Order Code RL31362
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Updated December 10, 2004
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Summary
This report analyzes annual budget justifications and legislation for foreign
operations and discusses U.S. foreign aid trends, programs, and restrictions in 16 East
Asian and South Asian countries. This report does not cover aid to Pacific Island
nations, North Korea, and Afghanistan.
Since September 2001, the United States has raised military, economic, and
development assistance for anti-terrorism objectives in the East Asia-Pacific (EAP)
and South Asia regions. Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia have received
the bulk of the increases in U.S. foreign assistance to EAP and South Asia since
2001.
The United States restricts foreign assistance to many countries in East and
South Asia in order to encourage democracy and discourage the spread of nuclear
weapons capabilities. Several countries in Asia — including Burma, Cambodia,
Indonesia, and Pakistan — face constraints or conditions on U.S. bilateral assistance
because of past or ongoing human rights violations. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), which includes foreign operations
(Section D), extends the President’s waiver authority and an exemption on sanctions
against Pakistan related to the 1999 military coup and debt arrearage through
FY2005. P.L. 108-447 provides $19 million for activities to support democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law in China.
Some policy-makers have expressed concern that increases in military assistance
since 2001 may conflict with other U.S. foreign aid objectives, such as promoting
democracy, or divert funds from other programs. The Bush Administration asserts
that it has bolstered foreign aid spending related to democratization as a component
of the anti-terrorism war. Furthermore, proponents of the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) argue that this new program would provide a means of rewarding
good governance and extend humanitarian and development assistance independently
of U.S. efforts to garner international cooperation in the war on terrorism. So far,
only two countries in the East Asia and South Asia regions — Mongolia and Sri
Lanka — have qualified for MCA funds.
P.L. 108-447 appropriates $1.5 billion for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, less than the Bush Administration’s request of $2.5 billion. For
FY2005, the Bush Administration requested, and Congress appropriated, slightly
higher levels of foreign aid spending for the East Asia-Pacific (EAP) region
compared to FY2004, but less than that extended in 2002-2003. The Bush
Administration requested, and Congress appropriated, somewhat lower amounts of
humanitarian and development assistance, but higher military funding, for South Asia
in FY2005 compared to FY2004. P.L. 108-447 provides Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) for anti-terrorism purposes to several Asian countries not included in the
FY2005 budget request, including Cambodia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, and FMF
assistance in amounts above the request for Mongolia, Thailand, and Nepal.
Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Congressional Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The FY2005 Foreign Operations Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Country Aid Levels and Legislative Conditions — East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
People’s Republic of China (PRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Restrictions on IMET and FMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The FY2005 Foreign Operations Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Country Aid Levels and Legislative Conditions — South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Foreign Aid Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Lifting of Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix. Selected Acronyms for U.S. Foreign Aid
Accounts and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. Estimated Humanitarian and Development Assistance (CSH and DA)
by Region, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2. Estimated Economic Support Funds by Region, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Estimated Military Assistance by Region, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 4. U.S. Foreign Aid (Non-food) to East Asian Countries, FY2004 . . . . . 6
Figure 5. U.S. Assistance to South Asia (Excluding Food Aid), 2001-2005 . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance by Region(Excluding Food Aid),
2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Burma, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Cambodia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. U.S. Assistance to China, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to East Timor, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Laos (LPDR), 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Mongolia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Philippines, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 14. U.S. Assistance to India, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 15. U.S. Assistance to Nepal, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 16. U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 17. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Overview
Congressional Interests
The United States responds to global humanitarian needs and advances U.S.
foreign policy and national security goals through its foreign assistance programs.
Traditionally, U.S. foreign aid policy has emphasized social and economic
development as foundations for effective governance, democratization, and regional
security. Since the war on terrorism began in 2001 and the Bush Administration’s
Global AIDS Initiative and Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) were funded in
2004, the United States has increased foreign aid spending dramatically in some
regions. Most of the additional anti-terrorism resources have been targeted toward
“front line” states and the conditions that make radical ideologies attractive, such as
poverty, limited educational opportunities, and ineffective governance. Special
emphases also have been placed upon health crises and democracy building.
The United States has imposed restrictions on non-humanitarian development
aid, Economic Support Funds (ESF),1 and military assistance to some Asian countries
in order to pressure them to improve performance related to human rights, weapons
proliferation, debt payments, and other areas. Several countries in Asia, including
Burma, Cambodia, China, and Indonesia, have faced congressional restrictions on
U.S. bilateral assistance because of human rights violations. However, the United
States continues to fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that run
development and democracy programs in some of these countries.2 Most sanctions
on aid to Pakistan and India have been lifted.3
Some policy-makers have expressed worry that the emphasis on fighting
terrorism may conflict with other U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as promoting
democracy, controlling weapons proliferation, and funding other foreign assistance
1 Economic Support Funds (ESF) programs involve a wide range of uses (except military)
that support U.S. security interests and promote economic and political stability in the
recipient countries and regions.
2 Democracy programs are administered by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), and by the U.S. Agency for International
Development’s (USAID) Office of Democracy and Governance in the Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA).
3 Sanctions toward Pakistan related to the 1999 military coup and debt arrearage have been
lifted temporarily.
CRS-2
efforts. Others argue that the Millennium Challenge Account — an additional and
separate assistance program that conditions aid on social, economic, and political
criteria — provides a means of rewarding good governance independently of U.S.
efforts to garner international cooperation in the war on terrorism. According to
some analysts, however, the costs of the war in Iraq may compel Congress to trim
funds for both traditional foreign aid programs and the MCA. Some foreign aid
experts contend that new programs, such as the MCA and the Global AIDS Initiative,
are making U.S. foreign aid increasingly incoherent and ad hoc.4
Funding Trends
The war on terrorism has reoriented foreign assistance priorities in Asia and
accelerated a trend toward increased aid to the region that began in 2000.
Throughout the 1990s, U.S. assistance to Asia fell due to the ebbing of Cold War
security concerns, nuclear proliferation sanctions, and favorable economic and
political trends in much of the region. For example, the withdrawal of U.S. military
forces from the Philippines, nuclear proliferation and other sanctions against
Pakistan, and the reduced need for economic assistance, particularly in Southeast
Asia, contributed to declines in U.S. aid levels. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98
reversed the downward trend, as USAID funded a regional economic recovery
program for Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Following the New York and Washington, D.C. terrorist attacks in 2001,
Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia became the foci of the Bush
Administration’s anti-terrorism efforts in South and Southeast Asia, due to their
strategic importance, large Muslim populations, and insurgency movements using
terrorist tactics. These countries have received the bulk of the increases in U.S.
foreign aid (non-food) to the South Asia and East Asia-Pacific regions. Average
yearly U.S. assistance to Pakistan during 2002-2005 is estimated to be $675 million
compared to $3.4 million in 2000-2001. Annual U.S. assistance to India has
increased by over 50% in 2002-2005 compared to 2000-2001, while annual U.S.
assistance to the Philippines during the same period has tripled compared to 2000-
2001.5 Beginning in 2004, both Indonesia and the Philippines received new funding
for education programs in efforts to promote diversity, non-violent resolution of
social and political conflict (Indonesia), and livelihood skills among Muslims in
impoverished and conflict-ridden areas (Philippines).
4 Murray Hiebert, “More Aid, But New Strings,” Far Eastern Economic Review, February
20, 2003; Harold Molineu, “Linking Aid to Democracy Will Be a Challenge,” Newsday,
March 5, 2003; Paolo Pasicolan, “How to Prevent the Millennium Challenge Account from
Becoming Like Traditional Foreign Aid,” Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum,
No. 892, July 14, 2003; Emad Mekay, “War Spending Expected to Cut into Foreign Aid,”
Global Information Network, September 17, 2003; InterAction Policy Paper, “Foreign
Assistance in Focus: Emerging Trends,” November 2003. For further information, see CRS
Report RL32427, The Millennium Challenge Account: Implementation of a New U.S.
