U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients
Congressional research reportOct 8, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱŞǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
www.crs.gov
řŗřŜŘȱ
ȱȱȱ
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
¢ȱ
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.
Some sanctions have been waived or lifted. 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. 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. In September 2008, the House and Senate passed the
continuing resolution (CR), H.R. 2638 (Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009). The bill was signed into law as P.L. 110-329. The House
and Senate approved $36.6 billion and $36.7 billion, respectively, for Department of State and
Foreign Operations in FY2009, compared to $32.8 billion enacted in FY2008. The CR for
FY2009 continues most funding through March 6, 2009, at FY2008 levels.
This report will be updated periodically.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
New Approaches to Foreign Aid ............................................................................................... 1
Critiques.............................................................................................................................. 1
Funding Trends.......................................................................................................................... 2
Foreign Aid Restrictions ........................................................................................................... 3
The FY2008 and FY2009 Budgets............................................................................................ 4
Regional Comparisons .............................................................................................................. 5
East Asia.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Taiwan and Singapore......................................................................................................... 8
Foreign Aid Restrictions ........................................................................................................... 8
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) ................................................................ 15
Indonesia ................................................................................................................................. 16
Resumption of Military Assistance................................................................................... 17
2004 Tsunami Relief ......................................................................................................... 18
Laos......................................................................................................................................... 18
Malaysia .................................................................................................................................. 19
Mongolia ................................................................................................................................. 20
Philippines............................................................................................................................... 21
Thailand .................................................................................................................................. 22
September 2006 Military Coup and U.S. Aid Sanctions................................................... 23
Other Programs ................................................................................................................. 23
Vietnam ................................................................................................................................... 24
South Asia...................................................................................................................................... 24
Foreign Aid Restrictions ................................................................................................... 25
Disaster Assistance............................................................................................................ 26
Country Aid Levels and Restrictions—South Asia ....................................................................... 26
Bangladesh .............................................................................................................................. 26
India ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Nepal ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Pakistan ................................................................................................................................... 29
Lifting of Foreign Aid Restrictions................................................................................... 30
Sri Lanka ................................................................................................................................. 31
FY2008 Appropriations .................................................................................................... 32
ȱ
Figure 1. Major U.S. Aid Recipients in Asia, by Aid Amount, 2001-2007 ($million) .................... 3
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
Figure 2. Health and Development Assistance (DA and CSH) by Region, FY2007 est.
($million)...................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Economic Support Funds by Region, FY2007 est. ($million)......................................... 6
Figure 4. Military Assistance by Region, FY2007 est. ($million) .................................................. 7
Figure 5. U.S. Foreign Aid (Non-food) to East Asian Countries, FY2007 est. ($million) .............. 8
Figure 6. Top U.S. Foreign Aid Recipients in East Asia, FY2000, FY2002-FY2007
($million)...................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7. U.S. Assistance to South Asian Countries (excluding Food Aid), 2001-2008
($million).................................................................................................................................... 25
ȱ
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance by Region(Excluding Food Aid), 2001, 2003-2007 ................... 4
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Burma, 2005-2009 ..............................................................................11
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Cambodia, 2005-2009 ....................................................................... 12
Table 4. U.S. Assistance to China, 2005-2009 .............................................................................. 14
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to East Timor, 2005-2009 ...................................................................... 15
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2005-2009 ........................................................................ 16
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Laos (LPDR), 2005-2009 .................................................................. 18
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2005-2009 ......................................................................... 19
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Mongolia, 2005-2009 ........................................................................ 20
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Philippines, 2005-2009.................................................................... 21
Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, 2005-2009........................................................................ 22
Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, 2005-2009 ........................................................................ 24
Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh, 2005-2009 ................................................................... 26
Table 14. U.S. Assistance to India, 2005-2009.............................................................................. 27
Table 15. U.S. Assistance to Nepal, 2005-2009 ............................................................................ 28
Table 16. U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, 2005-2009 ........................................................................ 29
Table 17. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2005-2009 ...................................................................... 31
¡ȱ
Appendix. Selected Acronyms for U.S. Foreign Aid Accounts and Programs.............................. 33
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 33
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
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.
ȱ
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 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
1
See CRS Report RL33491, Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of Foreign Assistance in
Transformational Development, by (name redacted).
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.
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.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
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 ($118 million between 2005 and 2007).
