Order Code RL31362
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Updated May 1, 2008
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Summary
This report analyzes annual budget justifications and legislation for foreign
operations appropriations and discusses U.S. foreign aid trends, programs, and
restrictions in 16 East Asian and South Asian countries. It does not cover aid to
Pacific Island nations, North Korea, and Afghanistan. Country tables do not include
assistance from U.S. State Department programs funded outside the foreign
operations budget, such as educational and cultural exchange programs, and
assistance from other departments and agencies.
Since the war on terrorism began in 2001 and the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) and Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (GHAI) were launched in 2004, the
United States has increased foreign aid spending dramatically in some regions,
including East and South Asia. The United States has raised military, economic, and
development assistance primarily for counterterrorism objectives in the East Asia-
Pacific (EAP) and South Asia regions, with Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and
Indonesia receiving the bulk of the increases. In 2007, the Bush Administration
restructured U.S. foreign aid programs to better serve the goal of transformational
development, which places greater emphasis on U.S. security and democracy building
as the chief goals of foreign aid.
In the past decade, the United States government has restricted foreign
assistance to many countries in East and South Asia in order to encourage democracy
and respect for human rights. In response to the September 2006 military coup in
Thailand, the Bush Administration suspended military and peacekeeping assistance
pursuant to Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) placed human rights
conditions upon portions of the U.S. military assistance grants to Indonesia, the
Philippines, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Some sanctions have been waived or lifted.
Since 2003, President Bush has annually exercised the waiver authority on coup-
related sanctions against Pakistan. In 2005, the United States government resumed
full military assistance to Indonesia, based upon the satisfaction of legislative
conditions and national security grounds.
The FY2008 budget for the East Asian countries that are covered in this report
represented a slight increase compared to FY2007. The FY2008 budget raised
assistance to South Asian countries by 8%, according to estimates. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 made some changes to the Administration’s
proposed funding levels. These revisions included additional ESF for democracy and
humanitarian activities in Burma; funding for democracy, rule of law, and Tibet
programs in China as well as U.S.-China educational exchanges; and increased
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for the Philippines. The Administration’s budget
request for FY2009 includes dramatic increases in Development Assistance for the
following countries: Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
The FY2009 budget would cut Foreign Military Financing for the Philippines by 50%
and bolster law enforcement (INCLE) funding to Nepal. This report will be updated
to reflect new data.
Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
New Approaches to Foreign Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The FY2008 and FY2009 Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The FY2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations Legislation . . . . . . . . 4
The FY2009 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Regional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Taiwan and Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lifting Sanctions on Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
September 2006 Military Coup in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chinese Aid to Southeast Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Country Aid Levels and Restrictions — East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
People’s Republic of China (PRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Resumption of Military Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2004 Tsunami Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
September 2006 Military Coup and U.S. Aid Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Country Aid Levels and Restrictions — South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Lifting of Foreign Aid Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
FY2008 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix. Selected Acronyms for U.S. Foreign Aid
Accounts and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients
Overview
New Approaches to Foreign Aid
The United States acts to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security goals
and respond to global development and humanitarian needs through its foreign
assistance programs. Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, foreign aid
gained importance as a “vital cornerstone,” along with diplomacy and defense, in
U.S. national security strategy.1 The Bush Administration reoriented foreign
assistance programs, particularly to “front line” states in the war on terrorism. For
many countries, the U.S. government directed not only increased security and
military assistance but also development aid for counterterrorism efforts, including
programs aimed at mitigating conditions that may make radical ideologies and
religious extremism attractive, such as cycles of violence, poverty, limited
educational opportunities, and ineffective or unaccountable governance.
In 2007, the Bush Administration restructured U.S. foreign aid programs to
better serve the goal of transformational development, which places greater emphasis
on U.S. security and democracy building as the principal goals of foreign aid.2
Toward these ends, the new Strategic Framework for U.S. Foreign Assistance divides
aid programming among five objectives: peace and security; governing justly and
democratically; investing in people; economic growth; and humanitarian assistance.
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), established in 2004, promotes these
objectives by rewarding countries that demonstrate good governance, investment in
health and education, and sound economic policies.
Critiques. According to some analysts, recent U.S. foreign policy trends have
weakened programs and institutions that specialize in basic development. Some
policy-makers have expressed concern that transformational development and MCA
funding priorities have taken resources away from traditional programs, particularly
in countries that contain lesser security threats to the United States or where
governments do not meet various U.S. performance criteria. Other analysts argue
that promoting democracy in some countries prematurely may result in a waste of
1 See CRS Report RL33491, Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of
Foreign Assistance, by Larry Nowels and Connie Veillette.
2 Transformational development, which involves foreign aid, is to work in tandem with the
Administration’s transformational diplomacy, which emphasizes diplomatic resources. See
USAID Fact Sheet, “New Direction for U.S. Foreign Assistance,” January 19, 2006.
CRS-2
aid.3 According to one study, insufficient funding for foreign assistance objectives
has reinforced a “migration of foreign aid authorities and functions to the Department
of Defense.”4
Funding Trends
Foreign operations appropriations declined from a peak in 1985 to a low in
1997, after which they began to grow again. Many of the fluctuations in aid flows
over the past 25 years can be attributed to U.S. foreign policy responses to events
such as natural disasters, humanitarian crises, and wars and to U.S. military
assistance and other security initiatives in the Middle East. Since 2001, U.S.
assistance to front line states in the global war on terrorism and Iraq war-related
funding have propelled foreign aid funding to new highs.
Other sources of growth include the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and
the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).5 Four Asia-Pacific
countries are eligible to apply for MCA assistance — East Timor, Mongolia, Sri
Lanka, and Vanuatu — while two countries — Indonesia and the Philippines — have
been designated as “threshold,” qualifying them for assistance to help them become
eligible for MCA funds. In October 2007, the Mongolian government and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a five-year, $285 million
agreement. Vietnam is the largest Asian recipient of Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
(GHAI) funding under PEPFAR ($118 million between 2005 and 2007).
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. 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.
Since the war on terrorism began in 2001, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and
Indonesia became the foci of the Bush Administration’s counterterrorism efforts in
South and Southeast Asia, due to their strategic importance, large Muslim
populations, and insurgency movements with links to terrorist groups. These
countries have received the bulk of the increases in U.S. foreign aid (non-food) to
3 Marcela Sanchez, “A Risky Shift in Direction,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, January 27,
2006; Guy Dinmore, “U.S. Poised for Radical Reform of Foreign Aid Programme,”
Financial Times, January 19, 2006; Guy Dinmore, “Critics of ‘Utopian’ Foreign Policy Fail
to Weaken Bush Resolve,” Financial Times, January 13, 2006.
4 Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid: A Report to Members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Senate Committee Print, November 16, 2007.
5 CRS Report RL33262, Foreign Policy Budget Trends: A Thirty-Year Review, by Larry
Nowels.






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































CRS-3
Asia (excluding Afghanistan), although funding for aid programs in India and the
Philippines reached a peak in 2006 and fell in 2007 and 2008. Beginning in 2004,
both Indonesia and the Philippines received new funding for education programs in
order to promote diversity, non-violent resolution of social and political conflict
(Indonesia), and livelihood skills among Muslims residing in impoverished and
conflict-ridden areas (southern Philippines). See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Major U.S. Aid Recipients in Asia, by Aid
Amount, 2001-2007 ($million)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2002
2004
2006
2001
2003
2005
2007
1 - Bangladesh
2 - Cambodia
3 - India
4 - Indonesia
5 - Pakistan
6 - Philippines
Both the Bush Administration and Congress have supported increased funding
for the Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF).