Foreign Aid Initiative, by Larry Nowels; CRS Report RS21181, HIV/AIDS International
Programs: Appropriations, FY2003-FY2005, by Raymond W. Copson.
5 FY2005 figures are based upon the FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign
Operations.
CRS-3
The Bush Administration has bolstered democracy programs as a means toward
reducing the appeal of terrorist movements. The Department of State’s Human
Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) increased from a yearly average of $13 million
in 2001-2002 to $33 million in 2003-2004. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2005, signed by the President on December 8, 2004 (P.L. 108-447),6 appropriates
$37 million for the Fund. Nearly one-third of HRDF is currently allocated to Asia,
mostly for democracy programs in China.7
Some analysts estimated that the MCA would substantially bolster U.S. foreign
assistance to Asia, if fully funded and if several candidate countries in Asia were
chosen. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) extended nearly
$1 billion to the MCA and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for
development assistance.8 In May 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation
selected Mongolia in East Asia and Sri Lanka in South Asia to be eligible to apply
for MCA assistance. Other candidate countries were East Timor, Indonesia, Laos,
and Vietnam in East Asia and Bangladesh and Nepal in South Asia.9 P.L. 108-447
appropriates $1.5 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, less than the
President’s request of $2.5 billion but greater than the $1.25 billion as proposed by
the House and $1.12 billion as proposed by the Senate. The FY2005 appropriations
measure provides Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for anti-terrorism purposes to
several Asian countries not included in the FY2005 budget request, including
Cambodia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, and FMF assistance in amounts above the
request for Mongolia, Thailand, and Nepal.10
Africa remains the largest regional recipient of humanitarian and development
assistance — Child Survival and Health (CSH) and Development Assistance (DA).11
The largest regional recipient of Economic Support Funds in FY2004 was Near East
Asia (Middle East) while the largest recipient of military assistance was Near East
Asia followed by South Asia.12 See Table 1, Figures 1-3, and Appendix.
6 See Division D for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations.
7 The Human Rights and Democracy Fund, administered by the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) of the Department of State, was established by the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, FY2003 (P.L. 107-228). See also Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, “Fact Sheet — FY 2003-2004 Human Rights and Democracy
Fund Projects,” June 1, 2004.
8 The Bush Administration had requested $1.6 billion for the MCA for FY2004.
9 Murray Hiebert, “More Aid, But Strings Attached,” Far Eastern Economic Review,
February 20, 2003.
10 For additional information on FY2005 appropriations, see CRS Report RL32311,
Appropriations for FY2005: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs,
by Larry Nowels.
11 The State Department divides foreign aid allocations into six regions: Africa, East Asia-
Pacific (EAP), Europe and Eurasia, Near East Asia (Middle East), South Asia, and Western
Hemisphere (Latin America and Carribean).
12 Military Assistance includes International Military Education and Training (IMET),
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Peace keeping Operations (PKO).
CRS-4
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance by Region
(Excluding Food Aid), 2001-200513
(millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
est.
est.
Africa
1,313
1,481
1,706
1,747
1,636
East Asia-Pacific
(excluding North. Korea)
368
455
477
444
478
Europe and Eurasia
2,017
2,435
2,871
1,632
1,460
Near East Asia
5,401
5,567
8,409
5,552
5,482
South Asia
(excluding Afghanistan)
201
1,403
785
687
982
Western Hemisphere
749
1,385
1,559
1,545
1,517
Sources: U.S. Department of State, FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign
Operations; United States Agency for International Development, FY2005 Budget Justification to the
Congress.
Figure 1. Estimated Humanitarian and
Development Assistance (CSH and DA)
by Region, FY2004
(millions of dollars)
13 USAID administers emergency and humanitarian food assistance pursuant to P.L. 480,
Title II (the Agricultural Trade Development Act of 1954, as amended). USDA’s Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) administers P.L. 480, Title I — sales of agricultural
commodities under concessional or favorable credit terms, Food for Progress programs
(Food for Progress Act of 1985), Food for Education (Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002), and Section 416(b) (Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended) — donation of
surplus commodities.
CRS-5
Figure 2. Estimated Economic Support Funds
by Region, FY2004
(millions of dollars)
Figure 3. Estimated Military Assistance
by Region, FY2004
(millions of dollars)
CRS-6
East Asia
Major objectives and program areas for U.S. assistance in East Asia include
counter-terrorism, economic growth, HIV/AIDS prevention, the development of civil
society, democratization, environmental management, and restricting the
international flow of arms. The United States also sponsors counter-narcotics,
counter-trafficking-in-persons, and de-mining activities in the region. Since 2001,
foreign aid spending in East Asia has grown markedly, largely due to anti-terrorism
efforts in the Philippines and Indonesia. The Philippines, a major non-NATO ally,
and Indonesia, a democratizing nation with the world’s largest Muslim population,
are homes to several insurgency movements and radical Islamist organizations, some
with ties to Al Qaeda, such as the Abu Sayyaf Group (Philippines) and Jemaah
Islamiyah (Indonesia). Furthermore, Jemaah Islamiyah reportedly has made small-
scale attempts to recruit members or smuggle terrorist weapons in Burma, Cambodia,
and Laos.14 USAID’s programs in East Asia aim to address the conditions that may
be conducive to radical ideologies and terrorism — poverty and unemployment, lack
of education, failing governments, political disenfranchisement, and violent conflict.
In October 2003, the Bush Administration announced initiatives to support education
programs in Muslim communities in the Philippines and in Indonesia as part of its
regional counter-terrorism efforts.
Figure 4. U.S. Foreign Aid (Non-food)
to East Asian Countries, FY2004
(millions of dollars)
14 See also CRS Report RL31672, Terrorism in Southeast Asia, by Mark Manyin et al.
CRS-7
Among EAP countries (excluding the Pacific Islands), in FY2004, Indonesia
was the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, particularly humanitarian and
development assistance and ESF, followed by the Philippines. The Philippines was
the region’s largest beneficiary of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and
International Military Education and Training (IMET). Thailand and Malaysia were
the second and third largest recipients, respectively, of IMET. Laos was the largest
beneficiary of counter-narcotics assistance (INCLE) followed by Thailand.
Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos were the largest recipients of Non-
proliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related programs (NADR). See
Figure 4. Vietnam is the only Asian country to receive Global AIDS Initiative
funding ($10 million in FY2004).
Economic Support Funds support several EAP regional programs. These
include the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) fund, Regional
Security, Anti-Terrorism Assistance, and Regional Women’s Issues. The ASEAN
fund, introduced in FY2004, promotes regional cooperation on several fronts,
including terrorism, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking, narcotics, and economic
integration and development. The Regional Security Fund supports multinational
dialogue in Southeast Asia, the development of multilateral institutions, and
mechanisms to tackle regional security problems, including terrorism. Anti-
Terrorism Assistance provides grants for equipment and training for terrorism event
responses and investigations. EAP also receives assistance through USAID’s Asia
Near East (ANE) regional programs, including the U.S.-Asia Environmental
Partnership, Regional HIV/AIDS and Infectious Diseases, and Improved Governance
in Southeast Asia, to begin in FY2005. East Asian countries — particularly the
Philippines and Vietnam — also have benefitted from U.S. foreign disaster assistance
worth approximately $1.36 million in 2004, including programs for flood and storm
early-warning systems, climate forecasting, and conflict preparedness.
Foreign Aid Restrictions. In some East Asian countries, the United States
has withheld assistance or restricted it to non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
or to democratic political groups in response to government actions that the United
States has deemed undemocratic. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005
includes human rights-related provisions restricting some U.S. foreign assistance to
Burma, Cambodia, and Indonesia while supporting Burmese dissident groups and
promoting civil society, human rights, and democracy in Cambodia, China, East
Timor, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Thailand.
