U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in ForeignAsian Affairs
May 9, 2013December 2, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22663
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Summary
This report examines U.S. foreign assistance activities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),
particularlyundertaken by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)
programming,. The report also discusses related 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 State and USAID, as well as Department of State public diplomacy
programs, are not covered in this report.
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC aim to promote human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law
of law; support sustainable livelihoods, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation in China (including Tibet) and to support Tibetan
livelihoods and cultureprotection in
Tibetan areas; and further U.S. interests through programs that address environmental problems
and pandemic diseases in China. The United States Congress has played a leading role in determining
determining program priorities and funding levels for these objectives. Congressionally mandated rule of law,
civil society, public participation, and related programs together constitute These programs constitute
an important
component of U.S. human rights policy toward China. According to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentAmong major bilateral aid
donors to China, the United States is the largest provider of
“government and civil society” programming among major bilateral foreign aid donors in China nongovernmental and civil society
programming, according to data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
In 2000, the act granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106286) authorized programs to promote the rule of law and civil societydemocracy in the PRC. Between 2001
and 20122014, the United
States government allocated $338390 million for Department of State foreign
assistance and USAID foreign assistance
efforts in the PRC, including Peace Corps programs. Of this total, $279320 million was
devoted to
human rights, democracy, and related activities, Tibetan communities, and the
environment. U.S. program areas have included 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 ; Tibetan communities; and the environment. The
direct recipients of State Department and USAID
grants have been predominantly U.S.-based non-governmental
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and
universities. Some Chinese NGOs, universities, and some
government entities have participated in,
collaborated with, or indirectly benefited from U.S. programs and, or have
collaborated with U.S. foreign aid grantees.
Appropriations for Department of State and USAID programs in China reached a peak in
FY2010, totaling $46.9 million. Funding decreased by nearly 40% between 2010 and 2012,
resulting and
has remained at lower levels. Reduced appropriations have resulted in the discontinuation of a
number of rule of law and environmental programs. The
Administration’s budget request for FY2014 would also reduce Tibet programs.
Some policy makers argue that the United States government should not provide assistance to
support foreign
assistance programs in China because the PRC has significant financial resources of its own, some of them obtained
through allegedly unfair trade practices, and can manage its own development needs. Other critics
contend that U.S. and
can manage its own development needs. Furthermore, they contend, some Chinese economic
gains have been achieved through unfair trade practices. Other critics emphasize that U.S.
democracy, rule of law, environmental, and related programs have had little
effect in China. Some experts counter that U.S.
experts counter that U.S. programs in China aim to promote U.S. interests in areas where the PRC
government has lacked the expertise or will to make greater progress. They argue that U.S.
assistance activities in China have helped to
protect develop protections of some rights, build social and legal foundations for political change, and bolster reformmindedfoundations
for civil society and the rule of law, and bolster reform-minded officials in the PRC government. They also
Some proponents suggest that U.S. programs have nurtured
relationships among governmental and non-governmental
and nongovernmental actors and educational institutions in
the United States and the PRC, which
have helped to develop common understandings about
democratic norms and principles. Other
programs are said to have reduced environmental and
health threats coming from China. Some proponents of assistance emphasize that U.S. programs
in China aim to promote U.S. interests in areas where the PRC government has lacked the
expertise or will to make greater progress. health threats coming from China.
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Comparisons with Other Foreign Aid Providers.............................................................................. 2
Non-Governmental Aid ............................................................................................................. 3
Policy Debates ................................................................................................................................. 3
Reductions in U.S. Programming in China ............................................................................... 4
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China: Policy Recommendations ........................... 5 4
U.S. Assistance to China: History .................................................................................................... 5
Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Assistance to China ...................................................................... 5
Major Programs .........................6
Programs and Funding Accounts ...................................................................................................... 6
Democracy Fund—Democracy Programs ............ 7
Democracy Programs (Democracy Fund Account) ..................................................................... 6
Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Tibet ... 7
Tibet (Economic Support Fund Account) .................................................................................. 7
Livelihood and Education ........8
Economic Opportunity and Private Sector Competitiveness .............................................. 8
Cultural Preservation ............................................. 8
Environment .............................................................. 9
The Environment .......................................................... 8
Cultural Preservation ....................................................... 9
Global Health Programs (Global Health Programs Account).................................................... 8
U.S.-Based NGOs in Tibet ............9
Criminal Law and Procedure (International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
Account) ...................................................................................... 8
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs ......................................... 9
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)—Criminal Law and
Procedure ...................10
Rule of Law and Environmental Programs (Development Assistance and Economic
Support Fund Accounts) ............................................................................................................. 9
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and Environmental Programs ......................... 10
Other U.S. Programs and Assistance ............................................................................................. 11
ASHA ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Internet Freedom ..................................................................................................................... 1112
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2014FY2015 .................. 1213
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History......................... 1314
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 1416
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Overview
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) primarily aim to promote
human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in China, and; counter the spread of pandemic diseases; and
support livelihoods, traditional culture, and
environmental conservation in Tibetan areas of the PRC. With the exception of some programs in
Tibet, U.S. assistance to the PRC does not focus on development objectives such as economic
.
Congressionally mandated foreign assistance programs constitute an important component of
U.S. human rights policy toward China, along with the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue,
public diplomacy efforts, reporting on human rights conditions in the PRC, and multilateral
diplomacy at the United Nations and elsewhere.1 With the exception of some programs in Tibetan
communities, U.S. programs in the PRC do not focus on development objectives such as
economic growth, poverty reduction, basic health care and education, and governmental capacity,
and U.S. funding is granted only to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. . The U.S.
Agency for
International Development (USAID) does not have an aid mission in China and
administers PRC
programs through its regional officemission in Bangkok, Thailand. The State
DepartmentDepartment of State refers to
China “as a development partner with the resources to invest in its own
future, not as an aid recipient.”1 Congressionally mandated human rights and democracy efforts—
rule of law, civil society, political participation, and related programs—constitute an important
component of U.S. human rights policy toward China, along with the U.S.-China Human Rights
Dialogue, public diplomacy efforts, and reporting on human rights conditions in the PRC.
Protecting the rights, culture, and identity of Tibetans has long been a concern of many Members
of Congress.2
Between 2001 and 2012 future” and says it aims to
“promote and protect U.S. national interests and values” through its foreign assistance programs
in the PRC.2
Between 2001 and 2014, the United States government allocated $338390 million for the State
DepartmentDepartment
of State’s foreign operations or aid programs in China,3 of which $279320 million was devoted to
human rights, democracy, rule of law, and related activities; Tibetan communities; and the
environment. (See Table 1.) Program areas supported by U.S. assistance have included the following: promoting the rule of
law, civil society, 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 non-governmental
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 2011, Members of Congress began to reevaluate State Department programming in the PRC.
As with foreign assistance levels overall, funding for China decreased in fiscal years 2011 and
2012 after peaking in FY2010. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74)
provided $7.5 million out of the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account for non-governmental
organizations to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan areas of China, an increase of $2.5
million over FY2011. Other programs, including those related to democracy, rule of law, and
governance, continued at lower funding levels. In addition, Congress withdrew support for
environmental programs in the PRC, with the exception of Tibetan areas.
1
U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2013.
following: civil liberties; government transparency and accountability; legal training and
awareness; access to legal counsel; capacity building of nongovernmental organizations; criminal
justice reform; labor rights; private sector competitiveness, job skills training, and support to
traditional artisans in Tibetan areas of China; and 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 and universities. Chinese NGOs,
universities, and some government entities have participated in or indirectly benefited from U.S.
programs or collaborated with U.S. foreign aid grantees. Chinese leaders long have been wary of
domestic Chinese NGOs receiving foreign support, and, in recent years, PRC authorities
reportedly have stepped up surveillance of Chinese NGOs that accept outside funding.4
In 2011, some Members of Congress reevaluated State Department programming in the PRC. As
with foreign assistance levels overall, appropriations for China began to decline after peaking in
FY2010. Congress eliminated funding through the Development Assistance account for several
law programs run jointly through U.S. and PRC universities as well as a number of collaborative
environmental programs in China. However, in 2014, Congress approved funding for U.S.
institutions of higher education and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC relating to
democracy, rule of law, and the environment in China.5
1
For further information on human rights conditions in China and related U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43000, Human
Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues for the 113th Congress, by Thomas Lum.