Spending for HRDF increased from a yearly average of $13 million in 2001-2002 to
$31 million in 2003-2005. The Fund received $71 million in both FY2006 and
FY2007. In addition, the U.S. government provided a total of $65 million for
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-administered HRDF programs between
2003 and 2007. Approximately one-third of the Democracy Fund has been allocated
to Asia, mostly for rule of law and civil society programs in China.6
6 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).
CRS-4
Foreign Aid Restrictions
In the past decade, the United States has imposed restrictions on non-
humanitarian development aid, Economic Support Funds (ESF),7 and military
assistance to some Asian countries in order to pressure them to improve performance
related to democracy, human rights, weapons proliferation, foreign debt payments,
and other areas. These countries include Burma, Cambodia, China, Indonesia,
Thailand, and Pakistan. However, the United States continues to fund non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) that run development and democracy programs
in some of these countries. Most sanctions on aid to Cambodia, Indonesia, and
Pakistan have been lifted. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 places
human rights conditions upon portions of the U.S. military assistance grants to
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Pakistan.
The FY2008 and FY2009 Budgets
The Administration’s FY2008 budget request for the East Asian countries that
are covered in this report ($453 million) represented a slight increase compared to
FY2007 ($442 million). With the exception of Indonesia and Vietnam, assistance
to most East Asian countries is to decrease or remain about the same in 2008
compared to 2007. The budget request for Indonesia included large increases in
Development Assistance (DA) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Global
HIV/AIDS Initiative funding for Vietnam is to grow by 36% in FY2008, from $63
million in FY2007 to $86 million.
The FY2008 budget raised assistance to South Asian countries by 8% (from
$900 million in FY2007 to $974 million). This reflected greater funding for
Bangladesh (mostly Development Assistance) and Pakistan (ESF). In addition, for
FY2008, the Administration requested new funding for law enforcement
enhancement activities in Nepal and Sri Lanka. Regional Development Mission Asia
programs (an estimated $13.7 million in FY2008) support public health efforts,
improved water and sanitation services, trade, environmental preservation, and
investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean technologies in East
and South Asia.
The FY2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations Legislation. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, signed into law as P.L. 110-161),
Division J, made some changes to the Administration’s request. These revisions
included additional ESF for democracy and humanitarian activities for Burma;
funding for democracy, rule of law, and Tibet programs in China as well as U.S.-
China educational exchanges; and increased FMF for the Philippines. The spending
measure also imposed new restrictions on FMF for Sri Lanka.
The FY2009 Budget Request. The Administration’s budget request for
FY2009 includes dramatic increases in Development Assistance for the following
7 Economic Support Funds (ESF) programs involve a wide range of uses (except military)
that support U.S. security interests and promote economic and political stability in the
recipient countries and regions.
CRS-5
countries: Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The
budget would cut Foreign Military Financing for the Philippines by 50% and bolster
law enforcement (INCLE) funding for Nepal. New programs under the proposed
FY2009 budget include Development Assistance for Laos, Mongolia, and Thailand
and FMF for Vietnam.8
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance by Region
(Excluding Food Aid), 2001, 2003-2007
($million)
FY01
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06 FY07
Africa
1,313
1,706
2,091
2,795
2,771
3,486
East Asia-
368
477
474
525
1,022
500
Pacific
Europe and
2,017
2,871
1,577
1,323
1,023
845
Eurasia
Near East Asia
5,401
8,409
5,556
5,755
5,217
5,099
(Middle East)
South/Central
Asia (excl.
201
785
685
970
875
1,025
Afghanistan)
Western
749
1,559
1,545
1,723
1,516
1,439
Hemisphere
Totals
10,049
15,807
11,928
13,091
12,424
12,394
Source: U.S. Department of State, Country/Account Summaries (2001-2007).
Note: In addition to the above, 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.
Regional Comparisons
Africa remained the largest regional recipient of Child Survival and Health
(CSH) and Development Assistance (DA) funding in FY2007.9 The largest regional
recipients of Economic Support Funds in FY2007 were Near East Asia (Middle East)
and South and Central Asia (mostly to Afghanistan, with a large portion going to
Pakistan as well). The largest recipient of military assistance, by far, was Near East
8 U.S. Department of State, “Summary and Highlights — International Affairs, Function 150
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request.”
9 The State Department divides foreign aid allocations into six regions: Africa, East Asia
and the Pacific (EAP), Europe and Eurasia, Near East Asia (Middle East), South and Central
Asia (formerly South Asia), and Western Hemisphere (Latin America and Carribean).
CRS-6
Asia followed by South and Central Asia.10 These rankings were the same as those
for FY2006. See Table 1 and Figures 2-4.
Figure 2. Health and Development
Assistance (DA and CSH) by Region, FY2007
est. ($million)
Total: $2.25 billion
Africa, 1,159
Europe, 5
Near East, 11
E. Asia Pacific, 176
South/Central Asia, 526
W. Hemisphere, 378
U.S. Department of State
Figure 3. Economic Support Funds by
Region, FY2007 est. ($million)
Total: $2.38 billion
Near East, 1,110
Europe, 34
W. Hemisphere, 124
Africa, 163
South/Central Asia, 781
E. Asia Pacific, 177
U.S. Department of State
10 Military assistance includes International Military Education and Training (IMET),
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).
CRS-7
Figure 4. Military Assistance by Region,
FY2007 est. ($million)
Total: $4.7 billion
W. Hemisphere, 115
South/Central Asia, 315
Near East, 3,924
Africa, 131
E. Asia Pacific, 52
Europe, 157
U.S. Department of State
East Asia
Since 2001, foreign aid spending in East Asia has grown markedly, largely due
to counterterrorism 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 home 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). USAID’s programs in East Asia
also aim to address the conditions that may give rise to radical ideologies and
terrorism, such as poverty and unemployment, lack of education, failing
governments, political disenfranchisement, and violent conflict. In October 2003, the
Bush Administration launched education programs in Muslim communities in the
Philippines and in Indonesia as part of its regional counterterrorism efforts.
Among East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) countries (excluding the Pacific Island
nations),11 in FY2007, Indonesia was the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid,
particularly ESF, health, and development assistance (CSH and DA), followed by the
Philippines. The Philippines was the region’s largest beneficiary of Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET).
Counter-narcotics and law enforcement assistance (INCLE) were provided to
Indonesia, the Philippines, Laos, and Thailand. Indonesia, Cambodia, and the
Philippines were the largest recipients of Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-
11 For information on U.S. foreign assistance to the Pacific Island countries, see CRS Report
RL34086, The Southwest Pacific: U.S. Interests and China’s Growing Influence, by Thomas
Lum and Bruce Vaughn.
CRS-8
mining, and Related Programs (NADR).12 Vietnam, as one of 15 focus countries
under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), received $118
million from the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (GHAI) account between 2005 and
2007 and is to receive $86 million in 2008. See Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5. U.S. Foreign Aid (Non-food) to East
Asian Countries, FY2007 est. ($million)
Total: $467 million
Indonesia, 147
E. Timor, 22
China, 34
Laos, 4.8
Cambodia, 55
Malaysia, 3
Mongolia, 12
Burma, 13
Vietnam, 61
Philippines, 105
Thailand, 9.8
U.S. Department of State
U.S. assistance also finances several EAP regional programs. Estimated funding
for such programs in FY2007 was $27 million, a slight decrease from that provided
in FY2006. Most of the funding — approximately 75% — supports economic
growth efforts. In addition, the United States contributes to the Developing Asian
Institutions Fund as part of the establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-
Pacific. The second largest regional aid objective is the advancement of peace and
security (nearly 20% of regional program funding), including the following aid
activities: counterterrorism, counternarcotics, fighting transnational crime, non-
proliferation, and maritime cooperation. The third largest aid area is democracy-
building.