The Consolidated Appropriations Legislation for FY2003 (PL 108-7) dropped
restrictions on IMET to Indonesia, which had been imposed in response to the
Indonesian army’s human rights violations in East Timor in 1999.15 However,
foreign operations appropriations legislation for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199) re-imposed
IMET sanctions unless the Secretary of State determined that the Indonesian
government and armed forces were cooperating with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation regarding the August 2002 attack in Timika, Papua, where three school
teachers, including two Americans, were killed. P.L. 108-199 continued the ban on
15 The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
FY2002 (P.L. 107-115, Section 572(a)).
CRS-8
FMF unless the President certified that the Indonesia government was prosecuting
those members of the Indonesia armed forces credibly alleged to have committed
gross violations of human rights. These restrictions remain in effect under P.L. 108-
447 with the exception of FMF to the Indonesian navy to enhance maritime security.
The FY2005 Foreign Operations Budget Request. Foreign aid spending
to the East Asia-Pacific (EAP) region is expected to increase slightly in FY2005
compared to FY2004, but to remain below 2002-2003 levels. The FY2005
congressional budget justification provided for significant increases in FMF and
INCLE funding, a 9% increase in ESF, and little change in CSH and DA support. The
FY2005 appropriations measure extends $36 million in FMF and $188 million in
ESF for the entire East Asia region, compared to the President’s request of $32
million and $174 million, respectively.
Country Aid Levels and Legislative Conditions —
East Asia16
Burma
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Burma, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
2,000
0
2,000
0
0
DA
993
0
0
0
0
ESF
3,492
6,500
6,950
12,923
8,000
4,000a
Totals
6,485
6,500
8,950
12,923
12,000
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. P.L. 108-447 provides $4 million for humanitarian assistance for displaced Burmese and host
communities in Thailand through an unspecified account.
Burma has significant foreign aid needs. It has the largest population of
displaced persons in East Asia and one of the world’s highest HIV/AIDS infection
rates. The country is the world’s largest trafficker of methamphetamine and second
largest producer of opium. According to USAID, ethnic fighting and deteriorating
economic conditions have compelled 1.6 million persons to flee Burma and displaced
1.5 million Burmese within the country. The United States suspended bilateral
assistance to Burma in 1988 and resumed it on a limited basis in 1993. The United
States restricts bilateral assistance to Burma in response to the Burmese military
junta’s (State Peace and Development Council or SPDC) repression of the National
League for Democracy (NLD), failure to honor the NLD’s parliamentary victory in
1990, and harassment of its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains under house
16 Including Southeast Asia and excluding North Korea and Pacific Island nations.
CRS-9
arrest.17 Continuing U.S. sanctions include a ban on assistance to the government of
Burma and opposition to lending from international financial institutions. In
addition, P.L. 108-447 denies Global AIDS Initiative funds and debt restructuring
assistance to Burma. U.S. foreign aid to Burma is limited mainly to Burmese victims
of trafficking, ethnic minorities, displaced persons, refugees along the Burma-
Thailand border, and Burmese pro-democracy students and mass media personnel
living outside the country.18
On June 11, 2003, the 108th Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-61), which bans imports from Burma unless
democracy is restored.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks
the United States fourth among Burma’s principal aid donors behind Japan, France,
and Germany.
Cambodia
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Cambodia, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
9,420
15,000
22,100
29,860
25,300
DA
0
0
3,687
2,000
2,200
ESF
14,967
20,000
15,000
16,900
17,000
FMF
0
0
0
0
1,000
IMET
0
0
0
0
50
NADR
2,469
2,290
2,765
3,338
3,300
Totals
26,856
37,290
43,552
52,098
48,850
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
2,422
1,085
0
458
0
II Grant
FFP
0
1,432
1,715
3,444
n/a
FFE
—
—
650
0
n/a
Section 416(b)
7,401
9,920
0
0
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS).
Cambodia ranks 130th out of 175 countries and regions on the United Nations
Development Programme’s Human Development Index, which measures GNP per
capita, life expectancy, and educational attainment. The country’s poverty, primitive
17 For Burma aid sanctions, see P.L. 104-208, Section 570.
18 The State Department has also awarded grants to the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) for assisting Burmese pro-democracy groups.
CRS-10
infrastructure, and weak human resource base hinder not only economic but also
political development.
U.S. restrictions on foreign assistance to Cambodia largely reflect congressional
disapproval of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s seizure of power in 1997 and sporadic,
ongoing political violence. Foreign operations appropriations legislation bars U.S.
assistance to the central government of Cambodia and to the Khmer Rouge tribunal
and instructs U.S. representatives to international financial institutions to oppose
loans to Cambodia, except those that meet basic human needs. U.S. assistance may
be provided only to Cambodian and foreign NGOs and to local governments.
Statutory exceptions allow for the following categories of U.S. assistance to the
central government of Cambodia: reproductive and maternal and child health care;
basic education; combating human trafficking; cultural and historic preservation; the
prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases; rule-
of-law programs; counter-narcotics activities; and developing international adoptions
procedures.19
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, (P.L. 108-447) provides,
notwithstanding the prohibition on bilateral aid, $1 million in FMF to Cambodia for
border control and counter-terrorism efforts, subject to congressional notification
requirements, and up to $4 million for activities to support democracy and
democratic political parties. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005
permits IMET for Cambodia only if the Secretary of State provides the committees
on appropriations a list of individuals who have been credibly alleged to have ordered
or carried out the March 1997 grenade attack against the Khmer Nation Party. IMET
would be used for human rights and rule-of-law training to help professionalize the
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces. P.L. 108-447 provides $2 million for an
endowment to document genocide and crimes against humanity under the Khmer
Rouge regime and $3.75 million for an endowment for physical rehabilitation
programs. The FY2005 appropriations act provides that U.S. assistance may be made
available for a Khmer Rouge tribunal only if the Secretary of State determines and
reports to Congress that Cambodia’s judiciary is independent and that the tribunal
meets internationally-recognized standards of fairness and credibility.
Leahy War Victims Funds assist Cambodians injured by land mines
(approximately 800 victims per year). Other foreign aid programs include
strengthening democratic processes and political parties. USAID grantees include
the Asia Foundation, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican
Institute, and Cambodian NGOs. Cambodia also participates in USAID Office of
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)-funded activities that enhance flood forecasting
capacity and early-warning information transfer to communities in the Lower
Mekong River Basin.
19 For most of these activities, USAID collaborates with the central government of
Cambodia but continues to provide funding through NGOs.
CRS-11
People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Table 4. U.S. Assistance to China, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
ESF
28,000
10,000
15,000
13,500a
19,000c
ESF/Tibet
—
—
—
4,000b
4,250d
Peace Corps
1,298
1,559
977
782
1,221
Totals
29,298
11,559
15,977
18,282
24,471
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. P.L. 108-199, Section 526a
b. P.L. 108-199, Section 558b
c. P.L. 108-447, Section 526a
d. P.L. 108-447, Section 581a
USAID does not have a presence or mission in the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) and China does not receive development aid. However, the Peace Corps has
been involved in teacher training in China since 1993, and Economic Support Funds
(ESF) have been appropriated for democracy, human rights, and rule-of-law
programs in China (including Hong Kong and Tibet) since 2000, primarily to U.S.-
based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in China. In addition, the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which receives most of its funding
through annual Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations
earmarks, has spent approximately $2 million per year (1999-2004) on programs that
promote legal and electoral reform, human rights, labor rights, and independent mass
media in China.20
In FY2001, the United States extended $28 million to compensate China for
damages caused by the accidental NATO bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade
in 1999. Congress earmarked $10 million in FY2002, $15 million in FY2003, and
$17.5 million in FY2004 in Economic Support Funds for democracy, human rights,
and rule-of-law programs in China (including Hong Kong) and cultural preservation,
economic development, and environmental conservation activities in Tibetan
communities in China. In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
(DRL) of the Department of State became the principal administrator of China rule-
of-law/democracy programs. U.S. grantees have included the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), Temple University (School of Law), the American Bar
Association, and the Bridge Fund (Tibet programs).
