U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
April 24, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22663
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Summary
U.S. government support of rule of law and civil society programs in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote democratic change in China.
Other related U.S. activities include participation in official bilateral dialogues on human rights,
public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies. During the past decade, U.S.
assistance to China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an annual average of
$11.1 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and aid to Tibetans,
to $31.5 million during the 2005-2008 period, which included not only democracy and Tibetan
assistance but also new funding for educational exchanges and health care programs (HIV/AIDS
awareness, prevention, and treatment). Between 2000 and 2008, the United States government
authorized or made available roughly $182 million for programs in China, of which $159 million
was devoted to human rights and democracy activities and to Tibetan communities.
Most U.S.-funded programs in the PRC aim to promote the rule of law and civil society in China
using special allocations from the Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund
(HRDF). The U.S. Congress has played a leading role in initiating programs and determining
funding levels for these objectives. Non-governmental organizations such as the Ford Foundation
and other countries also provide substantial democracy-related assistance to the PRC.
Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law and civil society efforts in China have
produced limited gains due to PRC political constraints. Others contend that such programs have
helped to build social foundations for political change and have bolstered reform-minded officials
in the PRC government. Some analysts advocate greater efforts at evaluating the effectiveness of
rule of law, civil society, and democracy-related programs.
U.S. rule of law and civil society programs have created a web of relationships among
governmental and non-governmental actors and educational institutions in both the United States
and China. Despite growing contacts and common interests among these entities, Chinese civil
society groups remain subject to PRC restrictions and occasional crackdowns on their activities.
Some of these groups also have been affected by the ups and downs of the U.S.-China bilateral
relationship.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1
Policy Debates ................................................................................................................ 2
Program Development ................................................................................................................ 3
Other Restrictions on Foreign Aid ......................................................................................... 4
FY2008-FY2009 Appropriations ................................................................................................. 5
Earthquake Relief ........................................................................................................... 6
Foreign Operations Appropriations: Legislative History (1999-2007) .......................................... 7
FY2000-FY2003 Appropriations ........................................................................................... 7
FY2004-FY2007 Appropriations ........................................................................................... 7
Key Actors and Programs............................................................................................................ 8
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) (Department of State)..................... 8
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (Department of State) .............................. 8
Department of Labor ............................................................................................................. 9
National Endowment for Democracy..................................................................................... 9
Temple University............................................................................................................... 10
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to China by Type, 2000-2008............................................................... 5
Tables
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, 2000-2009................................................................ 7
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Overview
U.S. government support of rule of law and civil society programs in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote democratic change in China.
Other related U.S. activities include participation in official bilateral dialogues on human rights,
public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies. During the past decade, U.S.
assistance to the China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an annual average
of $11.1 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and aid to
Tibetans, to $31.5 million during the 2005-2008 period, which included not only democracy and
Tibetan assistance but also new funding for educational exchanges and health care programs such
as HIV/AIDS awareness, prevention, and treatment.
Compared to U.S. assistance missions in most other Asian countries, which focus largely upon
development (health, education, economic growth), counterterrorism, and good governance
objectives, U.S.-supported aid activities in China do not play roles in the areas of economic
development and international security. Most U.S.-funded programs in the PRC aim to promote
political development and civil society using special allocations from the Department of State’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). Other appropriations provide for helping to protect
Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and the environment in Tibetan areas of
China.
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining aid levels for China than it does for most
other countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have an
official presence or mission in the PRC, due in part to the PRC government’s reported human
rights abuses. Foreign assistance appropriations for China have been administered chiefly by the
Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), which follows
Congress’ authorizations in annual foreign operations appropriations measures. By contrast, most
countries with USAID missions receive assistance through the Department of State’s regional
bureaus, which make annual requests that are approved by Congress.
Despite its growth, U.S. assistance to China remains relatively limited. Between 2000 and 2008,
the United States government authorized or made available roughly $182 million for programs in
China, of which $159 million was devoted to human rights and democracy activities and to Tibet.
In FY2008, funding for U.S. assistance programs in China represented about 6.5% of total U.S.
foreign aid to East Asia. The top recipients of U.S. assistance in East Asia in 2008 were
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, which received an estimated $189 million, $119 million,
and $102 million, respectively.1 After 2001, Indonesia and the Philippines received large
increases in U.S. annual assistance as front-line states in the Bush Administration’s war on terror.
The bulk of U.S. assistance to Vietnam is HIV/AIDS program support. See Figure 1 and Table 1.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), China’s top
aid donors are Japan, Germany, and France, which provided $1.2 billion, $454 million, and $196
million, respectively, on an annual average basis in 2006-2007.2 However, some major aid
1 For information on U.S. assistance to Asia, see CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia:
Selected Recipients, by Thomas Lum.