The war on terrorism has reoriented foreign assistance priorities in Asia and accelerated a trend
toward increased aid to the region that began in 2000. Throughout the 1990s, U.S. assistance to
Asia fell due to the ebbing of Cold War security concerns, nuclear proliferation sanctions, and
favorable economic and political trends. For example, the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from
the Philippines, nuclear proliferation and other sanctions against Pakistan, and the reduced need
for economic assistance, particularly in Southeast Asia, contributed to declines in U.S. aid levels.
The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 reversed the downward trend, as USAID funded a regional
economic recovery program for Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Since the war on terrorism began in 2001, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia became
the foci of the Bush Administration’s counterterrorism efforts in South and Southeast Asia, due to
their strategic importance, large Muslim populations, and insurgency movements with links to
terrorist groups. These countries have received the bulk of the increases in U.S. foreign aid (nonfood) to Asia (excluding Afghanistan), although funding for aid programs in India and the
Philippines reached a peak in 2006 and fell in 2007 and 2008. Beginning in 2004, both Indonesia
and the Philippines received new funding for education programs in order to promote diversity,
non-violent resolution of social and political conflict (Indonesia), and livelihood skills among
Muslims residing in impoverished and conflict-ridden areas (southern Philippines). See Figure 1.
5
CRS Report RL33262, Foreign Policy Budget Trends: A Thirty-Year Review, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. Major U.S. Aid Recipients in Asia, by Aid Amount, 2001-2007 ($million)
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
ȱȱȱ
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 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that run development and democracy programs in some of
these countries. Most sanctions on aid to Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Pakistan have been
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. 107228).
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.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
lifted. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 placed human rights conditions upon
portions of the U.S. military assistance grants to Indonesia, the Philippines, and Pakistan.
ȱŘŖŖŞȱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ
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 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.
FY2009 Continuing Resolution
The House and Senate passed the continuing resolution (CR), H.R. 2638 (Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009), on September 24, 2008 and September 27, 2008, respectively. The bill was
signed into law as P.L. 110-329. The House and Senate approved $36.6 billion and $36.7 billion, respectively, for
Department of State and Foreign Operations in FY2009, compared to $32.8 billion enacted in FY2008. The CR for
FY2009 continues most funding through March 6, 2009, at FY2008 levels.
For further information, see CRS Report RL34552, State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2009
Appropriations, by name redated and name redated.
. U.S. Foreign Assistance by Region(Excluding Food Aid), 2001, 2003-2007
Table 1
($million)
Africa
East Asia-Pacific
Europe and Eurasia
Near East Asia (Middle East)
South/Central Asia (excl. Afghanistan)
ȱȱȱ
FY2001
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
1,313
368
2,017
5,401
201
1,706
477
2,871
8,409
785
2,091
474
1,577
5,556
685
2,795
525
1,323
5,755
970
2,771
1,022
1,023
5,217
875
3,486
500
845
5,099
1,025
Śȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Western Hemisphere
Totals
FY2001
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
749
10,049
1,559
15,807
1,545
11,928
1,723
13,091
1,516
12,424
1,439
12,394
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.
Source:
ȱȱ
Africa remained the largest regional recipient of Child Survival and Health (CSH) and
Development Assistance (DA) funding in FY2007.8 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 Asia followed by South and Central Asia.9 These rankings were
the same as those for FY2006. See Table 1 and Figures 2-4.
8
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 Caribbean).
9
Military assistance includes International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing
(FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
. Health and Development Assistance (DA and CSH) by Region, FY2007 est.
($million)
Figure 2
Figure 3. Economic Support Funds by Region, FY2007 est. ($million)
Source:
U.S. Department of State.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
. Military Assistance by Region, FY2007 est. ($million)
Figure 4
Source:
U.S. Department of State.
ȱȱ
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),10 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-mining, and
10
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 (name redacted) and (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Related Programs (NADR).11 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 $86 million in 2008. See
Figures 5 and 6.
. U.S. Foreign Aid (Non-food) to East Asian Countries, FY2007 est. ($million)
Figure 5
Source:
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.
ȱȱȱ
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
$700,000 per year to help the country deter, detect, and interdict the flow of illegal arms across its
maritime borders.
ȱȱȱ
In some East Asian countries, the United States has withheld assistance or restricted it to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or to exiled democratic political groups in response to
11
The INCLE and NADR accounts are often referred to as “security assistance.”