P.L. 108-447 provides not less than $19 million to DRL and the East Asia-
Pacific (EAP) Bureau of the Department of State for China/Hong Kong democracy
programs in FY2005. Of this amount, at least $15 million is be appropriated to the
20 For additional information, see General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance: U.S.
Funding for Democracy-Related Programs,” February 2004; CRS Report RL31910, China:
Economic Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack.
CRS-12
Human Rights and Democracy Fund administered by DRL, of which at least $4
million shall be made available to NED. The FY2005 appropriations measure also
provides that $4.25 million in ESF should be extended to NGOs, including $250,000
to NED, for cultural preservation, sustainable development, environmental
conservation, and democracy programs in Tibetan communities, and that the
Secretary of the Treasury should instruct U.S. representatives to international
financial institutions to support projects in Tibet if they do not encourage the
migration and settlement of non-Tibetans (Han Chinese) into Tibet or the transfer of
Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans.
Foreign operations appropriations legislation prohibits funding to the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for programs in China. The United States
continues to impose other human rights sanctions related to the 1989 Tiananmen
Square military crackdown, including “no” votes by U.S. representatives for non-
humanitarian international bank lending to China, a ban on Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) programs in the PRC, and a prohibition on U.S.
exports of law enforcement equipment to China. The Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-115) lifted the restrictions (effective since
FY2000) requiring that ESF for China democracy programs be provided only to
NGOs located outside the PRC. However, foreign operations legislation still limits
Tibet program aid to NGOs.
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste)
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to East Timor, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
ESF
24,945
25,000
24,838
22,367
22,000
FMF
1,796
1,000
1,990
1,988
1,000
IMET
0
50
119
150
300
PKO
8,500
8,000
3,250
1,988
0
Peace Corps
0
612
1,219
1,413
1,823
Totals
35,241
34,662
31,416
27,906
25,123
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
6,089
0
0
320
0
II Grant
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste) gained full independence in
May 2002. The United States supports a range of aid programs in East Timor, one
of Asia’s poorest countries, with the goal of building a viable economy and
democratic political system. Economic programs include developing small-scale
coffee and vanilla production for export, business management training, and health
care for workers. Political activities include supporting independent media, civil
society organizations, and political parties, building judicial institutions, and
strengthening governmental capacity. USAID helped to design East Timor’s
CRS-13
constitution and provided assistance for the presidential elections of 2002, which
many international observers reported as free and fair. U.S. military assistance to the
country helps to equip and train the East Timor Defense Force.
On March 28, 2003, President Bush issued a certification and report pursuant
to Section 637(a)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2003 (P.L. 107-
228), Section 637, granting excess defense articles and international military
education and training (IMET) to East Timor.21 Peacekeeping (PKO) funds are
expected to be phased out after 2004.
In addition to the United States, major bilateral donors to East Timor include
Japan, Portugal, and Australia.
Indonesia
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2002
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 S.A.a
FY2003
estimate
estimate
CSH
19,580
35,568
—
31,955
34,000
32,300
DA
51,483
38,704
—
39,016
31,291
32,742
ESF
49,890
50,000
—
59,610
49,705
65,000
IMET
0
405
—
0
0
600
NADR 0
0
8,000
1,008
5,755
6,000
INCLE
0
0
4,000
0
0
10,000
Totals 120,953
124,677
12,000
131,589
120,751
146,642
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480
15,000
19,000
—
0
0
n/a
Title I
USDA
Loan
P.L. 480
12,233
10,400
—
29,540
2,182
23,000
Title II
Grant
FFP
5,144
10,927
—
0
5,597
n/a
Section
0
11,209
—
7,926
17,700
n/a
416(b)
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206)
The world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia plays an important role in U.S.
efforts toward curbing terrorism, maintaining regional economic and political
stability, and promoting democracy in Southeast Asia and Muslim countries.
21 The President must certify that East Timor has established an independent armed forces;
and that the provision of defense articles and services is in the national security interests of
the United States, and will promote both human rights and the professionalization of the
armed forces in East Timor.
CRS-14
According to the USAID and Department of State budget justifications to Congress,
Indonesia “has made significant progress in consolidating democratic reforms and
processes” and has “demonstrated its resolve to fight terrorists” following the
bombings in Bali in October 2002 and Jakarta in July 2003.22 The State
Department’s FY2005 budget request for Indonesia states that these developments
could have profound, positive implications for U.S. strategic interests, although
serious problems remain, including political corruption, poverty, a broken
educational system, and a lack of governmental capacity.
USAID programs and proposals for Indonesia include the following: CSH
funds for maternal and child health care and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment;
DA allocations for education, watershed management and water treatment, and trade
and investment; and ESF for several targeted areas — economic policy, democratic
institutions, elections, rule of law, local governmental capacity building, and basic
education. Basic education programs are part of an education initiative announced
by President Bush in October 2003. NADR supports training and expansion of the
Police Counter-terrorism Task Force. INCLE programs support judicial capacity-
building. If released, IMET funding would help promote counter-terrorism
cooperation through improved communications between United States and
Indonesian military officers and also promote democratic principles in the Indonesian
military.
According to USAID, between 1999 and 2003, the Agency’s Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance provided more than $12.5 million in emergency assistance for
internally displaced persons numbering about 700,000 in Indonesia.
Restrictions on IMET and FMF. The Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act for 2002 (P.L. 107-115, Section 572(a)) stipulated that military assistance (IMET
and FMF) may be provided to Indonesia only if the President determined and
submitted a report to the appropriate congressional committees that the Indonesian
government and armed forces were taking effective measures to prosecute and punish
members of the armed forces and militia groups who committed human rights
violations in East Timor in 1999. Notwithstanding the above restrictions, P.L. 107-
115 and subsequent foreign operations measures have allowed for Expanded
International Military Education and Training (E-IMET), available for Indonesia
since 2001, which emphasizes and teaches human rights, military codes of conduct,
and the principles and practices of civilian control of the military. On January 23,
2003, the Senate defeated an amendment to the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations
bill that would block IMET to the Indonesian military. The Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution for 2003 (P.L. 108-7) applied restrictions only to Foreign
Military Financing (FMF). However, reportedly because of ongoing concerns about
the Indonesian military, no IMET funds were released in 2003.
The Consolidated Appropriations legislation for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199) made
IMET available to Indonesia if the Secretary of State determined that the Indonesian
22 U.S. Agency for International Development, “FY 2005 Budget Justification to the
Congress”; U.S. Department of State, “FY 2005 Congressional Budget Justification for
Foreign Operations.”
CRS-15
government and armed forces were cooperating with the United States in the
investigation regarding the August 2002 attack in Timika, Papua, in which three
school teachers, including two Americans, were killed. P.L. 108-199 continued the
ban on FMF unless the President certified that the Indonesia government was
prosecuting and punishing those members of the Indonesia armed forces credibly
alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights in East Timor and
elsewhere. The FY2005 appropriations act (P.L. 108-447) contains similar
provisions. Notwithstanding the above restrictions, the FY2005 appropriations
measure extends FMF to the Indonesian navy to enhance maritime security, subject
to a report by the Secretary of State that the navy is not violating human rights and
is cooperating with civilian judicial authorities on human rights cases.
The United States is the second-largest bilateral donor to Indonesia after Japan.