Taiwan and Singapore. Taiwan and Singapore, two newly developed
countries in East Asia, also receive limited U.S. assistance. Taiwan receives over
$550,000 annually to develop its export control system and combat trafficking in
persons. The United States government provides Singapore roughly $700,000 per
year to help the country deter, detect, and interdict the flow of illegal arms across its
maritime borders.
12 The INCLE and NADR accounts are often referred to as “security assistance.”
CRS-9
Foreign Aid Restrictions
In some East Asian countries, the United States has withheld assistance or
restricted it to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or to exiled democratic
political groups in response to government actions that the U.S. government has
deemed in violation of international human rights standards. In the past decade,
foreign operations appropriations measures have imposed human rights-related
sanctions on U.S. foreign assistance to the governments of Burma and Cambodia and
to the Indonesian military while supporting Burmese dissident groups and promoting
human rights, civil society, and democracy in Cambodia, China, East Timor,
Indonesia, Mongolia, and Thailand. Since 2006, most sanctions on aid to the
government of Cambodia and to the Indonesian military have been lifted, although
restrictions have been imposed on aid to Thailand.
Figure 6. Top U.S. Foreign Aid Recipients in
East Asia, FY2000, FY2002-FY2007 ($million)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Cambodia
East Timor
Indonesia
Philippines
Vietnam
U.S. Department of State
Lifting Sanctions on Indonesia. Between 1993 and 2005, Indonesia faced
sanctions on military assistance largely due to U.S. congressional concerns about
human rights violations, particularly those committed by Indonesian military forces
(TNI). In February 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice determined that the
Indonesian government and armed forces (TNI) had satisfied legislative conditions
and certified the resumption of full IMET for Indonesia. P.L. 109-102, Section
599F(a), continued existing restrictions on FMF, stating that such assistance may be
made available for Indonesia only if the Secretary of State certifies that the
Indonesian government is prosecuting, punishing, and resolving cases involving
members of the TNI credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human
rights in East Timor and elsewhere. Section 599F(b) provided that the Secretary of
State may waive restrictions on FMF for Indonesia if such action would be in the
national security interests of the United States. In November 2005, the Secretary of
State waived restrictions on FMF to Indonesia on national security grounds pursuant
to Section 599F(b).
CRS-10
September 2006 Military Coup in Thailand. In response to the September
19, 2006, military coup in Thailand, the Bush Administration suspended military and
peacekeeping assistance pursuant to Section 508 of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, which provides that such funds shall not be made available to
any country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by military coup.
The U.S. government also suspended funding for counter-terrorism assistance
provided under Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006.
Other aid programs not affected by Section 508 or in the U.S. national interest would
continue to receive funding.
Chinese Aid to Southeast Asia
In comparison to major bilateral donors in the region, the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) provides relatively little official development assistance (ODA).
Furthermore, the PRC government appears to lack a foreign aid system with a
centralized organizational structure, long-term development goals, open funding
processes, and published data. Nonetheless, the PRC administers a wide range of
economic assistance to Southeast Asia that includes many forms of aid that generally
are not counted as ODA by established international aid agencies: infrastructure and
public works projects, trade and investment agreements, pledges of foreign direct
investment, and technical assistance. China is also a large source of loans.
According to some analysts, when these kinds of assistance are included, China is
one of the largest bilateral aid donors in Southeast Asia. The PRC has been
described as the “primary economic patron” of the region’s least developed countries
(Burma, Cambodia, and Laos).13 China also has provided considerable foreign aid
to Vietnam as well as other large and more developed countries (Thailand, Indonesia,
and the Philippines).
Some analysts have criticized PRC assistance and investments for being non-
transparent, supporting urban “trophy projects” rather than sustainable development,
and lacking performance criteria and environmental safeguards. Others have argued
that the benefits of PRC assistance to these countries, particularly Cambodia and
Laos, have outweighed adverse effects, and that China has helped to address needs
not met by Western and Japanese aid. Many observers argue that the United States
should bolster its aid programs, trade activities, and diplomatic presence in the region
in order to counteract China’s growing influence.
13 Catherin E. Dalpino, “Consequences of a Growing China,” Statement before the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, June 7,
2005; Heritage Foundation program, “Southeast Asia’s Forgotten Tier: Burma, Cambodia
and Laos,” July 26, 2007.
CRS-11
Country Aid Levels and Restrictions — East Asia14
Burma
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Burma, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
0
0
2,100
2,083
2,100
DA
0
0
0
717
0
ESF
7,936
10,890
10,890
12,895b
13,750
Othera
4,000
3,000
3,000
3,000b
—
Totals
11,936
13,890
15,990
18,695
15,850
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID.
a. Humanitarian assistance for displaced Burmese and host communities in Thailand through an
unspecified account.
b. P.L. 110-161
Burma’s political, economic, educational, and public health institutions and
systems have deteriorated under 40 years of military rule. The United States provides
no direct aid to the Burmese government 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 arrest.15 U.S.
sanctions were tightened, especially travel and financial restrictions against SPDC
leaders, following the Burmese government’s violent suppression of democracy
demonstrators in September 2007.
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. Additional U.S. foreign aid sanctions against Burma include
opposition to international bank loans to Burma and a ban on debt restructuring
assistance. Since the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons was
established by the U.S. State Department in 2001, Burma has received a “Tier 3”
assessment annually by the Office for failing to make significant efforts to bring itself
into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in
persons. The Tier 3 ranking could serve as a basis for withholding non-humanitarian
aid.
14 Including Southeast Asia and excluding North Korea and Pacific Island nations.
15 For Burma aid sanctions, see P.L. 104-208, Section 570. For further information on
Burma, see CRS Report RS22737, Burma: Economic Sanctions, by Larry A. Niksch and
Martin A. Weiss.
CRS-12
Inside Burma, the United States provides assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention,
care, and treatment, English language training, and civil society. The largest U.S. aid
programs assist Burmese refugees in Thailand.
Top Donors of Bilateral
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
Official Development
FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) appropriates $13 million
Assistance ($US million) to
(ESF) primarily for Burmese student groups and
Burma
other democratic organizations located outside
Burma, and for the provision of humanitarian
1. Japan:
26
assistance to displaced Burmese along Burma’s
2. EC:
14
3.
United Kingdom: 11
borders. The act also provides $3 million for
4. Australia:
11
community-based organizations operating in
5. Korea:
7
Thailand to provide food, medical and other
humanitarian assistance to internally displaced
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
persons in eastern Burma.
Cambodia
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Cambodia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
29,300
28,556
27,826
27,826
23,135
DA
8,950
5,483
7,922
8,087
17,226
ESF
16,864
14,850
14,850
14,879
—
FMF
992
990
990
198
750
GHAI
0
0
1,600
—
—
IMET
0
54
101
67
60
INCLE
0
0
0
0
0
NADR
4,170
5,000
3,987
3,937
4,200
Peace Corps
0
1,081
—
1,379
—
Totals
60,276
54,933
57,276
56,373
45,371
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title
II Granta
0
0
—
0
—
FFPb
3,643
—
—
—
—
FFEb
0
1,257
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
Cambodia ranks 131th out of 177 countries and regions on the United Nations
Development Program’s Human Development Index, which measures GNP per
capita, life expectancy, and educational attainment. The U.S. State Department
reports that Cambodia’s fragile institutions, weak rule of law, and rampant corruption
are major challenges to Cambodia’s democratic development and economic growth.
