Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992-1999

Order Code RL30640

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing

Nations, 1992-1999

August 18, 2000

Richard F. Grimmett

Specialist in National Defense

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,

1992-1999

Summary

This report is prepared annually to provide unclassified quantitative data on

conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign

countries for the preceding eight calendar years. Some general data are provided on

worldwide conventional arms transfers, but the principal focus is the level of arms

transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.

Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales

activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1992-1999, the value of arms transfer

agreements with developing nations comprised 68.3% of all such agreements

worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements have declined generally, but

those with developing nations still constituted 66.4% of all such agreements globally

from 1996-1999, and 68% of these agreements in 1999.

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1999 was

nearly $20.6 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1996. In 1999,

the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $22.7 billion, a notable

decrease in deliveries values from 1998 ($26.5 billion in constant 1999 dollars).

Recently, from 1996-1999, the United States, Russia, and France have

dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking

first each of the last two years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 19961999, the United States made $25.7 billion in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations, 33.6% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier

during this period, made $14.3 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 18.7%. France,

the third leading supplier, made $9 billion or 11.7% of all such agreements with

developing nations during these years.

In 1999, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations at $8.1 billion or 39.2% of these agreements. Russia was second

with $4.1 billion or 19.9% of such agreements. Germany ranked third with $2 billion

or 9.7% of such agreements. The total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with

developing nations in 1999 notably increased, in real terms, from 1998. In 1999, the

United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at

$11.4 billion, or 50.1% of all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at

$3.9 billion or 17.2% of such deliveries. France ranked third at $2.2 billion or 9.7%

of such deliveries.

During the 1996-1999 period, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first

among developing nations in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $7.7

billion in such agreements. India ranked second at $7.3 billion. Saudi Arabia ranked

third with $7.1 billion. In 1999, South Africa ranked first in value of arms transfer

agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $3.3 billion

in such agreements. Egypt ranked second with $2.6 billion in such agreements. Israel

ranked third with $2.3 billion.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Summary of Data Trends, 1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . 15

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1992-1999: Suppliers

And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1992-1999:

Suppliers and Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1996-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1992-1999 . . . . . . . 69

Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

List of Tables

Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1992-1999 and Suppliers’ Share

with Developing World (in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 20

Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1992-1999 and Suppliers’ Share with

Developing World (in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,

1992-1999 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,

1992-1999(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreement with Developing Nations, by Supplier,

1992-1999(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,

1992-1999(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 45

Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 46

Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) 48

Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . 49

Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1992- 1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1992-1999 . . . . 54

Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,

1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Lending Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 56

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 57

Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1999:

The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Near East . . . 66

Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Latin America 67

Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Africa . . . . . . . 68

Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing

Nations, 1992-1999

Introduction

This report provides unclassified background data from U.S. government sources

on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the

period 1992 through 1999. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier

transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers

to Developing Nations, 1991-1998,” published by the Congressional Research Service

(CRS) on August 4, 1999 (CRS Report RL30275).

The data in the report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms

transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.

Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response

to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Despite global changes

since the Cold War’s end, the developing world continues to be the primary focus of

foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of

this report, 1992-1999, conventional arms transfers to developing nations have

comprised 68.3% of the value of all international arms transfers. In 1999, arms

transfer agreements, which represent orders for future delivery, with developing

countries rose significantly from 1998 totals, comprising 68% of the value of all such

agreements globally. The portion of agreements with developing countries

constituted 66.4% of all agreements globally from 1996-1999. Deliveries of

conventional arms to developing nations, from 1996-1999, constituted 77.9% of all

international arms deliveries. In 1999, arms deliveries to developing nations

constituted 66.8% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide.

The data in this new report completely supercede all data published in previous

editions. Since these new data for 1992-1999 reflect potentially significant updates

to and revisions in the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in

this most recent edition should be used. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the

calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box notes on page 2). U.S.

commercially licensed arms exports are incorporated in the main delivery data tables,

and noted separately (see box note on page 14). Excluded are arms transfers by any

supplier to subnational groups.