Laos
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Laos (LPDR), 2001-2005
(thousand of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
0
1,000
1,000
500a
2,000
DA
0
1,000
1,000
0
0
IMET
0
0
0
100
100
INCLE
4,200
4,200
2,500
2,000
2,000
NADR
993
1,328
1,200
1,412
2,500
Totals
5,193
7,528
5,700
4,012
6,600
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
0
513
405
0
0
II Grant
Section 416(b)
0
330
0
0
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Leahy War Victims Funds for land mine education
Laos is one of the ten poorest countries in the world, with a per capita GDP of
$310, a life expectancy of 54 years, and a literacy rate of 53%. Although there are
no formal restrictions, U.S. foreign assistance to Laos remains relatively limited and
channeled through NGOs rather to the government of Laos, due to strained bilateral
relations. INCLE, the largest U.S. foreign aid account in Laos, funds counter-
narcotics efforts.23 NADR assistance supports de-mining activities in cooperation
with NGOs and UXO Lao, a quasi-governmental entity. In addition, the Leahy War
Victims Fund provided $500,000 to Laos in both 2003 and 2004 for land mine
education. Unexploded ordnance from the Vietnam War has injured over ten
thousand Laotians and resulted in over five thousand deaths and continues to wreak
23 Laos is the world’s third-largest producer of opium.
CRS-16
havoc on farmers and children. If an IMET agreement with Laos is concluded, funds
would be provided for English language training for Laotian personnel involved in
U.S.-Laos efforts to locate American Missing-In-Action from the Vietnam War.
Other aid programs in Laos include the Laos Economic Acceleration Program for the
Silk Sector (LEAPSS), initiated in 1998, which aims to develop an economic
alternative to opium production, HIV/AIDS prevention, and anti-trafficking-in-
persons activities. Laos participates in Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA)-funded activities that increase flood forecasting capacity and early-warning
information transfer to communities in the Lower Mekong River Basin. Conferees
on the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 108-792) expect $2
million from CSH and DA funds for health care programs in the country.
The major bilateral donors to Laos are Japan, Germany, Sweden, France,
Australia, and Norway.
Malaysia
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
IMET
757
831
831
1,200
1,100
NADR
120
150
1,267
80
1,020
Totals
877
981
2,098
1,280
2,120
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The United States and Malaysia share important interests in Southeast Asia,
including counter-terrorism activities, regional security, trade, and democracy.
Because of its relatively high level of economic development, Malaysia is not a
recipient of U.S. development and economic aid. However, the United States
extends IMET and NADR funds to the country. IMET helps to familiarize the
Malaysian armed forces with U.S. military doctrine, management techniques, and
equipment and promotes military cooperation between the two countries. IMET also
imparts democratic ideals and norms upon the armed forces of Malaysia. NADR
programs aid in controlling transfers of sensitive materials and technologies that
could contribute to weapons proliferation, and support the Malaysia Counter-
terrorism Center.
CRS-17
Mongolia
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Mongolia, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
ESF
11,974
12,000
10,000
9,941
10,000
FMF
1,995
2,000
990
995
1,000
IMET
750
686
767
850
850
Peace Corps
1,460
1,710
1,765
1,848
1,911
Totals
16,179
16,396
13,522
13,634
13,761
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
FFP
0
0
3,612
8,572
n/a
Section 416(b)
0
3,350
0
0
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. assistance to Mongolia aims to help the strategically-located nation make
its transition to a free market democracy. Economic Support Funds target private
sector development and democratic institution building. FMF assists efforts at
controlling Mongolia’s borders with China and Russia against drugs and illegal
goods trafficking. IMET aims to help transform the Mongolian military from a
Soviet-era organization into one that is compatible with democratic government and
capable of cooperating with U.S. military forces.
The United States ranks a distant second, behind Japan, in development
assistance. Germany is another major aid donor.
CRS-18
Philippines
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Philippines, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001
FY2002
S.A.a
FY2003
W.S.b
Est.
Req.
CSH
9,450
25,599
—
22,920
—
29,350
28,000
DA
30,334
24,459
—
28,209
—
22,068
26,076
ESF
3,991
21,000
12,000
15,000
30,000
17,645
35,000
FMF
1,995
19,000
25,000
19,870
30,000
19,880
30,000
IMET
1,436
2,025
—
2,400
—
2,700
3,000
INCLE
0
0
—
0
—
2,000
2,000
NADR
0
95
—
2,094
—
0
2,000
Peace
1,843
2,436
—
2,624
—
2,598
2,876
Corps
Totals 49,049
94,614
37,000
93,117
60,000
96,241
128,952
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480
40,000
19,000
—
40,000
—
20,000
n/a
Title I
USDA
Loan
FFP
5,958
1,091
—
0
—
3,517
n/a
Section
0
12,787
—
7,936
—
0
n/a
416(b)
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206)
b. Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 108-11)
The United States shares important security, political, and commercial interests
with the Philippines, a Major Non-NATO ally and front-line state in the war on
terrorism. Since 2001, the Philippines has received the most dramatic increases in
U.S. foreign assistance to the EAP region. The major program areas of U.S. foreign
aid are Muslim Mindanao; corruption and poor economic governance; education;
health care issues; and the environment.
CSH programs in the Philippines include HIV/AIDS prevention, tuberculosis
diagnosis and treatment, and family planning. DA funds support corruption
mitigation and economic and environmental governance. Economic Support Funds
promote economic development and infrastructure in Mindanao, home of the Moro
National Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf, and other Muslim insurgency groups, some
of which have purported ties to Al Qaeda. DA and ESF aid local education programs
as part of an effort, launched in October 2003, to address “political, economic, and
social marginalization of Muslims and other impoverished and conflict-affected
CRS-19
communities in order to build peace and security.”24 FMF contributes to the military
capabilities of the armed forces of the Philippines and to enhanced cooperation under
the U.S.-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement. IMET promotes military
professionalism, civilian control of the military, and military-to-military contacts
between the United States and the Philippines. Supplemental appropriations have
targeted conflict resolution in Mindanao and other counter-terrorism efforts. INCLE
and NADR help to strengthen Philippine law enforcement, counter-terrorism
capabilities, and control over small arms proliferation. In addition, the Philippines
has been made eligible for priority delivery of Excess Defense Articles (EDA).25
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides that
INCLE funding of $4 million (rather than the $2 million requested by the Bush
Administration) should be made available for police training and related activities.
The conferees on the FY2005 appropriations measure (H.Rept. 108-792) support
increased funding for CSH, DA, IMET, and Anti-Terrorism Assistance for the
Philippines.
The United States signed a Tropical Forest Conservation Act Agreement with
the Philippines on September 19, 2002.26 This accord cancels a portion of the
Philippines’ debt to the United States. The money saved by this rescheduling —
estimated at about $8 million — is to be used for forest conservation activities over
a period of 14 years. In 2004, OFDA provided continued funding for a conflict
preparedness program in Mindanao ($500,000 since 2003).
The United States is the fifth-largest aid donor to the Philippines after Japan,
the Asian Development Bank, Germany, and the World Bank.
24 U.S. Agency for International Development, “FY 2005 Budget Justification to the
Congress.”
25 Excess Defense Articles consist of used U.S. weapons and equipment given away for
free. See Alex Spillius, “Bush Calls on Asia to Renew Support for War on Terror,” The
Daily Telegraph, October 20, 2003.
26 The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
CRS-20
Thailand
Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
0
1,000
1,500
0
0
DA
0
750
1,250
0
0
ESF
0
0
0
0
1,000
FMF
0
1,300
1,990
995
1,500
IMET
1,852
1,650
1,768
2,450
2,500
INCLE
4,095
4,000
3,700
2,000
2,000
NADR
1,300
720
200
380
750
Peace Corps
1,144
1,267
1,818
2,073
2,550
Totals
8,391
10,687
12,226
7,898
10,300
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Thailand is one of five U.S. treaty allies in Asia and was designated a Major
Non-NATO ally in 2003. It is considered a model of democratic development.