CRS-13
Furthermore, Cambodia’s health and education systems were decimated under the
rule of the Khmer Rouge (1975-1979) and subsequent Vietnamese control.16 The
largest U.S. assistance sectors in Cambodia are health and education ($25 million),
including a significant HIV/AIDS program component. The U.S. assistance mission
in Cambodia also aims to promote transparency and accountability in government,
combat corruption, and strengthen civil society. Other program areas include
economic reform and growth and improving the military’s capability to protect
Cambodia’s borders from transnational threats.
In February 2007, the United States government lifted a decade-long ban on
direct bilateral aid to Cambodia. The U.S. government had imposed restrictions on
foreign assistance to Cambodia following Prime Minister Hun Sen’s unlawful seizure
of power in 1997 and in response to other abuses of power under his rule. Foreign
operations appropriations barred U.S. assistance to the central government of
Cambodia and to the Khmer Rouge tribunal and instructed U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions to oppose loans to Cambodia, except those that
met basic human needs. U.S. assistance was permitted only to Cambodian and
foreign NGOs and to local governments. Statutory exceptions allowed 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; and counter-narcotics activities.17
Cambodia, one of the top five countries in the world for the number of landmine
casualties (approximately 800 victims per year), received $5 million 2006 and an
estimated $3.8 million in 2007 in U.S. de-mining assistance. Under the
Administration’s FY2008 budget, the country is to receive $2.5 million in de-mining
assistance. In addition, in the past decade, USAID has supported programs worth
$13 million providing for prostheses, physical rehabilitation, employment, and
related services for mine victims using Leahy War Victims Funds.
On October 12, 2005, U.S. Secretary of
Top Donors of Bilateral
Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt, on
Official Development
a visit to Southeast Asia, signed a cooperation
Assistance ($US million) to
agreement with Cambodian officials in which
Cambodia
$1.8 million was pledged to help the country
guard against the spread of H5N1 (avian
1.
Japan: 94
influenza).
2.
United States: 60
3.
France: 28
4.
Australia: 27
In January 2007, the Peace Corps launched
5.
Germany: 24
programs in Cambodia to teach English and
develop sustainable community activities.
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
16 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
17 For most of these activities, the U.S. government collaborated with the central government
of Cambodia but continued to provide funding through the country’s large and vibrant NGO
community.
CRS-14
People’s Republic of China (PRC)18
Table 4. U.S. Assistance to China, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
0
0
4,800
4,960
5,000
DA
0
4,950
5,000
9,919*
—
ESF
19,000
20,000
19,000
17,000*
—
ESF/Tibet
4,216
3,960
3,960
4,960*
1,400
GHAI
0
0
1,950
—
—
NADR
0
0
0
0
600
Peace Corps
1,476
1,683
1,886
1,953
—
Totals
24,692
21,683
36,596
38,792
7,278
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID.
* The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provides $10 million for U.S.-China
educational exchanges (DA), $15 million for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan democracy programs
(ESF), and $5.25 million for Tibetan community assistance (ESF).
USAID does not have a presence or mission in the People’s’s Republic of China
(PRC). However, the Peace Corps has been involved in English language and
environmental education in China since 1993, and United States funding primarily
to U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for democracy and Tibet
programs has grown substantially since 2002 (approximately $15 million per year).

China received only Peace Corps assistance prior to 2000. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000 provided $1 million for foreign-based NGOs
working in Tibet and authorized ESF for foreign NGOs to promote democracy in
China. For FY2001, the United States extended $28 million to the PRC as
compensation for damages caused by the accidental NATO bombing of the Chinese
Embassy in Belgrade in 1999. Congress has increased its annual appropriation for
democracy, human rights, and rule of law programs in China from $10 million in
2002 to $23 million in 2006.19 Appropriations for cultural preservation, economic
development, and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in China have
also grown. In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) of
the Department of State became the principal administrator of China democracy
18 Since 2004, the annual congressional authorization for democracy funds for China have
included Hong Kong and Taiwan. Funding for legal and political reforms in Taiwan shall
only be made available to the extent that they are matched from sources other than the
United States Government.
19 For further information, see CRS Report RS22663, U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in
China, by Thomas Lum.
CRS-15
programs.20 Major U.S. grantees have included the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), the Asia Foundation, Temple University (School of Law), the
American Bar Association, and the Bridge Fund (Tibet). In addition, NED provides
grants (approximately $2 million per year since 1999) for programs that promote
human rights, labor rights, electoral and legal reforms, and independent mass media
in China from its annual congressional appropriation.21
Since 2006, Congress has appropriated
Top Donors of Bilateral
Development Assistance (DA) to American
Official Development
educational institutions for exchange programs
Assistance ($US million) to
related to democracy, rule of law, and the
China
environment in China. In 2007, the U.S.
government began funding HIV/AIDS programs
1.
Japan: 1,662
in China.
2.
Germany: 470
3.
France: 164
4.
United Kingdom: 74
The United States continues to impose other
5.
EC: 58
restrictions that were put in place in the
aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
military crackdown, including “no” votes or
abstentions by U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions regarding loans to China (except those that meet
basic human needs) and a ban on Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
programs in the PRC. 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,
Tibet programs are still restricted to NGOs. Congress continues to require that U.S.
representatives to international financial institutions support projects in Tibet only
if they do not encourage the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans (Han Chinese)
into Tibet or the transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans.22 In addition,
foreign operations appropriations legislation forbids funding to the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) for programs in China due to alleged coercive family
planning practices.
20 For descriptions of HRDF projects in China, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, FY2005-2006 Human Rights and Democracy Fund
Projects Fact Sheet, December 6, 2005.
21 See General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-
Related Programs (China),” February 2004.
22 For further information, see CRS Report RL31910, China: Economic Sanctions, by
Dianne E Rennack.
CRS-16
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste)
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to East Timor, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
0
0
1,000
1,000
0
DA
500
0
0
5,000
8,140
ESF
21,824
18,810
18,810
16,862
—
FMF
1,023
990
475
0
0
IMET
364
193
254
381
300
INCLE
0
1,485
0
20
1,010
PKO
1,228
0
0
0
0
Peace Corps
1,372
827
0
0
—
Totals
25,811
22,305
20,539
23,263
9,450
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title
II Granta
994
1,182
2,172 0

—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
East Timor (Democratic Republic of
Top Donors of Bilateral
Timor-Leste) gained full independence in May
Official Development
2002. The United States supports a wide range
Assistance ($US million) to
of aid programs in East Timor, one of Asia’s
East Timor
poorest countries, with the goal of building a
viable economy, functional government, and
1.
Australia: 37
democratic political system. The largest
2.
Portugal: 30
strategic objective of U.S. assistance is
3.
United States: 24
4.
Japan: 22
economic growth, targeting agriculture, private
5.
EC: 11
sector competitiveness, and economic
opportunity. Other major objectives are
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
improved governance and peace and security.
Program areas include rule of law, human rights,
and civil society. IMET activities aim to develop more professional military and
police forces. In November 2005, the Millennium Challenge Corporation selected
East Timor as eligible for MCA assistance.
In May 2006, the Peace Corps suspended its programs in East Timor due to civil
and political unrest in the country.