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
government actions that the U.S. government has deemed in violation of international human
rights standards. In the past decade, foreign operations appropriations measures have imposed
human rights-related sanctions on U.S. foreign assistance to the governments of Burma,
Cambodia, and Thailand and to the Indonesian military while supporting Burmese dissident
groups and promoting human rights, civil society, and democracy in Cambodia, China, East
Timor, Indonesia, Mongolia, and elsewhere. Since 2006, most sanctions on aid to the
governments of Cambodia and Thailand and to the Indonesian military have been lifted.
.Top U.S. Foreign Aid Recipients in East Asia, FY2000, FY2002-FY2007
($million)
Figure 6
Source:
U.S. Department of State.
ȱȱȱ ȱ
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).
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱŘŖŖŜȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
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 continued to receive funding. In February 2008, the
United States resumed security and military assistance to Thailand following the holding of
democratic elections.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
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, longterm 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).12 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
12
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.
13
For further information, CRS Report RL34620, Comparing Global Influence: China’s and U.S. Diplomacy, Foreign
Aid, Trade, and Investment in the Developing World, by (name redacted) et al.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȯȱŗŚȱ
ȱ
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Burma, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
CSH
DA
ESF
Othera
Totals
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
0
0
7,936
4,000
11,936
0
0
10,890
3,000
13,890
2,100
0
10,890
3,000
15,990
2,083
717
12,895b
3,000b
18,695
2,100
0
13,750
—
15,850
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
Sources:
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.
Top Donors of Bilateral
On June 11, 2003, the 108th Congress passed the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-61), which
Official Development
bans imports from Burma unless democracy is restored.
Assistance ($US million) to
Additional U.S. foreign aid sanctions against Burma include
Burma
opposition to international bank loans to Burma and a ban on
1. Japan: 26
debt restructuring assistance. Since the Office to Monitor and 2. EC: 14
3. United Kingdom: 11
Combat Trafficking in Persons was established by the U.S.
4. Australia: 11
State Department in 2001, Burma has received a “Tier 3”
5. Korea: 7
assessment annually by the Office for failing to make
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
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.
For Burma aid sanctions, see P.L. 104-208, Section 570. For further information on Burma, see CRS Report
RS22737, Burma: Economic Sanctions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
15
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) appropriated $13 million (ESF)
primarily for Burmese student groups and other democratic organizations located outside Burma,
and for the provision of humanitarian assistance to displaced Burmese along Burma’s borders.
The act also provides $3 million for community-based organizations operating in Thailand to
provide food, medical and other humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in eastern
Burma.
ȱ
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Cambodia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
GHAI
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
29,300
8,950
16,864
992
0
0
0
4,170
0
60,276
28,556
5,483
14,850
990
0
54
0
5,000
0
54,933
27,826
7,922
14,850
990
1,600
101
0
3,987
0
57,276
27,826
8,087
14,879
198
—
67
0
3,937
1,379
56,373
23,135
17,226
—
750
—
60
0
4,200
—
45,371
0
0
0
0
0
FFPb
3,643
0
0
—
—
FFEb
0
1,257
2,373
—
—
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.
Sources:
Cambodia ranks 131st 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. Furthermore, Cambodia’s health and education systems were
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
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 counternarcotics 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 $13 million
providing for prostheses, physical rehabilitation, employment,
and related services for mine victims using Leahy War Victims
Funds.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Cambodia
1. Japan: 94
2. United States: 60
3. France: 28
4. Australia: 27
5. Germany: 24
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
On October 12, 2005, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human
Services Michael Leavitt, on a visit to Southeast Asia, signed a cooperation agreement with
Cambodian officials in which $1.8 million was pledged to help the country guard against the
spread of H5N1 (avian influenza).
In January 2007, the Peace Corps launched programs in Cambodia to teach English and develop
sustainable community activities.
16
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
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.
17
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȂȱȱȱȱǻǼŗŞȱ
. U.S. Assistance to China, 2005-2009
Table 4
(thousands of dollars)
Account
CSH
DA
ESF
ESF/Tibet
GHAI
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
0
0
19,000
4,216
0
0
1,476
24,692
0
4,950
20,000
3,960
0
0
1,683
21,683
4,800
5,000
19,000
3,960
1,950
0
1,886
36,596
4,960
9,919a
15,000a
4,712a
0
0
1,953
36,544
5,000
—
—
1,400
0
600
—
7,000
U.S. Department of State, USAID (Congressional Notification, August 14, 2008).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) authorized $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).
Sources:
a.