3
Including Peace Corps programs.
2 In 2014, Beijing reportedly suspended
the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue in retaliation for President Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama.
2
U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2015.
3
Including Peace Corps programs.
4
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2014, October 14, 2014.
5
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). See the Explanatory Statement, Division K, Department Of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Comparisons with Other Foreign Aid Providers
Based upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in
2011, the largest bilateral aid donors to China, in order of the amount of “official development
assistance” (ODA) provided, were Germany, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and
the United States. Nearly half of ODA from Germany and 40% from France were provided in the
form of concessional loans. Japan, once a large provider of low-interest loans, stopped extending
such financing to China in 2008. Some bilateral donors have begun to reduce assistance to China
due to Beijing’s ability to finance its own development and even provide foreign aid to less
developed countries. In 2011, the United Kingdom and Australia announced that they would
begin phasing out their aid programs in China. In terms of ODA grants, in 2011, Germany, Japan,
and France provided $320 million, $305 million, and $172 million, respectively, for programs in
China. Germany, the United States, and the European Union were the largest providers of
“government and civil society” programming among major aid donors. Germany, Japan, and
France have large higher education programs in China, including the sponsorship of Chinese
students at their universities. France also devotes significant aid funding to environmental
activities in China.4
The United States government committed or obligated $38.8 million in grant assistance for
programs related to China in 2011, according to the OECD. OECD data include not only funding
for State Department and USAID programs, but also administrative costs, other agencies, and the
National Endowment for Democracy, a private entity. Other U.S. agencies with relatively
significant activities in China in 2011 included the Department of Health and Human Services
and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA). The TDA is an independent U.S.
government foreign assistance agency which is funded by Congress. Its mission is to help create
U.S. jobs through the export of U.S. goods and services for development projects in emerging
economies. In addition, the Departments of the Interior, Transportation, and Agriculture and the
Environmental Protection Agency operated relatively small programs in China in 2011.5 In recent
years, the Department of Energy has carried out efforts in China focusing on the safe handling of
nuclear materials and the reduction of nuclear material threats.
European Union (EU) assistance 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
toward support for social and economic reform, the environment, sustainable development, good
governance, and the rule of law. The EU reportedly has funded or planned aid projects and
programs in China worth €128 million ($166 million) in 2007-2010 and €224 million ($291
million) in 2007-2013.6 Program areas include the following: democracy and human rights; NGO
co-financing; gender (women migrant workers); health; environmental programs; urban
4
In terms of “committed funds.” OECD, Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=
CRS1.
5
OECD, Creditor Reporting System, ibid; USAID, “U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants,” http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/.
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 October 2012 is €1 = $1.3.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
development; business cooperation; higher education; and information technology and
communication.7
Non-Governmental Aid
Foreign non-profit entities support development activities in China as well. The Ford Foundation,
which does not receive U.S. government support, is one of the leading providers of assistance to
China in the areas of civil society and good governance. It offered grants worth $275 million for
programs in China between 1988 and 2011. The Foundation strives to “develop the social sector
and help marginalized groups access opportunities and resources.” Working with research
entities, civil society organizations, and government institutions in China, Ford Foundation
activities aim to promote civil society; transparent, effective, and accountable government; civil
and criminal justice system reform; access to secondary and higher education; community rights
over natural resources; and education in the areas of sexuality and reproductive health.8
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s projects in China include health, disaster assistance,
and agricultural research that can be applied globally. The Foundation has spent $92 million on
three health-related programs aimed at reducing HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and tobacco use. Most
Gates Foundation grants in China go to government agencies.9 Oxfam Hong Kong has been
engaged in poverty alleviation, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, emergency relief, the
development of non-governmental organizations, and other programs in mainland China since
1987.
multilateral and bilateral official development assistance (ODA) from all donors to China has
fallen since 2008. In 2012, the most recent year for which numbers are available, the largest
bilateral aid donors to China, ranked by the amount of ODA, were Germany, France, Japan,
Austria, and the United States. Three-quarters of ODA from Germany and about one-quarter from
France was provided in the form of concessional or low-interest loans. Japan, once a large
provider of loan assistance, stopped extending such financing to China in 2008. In terms of ODA
grants, in 2012, Germany, France, and Japan provided $275 million, $163 million, and $137
million, respectively, for programs in China. Germany and France have supported numerous
higher education and technical training programs for Chinese students, including the study of
German at Germany’s Goethe Institutes, and environmental projects in China. A relatively large
portion of Japan’s ODA to China aims to enhance government services and administration. The
United States was the largest provider of support for “NGOs and civil society” programming
among major aid donors.6
Some bilateral donors have begun to reduce assistance to China due to Beijing’s ability to finance
its own development and provide foreign aid to less developed countries. In 2011, the United
Kingdom and Australia announced that they would begin phasing out their aid programs in China,
and the European Union (EU) announced that it would cut ODA to 19 emerging economies,
including China, India, and Brazil, beginning in 2014.7 The EU reportedly funded aid projects
and programs in China worth €128 million ($166 million) in 2007-2010 and €224 million ($291
million) in 2007-2013.8 Program areas included the following: democracy and human rights;
NGO co-financing; gender (women migrant workers); health; environmental programs; urban
development; business cooperation; higher education; and information technology and
communication.9 EU assistance efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development,
reportedly exceeded those of the United States in terms of funding, but placed greater emphasis
on commercial rule of law. In October 2014, the European Commission launched a €980,550
($1.2 million) project to cooperate with PRC government entities in the prevention and
management of nuclear accidents.10
OECD data include not only State Department and USAID funding–the U.S. “foreign assistance
budget”–but also international programs carried out by other U.S. agencies. OECD data also
include the National Endowment for Democracy, a private foundation that receives an annual
congressional appropriation. Taken together, the U.S. government committed or obligated $63.3
million for programs related to China in 2012, according to the OECD. In addition to the
Department of State and USAID, U.S. agencies with relatively significant assistance activities in
China in 2012 included the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA). Major DOE efforts in
China involved the safe use of nuclear power and the protection, control, and accounting of
6
In terms of “committed funds.” OECD, Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=
CRS1.
7
“EU to Cut Aid to 19 Emerging Countries from China to Brazil,” Agence France Presse, December 7, 2011.
8
European Commission: External Cooperation Programs, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/countrycooperation/china/china_en.htm. Based upon the Euro-U.S. Dollar conversion rate of €1 = $1.3 in October 2012.
9
European Union, China Strategy Paper 2007-13, January 1, 2013, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/documents/
eu_china/china_sp_en-final.pdf.
10
European Commission, Press Release, October 27, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
nuclear materials. HHS sponsored a number of programs to combat infectious diseases. TDA is
an independent U.S. foreign assistance agency that is funded by Congress, whose mission is to
promote the export of U.S. goods and services for development projects in emerging economies.