CRS-17
Indonesia
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
estimate
request
CSH
37,100
28,017
27,507
25,737
30,883
DA
27,848
33,199
29,524
70,953
122,021
ESF
68,480
69,300
69,300
64,474
—
FMF
0
990
6,175
15,572
15,700
GHAI
0
0
250
—
—
IMET
728
938
1,398
927
1,500
INCLE
0
4,950
4,700
6,150
9,450
NADR 6,262
6,888
8,881
5,861
6,750
Totals 140,418
144,282
147,321
189,674
186,304
Food Aid/Disaster Relief
P.L. 480 Title
II Granta
10,489
12,886
10,951
0
—
FFPb
6,194
—
—
—
—
Section 416(b)b
9,078
—
—
—
—
Tsunami
Reliefc
400,000
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
c. Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund, P.L. 109-13
The U.S. State Department reports that the “overarching U.S. foreign policy
priority in Indonesia is to assist its transformation into a stable, moderate democracy
capable of addressing regional and global challenges in partnership with the
international community.” The country faces many development and security
challenges, including terrorist threats, ethnic and separatist conflicts, weak
institutions, high levels of corruption, poverty and unemployment, low levels of
education, and poor health conditions.23 The largest strategic objective in terms of
funding is investing in people ($87.6 million), which includes education, health, and
clean water programs. A major U.S. assistance initiative is the six-year, $157 million
education program that began in 2004. The second largest area of U.S. aid is peace
and security — the Administration requested $41.7 million for FY2008 for the
Indonesian military and police to fight terrorism, combat weapons proliferation and
other transnational crimes, monitor strategic waterways, and cooperate with the
United States armed forces. This increase in funding reflects the normalization of
military ties in 2005.
For FY2008, over $29 million in U.S. assistance are to support programs for
strengthening the justice and legislative branches, participatory governance, human
rights, and civil society. Economic growth programs worth $27 million are to
23 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
CRS-18
promote greater transparency and combat corruption, and are expected to lead to an
improved trade and investment climate, financial sector soundness, and increased
private sector competitiveness.
The MCC has designated Indonesia as a “threshold” country for 2006, meaning
that the country is close to meeting MCA criteria and may receive assistance in
reaching eligibility status. In November 2006, USAID and the government of
Indonesia signed a $55 million, two-year agreement for MCA assistance under the
MCC Threshold Program.
Resumption of Military Assistance. In 2005, the Bush Administration
determined that Indonesia had met legislative conditions for the resumption of full
IMET and waived restrictions on FMF on national security grounds, thus lifting
sanctions on military assistance that were first imposed in 1993.24 The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2004 (P.L. 108-199) made IMET available to Indonesia if the
Secretary of State determined that the Indonesian government and armed forces
(TNI) were cooperating with the United States in the investigation regarding the
August 2002 attack in Timika, Papua, in which three school teachers, including two
Americans, were killed. P.L. 108-199 continued the ban on FMF unless the
President certified that the Indonesian government was prosecuting and punishing
those members of the Indonesia armed forces credibly alleged to have committed
gross violations of human rights, particularly in East Timor in 1999. The FY2005
foreign operations appropriations measure (P.L. 108-447) contained similar
provisions. In February 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice determined that
the Indonesian government and armed forces had cooperated with the FBI’s
investigation into the Papua murders, thereby satisfying legislative conditions, and
certified the resumption of full IMET for Indonesia. The foreign aid appropriations
act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-102) continued existing restrictions on FMF to Indonesia;
however, the law provided that the Secretary of State may waive restrictions if such
action would be in the national security interests of the United States. In November
2005, the Secretary of State exercised the waiver authority and allowed FMF for
Indonesia.
Top Donors of Bilateral
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
Official Development
FY2008, Section 679(a) appropriated up to
Assistance ($US million) to
$15.7 million in Foreign Military Financing
Indonesia
(FMF) for Indonesia, of which $2.7 million “may
not be made available” unless the Government of
1.
Japan: 963
Indonesia has taken steps to prosecute and punish
2.
Germany: 191
members of the TNI credibly alleged to have
3.
United States: 163
4.
Australia: 145
committed human rights violations in East Timor
5.
Netherlands: 128
and elsewhere, implement reforms related to
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
24 Notwithstanding the restrictions on IMET and FMF, from 1997-2004, Congress allowed
Indonesia to participate in Expanded International Military Education and Training (E-
IMET), which emphasizes and teaches human rights, military codes of conduct, and civilian
control of the military; the FY2005 foreign operations appropriations measure (P.L. 108-
447) allowed FMF to the Indonesian navy to enhance maritime security.
CRS-19
improved transparency and accountability of the military, and allow public access to
Papua.
2004 Tsunami Relief. The December 26, 2004 tsunami caused catastrophic
losses of lives and property in Aceh province, Indonesia, with nearly 130,000 persons
dead and over 500,000 displaced.25 The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (P.L. 109-13)
appropriated $631 million for tsunami recovery and reconstruction in East and South
Asia. Of this amount, the Bush Administration pledged $400 million for relief and
reconstruction efforts in Indonesia.26
Laos
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Laos (LPDR), 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006
FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
0
0
1,000
992
1,000
DA
0
0
0
0
250
ESF
0
0
375
298
—
IMET
0
0
40
67
100
INCLE
1,984
990
900
1,567
1,000
NADR
2,500
3,300
2,550
2,550
1,900
Totals
4,484
4,290
4,825
5,474
4,250
Food Aid
FFEa
0
289
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
The bulk of U.S. aid programs in Laos
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
are related to peace and security. The
Development Assistance ($US
Administration’s request for FY2008 includes
million) to Laos
the following programs: removing unexploded
ordnance (UXO), English language training
1.
Japan: 65
for Lao defense officials, counter-narcotics
2.
France: 21
efforts, and combating transnational crime.
3.
Sweden: 19
4.
Germany: 15
Other program areas include public health,
5.
Australia: 12
rule of law, and improving the country’s trade
and investment environment. Laos also
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
receives assistance through the Leahy War
Victims Fund ($1.5 million during the 2004-
25 USAID, Fact Sheet #39, Indian Ocean — Earthquakes and Tsunamis (July 7, 2005).
26 USAID, USAID Rebuilds Lives after the Tsunami (April 27, 2006).
CRS-20
2009 period) to assist victims of UXO. U.S. mines from the Vietnam War cause an
average of 120 deaths per year (nearly 4,000 deaths, and over 13,000 casualties, since
1975). UXO also takes a significant economic toll on rural areas, affecting 25% of
villages or one-third to one-half of the nation’s land area.
In October 2005, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt
signed a cooperation agreement with Lao officials in which the United States pledged
$3.4 million to Laos for controlling outbreaks of avian flu.
Malaysia
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
IMET
1,100
891
871
876
750
INCLE
0
0
0
0
400
NADR
2,308
1,526
2,401
1,998
1,540
Totals
3,408
2,417
3,272
2,874
2,690
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID.
Malaysia is not a recipient of U.S.
Top Donors of Bilateral
development and economic aid. The U.S. State
Official Development
Department describes Malaysia as a “key
Assistance ($US million) to
Muslim-majority state in Southeast Asia and an
Malaysia
important contributor to conflict resolution and
p e a c e k e e p i n g b o t h r e g i o n a l l y a n d
1.
Japan: 297
internationally.”27 Regional terrorist
2.
Denmark: 14
organizations, most notably Jemaah Islamiyah,
3.
Germany: 8
4.
France: 4
are known to use Malaysia for planning and fund
5.
United States: 2
raising. Over half of U.S. assistance to the
country is related to antiterrorism and non-
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
proliferation activities. Other assistance is
provided for military operations and law
enforcement restructuring.
The U.S. State Department’s 2007 Trafficking in Persons Report placed
Malaysia in the “Tier 3” category for failing to “make significant efforts to bring
itself into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
in persons.” Such an assessment could trigger the withholding of non-humanitarian,
non-trade-related U.S. foreign assistance.