2 OECD http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/21/1880034.gif.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
donors, such as Japan and Germany, provide a large share of their foreign assistance in the form
of loans rather than grants.3 Some policy makers in these countries have advocated reducing their
development aid to China, due largely to China’s rise as an economic power.
European Union aid efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development, reportedly
exceed those of the United States in terms of funding and place greater emphasis on
commercially-oriented rule of law. According to the European Commission, EU assistance to
China has moved away from the areas of infrastructure and rural development and towards
support for social and economic reform, the environment and sustainable development, and good
governance and the rule of law. The EU funded aid projects and programs worth €181 million
($235 million) in 2002-2006.4 For the 2007-2013 period, the EU plans to allocate €10 million
($13 million) for democracy and human rights programs and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).5 The European Union also has set up a joint law school administered through the
University of Hamburg and located in the China University of Politics and Law in Beijing.
In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S. government
support, offered grants worth $220 million for programs in China during 1988-2006. The
Foundation extended grants totaling $19.6 million, $16.8 million, and $17.9 million in 2006,
2007, and 2008, respectively. Most Ford Foundation funding in China has supported governance,
democracy, and civil society programs, followed by health, education and cultural activities and
economic development and environmental projects.6
Policy Debates
As with many efforts to help reform China’s political system and conduct from without, there has
been little evidence of fundamental change. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law
and civil society efforts in China have produced limited benefits due to PRC government political
constraints, including the lack of judicial autonomy, restrictions on lawyers, weak enforcement of
laws, and severe curbs on the ability of Chinese citizens to organize and perform social functions
independently of state control. They suggest that the limited influence of China’s judicial, legal,
and civil institutions, organizations, and actors precludes their value as real agents for democracy.
Some human rights activists advocate more rigorous methods of evaluating the effectiveness of
democracy programs in China.7
Other analysts contend that foreign-funded democracy, rule of law, and civil society programs in
the PRC have helped to build foundations for political change—more comprehensive laws, more
professional judicial and legal personnel, more cosmopolitan and assertive non-governmental
organizations, and a cadre of rights activists—and have bolstered reform-minded officials in the
PRC government. Many foreign and Chinese observers note that awareness of legal rights in
3 Approximately 90% of Japanese ODA to China has come in the form of loans, according to some sources. See The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Overview of Official Development Assistance to China” http://www.mofa.go.jp/
policy/oda/region/e_asia/china/index.html. German aid to the PRC reportedly also has included a substantial loan
component. See “As China Booms, Germany Politicians Question Continuing Aid,” Deutsch Welle, July 27, 2007.
4 European Commission: External Cooperation Programs http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/country-
cooperation/china/china_en.htm.
5 European Union, China: Country Strategy Paper 2007-13 (Draft).
6 Fiscal Year to Date http://www.fordfound.org/grants.
7 “Funding the Rule of Law and Civil Society,” China Rights Forum, no. 3 (2003).
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
many areas of PRC society is growing.8 Some experts add that policies that support incremental
rather than fundamental change have the best chance of succeeding in the long run, through
increasing “the capacity of reform-oriented individuals in China to be effective in their own
work,” including those within the government and without.9
PRC civil society groups and NGOs, key targets of U.S.-funded democracy programs, have raised
concerns among China’s leadership about their growing influence and foreign contacts. Many of
them reportedly have experienced a tightening regulatory environment in recent years.10 Some
experts argue that to be more effective, U.S.-supported civil society programs in China should be
insulated as far as possible from U.S. government involvement and the vagaries of U.S.-China
bilateral relations.11
Program Development
United States foreign assistance to the PRC primarily has supported rule of law, civil society, and
democracy-related programs and assistance to Tibetan communities since 2000. Since 1999,
Congress has played a leading role in funding these programs through annual foreign operations
appropriations measures. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have
an official presence or mission in the PRC, due in part to the Chinese government’s reported
human rights abuses. U.S. laws that can be invoked to deny foreign assistance on human rights
grounds include Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195). In
addition to democracy and Tibet-related aid, American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA)
has provided support for university and hospital projects in China since 1997, while the Peace
Corps has been involved in teaching English language and topics such as environmental
awareness in the PRC since 1993.
In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed upon a U.S.-China Rule of
Law Initiative, although U.S. funding for the program was not provided until 2002. In 1999,
Congress began authorizing assistance (to non-governmental organizations located outside China)
for the purpose of fostering democracy in the PRC (P.L. 105-277). In 2000, the act granting
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106-286) authorized programs
to promote the rule of law and civil society in China. The FY2002 appropriations measure (P.L.