In addition, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Justice, and Transportation and the
Environmental Protection Agency operated relatively small assistance programs in China in
2012.11
Some private entities also support the rule of law, human rights, civil society, and environmental
conservation in China. For example, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S.
government support, is one of the leading providers of assistance to China in the areas of civil
society and good governance. It offered grants worth $275 million for programs in China between
1988 and 2011 and listed over 100 programs with total funding of $25.5 million during 20122014.12 Working with research institutes, civil society organizations, and government entities in
China, Ford Foundation activities aim to promote civil society; transparent, effective, and
accountable government; civil and criminal justice system reform; access to secondary and higher
education; community involvement in natural resources policy; and awareness in the areas of
sexuality and reproductive health.13 Program activities include research on civil society; courses
in citizen participation, governance, and social accountability for NGO facilitator trainers; legal
aid and education; and training for villagers and local officials on rights under current laws and
policies. Oxfam Hong Kong has been engaged in poverty alleviation, HIV/AIDS prevention and
treatment, disaster relief, civil society development, and other efforts in mainland China since
1987. Oxfam reported that in 2013, the organization spent $14.2 million on programs, in
partnership with Chinese NGOs and government entities, related to labor conditions, education
for migrant children, violence against women, and environmental protection.14
Policy Debates
As with many other efforts to promote human rights and democracy in China, some observers
argue that U.S. assistance has not led to fundamental changes. They posit that foreign-funded rule
of law, civil society, and related efforts in China have produced marginal results due to political
constraints. These inherent obstacles, they stateassert, include the lack of judicial autonomy, restrictions
restrictions on lawyers, weak enforcement of laws, and severe curbs on civil liberties and the
ability of NGOs
and 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 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.1015
Other analysts contend that U.S. human rights and democracy programs in the PRC have helped
to protect some rights and build foundations for political change, such as more comprehensive
and detailed laws, more professional judicial and legal personnel, more worldly and assertive
7
European Union, China Strategy Paper 2007-13, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/documents/eu_china/
china_sp_en-final.pdf.
8
http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/China-brochure-2011.pdf.
9
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, China Office Fact Sheet; Ren Bo and Liu Hongqiao, “Gates Foundation’s 2-Way
Philanthropy in China,” Market Watch, February 27, 2013; Oxfam Hong Kong: Mainland China,
http://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/search.aspx?searchkey=ngo.
10strengthen protections of some rights and build foundations for civil society and the rule of
law. They refer to the role of U.S. programs in promoting greater rights protections for the
accused, access to legal counsel, and professionalism among judicial and legal personnel;
increasingly worldly and dynamic NGOs and social organizations; and a cadre of human rights
11
OECD, Creditor Reporting System, ibid; USAID, “U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants,” http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/
Ford Foundation Grants Database, http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/search.
13
http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/China-brochure-2011.pdf.
14
Oxfam Annual Report 2013/2014, http://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/annualreport.aspx.
15
Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.
12
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
NGOs and social organizations, and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers. Many foreign
and Chinese observers also (Draft)
activists and lawyers. Many observers note that awareness of legal rights among many segments
of PRC
society is growing. Some experts suggest that efforts that promoteto encourage incremental rather than
fundamental change have bolstered reform-minded officials in the PRC government.11
Reductions in U.S. Programming in China
After a decade of bipartisan support for expanded programming, during the 112th Congress, 16
The efforts of the U.S. government and private organizations, such as the Dui Hua Foundation,
reportedly have helped to achieve some progress in the area of criminal justice in China in recent
years.17 Such advances include reductions in the use of torture and the death penalty and
improvements in due process for many Chinese detainees. U.S. foreign assistance supports a
Resident Legal Advisor, based at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, to promote criminal justice reform
(see below). John Kamm, the founder of Dui Hua, stated that international exchanges have played
a key role in criminal justice reforms in China. He suggested that Beijing likely will continue to
engage foreign legal experts in some areas of civil rights while eschewing international dialogues
related to political rights and freedoms.18
Reductions in U.S. Programming in China
During the 112th Congress, after a decade of bipartisan support for expanded programming, some
Members advocated eliminating U.S. assistance activities in the PRC, with the exception of aid to
Tibetans and some human rights and democracy programs.1219 In particular, some policy- makers
argued, China does not need or deserve U.S. assistance, due largely to its enormous trade surplus
and foreign exchange reserves, allegedly unfair trade practices, and poor human rights record. Some
supporters
Some proponents of U.S. programs in China responded that U.S. assistance does not help Beijing at the
expense of the United States. They asserted that U.S. programs engage China in areas that benefit
U.S. interests and provide
support to the PRC government, U.S. programs benefit U.S. interests, and they operate in areas
where the PRC government has lacked sufficient capacity or commitment.1320
Some Members also opposed U.S. environmental programs in China, asserting that it is not the
responsibility of the United States to help alleviate China’s environmental problems. They argued
that such assistance helpsmay unfairly bolster China’s economy through the possible transfer of technology and other
beneficial impacts on the country’s manufacturing processes
environmental and energy-saving technologies. Furthermore, they addedcontended, China has
been accused been
accused of not enforcing environmental regulations and of unfair trade in the clean energy
sector.21 However, some U.S. officials defended
the programs, noting that air pollution from
China has adversely impacted North American air
and water, particularly on the U.S. West Coast. They reported
They asserted that USAID’s environmental
activities in China helped to mitigate this impact.14
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China: Policy
Recommendations
In its 2012 annual report, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), while not
commenting on U.S. assistance programs, made a number of policy recommendations in support
of U.S. activities in China related to the rule of law, government accountability, civil society,
human rights, and democracy.15 These include support for legal exchanges and training in areas
such as labor, religious practice, environmental protection, and the rights of ethnic minorities. The
Commission recommended support for Chinese law schools and criminal defense lawyers. The
11
William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.22
16
William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009; “Temple University
Leaders Celebrate China Rule of Law Program’s 15th Anniversary,” November 20, 2014, http://news.temple.edu/news/
2014-11-20/temple-university-leaders-celebrate-china-rule-law-program-s-15th-anniversary.
17
The Dui Hua Foundation is a U.S.-based human rights organization that focuses on the treatment of prisoners as well
as criminal justice and women’s rights in China.
18
John Kamm, Dui Hua Foundation, “China’s Human Rights Diplomacy: Past, Present, Future,” Center for Strategic
and International Studies, March 28, 2014. See also U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for
Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2015.
19
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2001-08-04.cfm; http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/
2001-08-04.cfm.
1320
See Chairman Donald A. Manzullo, “Opening Statement,” Feeding the Dragon: Reevaluating U.S. Development
Assistance to China, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
November 15, 2011; Jim Angle, “Senators Outraged U.S. Borrowing Big from China While Also Giving Aid,” Fox
News.com, October 24, 2011.
14
Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development,21
Feeding the Dragon: Reevaluating U.S. Development Assistance to China, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Asia
and the
Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011; U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Assistance to China
(Taken Question),” Daily Press Briefing, November 4, 2011.
15
In 2000, the legislation that granted permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106-286)
created the.
22
Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development, before the Subcommittee on Asia and the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Congressional-Executive Commission on China: Policy
Recommendations
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China to monitor(CECC) monitors human rights and the rule
of law in China and to
submitsubmits an annual report with policy recommendations to the President and Congress.
12
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
report encouraged the U.S. government to implement programs that help PRC citizens pursue
compensation under the PRC State Compensation Law and remedies for injuries suffered as a
result of China’s population planning policies. The CECC recommended that the Administration
and Congress assist efforts and organizations that promote local elections, government
transparency and accountability, environmental protection, and the rights, culture, and heritage of
ethnic minorities. The report advised the U.S. government to support programs that assist local
governments, academics, and the non-profit sector in expanding public hearings and other means
of facilitating public input into the policymaking process.16
U.S. Assistance to China: History
Congress has played a particularly direct role in determining the Administration’s foreign
operations policies for China. Congress has initiated major programs in China and inserted
special provisions or instructions in foreign operations appropriations legislation. (See Table 2.)
In 1999, Congress began authorizing funding for the purpose of fostering democracy in China. In
2000, the act granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106286) 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 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed
Congress.23 While not directly commenting on U.S. assistance programs in China, the CECC’s
2014 report supports U.S. engagement in areas where U.S. assistance programs have been active.