27 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
CRS-21
Mongolia
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Mongolia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
DA
0
0
0
4,577
0
ESF
9,920
7,425
6,625
0
6,800
FMF
992
2,970
3,791
993
2,000
IMET
1,009
866
955
923
970
INCLE
0
0
0
0 420
NADR
0
0
0
0
250
Peace Corps
1,694
1,747
1,694
1,995
—
Totals
13,615
13,008
13,065
8,488
10,440
Food Aid
FFPa
3,658
5,375
—
—
—
Section 416(b)a
0
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
U.S. assistance efforts in Mongolia aim to
Top Donors of Bilateral
build foundations for the country’s private
Official Development
economic and democratic political
Assistance ($US million) to
development. Security assistance focuses on
Mongolia
reform of the Mongolian armed forces and
regional stability. In September 2005, the
1.
Japan: 67
government of Mongolia submitted a proposal
2.
Germany: 28
to the Millennium Challenge Corporation for
3.
United States: 22
4.
Netherlands: 9
several projects to be funded by MCA funds,
5.
Turkey: 8
including railroad construction, improved
housing, and health services. In October 2007,
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
the Mongolian government and the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a five-
year, $285 million agreement.
CRS-22
Philippines
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Philippines, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
27,050
24,651
24,362
24,967
20,043
DA
27,576
24,212
15,448
27,321
56,703
ESF
30,720
24,750
29,750
27,773
—
FMF
29,760
29,700
39,700
29,757
15,000
IMET
2,915
2,926
2,746
1,475
1,700
INCLE
3,968
1,980
1,900
794
1,150
NADR
2,257
4,968
4,198
4,531
4,625
Peace Corps
2,820
2,767
2,820
2,753
—
Totalsa
127,066
115,954
121,294
119,371
99,221
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title I
20,000
—
—
—
—
USDA Loan
FFPa
1,720
6,335
—
—
—
Section 416(b)b
5,644
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. Totals include supplemental appropriations.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
The United States shares important security, political, and commercial interests
with the Philippines, a Major Non-NATO Ally and front-line state in the global war
on terrorism. Since 2001, the Philippines has received the most dramatic increases
in U.S. foreign assistance in the EAP region. The main goals of U.S. assistance in
the Philippines are: fighting terrorism through military means and education;
supporting the peace process in Muslim Mindanao; improving governance;
promoting economic reform and encouraging foreign investment; preserving the
environment; and reversing the deterioration of the educational system. The largest
U.S. aid accounts in the country fund health and education programs, especially in
conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. Other large funding priorities are economic
growth and security. Security programs include support for Philippine Defense
Reform, joint military exercises, and enhanced
counterterrorism capabilities. U.S. assistance
also supports the battle against transnational
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
crime (money laundering, trafficking in
Development Assistance ($US
persons, and narcotics trade).
million) to the Philippines
In 2006, the MCC designated the
1.
Japan: 706
2.
United States: 114
Philippines as a “threshold” country or close to
3.
Germany: 60
meeting MCA criteria and eligible for
4.
Australia: 38
assistance in qualifying. The Philippines
5.
EC: 20
recently initiated a two-year, $21 million MCA
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
CRS-23
threshold program that focuses on fighting corruption and improving government
revenue collection.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, Section 699E provides up
to $30 million for FMF for the Philippines, of which $2 million may be made
available after the Secretary of State reports that:
! the Philippine government is implementing the recommendations of
the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
or Arbitrary Executions;
! the Philippine government is implementing a policy of promoting
military personnel who demonstrate professionalism and respect for
human rights, and is investigating and prosecuting military personnel
and others who have been credibly alleged to have committed
extrajudicial executions or other violations of human rights; and
! the Philippine military is not engaging in acts of intimidation or
violence against members of legal organizations who advocate for
human rights.
The United States signed a Tropical Forest Conservation Act Agreement with
the Philippines on September 19, 2002.28 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.
Thailand
Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
estimate
request
CSH
0
0
1,400
992
1,000
DA
0
0
0
0
4,500
ESF
992
990
990
0
0
FMF
1,488
1,485
0
149
800
IMET
2,526
2,369
0
1,142
1,400
INCLE
1,608
990
900
1,686
1,400
NADR
1,782
3,989
2,100
2,483
2,000
Peace Corps
2,143
2,212
2,144
2,278
—
Totals
10,539
12,035
7,534
8,730
11,100
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID.
28 The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
CRS-24
Thailand is one of five U.S. treaty allies in Asia and was designated a Major
Non-NATO Ally in 2003. Thailand has sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq and
has aggressively pursued terrorist cells in its southern provinces. For FY2008, the
Bush Administration proposed funding for domestic counterterrorism activities,
border security, countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
military reform. Thailand would also receive funding for HIV/AIDS programs.
September 2006 Military Coup and U.S. Aid Sanctions. In response
to the September 19, 2006, military coup in Thailand, the U.S. State Department
announced the suspension of nearly $24 million in U.S. foreign assistance to the
country, including military and peacekeeping assistance and training under foreign
operations appropriations ($7.5 million) and counterterrorism assistance under
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ($16.3
million).29 The bans were imposed pursuant to Section 508 of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, which provides that such funds shall not be made available to
any country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by a military coup.
Under Section 508, the funds can be reinstated once a democratically-elected
government is in place. Other aid programs not affected by Section 508 or in the
U.S. national interest would continue to receive funding.
Other Programs. In 2001, the
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
United States and Thailand signed an
Development Assistance ($US
agreement pursuant to the Tropical Forest
million) to Thailand
Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214), providing
$11 million in debt relief to Thailand. In
1.
Japan: 765
return, Thailand is to contribute $9.5 million
2.
Germany: 31
over 28 years toward the protection of its
3.
France: 27
4.
EC: 19
mangrove forests. The United States
5.
Denmark
government pledged $5.3 million in relief
and reconstruction assistance for areas in
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
Thailand affected by the December 2004
tsunami.
29 For further information, see CRS Report RL32593, Thailand: Background and U.S.
Relations, by Emma Chanlett-Avery.
CRS-25
Vietnam
Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
estimate
request
CSH
1,200
0
0
0
0
DA
4,750
3,818
2,480
2,420
10,700
ESF
0
1,980
4,980
10,613
—
FMF
0
0
0
0
500
GHAI
24,044
31,214
62,935
86,000
86,000
IMET
50
49
279
186
195
INCLE
0
0
0
0
200
NADR
3,331
3,770
3,200
3,075
1,920
Totalsa
33,375
40,831
74,374
102,294
99,515
Food Aid
FFPb
0
—
—
—
—
FFEb
0
—
—
—
—
Section
416(b)b
0
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. Totals include supplemental appropriations.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
Vietnam, with over 250,000 HIV-
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
positive persons in 2006, is the largest Asian
Development Assistance ($US
recipient of Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
million) to Vietnam
(GHAI) funds under the President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
1.
Japan: 670
Other U.S. assistance objectives in Vietnam
2.
France: 116
include the following: accelerating
3.
United Kingdom: 82
Vietnam’s transition to an open and market-
4.
Germany: 79
5.
Denmark: 73
based economy; de-mining; promoting
human rights and supporting civil society;
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
and countering illegal cross-border transport
of arms and narcotics. IMET programs
include training in English language and international peacekeeping.
The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 3096), passed by the House on
September 18, 2007, would freeze U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance to the
government of Vietnam at FY2007 levels unless the President certifies to Congress
that the government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in the following areas:
the release of political and religious prisoners; religious freedom; the rights of ethnic
minorities; access to U.S. refugee programs by Vietnamese nationals; and combating
trafficking in persons.