Thailand has sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq and has aggressively pursued
terrorist cells within its borders. In 2003, Thai authorities, in cooperation with the
United States, apprehended Indonesian-born Hambali in Thailand. Hambali is
believed to be the operations chief of the Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiyah
and mastermind of the 2002 bomb attack in Bali, the 2003 bombing in Jakarta, and
other attacks in the Philippines. For FY2004 and FY2005, no CSH or DA funds are
to be allocated. FMF, IMET, and INCLE programs in Thailand support counter-
terrorism activities, international peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts (East
Timor, Aceh, Afghanistan, and Iraq), military professionalism and interoperability
with U.S. forces, counter-narcotics efforts, and border-control. NADR funds provide
assistance for the control, detection, and interdiction of transfers of sensitive
materials and technologies that could contribute to weapons proliferation.
Foreign operations appropriations for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $1.5
million in FMF to Thailand and $1 million in ESF for programs to promote
democracy and press freedoms. The State Department request for FY2005 did not
include ESF for Thailand.
Thailand participates in OFDA-funded activities that increase flood forecasting
capacity and early-warning information transfer to communities in the Lower
Mekong River Basin.
In 2001, the United States and Thailand signed an agreement pursuant to the
Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214), providing $11 million in debt relief
to Thailand. In return, Thailand is to contribute $9.5 million over 28 years toward
the protection of its mangrove forests.
CRS-21
Vietnam
Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
2,494
4,106
5,300
6,600
5,700
DA
2,999
6,950
7,671
3,000
4,500
IMET
0
0
0
100
50
NADR
1,675
1,500
2,527
2,306
2,880
Totals27
7,168
12,556
15,498
12,006
13,130
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
FFP
0
992
15,122
7,898
n/a
FFE
—
—
4,796
0
n/a
Section 416(b)
9,182a
3,674
0
6,170
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
United States bilateral assistance to Vietnam focuses on the following:
accelerating Vietnam’s transition to an open and market-based economy; upgrading
access to services for selected vulnerable groups; and developing sustainable urban
and industrial environmental management.
CSH and DA for Vietnam provide assistance to victims of war, land mines, and
unexploded ordnance (Leahy War Victims Fund), orphans (Displaced Children and
Orphans Fund), and those at high risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. If an IMET
agreement with Vietnam is concluded, funds would be used for English language
courses for Vietnamese military officers (E-IMET). NADR programs bolster export
control and border security and help the Vietnamese government in de-mining efforts
and agricultural development. Vietnam receives EAP regional assistance for
economic development, environmental management, and anti-trafficking-in-persons
efforts.
The United States also provides assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment,
and control in Vietnam through USAID regional programs, the President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Centers for Disease Control.
Vietnam, with an estimated 130,000 HIV-positive persons, is the only Asian country
to receive PEPFAR assistance ($10 million in FY2004).28
27 These totals do not include other U.S.-sponsored programs in Vietnam funded outside the
foreign operations budget, such as Department of Defense de-mining assistance, Department
of Labor technical cooperation projects, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) HIV/AIDS
programs, and Fulbright educational exchanges.
28 Some experts argue that Vietnam’s infection rate is faster than those of India and China.
[http://www.kaisernetwork.org].
CRS-22
In 2004, USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance provided $700,000 to
the U.N. Development Program for flood and storm early-warning systems in
Vietnam. Vietnam also participates in OFDA-funded activities that increase flood
forecasting capacity and early-warning information transfer to communities in the
Lower Mekong River Basin.
Many Members of Congress have supported placing conditions upon U.S.
assistance to Vietnam. The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004 (H.R.1587) would
bar increases (over FY2004 levels) in non-humanitarian assistance to the government
of Vietnam unless the President certifies that the country is making “substantial
progress” in the areas of political and religious freedoms, emigration, and the rights
of ethnic minorities. On July 19, 2004, the House of Representatives passed the bill
and referred it to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The act would allow
the President to waive the cap on aid if such non-humanitarian assistance would
promote the purposes of the act or the interests of the United States.29
South Asia
Key U.S. foreign aid objectives in South Asia include combating terrorism,
developing bilateral military relations, reducing poverty and disease, spreading
secular education, fostering political stability, and strengthening democratic
institutions. Prior to September 2001, South Asia was the smallest regional recipient
of U.S. non-food assistance. Since the war on terrorism began, counter-terrorism and
related funding for South Asia, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan, have made the
region a relatively large recipient of humanitarian, development, and economic
assistance and the second largest beneficiary of military assistance after the Middle
East. Before 2002, India and Bangladesh were the largest recipients of U.S. bilateral
aid in South Asia. Following Pakistan’s promise to cooperate with Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the country became the largest beneficiary of U.S.
foreign assistance in the region, followed by India. See Figure 5.
29 For further information about United States foreign aid to Vietnam and proposed
sanctions, see CRS Report RL32636, U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, by Mark E. Manyin.
CRS-23
Figure 5. U.S. Assistance to South Asia
(Excluding Food Aid), 2001-2005
(millions of current U.S. dollars)
South Asia faces daunting development challenges. According to USAID, the
region is home to one-fifth of the world’s population and 40% of the world’s poor.
More than half of the region’s children under the age of five are malnourished. South
Asia reportedly also has alarming infant and child mortality rates, the world’s highest
adult illiteracy rates, the second highest fertility levels, and a rapidly spreading
HIV/AIDS epidemic. These conditions, in turn, threaten political stability and,
according to some observers, create fertile ground for the rise of radical political
ideologies, organizations, and activities. India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka and
have long dealt with terrorist and insurgent groups to varying degrees, while some
Al Qaeda forces are believed to have fled to Bangladesh.30
South Asia regional programs include Anti-Terrorism Assistance and South
Asia Regional Funds for job-creation, education, democracy, and conflict mitigation.
South Asia also receives assistance through USAID’s Asia Near East (ANE) regional
programs, including the U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership, HIV/AIDS prevention
and treatment, and secondary education for Muslim youth. South Asian countries —
particularly Bangladesh, India, and Nepal — are to receive U.S. foreign disaster
assistance worth an estimated $4.25 million for the period 2000-2007, including
funds for disaster response planning, flood forecasting, and earthquake preparedness.
30 See CRS Report RL32259, Terrorism in South Asia, by K. Alan Kronstadt and Bruce
Vaughn.
CRS-24
Foreign Aid Restrictions. Both Pakistan and India faced sanctions on non-
humanitarian aid for conducting nuclear weapons tests in 1998. The United States
imposed additional restrictions on aid to Pakistan because of the military coup that
took place in October 1999 and debt delinquency. Many of the nuclear test-related
sanctions were lifted soon after they were imposed, and the United States reportedly
was prepared to normalize relations with India in the first half of 2001.
On September 22, 2001 President Bush issued a final determination removing
all nuclear test-related sanctions against India and Pakistan pursuant to the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79). On October 27,
2001, the President signed S. 1465 into law (P.L. 107-57, Sections 1(b) and 3(2)),
providing waiver authority with respect to Pakistan’s coup-related sanctions and an
exemption from foreign aid prohibitions relating to the country’s loan defaults. The
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and
Reconstruction Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-106) amended P.L. 107-57 by extending the
President’s waiver authority and the exemption through 2004.31 President Bush
exercised the waiver authority in March 2003 and March 2004. The FY2005
appropriations act (P.L. 108-447) amends P.L. 107-57 by extending Sections 1(b) and
3(2) through FY2005. A crucial challenge for the United States, according to some
U.S. leaders, is how to assist Pakistan in its anti-terrorism activities and reward its
cooperation in Operation Enduring Freedom while still applying pressure regarding
democratization, nuclear non-proliferation, and other foreign policy imperatives.