107-115) removed China from a list of countries prohibited from receiving U.S. indirect foreign
assistance and lifted the requirement that Economic Support Funds (ESF) for democracy
programs be provided only to NGOs located outside the PRC. The FY2003 appropriations
measure (P.L. 108-7) continued the requirement that Tibet assistance be granted to NGOs but
lifted the stipulation that they be located outside China.
Major recipients of U.S. grants for China programs have included Temple University (rule of
law), the International Republican Institute (village elections), the Asia Foundation (civil society),
and the Bridge Fund (Tibet). The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a major
role in promoting democracy in China through congressional appropriations. U.S. universities
8 Jamie P. Horsley, “The Rule of Law in China: Incremental Progress,” The China Balance Sheet in 2007 and Beyond,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2007.
9 Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
10 Paul Mooney, “How to Deal with NGOs—Part 1, China,” YaleGlobal Online, August 1, 2006.
11 Gewirtz, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
involved in educational exchanges have included the University of Massachusetts (judiciary
reform), the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and American University
Washington College of Law (rule of law), Vermont Law School (environmental law), and Western
Kentucky University (environmental protection). Implementing partners for Tibet programs have
included the Bridge Fund, the Mountain Institute, and Winrock International.
The Department of State’s East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau and Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have administered China programs primarily through the Human
Rights and Democracy Fund (ESF account). Funding has been channeled largely to U.S.-based
non-governmental organizations operating in China, which in turn have provided some support to
Chinese NGOs. The East Asia Regional Democracy Fund and HRDF global fund also have
provided some ESF for rule of law and Tibet programs. Since 2006, Congress has appropriated
Development Assistance (DA) to American educational institutions for exchange programs
related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment in China. In 2007, the U.S. government
began funding HIV/AIDS programs in China using Child Survival and Health (CSH) account
funds.
Other Restrictions on Foreign Aid
Many U.S. sanctions on the PRC in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including some foreign aid-related restrictions, such as required “no” votes or
abstentions by U.S. representatives to international financial institutions regarding loans to China
(except those that meet basic human needs).12 Congress also has required that U.S.
representatives to international financial institutions support projects in Tibet only if they do not
encourage the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans (majority Han Chinese) into Tibet or the
transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which some fear may erode Tibetan culture
and identity.
The U.S. government suspended funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) from
2002 through 2008 because of the UNFPA’s programs in China, where the State Department
determined that coercive family planning practices had occurred. In February 2009, the Obama
Administration announced that it would restore U.S. funding for the UNFPA. The Omnibus
Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-8), allocated $50 million for the UNFPA. However, none
of these funds may be used for a country program in China.13
12 Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section 710(a) of the
International Financial Institutions Act. For further information, see CRS Report RL31910, China: Economic
Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack.
13 The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment to the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88) bans U.S. assistance
to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs. For further
information, see CRS Report RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by
Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to China by Type, 2000-2008
40
)
n
35
Peace Corps
illio
30
m
Tibet (ESF)
S
U
25
$
(
s
20
Educational Exchange
n
(DA)
tio
15
Democracy/Tibet (ESF;
ria
p
ESF/HRDF)
ro
10
p
Health (CSH)
p
A
5
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
6
07
8
20 FY FY FY FY FY FY0 FY FY0
FY
Year
Source: U.S. Department of State
Notes: FY2000-2003 democracy assistance for China included funding for Tibet; For FY2004-08, Tibet programs
received special earmarked funds.
FY2008-FY2009 Appropriations
For FY2009, the State Department requested a total of $7 million for China with the objective of
enhancing China’s capacity to “engage cooperatively, constructively, and transparently with
international, regional, and U.S. institutions.”14 Major program areas include rule of law, civil
society, global health, environmental issues, and Tibet. The largest funding stream in the
Administration’s request was for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs (CSH account).
ESF was requested to support U.S.-China educational exchanges and NGO work in the areas of
rule of law and good governance as well as cultural preservation, sustainable development,
healthcare, and education in Tibetan communities. The State Department also funds a Department
of Justice Rule of Law advisor on topics such as anti-money-laundering and intellectual property
rights (INCLE account).
14 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) appropriated $17 million out of the
HRDF for the promotion of democracy in China.15 The measure authorized $7.3 million in ESF
for NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous
Region and other areas of China. The act also included an appropriation of $250,000 for NED
programs in Tibet. In addition, $11 million in Development Assistance account funding is to be
made available to American educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the
PRC related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested a total of $9.2 million for China, primarily CSH
account funds for HIV/AIDS programs ($7.2 million).16 Economic Support Funds ($2 million)
were requested to support judicial independence, rule of law programs, and the role of NGOs in
Chinese society. Tibetan program areas included job skills training, public health efforts,
education, and environmental conservation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L.