CRS-26
South Asia
Key U.S. foreign aid objectives in South Asia include combating terrorism,
developing bilateral military ties, and reducing the social and economic sources of
political instability and extremist religious and political thinking. These causes
include lack of accountable governance, inter-ethnic conflict, poverty, disease, and
illiteracy. Prior to September 2001, South Asia was the smallest regional recipient
of U.S. non-food assistance. Since the war on terrorism began, counterterrorism 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 participation in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, the country became the largest beneficiary of U.S.
foreign assistance in the region after Afghanistan, followed by India. See Figure 7.
Figure 7. U.S. Assistance to South Asian Countries
(excluding Food Aid), 2001-2008 ($million)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2001 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Nepal
Bangladesh
India
Note: 2008 data is estimated
Regional programs focus upon economic growth, combating terrorism, and
fighting international crime. The South Asia Regional Fund ($5 million in FY2007)
promotes economic growth through addressing energy needs in South Asia, such as
assisting countries to find energy resources and facilitating trade in energy. The
South and Central Asia Regional Fund ($1.5 million in FY2007) supports programs
related to border control and education. The aim of assistance for education is to
help reduce religious and ideological extremism and regional instability.
CRS-27
Foreign Aid Restrictions. Both India and Pakistan 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 its delinquency on
foreign loan payments and because of the military coup that took place in October
1999. 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), exempting Pakistan from
coup-related sanctions through FY2002, providing waiver authority on the sanctions
through FY2003, and granting an exemption from foreign aid prohibitions related to
the country’s loan defaults. In subsequent years, Congress has extended the waiver
authority on coup-related sanctions. Since 2003, President Bush has annually
exercised the waiver authority. A crucial challenge for the United States, according
to some U.S. leaders, is how to assist Pakistan in its counterterrorism activities and
reward its cooperation in Operation Enduring Freedom while still applying pressure
regarding democratization, nuclear non-proliferation, and other U.S. foreign policy
imperatives.
Disaster Assistance. In the December 2004 earthquake and tsunami, Sri
Lanka suffered heavy human losses and property damage. The United States
government pledged $134 million in disaster assistance (including USAID disaster
assistance and food aid and USDA food aid) to Sri Lanka and $17.9 million to
India.30 On October 8, 2005, a catastrophic, magnitude 7.6 earthquake struck
Pakistan, killing over 73,000 persons in Pakistan and 1,333 in India and leaving
nearly 3 million people homeless. The United States pledged $300 million in
economic assistance to the affected region.31
Country Aid Levels and Restrictions — South Asia
Bangladesh
Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
33,412
31,509
29,935
37,181
29,575
DA
16,535
10,889
10,430
29,190
39,060
ESF
4,960
4,950
3,750
0
0
30 USAID, Fact Sheet no. 39, Indian Ocean — Earthquake and Tsunamis (July 7, 2005);
USAID, Tsunami Assistance, One Year Later (December 21, 2005).
31 USAID, Fact Sheet no. 44, South Asia — Earthquake (August 25, 2006).
CRS-28
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
FMF
248
990
990
595
1,000
IMET
1,035
930
934
761
800
INCLE
0
0
0
198
800
NADR
893
5,094
2,575
6,301
3,600
Peace Corps
1,773
706
0
0
—
Totals
58,856
55,068
48,614
74,226
74,835
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title
II Granta
22,122
30,207
35,618 30,783
32,000
Section
416(b)b
3,257
3,833
—
—
—
FFEb
0
2,868
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
In addition to problems related to development, corruption remains a key
obstacle to social, economic, and political advancement in Bangladesh. The largest
elements of the U.S. aid presence involve public health, including HIV/AIDS
programs, and basic education. In other areas, the U.S. government provides support
for anti-corruption reforms and democratic institutions. U.S. assistance also aims to
expand economic opportunities and equitable growth in the country. Security and
military assistance help to strengthen the police and military forces to counter
terrorist activity, enhance border security, and fight international financial and drug
crimes.
In March 2006, the Peace Corps
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
suspended its programs in Bangladesh due to
Development Assistance ($US
concerns that volunteers might become
million) to Bangladesh
targets of terrorists.
1.
Japan: 234
In 2000, the United States signed an
2.
United Kingdom: 232
agreement with Bangladesh reducing the
3.
United States: 89
country’s debt payments to the United States
4.
EC: 68
5.
Netherlands: 63
by $10 million over 18 years. In return,
Bangladesh is to set aside $8.5 million to
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
endow a Tropical Forest Fund to protect and
conserve its mangrove forests.32
32 Pursuant to the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
CRS-29
India
Table 14. U.S. Assistance to India, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
53,222
52,815
53,411
58,947
59,682
DA
24,856
19,700
15,676
10,547
900
ESF
14,880
4,950
4,875
0
—
GHAI
0
0
8,971
—
—
IMET
1,502
1,272
1,501
1,237
1,200
INCLE
0
0
0
0
400
NADR
4,181
2,711
1,108
2,684
1,700
Totals
98,641
81,448
85,542
73,415
63,882
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title II
Granta
35,763
43,501
31,034
13,406
13,500
Section 416(b)b
0
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
The United States significantly
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
increased bilateral aid to India in FY2002
Development Assistance ($US
and FY2003, largely as part of its
million) to India
counterterrorism efforts in the region. The
current aid program aims to further Indian
1.
Japan: 651
economic development in order to enhance
2.
United Kingdom: 535
the country’s rise as “an influential U.S.
3.
Germany: 166
4.
EC: 164
partner in the international system.”33
5.
United States: 164
Furthermore, U.S. assistance serves the
poorest segments of the population in order
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
to mitigate economic and social conditions
that may give rise to political extremism.
For FY2008, the largest portion of U.S. assistance is to India funds public health
and HIV/AIDS care, treatment, and prevention. Security and military assistance
supports programs related to military professionalism, counterterrorism,
counternarcotics, and border security. Economic Support Funds are to promote the
private agricultural sector.
33 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
CRS-30
Nepal
Table 15. U.S. Assistance to Nepal, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
estimate
request
CSH
25,165
18,613
18,090
19,891
13,667
DA
10,000
8,393
10,447
9,136
—
ESF
4,960
4,950
11,250
9,423
13,015
IMET
648
644
793
752
800
INCLE
0
0
0
30
10,000
NADR
2,771
0
840
1,141
700
Peace Corps
179
0
0
0
—
Totalsc
43,723
32,600
41,420
40,373
38,182
Food Aid
P.L. 480
Title II
966
1,213
6,056
0
—
Granta
FFEb
3,871
—
—
—
—
Section
416(b)b
0
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
c. Totals include supplemental appropriations.
U.S. assistance to Nepal aims to further
Top Donors of Bilateral Official
the peace process between the government of
Development Assistance ($US
Nepal and Maoist insurgents, establish
million) to Nepal
stability, and promote development. IMET,
INCLE, and NADR programs help the Nepal
1.
Japan: 76
military and police to restore law and order.
2.
United Kingdom: 64
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
3.
Germany: 58
FY2008 allows for only Expanded
4.
United States: 45
5.
Denmark: 31
International Military Education and Training
(E-IMET) for Nepal. E-IMET emphasizes
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
and teaches the military about human rights,
military codes of conduct, and civilian control
of the military. Other major components of United States aid programs in Nepal
include building the capacity of local and national governments to provide social
services and improving public health.
CRS-31
In 2004, the United States suspended the Peace Corps program in Nepal after
Maoist rebels bombed the United States Information Center in Kathmandu.