The FY2005 Foreign Operations Budget Request. For FY2005, the
Bush Administration proposed slightly lower levels of humanitarian and
development aid for the South Asia region compared to FY2004. The budget request
reduced DA to Pakistan by 30% while raising ESF to the country by 30% for
macroeconomic stabilization, health care, education, and democratization efforts.
In FY2005, the United States is to extend the bulk of South Asia military assistance
to Afghanistan and Pakistan, while granting large increases in P.L. 480, Title II food
aid to Bangladesh and India. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005 (P.L.
108-447) provides $702.25 million in FMF and $561 million in ESF for the entire
South Asia region (including Afghanistan), compared to the President’s request of
$701.5 million and $564 million, respectively.32
31 See H.Rept. 108-337, Section 2213.
32 This total includes up to $150 million for assistance to Pakistan that may be drawn from
unobligated balances of funds appropriated under ESF and FMF headings in prior
appropriations acts and not otherwise designated in those acts for a specific country, use,
or purpose.
CRS-25
Country Aid Levels and Legislative Conditions —
South Asia
Bangladesh
Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
15,500
39,950
27,600
36,000
36,300
DA
42,050
21,670
21,391
18,850
19,187
ESF
0
3,000
4,000
4,971
5,000
FMF
0
0
0
0
250
IMET
507
648
772
800
900
Peace Corps
908
581
1,248
1,575
2,133
Totals
58,965
65,849
55,011
62,196
63,770
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
67,658
23,974
38,577
19,616
46,000
II Grant
Section 416(b)
62,810
12,871
49
53
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. foreign aid policy emphasizes sustainable economic development and
effective, democratic governance in Bangladesh, one of the poorest and most
populous countries in the world. The Department of State reports that Bangladesh
is a moderate Islamic democracy; however, poverty and political corruption,
combined with porous borders, have increased the attractiveness of radical
ideologies.33 U.S. development assistance program areas include family planning,
child health, HIV/AIDS prevention, private enterprise development, environmental
protection, political party reform, and local governance. Since 2003, USAID has
administered a basic education program primarily in rural areas. IMET programs
help to professionalize the Bangladesh military. IMET also enhances international
peacekeeping skills and U.S.-Bangladesh military relations. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $250,000 in FMF to
Bangladesh.
In 2000, the United States signed an agreement with Bangladesh reducing the
country’s debt payments to the United States by $10 million over 18 years. In return,
Bangladesh is to set aside $8.5 million to endow a Tropical Forest Fund to protect
and conserve its mangrove forests.34 In FY2004, USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance provided $180,000 for flood monitoring and forecasting.
33 U.S. Department of State, “FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign
Operations,” February 2004.
34 Pursuant to the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
CRS-26
The major bilateral aid donors to Bangladesh are Japan, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.
India
Table 14. U.S. Assistance to India, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
estimate
estimate
CSH
24,593
41,678
47,438
48,300
43,400
DA
28,805
29,200
34,495
25,739
25,400
ESF
4,989
7,000
10,500
14,912
15,000
IMET
498
1,000
1,000
1,250
1,400
NADR
892
900
1,000
685
685
Totals
59,777
79,778
94,433
90,886
85,885
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
78,064
93,679
44,849
30,796
44,849
II Grant
Section 416(b)
0
11,961
0
0
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In 1998, the United States imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan for
detonating nuclear devices. Non-humanitarian assistance was terminated or
suspended. India, one of the largest recipients in the world of U.S. development
assistance and food aid, continued to receive funding for health and food programs.
In 1998, Congress passed the India-Pakistan Relief Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277, Title
IX), which authorized the President to waive the sanctions for one year. On October
25, 1999, Congress provided permanent waiver authority in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, FY2000 (P.L. 106-79). On October 27, 1999, President
Clinton, signaling a warming of bilateral relations, waived the applicability of
nonmilitary aid and IMET restrictions on India. On September 22, 2001, President
Bush issued a final determination removing remaining sanctions on Pakistan and
India resulting from their 1998 nuclear tests.
The United States significantly increased its foreign assistance to India in
FY2002 and FY2003. Development programs include health and family planning,
environmental protection, and disaster management. Since 2003, greater emphasis
has been placed upon education for children and economic growth. Economic
growth programs are to focus on state fiscal reforms and economic sectors that will
likely produce investment opportunities for U.S. companies.
IMET helps to strengthen professionalism in the Indian military and facilitate
cooperation in U.S.-India joint exercises. NADR funding for the Export Control and
Related Border Security Assistance (EXBS) program assists India in strengthening
its export control system. OFDA provided $1.45 million in 2004 for earthquake
safety and disaster response training. India also received some regional flood and
drought mitigation assistance in 2004.
CRS-27
India has an estimated 4.5 million people infected with the HIV virus. CSH
funds are to support HIV/AIDS prevention and control programs in three states. On
March 11, 2002, Senator Jon Corzine introduced a bill (S. 2203) to include India in
the Bush Administration’s Global AIDS Initiative. The Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act, FY2005 (S. 2144), as reported by the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations (S.Rept. 108-248), also contained a provision that would designate
India as a beneficiary of Global AIDS Initiative funds.
The United States is the fifth largest aid donor to India, after Japan, the United
Kingdom, Germany, and the European Union.
Nepal
Table 15. U.S. Assistance to Nepal, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2002
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002
FY2003
S.A.a
estimate
estimate
CSH
9,250
20,000
—
19,899
24,840
23,350
DA
11,858
7,597
—
10,247
11,274
11,000
ESF
0
3,000
—
4,000
4,971
5,000
FMF
0
2,000
12,000
2,950
3,975
1,000
IMET
237
377
—
500
600
650
Peace
1,735
2,111
—
2,624
2,505
2,887
Corps
Totals 23,080
35,085
12,000
40,220
48,165
43,887
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480
0
2,352
—
0
0
0
Title II
Grant
FFE
—
—
—
2,130
0
n/a
Section
2,666
0
—
0
0
n/a
416(b)
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206)
The United States has an interest in helping Nepal to reduce poverty in rural
areas, which have become recruitment areas for Maoist insurgents. The largest U.S.
aid program in Nepal is health and family planning, which includes child mortality
prevention and HIV/AIDS control. Other program areas include hydropower
development, civil society, women’s participation in politics, government
performance, rule of law, and political reform. In 2002, Nepal received $12 million
in supplemental appropriations (FMF) to help the government fight Maoist rebels.
CRS-28
IMET supports professionalism, intelligence, civil affairs, psychological operations,
special forces, medical, and logistics needs of the RNA.
In FY2004, OFDA funded programs for earthquake risk management and
preparedness in the Kathmandu Valley, flood and drought mitigation, and conflict
preparedness.
The FY2005 appropriations act (P.L. 108-447) provides that FMF in the amount
of $1.5 million may be made available to Nepal if the Secretary of State reports to
the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Nepal has satisfied
several conditions, including: (1) complying with habeas corpus orders issued by the
Supreme Court of Nepal; (2) cooperating with the National Human Rights
Commission of Nepal to resolve all security-related cases involving individuals in
government custody; (3) granting the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal
unimpeded access to all places of detention; (4) taking effective steps to end torture
by security forces. The Secretary of State may waive these requirements if such
action is in the national security interests of the United States.