USAID does not have a presence or mission in the People’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 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 $2 million per year since 1999) for programs that promote human rights,
18
Since 2004, the annual congressional authorization for democracy funds for China have included Hong Kong and
Taiwan. Funding for legal and political reforms in Taiwan shall only be made available to the extent that they are
matched from sources other than the United States Government.
19
For further information, see CRS Report RS22663, U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China, by (name redacted).
20
For descriptions of HRDF projects in China, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, FY2005-2006 Human Rights and Democracy Fund Projects Fact Sheet, December 6, 2005.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
labor rights, electoral and legal reforms, and independent mass media in China from its annual
congressional appropriation.21
Since 2006, Congress has appropriated Development
Assistance (DA) to American educational institutions for
exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and the
environment in China. In 2007, the U.S. government began
funding HIV/AIDS programs in China.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to China
1. Japan: 1,662
2. Germany: 470
3. France: 164
4. United Kingdom: 74
5. EC: 58
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
The United States continues to impose other restrictions that
were put in place in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen
Square 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 nonTibetans.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.
ȱȱǻȱȱȱȬǼȱ
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to East Timor, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
PKO
Peace Corps
Totals
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
0
500
21,824
1,023
364
0
1,228
1,372
25,811
0
0
18,810
990
193
1,485
0
827
22,305
1,000
0
18,810
475
254
0
0
0
20,539
1,000
5,000
16,862
0
381
20
0
0
23,263
0
8,140
—
0
300
1,010
0
—
9,450
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 (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
994
1,182
2,172
0
0
Food Aid
U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USAID data—includes freight costs.
Sources:
a.
Top Donors of Bilateral
East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste) gained full
independence in May 2002. The United States supports a wide
Official Development
range of aid programs in East Timor, one of Asia’s poorest
Assistance ($US million)
countries, with the goal of building a viable economy,
to East Timor
functional government, and democratic political system. The
1. Australia: 37
2. Portugal: 30
largest strategic objective of U.S. assistance is economic
3. United States: 24
growth, targeting agriculture, private sector competitiveness,
4. Japan: 22
and economic opportunity. Other major objectives are
5. EC: 11
improved governance and peace and security. Program areas
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
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.
ȱ
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
37,100
27,848
68,480
0
0
728
0
6,262
140,418
28,017
33,199
69,300
990
0
938
4,950
6,888
144,282
27,507
29,524
69,300
6,175
250
1,398
4,700
8,881
147,321
25,737
70,953
64,474
15,572
—
927
6,150
5,861
189,674
30,883
122,021
—
15,700
—
1,500
9,450
6,750
186,304
10,489
12,886
10,951
0
0
FFPb
6,194
0
0
—
—
Section 416(b)b
9,078
0
0
—
—
Account
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
GHAI
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Totals
Food Aid/Disaster Relief
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Account
Tsunami Reliefc
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
400,000
—
—
—
—
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
Sources:
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 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.
ȱȱ¢ȱȱ
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
23
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
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.
24
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, Section
679(a) appropriated up to $15.7 million in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) for Indonesia, of which $2.7 million “may
not be made available” unless the Government of Indonesia
has taken steps to prosecute and punish members of the TNI
credibly alleged to have committed human rights violations in
East Timor and elsewhere, implement reforms related to
improved transparency and accountability of the military, and
allow public access to Papua.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Indonesia
1. Japan: 963
2. Germany: 191
3. United States: 163
4. Australia: 145
5. Netherlands: 128
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
ŘŖŖŚȱȱȱ
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 $400 million for relief and
reconstruction efforts in Indonesia.26
ȱ
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Laos (LPDR), 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
375
40
992
0
298
67
1,000
250
—
100
CSH
DA
ESF
IMET
25
26
USAID, Fact Sheet #39, Indian Ocean—Earthquakes and Tsunamis (July 7, 2005).
USAID, USAID Rebuilds Lives after the Tsunami (April 27, 2006).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
INCLE
NADR
Totals
1,984
2,500
4,484
990
3,300
4,290
900
2,550
4,865
1,567
2,953
5,877
1,000
1,900
4,250
0
289
290
—
—
Food Aid
FFEa
U.S. Department of State; USAID (Congressional Notification, August 14, 2008); U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
a. USDA data—does not include freight costs.
Sources:
Top Donors of Bilateral
The bulk of U.S. aid programs in Laos are related to peace and
security. The Administration’s request for FY2008 includes the
Official Development
following programs: removing unexploded ordnance (UXO),
Assistance ($US million)
English language training for Lao defense officials, counterto Laos
narcotics efforts, and combating transnational crime. Other
1. Japan: 65
2. France: 21
program areas include public health, rule of law, and
3. Sweden: 19
improving the country’s trade and investment environment.