It supports U.S. efforts in China related to rule of law, civil society, the environment, labor rights,
women’s rights, and the rights and economic opportunities of Tibetans and Uighurs. The report
recommends U.S. programs, training, and technical assistance and international exchanges that
promote the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legal aid centers;
The rights of citizens seeking redress under the State Compensation Law;
Criminal justice reform and the role of defense lawyers;
International Labor Organization programs and the rights of migrant workers;
Women’s political participation; and
Building the capacity of environmental, Tibetan, and Uighur NGOs.
In addition, the CECC report advocates “democracy promotion programs that are adapted to
China”; partnerships between U.S. academic institutions and NGOs and their Chinese
counterparts aimed at expanding public participation in political and policy decision-making; and
expanded funding to bring Chinese human rights lawyers, advocates, and scholars to the United
States for study and capacity building through such programs as the U.S. Department of State’s
International Visitors Leadership Program.24
U.S. Assistance to China: History
Congress has played a direct role in determining the Administration’s foreign assistance policies
for China. Congress has initiated major programs in China and inserted special provisions or
instructions in foreign operations appropriations legislation regarding U.S. assistance activities in
the PRC. (See Table 2.) In 1999, Congress began approving funding 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 rule of law and civil society in
the PRC. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) provided $1 million
for nongovernmental organizations located outside China to support activities that preserve
cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in
Tibetan areas in China.25 In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed
(...continued)
Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011; U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Assistance to China
(Taken Question),” Daily Press Briefing, November 4, 2011.
23
In 2000, the legislation that granted permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106-286)
created the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. The Commissioners are Members from both chambers of
Congress and officials from the Executive branch.
24
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2014, op. cit.
25
For a full list of U.S. government programs related to Tibet, see CRS Report R43781, The Tibetan Policy Act of
2002: Background and Implementation, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
upon a U.S.-China Rule of Law Initiative, though funding for the program was not appropriated
until five years later. 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.
In 2006, Congress set aside special Development Assistance account funds for American
universities to engage in education and exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and
the environment in China. These programs were largely phased out in 2012. 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 American Embassy in Beijing
expanded in 2009.
Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Assistance to China
The FY2002FY2001 foreign operations appropriations measure (P.L. 107-115) removed China from a list of countries
prohibited from receiving U.S. indirect foreign assistance106-429) prohibited assistance to
China and six other countries.26 The FY2002 appropriations measure (P.L. 107-115) removed
China from this list, and no longer stipulated that ESF
account funds to NGOs for democracy
programs in China only be provided to NGOsthose located outside the PRC.17
Some aid constraints related to human rights continue. Ongoing restrictions on U.S. foreign
27 The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) no longer required that assistance to NGOs for
Tibetan programs only be made available to those located outside China. Ongoing restrictions on
U.S. foreign assistance in China and other relevant legislative provisions include the following:
•
Some U.S. sanctions in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including the requirement that U.S. representatives to
16
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report, October 10, 2012.
See foreign operations appropriations acts, §523 (“Prohibition Against Indirect Funding to Certain Countries”) and
§526 (“Democracy Programs”).
17
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
•
•
•
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).
U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) may not be
used for a country program in China.28
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).18
•
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.19
•
U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) may not be
used for a country program in China.20
•
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).
Major Programs
Democracy Fund—Democracy Programs
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) administers
democracy programs in China using Democracy Fund (DF) account appropriations.21 Funding
levels have largely been determined by Congress. DRL aims to promote the rule of law, civil
society, and citizen input in government decision making in the PRC.
DRL directly funds U.S.-based non-governmental organizations 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
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 some
relatively overt pro-democracy groups and activities, including both Chinese dissidents in exile
and NGOs in China (see textbox).22 Major DRL program areas in China include the following:
18
Pursuant to §902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and §710(a) of the International Financial
Institutions Act.
19
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), §7044(a).
20
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), §7085(c). The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which has been
included in annual foreign operations appropriations since FY1985, bans U.S. assistance to organizations that, as
determined by the President, support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs. Under
Kemp-Kasten, Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush suspended contributions to the UNFPA
due to concerns about coercive family planning practices in China. President Obama has supported U.S. contributions
to the organization. For further information, see CRS Report RL33250, International Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress, by Luisa Blanchfield.
21
As part of Human Rights and Democracy Fund global programs.
22
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.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
•
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.23
•
Civil society: develop the capacity of non-governmental organizations,
foundations, and charitable groups in fund-raising and NGO management.
•
Citizen participation: promote public dialogue and input regarding the formation
of policy.
•
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.
Economic Support Fund
(ESF)—Tibet
National Endowment for Democracy
Established by the U.S. government in 1983, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, non-profit
foundation “dedicated to the growth and strengthening of
democratic institutions around the world.”24 NED has played
an active role in promoting democracy in China since the
mid-1980s. The Endowment has carried out its mission in
China largely through grantees which include its core
institutes;25 the Princeton China Initiative; Chinese, Tibetan,
and Uighur human rights and democracy groups based in the
United States and Hong Kong; and a small number of NGOs
based in China. The Endowment’s China programs have
received support out of the annual congressional
appropriation for NED (an estimated $118 million in
FY2012) and directed funding to NED for China and Tibet.26
NED grants for China programs (including Tibet and Hong
Kong) averaged roughly $6.6 million per year between 2007
and 2011, and totaled $7.5 million in 2012. Program areas
include rural land rights, labor rights, local elections, freedom
of expression, public debate, civic discourse through the
Internet, and government transparency.
Since 2000, Congress has authorized U.S.
assistance for sustainable development,
environmental conservation, and cultural
preservation in the Tibetan Autonomous
Region (TAR) and Tibetan communities in
China. In addition, U.S. programs aim to
expand citizen involvement in local
economic enterprises, development
planning, and social services. Between
2002 and 2012, over $48 million was
appropriated for these purposes. As funding
for U.S. assistance programs in China
overall has declined in recent years,
assistance for Tibet programs as a
proportion of total assistance to China has
increased, from 16% in 2009 to over 26% in 2012.27 Foreign operations appropriations legislation
restricts assistance for Tibet to non-governmental organizations and prohibits U.S. support for
23
Temple University received $13 million in USAID grants and Democracy Fund support between 1999 and 2009 for
its Master of Laws degree program in Beijing. Goldie Blumenstyk, “In China, Thinking Like an American Lawyer,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2009.
24
http://www.ned.org/about
25
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). They receive grants from NED and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
26
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs
(China), February 27, 2004. Congress provided directed funding from the Democracy Fund to NED for programs in
China between 2001 and 2007 and Tibet between 2004 and 2009.
27
The decrease in aid for Tibet in 2011 and 2013 reflect declining foreign assistance funding overall. The increase in
2012 results from a reorganization of U.S. programming in China.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
multilateral projects that may erode Tibetan culture, identity, or economic influence. The PRC
government boasts that Tibet’s economy has developed rapidly under its policies.28 However,
many Tibetans complain that their economy, particularly in urban areas, is dominated by Han
Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, and that Beijing's development projects have harmed
the region’s natural environment.
Livelihood and Education
USAID activities in Tibetan areas of China aim to promote the development of individual
capacity and the private economy through education, training, technical assistance, and financing.
Educational programs include vocational training, the teaching of management and marketing
skills, business administration, and scholarships and internships. U.S. assistance also supports
crop, livestock, and handicraft production. Other programs include the development of small
business associations, business development centers, and herder cooperatives. Economic Support
Funds also support health and hygiene awareness programs and services.
Environment
U.S. support helps Tibetans to protect their environment through conservation, sustainable natural
resource management, and the development of renewable energy alternatives. USAID programs
also promote wildlife and wetland protection. Other efforts include raising awareness about
climate change and its local effects, and developing responses to climate change.
Cultural Preservation
USAID cultural efforts in Tibet include the following: Tibetan language instruction; preservation
of traditional culture, heritage, and art, including scriptures, books, and dance; and the restoration
of historical sites and buildings. U.S. assistance helps to provide cultural information through
online and other electronic resources. Other programs include training to Tibetan artisans and the
marketing of traditional products.