110-161) provided $15 million for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC. The FY2008
appropriations measure also mandated $5 million from the ESF account for activities that
preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation
in Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy
programs related to Tibet. In addition, $10 million in Development Assistance was appropriated
to American educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to
democracy, rule of law, and the environment.
Earthquake Relief
In July 2008, the U.S. government (USAID and the Department of Defense) provided a total of
$4.8 million in humanitarian relief to areas and victims affected by the May 2008 earthquake in
Sichuan province that killed nearly 70,000 people. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) awarded $1.2 million to the Asia Foundation to promote rural housing
reconstruction and raise public awareness about natural disasters. Other funding went to the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for relief supplies to
the Los Angeles County and Fairfax County Fire Departments for related support. The
Department of Defense provided $2.2 million for tents and emergency relief supplies.17
15 Also includes Hong Kong and Taiwan (if matching funds are made available). The bulk of the funding is expected to
go to China. Since 2004, annual congressional authorizations for democracy funds to China have included Hong Kong
and Taiwan. Hong Kong has received assistance for strengthening political parties ($840,000 in FY2006). Taiwan has
not offered required matching funds for legal and political reform programs and hence has not received democracy
grants. Taiwan has received U.S. assistance (an estimated $635,000 in FY2008) for developing its export control
system and combat trafficking in persons. In 2008, Taiwan “graduated” from its need for trafficking assistance.
16 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
17 Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance,
China – Earthquake, Fact Sheet #6, FY2008, August 8, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, 2000-2009
(thousand dollars)
Account
FY08
FY09
(program)
FY00 FY01a FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 est.
req.
CSH (HIV/AIDS)
4,800
4960
5,000
GHAI
1,950
DA (educational
4,950
5,000
9919
11,000
exchange)
ESF
1,400
(democracy/Tibet)
ESF (HRDF—
1,000 10,000
15,000
13,500
19,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
17,000
democracy)b
ESF (Tibet)
3,976
4,216
3,960
3960
4712
7,300
INCLEc
600
Peace Corps
1,435 1,298 1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748 1,980
2,057
(English language)
Totals 1,435
1,298
1,559
977
863
1,476
1,683
1,748
1,980
39,357
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional
foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a. In FY2001, $28 million was appropriated in order to provide compensation to China for the accidental
NATO bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade.
b. Congressional appropriations – not specified in State Department annual budget requests for China.
c. Technical assistance for combating money laundering and enforcing intellectual property rights.
Foreign Operations Appropriations: Legislative
History (1999-2007)
FY2000-FY2003 Appropriations
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) provided $1 million for U.S.-
based NGOs (to preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and
environmental conservation) in Tibet as well as $1 million to support research about China, and
authorized ESF for NGOs to promote democracy in the PRC. For FY2001 (P.L. 106-429),
Congress authorized up to $2 million for Tibet. In FY2002 (P.L. 107-115), Congress made
available $10 million for assistance for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule
of law in China, including up to $3 million for Tibet. The FY2003 appropriations measure (P.L.
108-7), provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China, including up to $3
million for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
FY2004-FY2007 Appropriations
In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor became the principal administrator
of China democracy programs. The FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
made available $13.5 million for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, including $3 million for NED.
Appropriations for FY2004 provided a special earmark for Tibet ($4 million). In FY2005 (P.L.
108-447), Congress provided $19 million for China, including $4 million for NED, and
authorized $4 million for Tibet and $250,000 for NED in Tibet. In addition, the FY2005
appropriations measure authorized the use of Development Assistance for American universities
to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and the
environment. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-265) on the FY2006 foreign operations
appropriations bill (H.R. 3057, signed into law as P.L. 109-102) extended $20 million for China.
For Tibet, P.L. 109-102 authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and
$250,000 to NED in Tibet. The FY2006 appropriations measure also provided $5 million in
Development Assistance to American educational institutions for legal and environmental
programs in the PRC. Because of the late enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution
for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), funding levels for many U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not
specified but continued at or near FY2006 levels.