4. Germany: 15
Laos also receives assistance through the Leahy War Victims
5. Australia: 12
Fund ($1.5 million during the 2004-2009 period) to assist
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
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 $3.4 million to Laos
for controlling outbreaks of avian flu.
¢ȱ
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Totals
1,100
0
2,308
3,408
891
0
1,526
2,417
871
0
2,401
3,272
876
0
1,998
2,874
750
400
1,540
2,690
Sources:
U.S. Department of State; USAID.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Malaysia
Malaysia is not a recipient of U.S. development and economic
aid. The U.S. State Department describes Malaysia as a “key
Muslim-majority state in Southeast Asia and an important
contributor to conflict resolution and peacekeeping both
regionally and internationally.”27 Regional terrorist
organizations, most notably Jemaah Islamiyah, are known to
use Malaysia for planning and fund raising. Over half of U.S.
assistance to the country is related to antiterrorism and nonproliferation activities. Other assistance is provided for
military operations and law enforcement restructuring.
1. Japan: 297
2. Denmark: 14
3. Germany: 8
4. France: 4
5. United States: 2
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
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.
ȱ
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Mongolia, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
NADR
0
9,920
992
1,009
0
0
0
7,425
2,970
866
0
0
0
6,625
3,791
955
0
0
4,577
0
993
923
0
0
0
6,800
2,000
970
420
250
Peace Corps
1,694
1,747
1,694
1,995
—
13,615
13,008
13,065
8,488
10,440
3,658
5,375
0
—
—
0
0
0
—
—
Totals
Food Aid
FFPa
Section 416(b)a
U.S. Department of State; USAID; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA data—does not include freight costs.
Sources:
a.
27
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
U.S. assistance efforts in Mongolia aim to build foundations
for the country’s private economic and democratic political
development. Security assistance focuses on reform of the
Mongolian armed forces and regional stability. In September
2005, the government of Mongolia submitted a proposal to the
Millennium Challenge Corporation for several projects to be
funded by MCA funds, including railroad construction,
improved housing, and health services. In October 2007, the
Mongolian government and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) signed a five-year, $285 million
agreement.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Mongolia
1. Japan: 67
2. Germany: 28
3. United States: 22
4. Netherlands: 9
5. Turkey: 8
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
ȱ
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Philippines, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
27,050
27,576
30,720
29,760
2,915
3,968
2,257
2,820
127,066
24,651
24,212
24,750
29,700
2,926
1,980
4,968
2,767
115,954
24,362
15,448
29,750
39,700
2,746
1,900
4,198
2,820
120,924
24,967
27,321
27,773
29,757
1,475
794
4,531
2,753
119,371
20,043
56,703
—
15,000
1,700
1,150
4,625
—
99,221
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title I USDA Loana
20,000
0
0
0
0
FFPb
1,720
6,335
3,655
—
—
Section 416(b)b
5,644
0
0
—
—
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.
Sources:
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
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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 crime
(money laundering, trafficking in persons, and narcotics trade).
In 2006, the MCC designated the Philippines as a “threshold”
country or close to meeting MCA criteria and eligible for
assistance in qualifying. The Philippines recently initiated a
two-year, $21 million MCA threshold program that focuses on
fighting corruption and improving government revenue
collection.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, Section
699E provided up to $30 million for FMF for the Philippines,
of which $2 million may be made available after the Secretary
of State reports that:
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to the Philippines
1. Japan: 706
2. United States: 114
3. Germany: 60
4. Australia: 38
5. EC: 20
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
•
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.
ȱ
Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
0
0
992
1,488
2,526
0
0
990
1,485
2,369
1,400
0
990
0
0
992
0
0
149
1,142
1,000
4,500
0
800
1,400
28
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
INCLE
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
1,608
1,782
2,143
10,539
990
3,989
2,212
12,035
900
2,100
2,144
7,534
1,686
2,483
2,278
8,730
1,400
2,000
—
11,100
Sources:
U.S. Department of State; USAID.
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.
ȱŘŖŖŜȱ¢ȱȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ
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. In February 2008, the United States resumed security
and military assistance to Thailand following the holding of democratic elections.