U.S.-Based NGOs in Tibet
The primary grantees or implementing partners for USAID programs in Tibet and Tibetan
communities in China are the Bridge Fund (TBF), Winrock International, and the Poverty
Alleviation Fund (TPAF). Ethnic unrest and government crackdowns on Tibetan religious and
social activities have created a difficult environment for international NGOs in Tibetan areas, and
their total number reportedly has declined from nearly 50 to roughly 10 in the past several years.29
Tightening restrictions affecting international NGOs and Chinese civil society organizations in
Tibetan areas include those related to travel, the holding of large group activities, such as
seminars, and foreign funding.
The Bridge Fund has worked in Tibet for 16 years and is a major facilitator of civil society
activity in the region. According to its annual report, in the past year, TBF has continued to make
28
29
China Tibetology Research Center, Report on the Economic and Social Development of Tibet, March 2009.
Interview with a representative of The Bridge Fund, November 2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
progress in Tibet, despite the deteriorating political environment in which it operates. The Bridge
Fund is carrying out a five-year (2009-2014), $10 million USAID program in the TAR and
Tibetan communities in China aimed at preserving cultural traditions and promoting sustainable
development and environmental conservation.30
Winrock International’s five-year TSERING (Tibetan Sustainable Environmental Resources for
Increased Economic Growth) project has four programs in Tibetan areas of Yunnan and Sichuan
provinces: development of Tibetan handicrafts; job skills training; anti-desertification; and
preserving Tibetan language. Winrock also works with and provides grants to local Tibetan
organizations. The Poverty Alleviation Fund (formerly the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund) has
been working in Tibet since 1997. TPAF’s programs in Tibet and Tibetan communities in Yunnan
Province include microfinance, local handicrafts, small enterprise development, agriculture and
livestock, employable skills development, eco-tourism, and training in health, nutrition, and
hygiene.31
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs
Since 2007, the United States government has worked with U.S. NGOs to address HIV/AIDS
problems in regions of high incidence in China. The Department of State, USAID, and the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aimed to enhance the ability of Chinese local
and provincial governments to respond to the disease in the areas of prevention, care, and
treatment. Implementing partners include Family Health International, Population Services
International, Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Research Triangle Institute, Micro
International, and Management Sciences for Health.
U.S. assistance focuses on the development of health systems or models—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 also include Chinese 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, the PRC Center for Disease Control.
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, evidence at
trial, and the rights of defense lawyers. The PRC government reportedly has taken steps to apply
more rigorous standards to pre-trial detentions and capital convictions, reduce abusive
interrogation practices, and protect some rights of defense lawyers. The RLA also is involved in
30
The Bridge Fund, Program for Sustainable Development and Livelihoods for Urban and Rural Ethnic Tibetans in
China: FY12 Annual Report, October 30, 2012.
31
http://www.tpaf.org/services.html
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
U.S.-PRC law enforcement cooperation in the areas of counter-narcotics, corruption, moneylaundering, counter-terrorism, computer crime, and intellectual property rights. Most of the
RLA’s activities are conducted by the RLA alone or in cooperation with nongovernmental
organizations.32
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and Environmental
Programs
Between 2006 and 2011, Congress allocated Development Assistance (DA) account funds for rule
of law and environmental efforts in China. Programs provided Chinese students with legal
training, facilitated U.S. engagement with PRC bar associations, and aimed to enhance the
capacity of Chinese law colleges and judicial institutions, develop citizen awareness of the legal
system, and strengthen laws that safeguard civil and women’s rights.33 USAID’s criminal justice
efforts included making trial procedures more open, supporting the adoption of a national law that
would exclude illegally obtained evidence, and creating guidelines for defense lawyers in death
penalty cases.34 Administrative law programs promoted transparency and public participation in
government. Other rule of law activities included expanding legal clinics and public defenders’
offices and training PRC judicial officials on consumer protection and intellectual property.35 In
2012, Congress phased out USAID rule of law programs in China, although DRL programs in
this area continued.
USAID administered several environmental programs in China during the period, using DA funds
as well as private financing. The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law helped to train
environmental law professionals, advance reform in China’s environmental law, and build
capacity in environmental governance.36 The U.S.-based Institute for Sustainable Communities
and World Resources Institute implemented the Guangdong Environmental Partnership and the
U.S.-China Partnership for Climate Action, which promoted energy efficiency, low greenhouse
gas emissions, and health and safety policies in factories and power plants. Both programs
received support from USAID, U.S. private corporations, U.S. and Chinese research institutions,
and PRC communities and government agencies. USAID provided a grant to the Thailand-based
Freeland Foundation for countering the trafficking of wildlife in China and elsewhere in Asia.
Other USAID environmental efforts in China included supporting clean energy investment and
development, promoting energy efficiency in commercial buildings, assisting in water and
sanitation projects, raising standards in the production of fluorescent lamps, and combating illegal
logging.37 In 2012, Congress withdrew support for environmental programs in China, with the
exception of Tibet, as part of its reduction of U.S. assistance programs in the PRC.
32
U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2012.
U.S. educational institutions participating in these programs included American University Washington College of
Law, the University of Massachusetts, the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and Western Kentucky
University. PRC partner universities included China University of Political Science and Law, South China University
of Technology, and Zhejiang Gongshang University.
34
Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development, before the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011.
35
USAID, Congressional Notification #147, August 14, 2012. This notification does not refer to programs
administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
36
Jointly administered by Vermont Law School and Sun Yat-sen University.
37
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, “China: U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance
(continued...)
33
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Other U.S. 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. ASHA has supported projects in China since
1997. It helped to establish and has provided assistance to the Center for American Studies at
Fudan University in Shanghai, has supported the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for
Chinese and American Studies, and funded Project Hope efforts at Shanghai Children’s Medical
Center and Wuhan Nursing School. In 2012, ASHA offered grants for programs in China worth
$750,000 in total.38
Internet Freedom
Between 2008 and 2012, Congress appropriated approximately $95 million for State Department
and USAID global Internet freedom efforts. In 2012, the Administration requested $27.5 million
for Internet freedom activities in FY2013. Program areas include censorship circumvention
technology, Internet and mobile communications security training, media and advocacy skills,
and public policy. The primary target countries of such efforts, particularly circumvention and
secure communications programs, have been China and Iran.39
(...continued)
Publication, Fiscal Year, 2009.”
38
American Schools and Hospitals (ASHA) Annual Report 2012.
39
See CRS Report R42601, China, Internet Freedom, and U.S. Policy, coordinated by Thomas Lum.
Congressional Research Service
11
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2014
(thousands of current U.S. dollars)
Account
(Program)
2000
-01
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
GHCS
(HIV/AIDS)
DA (Rule of
Law,
Environment)
4,950
2008
2009
2010
2013
est.
2012
2014
req.
6,750
6,960
7,308
7,000
5,000
3,000
3,000
2,398
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
7,000
0
0
0
0
3,000
0
0
ESF (rule of
law)
ESF/DF
(Democracy
Programs)a
2011
1,000
10,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
11,000
11,000
n/a
ESF (Tibet)
0
0
0
3,976
4,216
3,960
3,960
4,960
7,300
7,400
5,000
7,500
7,500
4,500
INCLE
(Criminal
Justice)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
800
800
800
800
800
Peace Corpsb
2,733
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
2,057
2,718
2,900
3,000
3,200
3,900
Totals
3,733
11,559
15,977
18,339
24,692
30,593
37,458
38,819
45,265
46,918
37,000
28,300
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
Notes: Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, most Department of State foreign operations accounts are to continue at the same
levels as FY2012; however, these funds also are subject to the budget sequestration process, which may significantly reduce actual funding amounts.
a.
Administered by the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
b.
The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993. See also Peace Corps Congressional Budget
Justification, Fiscal Year 2014.