Key Actors and Programs
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)
(Department of State)
The Bureau’s mission is to lead U.S. efforts to “promote democracy18, protect human rights19 and
international religious freedom20, and advance labor rights21 globally.” In the past decade,
Congress has supported increased funding for DRL’s Democracy Fund. Appropriations for the
HRDF grew from $13 million in FY2001 to an estimated $74 million in FY2009. China programs
account for roughly one quarter of allocations from the Democracy Fund. Most DRL grants to
China go to U.S.-based NGOs and educational institutions, while some sub-grants go to PRC
“partner NGOs.”22
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (Department of
State)
The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) of the Department of State’s
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance provides grants to private and non-
profit educational and medical institutions in foreign countries. The purposes of such assistance
include fostering mutual understanding, introducing foreign countries to U.S. ideas and practices
in education and medicine, and promoting civil societies. Since 1997, ASHA has supported
programs in China, including helping to establish the Center for American Studies at Fudan
University in Shanghai, supporting the Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American
18 See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/.
19 See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/.
20 See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/.
21 See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/lbr/.
22 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, HRDF Projects, 1998-Present. Because
of political sensitivities, DRL does not disclose the names of its grant recipients.
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Studies in Nanjing, and providing a grant to Project Hope for its efforts at the Shanghai
Children’s Medical Center.
Department of Labor
The measure granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to China (P.L. 106-286)
authorized the Department of Labor to establish a program to promote worker rights and related
rule of law training. In 2002, the Bush Administration released two grants totaling $6.4 million
for labor programs in China. A grant of $4.1 million was awarded to a consortium of Worldwide
Strategies, Inc., the Asia Foundation, and the National Committee on United States-China
Relations to conduct education, training, and technical assistance to help improve labor laws and
to promote greater awareness of labor laws among workers and employers as well as to provide
legal aid services to women and migrant workers. The Department of Labor also awarded a $2.3
million grant to the National Safety Council to help improve mine safety and health conditions in
China.
National Endowment for Democracy
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, non-profit organization that
promotes democracy around the world. NED supports Chinese pro-democracy organizations in
the United States and Hong Kong, helps to advance the rule of law, promote the rights of workers
and women, and strengthen village elections in China, and assists in the development of Tibetan
communities. The United States government established NED in 1983 and provides most of its
funding. The Endowment’s China programs have received grants through three channels: the
annual foreign operations appropriation for NED (an estimated $99 million in FY2008), out of
which approximately $2 million has been devoted to China programs each year since 1999;
annual congressional earmarks for democracy-related programs in the PRC and Tibet;23 and DRL
grants to NED’s “core institutes.”24 During the FY1999-FY2003 period, about 38% of U.S.
government funding for democracy-related programs in China was allocated through the
Endowment.25 NED began awarding grants to U.S.-based organizations supporting democracy in
China in the mid-1980s and supporting significant in-country programs in the 1990s.26 Compared
to the U.S. government, NED’s non-governmental status affords it greater ease and flexibility
with which to support relatively overt democratic groups.
23 Congress has appropriated annual earmarks to NED out of the Democracy Fund for human rights and democracy
programs in China between 2001 and 2007 ($2.9 million FY2007) and in Tibet since 2004 (an estimated $250,000 in
FY2009).
24 NED’s core institutes or grantees are: the International Republican Institute (IRI); the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE); and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).
25 General Accounting Office, “Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs,” February 2004.
26 Eric T. Hale, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the National Endowment for Democracy, 1990-1999”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2003), pp. 173-4. For a listing of NED China projects, see National
Endowment for Democracy, Grants—Asia Programs http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html#china.
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Temple University
In 1999, Temple University established the first foreign Master of Laws degree program in China.
The LLM program, conducted in collaboration with Tsinghua University School of Law in
Beijing, educates Chinese judges, prosecutors, government officials, law professors, and lawyers
in U.S. and international legal principles. The State Department and USAID have provided
roughly $12 million for Temple’s activities in China, which also include non-degree legal
education, scholarly research, and curriculum development.27 The program has educated nearly
800 Chinese legal professionals, the majority of which (78%) work in the public sector.
“Graduates report that they are drawing on their Temple legal education as they write judicial
decisions, apply rules of evidence in trial practice, draft laws for national and regional legislative
bodies, and infuse their scholarship with principles of U.S. law.”28
Acronyms
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
NGO: Non-governmental Organization
NED: National Endowment for Democracy
CSH: Child Survival and Health
DA: Development Assistance
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHAI: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
Author Contact Information
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
27 DRL has supported several U.S. universities conducting rule of law programs in China. According to a database
compiled by the National Committee on United States-China Relations earlier this decade, approximately 150 U.S. law
schools conduct programs in China, mostly offering courses and short-term programs for American students to study
PRC law; about one dozen U.S. law schools have developed exchange programs.
28 Temple University Beasley School of Law, Rule of Law Projects in China: 2007-08 Annual Report; Adelaide
Ferguson, “Temple’s Rule of Law Programs in China,” Temple University Beasley School of Law, March 2006.
Congressional Research Service
10