ȱȱ
In 2001, the United States and Thailand signed an agreement
pursuant to the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105214), providing $11 million in debt relief to Thailand. In
return, Thailand is to contribute $9.5 million over 28 years
toward the protection of its mangrove forests. The United
States government pledged $5.3 million in relief and
reconstruction assistance for areas in Thailand affected by the
December 2004 tsunami.
29
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Thailand
1. Japan: 765
2. Germany: 31
3. France: 27
4. EC: 19
5. Denmark
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
For further information, see CRS Report RL32593, Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations, by (name redacted
).
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
GHAI
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Totals
1,200
4,750
0
0
24,044
50
0
3,331
33,375
0
3,818
1,980
0
31,214
49
0
3,770
40,831
0
2,480
1,980
0
62,935
279
0
3,200
70,874
0
2,420
10,613
0
86,000
186
0
3,075
102,294
0
10,700
—
500
86,000
195
200
1,920
99,515
U.S. Department of State; USAID (Congressional Notification, August 14, 2008); U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Sources:
Vietnam, with over 250,000 HIV-positive persons in 2006, is
the largest Asian recipient of Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
(GHAI) funds under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR). Other U.S. assistance objectives in Vietnam
include the following: accelerating Vietnam’s transition to an
open and market-based economy; de-mining; promoting
human rights and supporting civil society; and countering
illegal cross-border transport of arms and narcotics. IMET
programs include training in English language and
international peacekeeping.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Vietnam
1. Japan: 670
2. France: 116
3. United Kingdom: 82
4. Germany: 79
5. Denmark: 73
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 3096), passed
by the House on September 18, 2007, would freeze U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance to the
government of Vietnam at FY2007 levels unless the President certifies to Congress that the
government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in the following areas: the release of
political and religious prisoners; religious freedom; the rights of ethnic minorities; access to U.S.
refugee programs by Vietnamese nationals; and combating trafficking in persons.
ȱȱ
Key U.S. foreign aid objectives in South Asia include combating terrorism, developing bilateral
military ties, and reducing the social and economic sources of political instability and extremist
religious and political thinking. These causes include lack of accountable governance, inter-ethnic
conflict, poverty, disease, and illiteracy. Prior to September 2001, South Asia was the smallest
regional recipient of U.S. non-food assistance. Since the war on terrorism began, counterterrorism
and related funding for South Asia, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan, have made the region a
relatively large recipient of humanitarian, development, and economic assistance and the second-
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
largest beneficiary of military assistance after the Middle East. Before 2002, India and
Bangladesh were the largest recipients of U.S. bilateral aid in South Asia. Following Pakistan’s
participation in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, the country became the
largest beneficiary of U.S. foreign assistance in the region after Afghanistan, followed by India.
See Figure 7.
. U.S. Assistance to South Asian Countries (excluding Food Aid), 2001-2008
($million)
Figure 7
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.
ȱȱȱ
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 testrelated 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
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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 nonproliferation, and other U.S. foreign policy imperatives.
ȱȱ
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
¢ȱȱȱȱȯȱȱ
ȱ
Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
33,412
16,535
4,960
248
1,035
0
893
1,773
58,856
31,509
10,889
4,950
990
930
0
5,094
706
55,068
29,935
10,430
3,750
990
934
0
2,575
0
48,614
37,181
29,190
0
595
761
198
6,301
0
74,226
29,575
39,060
0
1,000
800
800
3,600
—
74,835
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
22,122
30,207
35,618
30,783
32,000
3,257
3,833
5,379
—
—
0
2,868
0
—
—
Food Aid
Section 416(b)b
FFEb
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).
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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.
Sources:
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 suspended its programs in
Bangladesh due to concerns that volunteers might become
targets of terrorists.
In 2000, the United States signed an agreement with
Bangladesh reducing the country’s debt payments to the
United States by $10 million over 18 years. In return,
Bangladesh is to set aside $8.5 million to endow a Tropical
Forest Fund to protect and conserve its mangrove forests.32
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Bangladesh
1. Japan: 234
2. United Kingdom: 232
3. United States: 89
4. EC: 68
5. Netherlands: 63
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
ȱ
Table 14. U.S. Assistance to India, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
GHAI
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Totals
53,222
24,856
14,880
0
1,502
0
4,181
98,641
52,815
19,700
4,950
0
1,272
0
2,711
81,448
53,411
15,676
4,875
8,971
1,501
0
1,108
85,542
58,947
10,547
0
—
1,237
0
2,684
73,415
59,682
900
—
—
1,200
400
1,700
63,882
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
35,763
43,501
31,034
13,406
13,500
Food Aid
U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USAID data—includes freight costs.