CRS-12
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History
(FY2000-FY2013)
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
Provided/made available 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,
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.a
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 democracy-related programs in China, including $4 million for
NED, and authorized $4 million for Tibet and $250,000 for NED for human rights and
democracy programs related to Tibet; authorized the use of Development Assistance
account funds for American universities to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange
programs related to the environment, democracy, and the rule of law.
2006
P.L. 109-102
Extended $20 million for democracy-related programs in China, including $3 million for
NED; authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and $250,000
to 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.
(H.Rept. 109265)
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.
2008
P.L. 110-161
Provided $15 million for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC; mandated $5
million for 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.
2009
P.L. 111-8
Appropriated $17 million for the promotion of democracy in China and $7.3 million to
NGOs for aid activities in Tibetan communities in 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 the environment, governance,
and the rule of law.
2010
P.L. 111-117
Authorized funding for democracy-related programs in the PRC and $7.4 million for
NGOs to support activities related to cultural preservation, sustainable development,
and environmental conservation in Tibetan areas. Appropriated $12 million to U.S.
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities related to the
environment, governance, and the rule of law.
2011
P.L. 112-10
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L.
112-10) did not specify funding amounts for foreign assistance programs in China.
Congressional Research Service
13
U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Fiscal
Year
Legislation
Provisions
2012
P.L. 112-74
The conferees recommended $12 million from the ESF account for U.S. institutions of
higher education and NGOs for democracy, governance, rule of law, and environmental
programs in the PRC. H.Rept. 112-331 approved $7.5 million for Tibet as provided in
S.Rept. 112-85 for activities, to be implemented by NGOs, that 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.
(H.Rept. 112331)
2013
P.L. 113-6
Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, most
Department of State foreign operations accounts are to continue at the same levels as
FY2012; however, these funds also are subject to the budget sequestration process,
which may significantly reduce actual funding amounts.
Source: Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
Notes: Not all special appropriations for China were obligated fully or obligated during the year in which they
were allocated.
a.
Since FY2003, congressional authorizations for democracy programs in China have included Hong Kong.
The U.S. government provided $450,000 and $922,000 in FY2006 and FY2010, respectively, for programs to
strengthen Hong Kong political parties. Since FY2003, U.S. funds also have been made available to Taiwan
for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, if matching funds are provided. To date, Taiwan
has not received U.S. democracy assistance.
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 Foreign Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
Congressional Research Service
1429
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
26
P.L. 106-429, §523 stipulated that the countries prohibited from receiving U.S. assistance or indirect funding were
Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China. P.L. 107-115, §523 stipulated that
Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Sudan were prohibited from receiving U.S. assistance.
27
See foreign operations appropriations acts, §523 (“Prohibition against Indirect Funding to Certain Countries”) and
§526 (“Democracy Programs”).
28
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76, §7063(c)). The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which has been
included in annual foreign operations appropriations since FY1985, bans U.S. assistance to organizations that, as
determined by the President, support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs. Under
Kemp-Kasten, Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush suspended contributions to the UNFPA
due to concerns about coercive family planning practices in China. President Obama has supported U.S. contributions
to the organization. For further information, see CRS Report RL33250, U.S. International Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress, by Luisa Blanchfield.
29
Pursuant to §902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and §710(a) of the International Financial
Institutions Act.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
•
into Tibet or the transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which
some fear may erode Tibetan culture and identity.30
The Secretary of State and USAID Administrator may not provide assistance to
the central government of the PRC under Global Health Programs, Development
Assistance, and the Economic Support Fund, except for assistance to detect,
prevent, and treat infectious diseases.31
Programs and Funding Accounts
Democracy Programs (Democracy Fund Account)
The Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) administers
programs in China using Democracy Fund (DF) account appropriations. Funding levels have
largely been determined by Congress. DRL aims to promote the rule of law, civil society, and
citizen input in government decision making in the PRC.
DRL directly funds U.S.-based and international nongovernmental organizations and universities.
Through the Bureau’s programs, U.S. and international nongovernmental entities engage Chinese
NGOs; government-sponsored social organizations and institutions, such as women’s groups and
universities; reformist or progressive government bodies; and legal and judicial institutions and
individuals. Due to political sensitivities in China, DRL does not openly disclose the names of its
grant recipients. Major DRL program areas in China include the following:32
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.33
Civil society: develop the capacity of nongovernmental organizations,
foundations, and charitable groups in fund-raising and NGO management.
Citizen participation: promote public dialogue and input regarding the formation
of policy.
Labor: advance labor law, rights, and advocacy; develop collective bargaining
mechanisms; strengthen migrant worker rights.
Good governance: support government transparency and accountability.
Civil liberties: promote freedom of expression, the press, and information;
advance mass media development; support freedom of religion.
30
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), Division K, §7043(f)(1). The Secretary of the Treasury should
instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the
United States to support financing in Tibet if such projects do not provide incentives for the migration and settlement of
non-Tibetans into Tibet or facilitate the transfer of ownership of Tibetan land and natural resources to non-Tibetans, are
based on a thorough needs-assessment, foster self-sufficiency of the Tibetan people and respect for Tibetan culture and
traditions, and are subject to effective monitoring. See also the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), §616.
31
P.L. 113-76, Consolidate Appropriations Act, 2014, Explanatory Statement, Division K, §7043.
32
Interview with staff at the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, June 2010 and
October 2014.
33
Temple University received $13 million in USAID grants and Democracy Fund support between 1999 and 2009 for
its Master of Laws degree program in Beijing. Goldie Blumenstyk, “In China, Thinking Like an American Lawyer,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
National Endowment for Democracy
Established in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation “dedicated to
the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.”34 Funded primarily by an annual
congressional appropriation, NED has played an active role in promoting democracy and human rights in China since
the mid-1980s. A grant-making institution, the Endowment has supported projects carried out by grantees that
include its core institutes; 35 Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur human rights and democracy groups based in the United
States and Hong Kong; and a small number of NGOs based in mainland China. NED grants for China programs
(including Tibet and Hong Kong) averaged roughly $6.7 million per year between 2007 and 2013 and totaled $7.2
million in 2014. This support was provided using NED’s regular Congressional appropriations (approximately $135
million in FY2014), apart from some additional Congressionally directed funding.36 Programs areas include civil
society, defense of prisoners of conscience, freedom of expression, government transparency, Internet freedom,
labor rights, promoting understanding of Tibetan, Uighur and other ethnic concerns in China, public interest law,
public policy analysis and debate, religious freedom, and rural land rights.
Tibet (Economic Support Fund Account)
Since 2000, Congress has made available ESF for sustainable development, environmental
conservation, and cultural preservation in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan
communities in China. Nearly half of China’s ethnic Tibetans live in the TAR. Other Tibetan
areas include parts of the PRC provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan.37 U.S.
programs also aim to expand citizen involvement in local economic enterprises, development
planning, and social services. Between 2002 and 2014, approximately $62 million was
appropriated for these purposes. As funding for U.S. assistance activities in China overall has
declined in recent years, assistance for Tibetan programs as a proportion of total foreign
operations appropriations for China has increased, from 16% in 2009 to 28% in 2014. Foreign
operations appropriations legislation restricts assistance for Tibetan communities to
nongovernmental organizations and prohibits U.S. support for multilateral projects that may
erode Tibetan culture, identity, and economic influence.
Economic Opportunity and Private Sector Competitiveness
USAID activities in Tibetan areas of China aim to strengthen the capacity of Tibetan
communities, local organizations, and artisans to develop sustainable livelihoods. Assistance
efforts aim to support agricultural and other income-generating activities; help strengthen small
enterprises, business associations, and herder cooperatives; and improve access to markets.
Educational programs include training in vocational, marketing, and management skills and
scholarships for secondary education. ESF account funds also support health and hygiene
awareness programs and services.
34
http://www.ned.org/about.
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).