Pakistan
Table 16. U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006
FY2007 estimate
request
CSH
21,000
22,757
22,385
29,816
27,855
DA
29,000
26,990
95,327
29,757
—
ESF
297,600
296,595
283,673
407,165
453,200
FMF
298,800
297,000
297,000
297,570
300,000
IMET
1,885
2,037
1,992
1,903
1,950
INCLE
32,150
34,970
24,000
21,822
32,000
NADR
7,951
8,585
9,977
10,063
11,250
Totalsc 688,386
688,934
734,354
798,333
826,255
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title II
Granta
0
17,675
—
0
—
FFPb
10,170
11,197
—
—
—
FFEb
5,796
5,169
—
—
—
Section 416(b)
1,972
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
c. Totals include supplemental appropriations.
Pakistan is a front-line state in the global
Top Donors of Bilateral
war on terrorism. Most U.S. assistance programs
Official Development
in the country claim to directly or indirectly serve
Assistance ($US million):
U.S. counterterrorism goals. The United States
Pakistan
government has pledged $600 million in
economic and security assistance and $50 million
1.
United States: 224
in earthquake reconstruction aid on an annual
2.
Japan: 120
basis through FY2009. Approximately 43% of
3.
United Kingdom: 92
4.
Turkey: 63
U.S. assistance to Pakistan supports
5.
Norway: 45
counterterrorism and border security efforts. The
second largest strategic objective (36% of
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
funding) is economic growth, aimed at nurturing
a middle class as a foundation for democracy. Economic Support Funds (13%) “help
Pakistan to improve the quality of and access to public education, primary healthcare,
CRS-32
and water and sanitation services” in part to help provide alternatives to services
provided by terrorist-linked charities and schools.34 Other assistance directly
promotes democracy through support of legislative processes, democratic practices
within political parties, free and fair elections, civil society, and the mass media.
Lifting of Foreign Aid Restrictions. Pakistan received limited U.S.
assistance during the 1990s — counter-narcotics support, food aid, and Pakistan
NGO Initiative programs35 — due to congressional restrictions in response to
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. 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 In 1998, following nuclear weapons
tests carried out by India and Pakistan, President Clinton imposed restrictions on
non-humanitarian aid to both countries pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of
1968 (Section 102). Furthermore, Pakistan continued to be ineligible for most forms
of U.S. foreign assistance due to its delinquency in servicing its debt to the United
States and to the 1999 military coup.37 Although the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79) gave the President authority to permanently
waive all nuclear test-related sanctions, President Clinton waived few restrictions on
Pakistan (e.g., USDA credits and U.S. commercial bank loans) as compared to India.
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 India and
Pakistan. 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 United States government to
waive sanctions related to the military coup and authorizing presidential waiver
authority 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 its default on international loans.38
34 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
35 The USAID Pakistan NGO Initiative delivered education and health services primarily
through the Asia Foundation and Aga Khan Foundation USA and independently of the
government of Pakistan. Total funding for the program (1994-2003) was $10 million.
36 The Brown Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act (1995) narrowed the prohibition
to military assistance only.
37 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.
38 See P.L. 107-57, Sections 1(b) and 3(2).
CRS-33
Since 2003, President Bush has annually exercised the waiver authority on coup-
related sanctions against Pakistan.39 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. P.L. 108-447 and P.L. 109-102 extended the provisions of
P.L. 107-57 through FY2005 and FY2006, respectively. The Implementing the 9/11
Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) extended the waiver
authority allowing for foreign assistance to Pakistan through FY2008.
On March 25, 2008, President Bush waived democracy-related aid sanctions on
Pakistan for FY2008, stating that such a waiver would facilitate the transition to
democratic rule in Pakistan and is important for U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Following the national and provincial elections of February 2008, which many
observers considered free, fair, and credible, the Bush Administration issued a
determination that a democratically elected government had been restored in
Pakistan. This determination permanently removed coup-related aid sanctions.40
Sri Lanka
Table 17. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
FY2008
estimate
request
CSH
300
0 0
0
0
DA
6,774
3,705
3,557
5,241
4,000
ESF
9,920
3,960
3,000
0
—
FMF
496
990
990
422
900
IMET
461
529
483
571
600
INCLE
0
0
0
20
350
NADR
2,700
3,615
1,050
1,143
650
Totals
20,651
12,799
9,323
7,397
6,500
39 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K.
Alan Kronstadt.
40 Federal Register Vol. 73, no. 69, p. 19276-19277, April 9, 2008. “Pakistan Poll Process
‘Credible’ — U.S. Senators,” BBC Monitoring South Asia, February 20, 2008.
CRS-34
FY2009
Account
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
FY2008
estimate
request
Food Aid/Disaster Assistance
P.L. 480 Title
II Granta
1,996
0
14,086
—
—
FFPb
9,690
8,798
—
—
—
Section
416(b)b
0
70
—
—
—
Tsunami
Reliefc
134,600
—
—
—
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data — includes freight costs.
b. USDA data — does not include freight costs.
c. Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund, P.L. 109-13
United States assistance programs aim to
Top Donors of Bilateral
promote the peace process between the
Official Development
government of Sri Lanka and Tamil separatists
Assistance ($US million) to
led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Sri Lanka
(LTTE). In order to help pressure the LTTE to
return to the negotiating table, the United States
1.
Japan: 317
provides assistance to help strengthen the
2.
Germany: 65
capabilities of the Sri Lankan military. INCLE
3.
Norway: 48
4.
United States: 43
and NADR programs support the police force
5.
Netherlands: 38
and counterterrorism activities. U.S. assistance
also promotes economic growth, especially in
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
less developed, conflict-ridden areas, and helps
to advance democracy, human rights, and civil
society.
In 2004, Sri Lanka met eligibility requirements for MCA funding, due in large
part to positive governmental, social, and economic indicators in Western province.
Although a Compact was expected in 2007, the MCC put an agreement on hold in
early 2007 pending improvements in the overall human rights and security situations,
and in December 2007 the MCC decided not to reselect Sri Lanka for 2008 Compact
eligibility.
Sri Lanka suffered heavy human losses (an estimated 31,000 dead, 4,100
missing, and 519,000 displaced) and property damage worth approximately $1 billion
(or 4.4% of GDP) in the December 2004 earthquake and tsunami.41 The Bush
Administration pledged $134.6 million for disaster relief and reconstruction to Sri
Lanka. In 2006, Sri Lanka received Transition Initiative (TI) funding ($1.7 million)
for the peace process and $1.1 million in disaster assistance.
41 USAID, Fact Sheet no. 39, Indian Ocean — Earthquake and Tsunamis, July 7, 2005
CRS-35
FY2008 Appropriations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008,
Section 699G, withholds FMF from Sri Lanka, with the exception of technology or
equipment related to maritime and air surveillance and communications, unless the
following conditions are met:
! the Sri Lankan military is suspending and the Sri Lankan
government is bringing to justice members of the military who have
been credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human
rights or international humanitarian law, including complicity in the
recruitment of child soldiers;
! the Sri Lankan government is providing access to humanitarian
organizations and journalists throughout the country consistent with
international humanitarian law; and
! the Sri Lankan government has agreed to the establishment of a field
presence of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights in Sri Lanka with sufficient staff and mandate to
conduct full and unfettered monitoring throughout the country and
to publicize its findings.
CRS-36
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
DF: Democracy Funds
EAP: East Asia and the Pacific
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
GHAI: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
IMET: International Military Education and Training
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
MCA: Millennium Challenge Account
MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation
MRA: Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR: Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related Programs
OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
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
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture