American Lawyer,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,
February 20, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, American University Washington College of
Law, and the University of Massachusetts. PRC partner universities are China University of
Political Science and Law, Zhejiang Gongshang University, and South China University of
Technology. USAID supports a rule-of-law program that works with local institutions to enhance
criminal defendants’ rights, strengthen their legal counsel, and promote fair criminal justice
procedures. Another USAID-funded administrative law and procedures program aims to make
government agencies and officials more transparent and equitable in their exercise of power.
USAID administers four environmental programs in China using Development Assistance funds.
The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law helps to train environmental law
professionals, advance reform in China’s environmental law, and build capacity in environmental
governance. Vermont Law School, in partnership with Sun Yat-sen University in the city of
Guangzhou, is carrying out this program. The Guangdong Environmental Partnership (GEP) was
launched by the U.S.-based Institute for Sustainable Communities with funding from USAID,
support from U.S. private corporations, and the collaboration of Chinese educational institutions
and communities. GEP promotes improved energy use and environmental, health, and safety
policies and regulations.
The U.S.-China Sustainable Buildings Partnership (SBP) promotes energy efficiency in China’s
commercial buildings by offering new policy tools and construction methods. SBP is being
implemented by ICF International with USAID support, in collaboration with the China Academy
of Building Research, Tongji University (Shanghai), China Standard Certification Center, and
U.S. environmental foundations and other groups. The U.S.-China Partnership for Climate Action
focuses on industrial and power plant energy efficiency and urban policies for low greenhouse
gas emissions in two Chinese provinces. The lead implementers are the Institute for Sustainable
Communities and the World Resources Institute, with USAID and U.S. private sector support and
the collaboration of U.S. and PRC research institutions and Chinese government agencies. Other
USAID environmental efforts in China have included water and sanitation projects, financing for
clean energy investment and development, combating illegal logging and trafficking of wildlife
and marine products, and quality assurance of energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps.
Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Tibet
U.S. assistance has supported cultural preservation, sustainable development, and environmental
conservation in Tibet since 2000. The implementing partners for USAID programs in Tibet and
Tibetan communities are the Bridge Fund, the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund, and Winrock
International.
Livelihood and Education
USAID activities in Tibetan areas aim to promote the formation and development of small
businesses, business associations, business development centers, herder cooperatives, crop and
livestock production, and eco-tourism enterprises. U.S. assistance programs include professional,
business, and management training and vocational education for Tibetans. Education projects and
activities include primary school facilities improvements, teacher training, and English language
instruction. ESF funds support efforts to provide Tibetans with water and sanitation services,
improved access to health services, teacher training and schools, greenhouses, and micro-loans.
USAID programs aim to expand citizen involvement in local community development planning,
economic enterprises, and social services.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Environment
U.S. assistance to Tibetan communities includes support for research and development regarding
environmentally safe grassland management and endangered species mitigation. USAID
programs promote the use of solar energy and the sustainable use of forests. They have helped to
build water supply and waste management systems. Other USAID efforts include training
Tibetans in natural resource management and environmental conservation and raising awareness
about climate change and its local effects, reducing vulnerability, and developing responses to
environmental changes.
Cultural Preservation
USAID cultural efforts in Tibet include the following: Tibetan language instruction; preservation
of traditional heritage, culture, and art, including scriptures, books, and dance; restoration of
historical sites and buildings; and the marketing of traditional products.
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs
Since 2007, the United States has supported programs to address HIV/AIDS problems in regions
of high incidence in China. The Department of State, USAID, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention have aimed to help build the capacity of Chinese local and provincial
governments to respond to the disease in the areas of prevention, care, and treatment. U.S.
assistance focuses on the building of health systems—including monitoring and research—that
can be replicated or adopted by PRC provincial governments. Efforts have been made to bring
non-state actors, such as health experts, into the policy-making process. Recipients of direct and
indirect U.S. assistance include local non-governmental organizations, community-based groups,
government-sponsored social organizations, clinics and health care workers, and provincial health
bureaus. USAID works with, but does not provide assistance to, local PRC Centers for Disease
Control. Implementing partners are Family Health International, Population Services
International, Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Research Triangle Institute, Micro
International, and Management Sciences for Health.
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)—Criminal Law
and Procedure
INCLE account funding supports the Resident Legal Advisor (RLA), based in the U.S. Embassy
in Beijing, to provide expertise on U.S. criminal law and procedure to PRC government officials,
legal scholars, and academics, and to “promote long-term criminal justice reform consistent with
international standards of human rights.” Reform areas include coerced confessions, the rights of
defense lawyers, and evidence at trial. The PRC government reportedly has taken steps to apply
more rigorous standards towards pre-trial detentions and capital convictions, reduce abusive
interrogation practices, and protect some rights of defense lawyers. The RLA also is involved in
U.S.-PRC law enforcement cooperation in the areas of narcotics, corruption, money-laundering,
counterterrorism, computer crime, and intellectual property rights. Most of the RLA’s activities
are conducted by the RLA alone or in cooperation with nongovernmental organizations. 21
21
U.S. Department of State, FY2012 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Other Programs and Assistance
ASHA
The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) of USAID’s Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance provides grants to private and non-profit
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 projects 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.
Disaster Assistance
In July 2008, the United States 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 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
and 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.
Legislative Restrictions on Foreign Aid to 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 no longer stipulated that ESF
account funds for democracy programs in China be provided to NGOs located outside the PRC.22
Ongoing restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance in China and other relevant legislative provisions
include:
22
•
Some U.S. sanctions in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including the requirement that U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions vote “no” or abstain on loans to China (except
for those that meet basic human needs). 23
•
U.S. representatives to international financial institutions may support projects in
Tibet only if they do not encourage the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans
into Tibet or the transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which
some fear may erode Tibetan culture and identity.24
See Section 523, Prohibition Against Indirect Funding to Certain Countries, and Section 526, Democracy Programs.
23
Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section 710(a) of the
International Financial Institutions Act.
24
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117, Sec. 7071(a)(1)).
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
•
None of the multilateral assistance made available for the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) may be used for a country program in China.25
•
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).
Foreign Operations Appropriations FY2010-FY2011
For FY2010, funding for DRL-administered democracy programs continued at FY2009 levels
($17 million). 26 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010 (P.L. 111-117) provided support
for HIV/AIDS and criminal justice programs in China totaling $7 million and $800,000,
respectively. 27 In addition, P.L. 111-117 included the following provisions:
•
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less than $12,000,000 of
Development Assistance funds shall be made available to United States
educational institutions and nongovernmental organizations for programs and
activities in the People’s Republic of China relating to the environment,
governance, and the rule of law. (P.L. 111-117, Sec. 7071(g)(3))
•
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less than $7,400,000 of ESF
funds should be made available to nongovernmental organizations to support
activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development
and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan
Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in China. (P.L. 111-117,
Sec. 7071 (a) (2))
For FY2011, the State Department requested $7 million for HIV/AIDS efforts and $850,000 for
the Resident Legal Advisor. For Tibet programs, the State Department requested $5 million. For
FY2012, the State Department made the same requests for programs and funding as for
FY2011.28 Democracy, rule of law, and environmental programs in China using DF and DA
account funds continue in 2011, although actual appropriations remain undetermined.
25
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117, Sec. 7078(c)). 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.
26
Funds made available for the promotion of democracy may be made available notwithstanding any other provision of
law. (P.L. 111-117, Section 7034(m)(1))
27
Support for child survival activities or disease programs including activities relating to research on, and the
prevention, treatment and control of, HIV/AIDS may be made available notwithstanding any other provision of law
except for the provisions under the heading “Global Health and Child Survival” and the United States Leadership
Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), as amended. (P.L.
111-117, Section 7060).
28
U.S. Department of State, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations and FY2012
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations.
Congressional Research Service
9
Appendix.
Table A-1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2012
(thousand U.S. dollars)
Account
(Program)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
GHCS
(HIV/AIDS)
DA (Rule of
Law,
Environment)
2008
2009
2011
request
2010
2012
request
6,750
6,960
7,308
7,000
7,000
7,000
4,950
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
—
—
1,000
(Tibet)
0
10,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
17,000
—
—
ESF (Tibet)
0
0
0
0
3,976
4,216
3,960
3,960
4,960
7,300
7,400
5,000
5,000
INCLE
(Criminal
Justice)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
800
850
850
ESF/DF
(Democracy
Programs)
Peace Corpsa
1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
2,057
2,718
2,900
4,700
Totals
1,435
1,298
11,559
15,977
18,339
24,692
30,593
37,458
38,819
45,265
46,918
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a.
CRS-10
The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993.
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Table A-2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History
FY2000-FY2009
Fiscal
Year
Legislation
Provisions
2000
P.L. 106-113
Provided $1 million from the ESF account for U.S.-based NGOs to preserve cultural
traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in
Tibet and Tibetan communities as well as $1 million to support research about China,
and authorized ESF account funding for NGOs to promote democracy in the PRC.
2001
P.L. 106-429
Authorized up to $2 million for Tibet.
2002
P.L. 107-115
Made available $10 million for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China, including up to $3 million for Tibet.
2003
P.L. 108-7
Provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China and Hong Kong,a
including up to $3 million for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) for programs in China; continued the requirement that assistance for
Tibetan communities be granted to NGOs but lifted the stipulation that they be located
outside China.
2004
P.L. 108-199
Made available $13.5 million for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China, including $3 million for NED; provided a special ESF earmark for
Tibet ($4 million).
2005
P.L. 108-447
Provided $19 million for China, including $4 million for NED, and authorized $4 million
for Tibet and $250,000 for NED for human rights and democracy programs relating to
Tibet. Authorized the use of Development Assistance account funds for American
universities to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange programs related to
democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
2006
P.L. 109-102
(H.Rept. 109265)
Extended $20 million for China, including $3 million for NED; authorized $4 million for
Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and $250,000 for NED for Tibet; provided $5
million in Development Assistance account funds to American educational institutions
for democracy, rule of law, and environmental programs in the PRC.
2007
P.L. 110-5
Because of the late enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007,
funding levels for many U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not specified but
continued at or near FY2006 levels. In 2007, NGOs in China began to receive assistance
for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and control efforts ($6.75 million).
2008
P.L. 110-161
Provided $15 million for democracy, rule of law, and environmental programs in the
PRC; mandated $5 million for activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote
sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in
China and $250,000 to NED for Tibet; appropriated $10 million to American
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC; extended $7
million for HIV/AIDS programming in China.
2009
P.L. 111-8
Appropriated $17 million for the promotion of democracy in China and $7.3 million for
NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibet
Autonomous Region and other areas of China; provided $250,000 to NED for programs
in Tibet; made available $11 million to American educational institutions and NGOs for
programs and activities in the PRC related to democracy, rule of law, and the
environment; approprited $600,000 in INCLE account funds for the Resident Legal
Advisor.
Source: Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
Notes: Not all special appropriations for China were allocated fully or allocated during the year in which they
were authorized.
Congressional Research Service
11
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
a.
Since FY2003, congressional authorizations for democracy programs in China have included Hong Kong. In
FY2006, Hong Kong received assistance for strengthening political parties ($840,000). Since FY2003, ESF or
DF account funds have been made available for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and legal
reforms, if matching funds are provided.
Acronyms
DA: Development Assistance
DF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHCS: Global Health and Child Survival
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
12