36
Congress provided directed funding out of the Democracy Fund to NED for programs in China between 2001 and
2007 and Tibetan areas between 2004 and 2009. Such funding supplemented resources available for China through
NED’s regular budget.
37
See CRS Report R43781, The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002: Background and Implementation, by Susan V. Lawrence.
35
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
U.S. NGOs in Tibet
In recent years, the primary grantees or implementing partners for USAID programs in the Tibet Autonomous Region
(TAR) and Tibetan communities elsewhere in China have been the Bridge Fund (TBF), Winrock International, and the
Poverty Alleviation Fund (TPAF). Unrest in Tibetan areas and government crackdowns on Tibetan religious and social
activities have created a difficult environment for international NGOs in Tibetan areas, and their number reportedly
has declined from nearly 50 to roughly 10 in the past several years. Growing restrictions affecting international NGOs
and Chinese civil society organizations in Tibetan areas include those related to travel, the holding of large group
activities such as seminars, and foreign funding.38 The Bridge Fund has worked in the TAR and Tibetan communities
outside the TAR since 1996. It continues to carry out programs and to support other nongovernmental activity in
Tibetan areas, despite the deteriorating political environment in which such NGOs operate. TBF has implemented a
five-year (2009-2014), $10 million USAID program in Tibetan communities aimed at preserving cultural heritage and
promoting sustainable economic development and environmental conservation.39 Winrock International’s five-year
(2009-2014) TSERING (Tibetan Sustainable Environmental Resources for Increased Economic Growth) program has
operated in Tibetan communities in four PRC provinces as well as the TAR. Project areas include job skills training;
income-generating activities that are compatible with traditional lifestyles; environmentally sustainable small
businesses; and digital technology to document, preserve, and transmit cultural practices and knowledge.40 The
Poverty Alleviation Fund (formerly the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund) has been working in Tibet since 1997. TPAF’s
programs in Tibetan communities in Yunnan Province have included microfinance, promoting local handicrafts, small
enterprise development, agriculture and livestock, employable skills development, eco-tourism, and training in health,
nutrition, and hygiene.41
Cultural Preservation
USAID programs in Tibetan areas include the following cultural preservation efforts: promoting
Tibetan language instruction; preserving culture, heritage, and art; and restoring historical sites
and buildings. Cultural preservation areas include literature, scriptures, painting, music, dance,
and oral traditions. The U.S. government and private funding support a Tibetan-language online
digital library and network.42
The Environment
Through partnerships with Tibetan communities, U.S. support helps to protect the environment
through conservation, sustainable natural resource management, and the development of
renewable energy alternatives. USAID programs aim to improve rangeland management and
grassland rehabilitation, reduce deforestation, and protect wetlands. Other efforts include raising
awareness about, conducting research on, and developing responses to climate change and its
local effects.
Global Health Programs (Global Health Programs Account)
Since 2007, the U.S. government, through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), has worked with U.S. NGOs to help address HIV/AIDS in regions of high incidence in
China. U.S. assistance has supported prevention, care, and treatment efforts as well as programs
38
Interview with a representative of The Bridge Fund, November 2012.
The Bridge Fund, Program for Sustainable Development and Livelihoods for Urban and Rural Ethnic Tibetans in
China: FY13 Annual Report, October 15, 2013; The Bridge Fund: Donors, http://bridgefund.org/about/donors/.
40
Winrock International, Tibetan Sustainable Environmental Resources for Increased Economic Growth: Overview,
http://www.winrock.org/project/tibetan-sustainable-environmental-resources-increased-economic-growth.
41
Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund, http://www.tpaf.org/services.html.
42
The Tibetan and Himalayan Library, http://www.thlib.org/.
39
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
for orphans and vulnerable children. Recipients of direct and indirect U.S. assistance also have
included Chinese nongovernmental organizations, community-based groups, governmentsponsored social organizations, provincial health bureaus, and clinics. USAID has collaborated
with, but not provided assistance to, the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S.
public health efforts in China have expanded to respond to other public health threats, including
outbreaks of influenza strains that experts believe have a likelihood of spreading to the United
States, such as avian flu H7N9.43
Criminal Law and Procedure (International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement Account)
Since 2002, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account funding has
supported a Resident Legal Advisor (RLA), based in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, to offer
expertise on U.S. criminal law and procedure to PRC government officials, jurists, and
academics, and to “promote long-term criminal justice reform in China.” Most of the RLA’s
activities are conducted by the RLA alone or in cooperation with nongovernmental organizations.
The RLA engages Chinese courts, prosecutors, legal scholars, and bar associations. Reform areas
include pre-trial detention, the rights of defense lawyers, and judicial independence. Although
many problems remain, in 2013, the PRC government reportedly began to implement
amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, which include more rigorous standards applied
toward pre-trial detentions and capital convictions, safeguards against abusive interrogation
practices, an expanded role and greater legal protections for defense lawyers, and greater access
to legal counsel.44
Rule of Law and Environmental Programs (Development
Assistance and Economic Support Fund Accounts)
Between 2006 and 2011, Congress allocated Development Assistance (DA) account funds for rule
of law and environmental efforts in China. Programs facilitated U.S. engagement with PRC bar
associations; provided Chinese students with legal training; and strove to enhance the capacity of
Chinese law colleges and judicial institutions, develop citizen awareness of the legal system, and
strengthen laws that safeguard civil and women’s rights.45 USAID’s criminal justice efforts
included making trial procedures more open, supporting the adoption of a national law that would
exclude illegally obtained evidence, and creating guidelines for defense lawyers in death penalty
cases.46 Administrative law programs promoted transparency and public participation in
government. Other rule of law activities included expanding legal clinics and public defenders’
offices and training PRC judicial officials on consumer protection and intellectual property.47
43
U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2014 and
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2015.
44
U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2015; John
Kamm, Dui Hua Foundation, op. cit.
45
U.S. educational institutions participating in these programs included American University Washington College of
Law, the University of Massachusetts, the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and Western Kentucky
University. PRC partner universities included China University of Political Science and Law, South China University
of Technology, and Zhejiang Gongshang University.
46
Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development, before the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011.
47
USAID, Congressional Notification #147, August 14, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
USAID administered several environmental programs in China during the same period, using DA
account funds as well as private financing. The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law
helped to train environmental law professionals, advance reform in China’s environmental law,
and build capacity in environmental governance.48 The U.S.-based Institute for Sustainable
Communities and World Resources Institute implemented the Guangdong Environmental
Partnership and the U.S.-China Partnership for Climate Action, which promoted energy
efficiency, low greenhouse gas emissions, and health and safety policies in factories and power
plants. Both programs received support from USAID, U.S. private corporations, U.S. and Chinese
research institutions, and PRC communities and government agencies. USAID provided a grant
to the Thailand-based Freeland Foundation for countering the trafficking of wildlife in China and
elsewhere in Asia. Other USAID environmental efforts in China included supporting clean energy
investment and development, promoting energy efficiency in commercial buildings, assisting in
water and sanitation projects, raising standards in the production of fluorescent lamps, and
combating illegal logging.49
In 2012, Congress phased out Development Assistance support for USAID rule of law programs
in China, although DRL democracy programs continued. Congress also withdrew support for
environmental programs in China, with the exception of those in Tibetan areas. Some rule of law
programs formerly supported by Development Assistance account funds have continued using
ESF, albeit at decreased levels.50 In 2014, rule of law and democracy programs in China operate
in the following areas: raising legal and procedural rights awareness; increasing access to legal
counsel; establishing legal clinics and public defenders’ offices; training legal professionals; and
enhancing government transparency and accountability. U.S. programs also aim to help U.S.
businesses and consumers through improvements to intellectual property and consumer rights
protections in China.51
Other U.S. 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 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. ASHA began supporting projects in China
in 1997, although it has no projects reported in 2014. ASHA helped to establish and has provided
assistance to the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, has supported the
Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies, and funded Project
Hope efforts at Shanghai Children’s Medical Center and Wuhan Nursing School.52
48
Jointly administered by Vermont Law School and Sun Yat-sen University.