Sources:
a.
32
Pursuant to the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (P.L. 105-214).
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
The United States significantly increased bilateral aid to India
in FY2002 and FY2003, largely as part of its counterterrorism
efforts in the region. The current aid program aims to further
Indian economic development in order to enhance the
country’s rise as “an influential U.S. partner in the
international system.”33 Furthermore, U.S. assistance serves
the poorest segments of the population in order to mitigate
economic and social conditions that may give rise to political
extremism.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to India
1. Japan: 651
2. United Kingdom: 535
3. Germany: 166
4. EC: 164
5. United States: 164
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
For FY2008, the largest portion of U.S. assistance to India
funds public health and HIV/AIDS care, treatment, and
prevention. Security and military assistance supports programs related to military
professionalism, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, and border security. Economic Support
Funds are to promote the private agricultural sector.
ȱ
Table 15. U.S. Assistance to Nepal, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Peace Corps
Totals
25,165
10,000
4,960
648
0
2,771
179
43,723
18,613
8,393
4,950
644
0
0
0
32,600
18,090
10,447
11,250
793
0
840
0
41,420
19,891
9,136
9,423
752
30
1,141
0
40,373
13,667
—
13,015
800
10,000
700
—
38,182
966
1,213
6,056
0
0
3,871
0
0
—
—
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
FFEb
U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
a. USAID data—includes freight costs.
b. USDA data—does not include freight costs.
Sources:
33
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
U.S. assistance to Nepal aims to further the peace process
between the government of Nepal and Maoist insurgents,
establish stability, and promote development. IMET, INCLE,
and NADR programs help the Nepal military and police to
restore law and order. The Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2008 allows for only Expanded International Military
Education and Training (E-IMET) for Nepal. E-IMET
emphasizes and teaches the military about human rights,
military codes of conduct, and civilian control of the military.
Other major components of United States aid programs in
Nepal include building the capacity of local and national
governments to provide social services and improving public
health.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Nepal
1. Japan: 76
2. United Kingdom: 64
3. Germany: 58
4. United States: 45
5. Denmark: 31
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
In 2004, the United States suspended the Peace Corps program in Nepal after Maoist rebels
bombed the United States Information Center in Kathmandu.
ȱ
Table 16. U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
21,000
29,000
297,600
298,800
1,885
32,150
7,951
688,386
22,757
26,990
296,595
297,000
2,037
34,970
8,585
688,934
22,385
95,327
283,673
297,000
1,992
24,000
9,977
734,354
29,816
29,757
347,165
297,570
2,103
21,822
9,725
737,958
27,855
—
603,200d
300,000
1,950
32,000
11,250
976,255
0
17,675
0
0
0
FFPc
10,170
11,197
0
—
—
FFEc
5,796
5,169
0
—
—
Section 416(b)c
1,972
0
276
—
—
NADR
Totalsa
Food Aid
P.L. 480 Title II Grantb
U.S. Department of State; USAID (Congressional Notification, August 21, 2008); U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
a. Totals include supplemental appropriations.
b. USAID data—includes freight costs.
c. USDA data—does not include freight costs.
d. Includes a “bridge fund” appropriation of $150 million: P.L. 110-252, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(supplemental appropriations for FY2008 and FY2009).
Sources:
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
Pakistan is a front-line state in the global war on terrorism.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Most U.S. assistance programs in the country claim to directly
Official Development
or indirectly serve U.S. counterterrorism goals. The United
Assistance
($US million):
States government has pledged $600 million in economic and
Pakistan
security assistance and $50 million in earthquake
1. United States: 224
reconstruction aid on an annual basis through FY2009.
2. Japan: 120
Approximately 43% of U.S. assistance to Pakistan supports
3. United Kingdom: 92
counterterrorism and border security efforts. The second
4. Turkey: 63
5. Norway: 45
largest strategic objective (36% of funding) is economic
growth, aimed at nurturing a middle class as a foundation for
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
democracy. Economic Support Funds (13%) “help Pakistan to
improve the quality of and access to public education, primary
healthcare, 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.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Pakistan received limited U.S. assistance during the 1990s—counter-narcotics support, food aid,
and Pakistan NGO Initiative programs—due to congressional restrictions in response to
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.35 In 1985, the Pressler amendment to the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (Section 620E(e)) 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, thus triggering 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 nonhumanitarian aid to both countries pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102, the
Glenn amendment). Furthermore, Pakistan became ineligible for most forms of U.S. foreign
assistance due to its delinquency in servicing its debt to the United States and to a 1999 military
coup.37
Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Pakistan was designated as a
front-line state in the war on terrorism and received dramatically increased U.S. aid levels. In late
September 2001, Congress enacted and the President exercised waivers to nuclear weapons
sanctions that had prohibited military and economic aid to India and Pakistan. The Bush
Administration 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. The
President also made $100 million in ESF available before the various sanctions were eased or
lifted, exercising authority afforded him under Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
34
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2008.