The largest aid donors to Nepal are Japan, the United States, Denmark, the
United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
CRS-29
Pakistan
Table 16. U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
E.R.F.a
S.A.b
W.S.c
estimate
E.S.d
estimate
CSH
0
14,000
—
—
15,645
—
25,600
—
21,050
DA
0
10,000
—
—
34,500
—
42,350
—
29,000
ESF
0
9,500
600,000
15,000
188,000
—
—
200,000
300,000
FMF
0
0
—
75,000
49,500
175,000
74,560
—
300,000
ERMA
—
—
25,000
—
—
—
25,000
—
—
IMET
—
894
—
—
990
—
1,250
—
2,000
INCLE
3,500
2,500
73,000
15,000
6,000
25,000
36,500
—
40,000
NADR
0
100
—
10,000
717
—
4,180
—
8,000
PKO
0
0
220,000
—
0
—
0
—
0
Totals 3,500
36,994
918,000
115,000
295,352
200,000
209,440
200,000
700,050
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
0
10,000
—
—
0
—
0
—
n/a
I USDA Loan
P.L. 480 Title
1,855
5,134
—
—
6,792
—
8,383
—
0
II Grant
FFE
—
—
—
—
4,200
—
0
—
n/a
FFP
0
0
8,977
—
5,980
—
n/a
Section 416(b)
85,075
76,614
—
—
0
—
9,583
—
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
CRS-30
a. Emergency Response Fund (P.L. 107-38)
b. Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206)
c. Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 108-11)
d. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction
Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-106)
e. Economic grants that can be used to cancel a total of approximately $2 billion in debt owed by
Pakistan to the U.S. government. Amounts for FY2004 “shall not be considered ‘assistance’
for the purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to a country” (P.L. 108-106).
Foreign Aid Programs. Pakistan faces daunting development challenges
related to not only the war on terrorism but also massive and rising poverty and
undemocratic, weak, or ineffective political institutions. In addition to Pakistan’s
anti-terrorism efforts and cooperation with the United States in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF), U.S. assistance has focused upon educational activities. Since 2002,
USAID has carried out a $100 million, five-year secular education program with the
goals of offering a popular alternative to the madrassas, or religious schools, and
building foundations for economic development and political moderation. The
program identifies four areas: education sector policy and planning; capacity of
teachers and education administrators; youth and adult literacy; and public-private
partnerships to improve access and delivery of education services. Other major
foreign aid areas are health (including HIV/AIDS prevention), economic growth, and
democratic governance.
FMF helps Pakistan acquire training and purchase aircraft, helicopters, vehicles,
surveillance systems, and other equipment and for OEF along the Afghan border.
INCLE funds enhance the effectiveness of Pakistan’s police efforts in three areas —
law enforcement, border security, and counter-narcotics. NADR helps to prevent
weapons transfers, support anti-terrorism training, and curtail the spread of Man
Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS). IMET promotes increased
professionalism, interoperability between Pakistan and the United States, and
technical skills and expertise. The FY2005 appropriations measure (P.L. 108-447)
extends $200 million in ESF to Pakistan for debt relief.35
Lifting of Foreign Aid Restrictions. Prior to September 2001, Pakistan
received only counter-narcotics (INCLE) and food assistance due to U.S. prohibitions
related to nuclear weapons testing, delinquent debtor status, and the military coup of
1999. Pakistan, one of the largest recipients of U.S. assistance before 1990, received
very little economic and military aid during the 1990s. In 1985, the Pressler
Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Section 620e) barred U.S.
foreign assistance to Pakistan unless the President determined that Pakistan did not
possess nuclear weapons and that U.S. assistance would reduce the risk of Pakistan’s
obtaining them. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush declined to make such
determinations and imposed Pressler Amendment sanctions against Pakistan. This
restriction was eased in 1995 to prohibit only military assistance.36 Although the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79) gave the President
35 Such funds would not be considered “assistance” for the purposes of provisions of law
limiting assistance to Pakistan.
36 The Brown Amendment to the FAA (1995) narrowed the prohibition to military assistance
only.
CRS-31
authority to permanently waive all nuclear test-related sanctions, President Clinton
waived few restrictions toward Pakistan (e.g., USDA credits and U.S. commercial
bank loans) compared to India. Furthermore, Pakistan continued to be ineligible for
most forms of U.S. foreign assistance due to the 1999 military coup and its
delinquency in servicing its debt to the United States.37
Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Pakistan
was designated as a front-line state in the war on terrorism and received dramatically
increased U.S. aid levels. In late September 2001, President George W. Bush waived
nuclear weapons sanctions that prohibited military and economic aid to Pakistan and
India. The Bush Administration also rescheduled $379 million of Pakistan’s $2.7
billion debt to the United States so that Pakistan would not be considered in arrears,
a requirement for further foreign assistance. On October 27, 2001, President Bush
signed S. 1465 into law (P.L. 107-57), allowing the President to waive sanctions
related to the coup through 2003, provided the President determined that making
foreign assistance available would facilitate democratization and help the United
States in its battle against international terrorism. P.L. 107-57 also exempted
Pakistan from foreign assistance restrictions related to loan defaults. The Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction
Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-106) amended P.L. 107-57 by extending the President’s waiver
authority and loan payment exemption through 2004. President Bush exercised the
waiver authority in March 2003 and March 2004. P.L. 108-447 extends the
provisions of P.L. 107-57 through FY2005.
37 See CRS Report RS20995, India and Pakistan: U.S. Economic Sanctions, by Dianne E.
Rennack. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY2001 (P.L. 106-429), Section
508, denies foreign assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is
deposed by military coup or decree; Section 512 of the act, the Brooke Amendment,
prohibits assistance to any country that is in default on loan payments to the United States
for over one year. Sec. 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 denies foreign
assistance to any country that is in default for more than six months in servicing or repaying
loans to the United States. The President may waive this restriction if he finds that
assistance is in the national interest and so notifies Congress. For additional information,
see CRS Issue Brief IB94041, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
CRS-32
Sri Lanka
Table 17. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2001-2005
(thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
300
300
300
300
300
DA
3,399
5,150
6,150
4,750
6,624
ESF
0
3,000
3,950
11,929
10,000
FMF
0
0
0
995
500
IMET
252
259
307
500
500
NADR
0
0
2,400
1,875
1,900
PKO
0
0
0
994
1,000
Totals
3,951
8,709
13,107
21,343
20,824
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title
7,900
8,000
0
0
n/a
I USDA Loan
P.L. 480 Title
0
1,325
596
2,712
0
II Grant
FFP
0
2,775
0
n/a
Section 416(b)
6,030
0
0
923
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USAID programs help to promote the peace process between the government
of Sri Lanka and Tamil insurgents, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
U.S. assistance also helps to meet the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
reconciliation costs stemming from the conflict. Ongoing and planned programs
include delivering “peace dividends,” such as skills training and local infrastructure
improvements; humanitarian assistance for victims of armed conflict, utilizing Leahy
War Victims Funds; economic growth; HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness; and
constitutional reform. Planned FMF uses include maritime surveillance and
interdiction equipment, military communications and mobility items, defense and
intelligence improvements, and equipment for basic soldier safety and survivability.
IMET helps to professionalize the Sri Lankan military, build the capabilities of
officers in the fight against the LTTE and global anti-terrorism activities, and
enhance interoperability with U.S. forces. NADR programs assist in de-mining
activities and demilitarization efforts.
CRS-33
Appendix. Selected Acronyms for U.S. Foreign Aid
Accounts and Programs
CSD:
Child Survival and Disease
CSH:
Child Survival and Health (replaces CSD)
DA:
Development Assistance
EDA:
Excess Defense Articles
ERMA: Emergency Migration and Refugee Assistance
ESF:
Economic Support Funds
FFP:
Food for Progress
FFE:
Food for Education
FMF:
Foreign Military Financing
IMET:
International Military Education and Training
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
MRA:
Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR: Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related Programs
OFDA: Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
PKO:
Peace-keeping Operations
P.L. 480 Title I:
Food Aid (USDA loans)
P.L. 480 Title II:
USAID emergency food program
Section 416(b):
Surplus Food Commodities