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, “China: U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance
Publication, Fiscal Year, 2009.”
50
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). See the Explanatory Statement, Division K, Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014.
51
USAID, Congressional Notification #54, November 22, 2013; USAID, Congressional Notification #209, September
9, 2014. See also the Asia Foundation, China, http://www.asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/China.pdf
52
American Schools and Hospitals (ASHA) Annual Report 2012; American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: “Where We
Work,” http://map.usaid.gov/?l=regional&w=ASIA.
49
Congressional Research Service
11
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Internet Freedom
Between 2008 and 2012, Congress appropriated approximately $95 million for State Department
and USAID global Internet freedom efforts. In 2013, the Administration reportedly awarded $25
million to groups working to advance Internet freedom in the following areas: counter-censorship
and secure communications technology; training in secure online and mobile communications
practices; and policy research. The primary target countries for such efforts, particularly
circumvention and secure communications programs, have been China and Iran.53
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
GHP: Global Health Programs
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
NED: National Endowment for Democracy
NGO: Nongovernmental Organization
53
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Internet Freedom, http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm.
See also CRS Report R42601, China, Internet Freedom, and U.S. Policy, by Thomas Lum, et al.
Congressional Research Service
12
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2015
(thousands of current U.S. dollars)
Account
(Program)
200002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
est.
2013
2015
req.
GHCS/GHP
0
0
0
0
0
6,750
6,960
7,308
7,000
5,000
3,000
2,977
1,500
1,500
DA (rule of
law,
environment)
0
0
0
0
4,950
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
7,000
0
0
0
0
ESF (rule of
law)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,000
3,092
3,000
n/a
ESF/DF
(democracy
programs)a
11,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
11,000
10,000
10,000
n/a
ESF (Tibet)
0
0
3,976
4,216
3,960
3,960
4,960
7,300
7,400
5,000
7,500
7,032
7,000
4,500b
INCLE
(criminal
justice)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
800
800
800
823
800
825
4,292
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
2,057
2,718
2,900
3,000
3,200
2,500
2,900
15,292
17,980
20,343
26,697
30,593
37,458
38,819
45,265
46,918
37,000
28,300
27,124
24,800
Peace Corpsc
Totals
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a. Administered by the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
b. The Administration requested $5 million in FY2012 and $4.5 million in FY2013 and FY2014 for Tibetan programs. Congress increased those amounts to $7.5 million
in FY2012 and $7 million in FY2013 and FY2014.
c. The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993. See also Peace Corps Congressional Budget
Justification, Fiscal Year 2015.
CRS-13
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History
(FY2000-FY2014)
Fiscal
Year
Legislation
Provisions
2000
P.L. 106-113
Provided $1 million from the ESF account to nongovernmental organizations based
outside China to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote
sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in
China, as well as $1 million to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human
Rights to support research about China; made available unspecified ESF account funds to
NGOs located outside China that have as their primary purpose fostering democracy in
the PRC, and for activities of NGOs located outside China to foster democracy in the
PRC.
2001
P.L. 106-429
Made available up to $2 million in ESF funds to NGOs located outside the PRC to
support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development
and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in China; amended Section 526
of P.L. 106-113 to strike “Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights” and
insert “Jamestown Foundation” ; made available unspecified ESF account funds to NGOs
located outside China that have as their primary purpose fostering democracy in the
PRC, for activities of NGOs located outside China to foster the rule of law and
democracy in the PRC, and to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or its
grantees to foster democracy in China.
2002
P.L. 107-115
Provided $10 million (ESF) for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China, of which up to $3 million may be made available for NGOs located
outside the PRC to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote
sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in
Tibet.
2003
P.L. 108-7
Provided $15 million (ESF) for programs related to democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China and Hong Kong, of which up to $3 million may be made available to
support activities that 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, and not less than $3 million shall be
made available to the National Endowment for Democracy for programs in China;
continued the requirement that assistance for Tibetan communities be granted to
NGOs, but lifted the stipulation that the NGOs be located outside China; made
available ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms,
to the extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the U.S.
government.a
2004
P.L. 108-199
Provided $13.5 million (ESF) for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China and Hong Kong, including $3 million to NED; provided $4 million in
ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that 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; made available
ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, to the
extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the U.S. government.
2005
P.L. 108-447
Provided $19 million (ESF) for programs in China and Hong Kong that support
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, including $4 million to NED; provided $4
million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that 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, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy programs related to
Tibet; made available ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and
legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the
U.S. government; made available Development Assistance account funds to American
educational institutions to conduct programs and activities in China related to the
environment, democracy, and the rule of law.
Congressional Research Service
14
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Fiscal
Year
Legislation
Provisions
2006
P.L. 109-102
H.Rept. 109265
Provided $20 million out of the Democracy Fund (DF) for democracy-related programs
in China and Hong Kong, including $3 million to NED; provided $4 million in ESF funds
to NGOs to support activities that 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, and $250,000 to NED
for human rights and democracy programs related to Tibet; made available DF account
funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, to the extent
that such funds are matched from sources other than the U.S. government; provided $5
million in Development Assistance account funds to American educational institutions
for environmental, democracy, and rule of law 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.
2008
P.L. 110-161
Provided $15 million (DF) for democracy and rule of law programs in China and Hong
Kong; provided $5 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that 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, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy
programs related to Tibet; made available DF account funds for Taiwan for the purposes
of furthering political and legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are matched from
sources other than the U.S. government; provided $10 million in Development
Assistance account funds to U.S. educational institutions and NGOs for environmental,
democracy, and rule of law programs in the PRC.
2009
P.L. 111-8
Provided $17 million (DF) for the promotion of democracy in China, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan; any assistance to Taiwan is to be matched from sources other than the U.S.
government; provided $7.3 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that
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, and $250,000 to NED for programs in Tibetan
communities; provided $11 million in Development Assistance account funds to U.S.
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to the
environment, governance, and the rule of law.
2010
P.L. 111-117
H.Rept. 111366
Provided $17 million (DF) for the promotion of democracy in China, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan; any assistance to Taiwan is to be matched from sources other than the U.S.
government; provided $7.4 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that
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; provided $12 million in Development Assistance account
funds to U.S. educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC
related to the environment, governance, and the rule of law.
2011
P.L. 112-10
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L.
112-10) did not specify funding amounts for foreign assistance programs in China.
2012
P.L. 112-74
H. Rept. 112331
S. Rept. 112-85
The conferees recommended $12 million from the ESF account to U.S. institutions of
higher education and NGOs for democracy, governance, rule of law, and environmental
programs in the PRC;b approved $7.5 million in ESF funds to NGOs for activities that
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.
2013
P.L. 113-6
Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, most
Department of State foreign operations accounts continued at the same levels as
FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
15
U.S. Assistance Programs in China (Draft)
Fiscal
Year
2014
Legislation
Provisions
P.L. 113-76,
Division K
Explanatory
Statement,
Division K
Provided $15 million in ESF funds for U.S. institutions of higher education and NGOs
for programs and activities related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment in
China; provided $7.9 million to NGOs to support activities that 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.
Source: Annual State Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations legislation.
Notes: Not all directed appropriations for China were obligated fully or obligated during the year in which they
were allocated.
a. The U.S. government provided $450,000 and $922,000 in FY2006 and FY2010, respectively, for programs to
strengthen Hong Kong political parties. Since 2003, U.S. funds also were made available to Taiwan for the
purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, if matching funds were provided. To date, Taiwan has not
received U.S. assistance for such purposes.
b. The conference report (H. Rept. 112-331) referred to training for citizens, lawyers, and businesses on key
issues, including criminal justice, occupational safety, and environmental protection.
Author Contact Information
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
Congressional Research Service
16