The USAID Pakistan NGO Initiative delivered education and health services primarily through the Asia Foundation
and Aga Khan Foundation USA and independent of the government of Pakistan. Total funding for the program (19942003) was $10 million.
36
The Brown amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act eased the prohibition to military assistance only.
37
The annual Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, usually at Section 508, denies foreign assistance to any country
whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.
35
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
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
Since 2003, President Bush has annually exercised the waiver authority on coup-related sanctions
against Pakistan.39 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 was important to 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 an April 2008 determination that a democratically elected
government had been restored in Islamabad after a 101-month hiatus. This determination
permanently removed coup-related aid sanctions.40
ȱȱ
Table 17. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2005-2009
(thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
estimate
FY2009
request
CSH
DA
ESF
FMF
IMET
INCLE
NADR
Totals
300
6,774
9,920
496
461
0
2,700
20,651
0
3,705
3,960
990
529
0
3,615
12,799
0
3,557
3,000
990
483
0
1,050
9,080
0
5,241
0
422
571
20
1,143
7,397
0
4,000
—
900
600
350
650
6,500
1,996
9,690
0
134,600
0
8,798
70
—
14,086
4,600
0
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
Food Aid/Disaster Assistance
P.L. 480 Title II Granta
FFPb
Section 416(b)b
Tsunami Reliefc
U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USAID data—includes freight costs.
Sources:
a.
38
See P.L. 107-57, Sections 1(b) and 3(2).
For additional information on aid, including U.S. Department of Defense programs in Pakistan, see CRS Report
RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by (name redacted).
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.
39
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
b. USDA data—does not include freight costs.
c.
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund, P.L. 109-13
United States assistance programs aim to promote the peace
process between the government of Sri Lanka and Tamil
separatists led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE). In order to help pressure the LTTE to return to the
negotiating table, the United States provides assistance to help
strengthen the capabilities of the Sri Lankan military. INCLE
and NADR programs support the police force and
counterterrorism activities. U.S. assistance also promotes
economic growth, especially in less developed, conflict-ridden
areas, and helps to advance democracy, human rights, and civil
society.
Top Donors of Bilateral
Official Development
Assistance ($US million)
to Sri Lanka
1. Japan: 317
2. Germany: 65
3. Norway: 48
4. United States: 43
5. Netherlands: 38
2004-2005 average. Source: OECD
In 2004, Sri Lanka met eligibility requirements for MCA funding, due in large part to positive
governmental, social, and economic indicators in Western provinces. 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.
ŘŖŖŞȱȱ
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, Section 699G, withheld FMF from Sri Lanka,
with the exception of technology or equipment related to maritime and air surveillance and
communications, unless the following conditions were met:
41
•
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.
USAID, Fact Sheet no. 39, Indian Ocean—Earthquake and Tsunamis, July 7, 2005.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ǯ ȱ¢ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
CSD:
CSH:
DA:
DF:
EAP:
EDA:
ERMA:
ESF:
FFP:
FFE:
FMF:
GHAI:
IMET:
INCLE:
MCA:
MCC:
MRA:
NADR:
OECD:
OFDA:
PKO:
P.L. 480 Title I:
P.L. 480 Title II:
Section 416(b):
USAID:
USDA:
Child Survival and Disease
Child Survival and Health (replaces CSD)
Development Assistance
Democracy Funds
East Asia and the Pacific
Excess Defense Articles
Emergency Migration and Refugee Assistance
Economic Support Funds
Food for Progress
Food for Education
Foreign Military Financing
Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
International Military Education and Training
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
Millennium Challenge Account
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Migration and Refugee Assistance
Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related Programs
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
Peace-keeping Operations
Food Aid (USDA loans)
USAID emergency food program
Surplus Food Commodities
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
ȱȱ ȱ
(name redacted)
Specialist in Asian Affairs
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.