CRS-2

CALENDAR YEAR DATA USED

All arms transfer and arms delivery data in this report are for the calendar year

or calendar year period given. This applies to both U.S. and foreign data alike.

United States government departments and agencies publish data on U.S. arms

transfers and deliveries but generally use the United States fiscal year as the

computational time period for these data. (A U.S. fiscal year covers the period from

October 1 through September 30). As a consequence, there are likely to be distinct

differences noted in those published totals using a fiscal year basis and those provided

in this report which use a calendar year basis for its figures. Details regarding data

used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9.

CONSTANT 1999 DOLLARS

Throughout this report values of arms transfer agreements and values of arms

deliveries for all suppliers are expressed in U.S. dollars. Values for any given year

generally reflect the exchange rates that prevailed during that specific year. In many

instances, the report converts these dollar amounts (current dollars) into constant 1999

dollars. Although this helps to eliminate the distorting effects of U.S. inflation to permit

a more accurate comparison of various dollar levels over time, the effects of fluctuating

exchange rates are not neutralized. The deflators used for the constant dollar

calculations in this report are those provided by the U.S. Department of Defense and

are set out at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8, and 9. Unless otherwise noted in the

report, all dollar values are stated in constant terms. Because all regional data

tables are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (1992-1995 and 1996-1999),

they must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms

suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using four-year

aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.

DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS

The developing nations category, as used in this report, includes all countries

except the United States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New

Zealand. A listing of countries located in the regions defined for the purpose of this

analysis–Asia, Near East, Latin America, and Africa–is provided at the end of the

report.

CRS-3

Major Findings

General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide

The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and

developing nations) in 1999 was nearly $30.3 billion. This is a clear increase in arms

agreements values over 1998. This total, however, is substantially lower than those

reached in the early 1990s, the period of post-Persian Gulf war rearmament. (chart

1)(table 8A).

In 1999, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making

agreements valued at nearly $11.8 billion (38.9% of all such agreements), up from

$10.3 billion in 1998. Russia ranked second with $4.8 billion in agreements (15.9%

of these agreements globally), up notably from $2.6 billion in 1998. Germany ranked

third, even as its arms transfer agreements worldwide dropped from $5.1 billion in

1998 to $4 billion in 1999. The United States, Russia and Germany, collectively made

agreements in 1999 valued at nearly $20.6 billion, 68% of all international arms

transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A and 8B).

For the period 1996-1999, the total value of all international arms transfer

agreements (about $115.3 billion) has been notably less than the worldwide value

during 1992-1995 ($150.4 billion), a decline of 23.3%. As the worldwide arms

transfer agreement totals have declined, those with the developing world have

declined to a smaller degree. During the period 1992-1995, developing world nations

accounted for 69.7% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide.

During 1996-1999, developing world nations accounted for 66.4% of all arms transfer

agreements made globally. In 1999, developing nations accounted for 68% of all

arms transfer agreements made worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).

In 1999, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms

deliveries, making $18.4 billion in such deliveries or over 54%. This is the eighth

year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries, reflecting, in

particular, implementation of arms transfer agreements made during and in the

aftermath of the Persian Gulf war. The United Kingdom ranked second in worldwide

arms deliveries in 1999, making $4.5 billion in such deliveries. Russia ranked third

in 1999, making $2.7 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in

1999 collectively delivered $25.6 billion, 75.3% of all arms delivered worldwide by

all suppliers in that year. (Figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B).

The value of all international arms deliveries in 1999 was nearly $34 billion. This

is a decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year ($36.4

billion), and the second lowest total of the last eight years. The total value of such

arms deliveries worldwide in 1996-1999 ($150.3 billion) was an increase in the value

of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1992-1995 (about $145.9 billion).

(figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).

Developing nations from 1996-1999 accounted for 77.9% of the value of all

international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1992-1995, developing nations

accounted for 72.6% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. Most recently, in

CRS-4

1999, developing nations collectively accounted for 66.8% of the value of all

international arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, (9A and 9B).

There continues to be intense competition among major weapons suppliers. Yet,

the limited resources of most developing nations to expend on weapons, and the need

of many selling nations to secure cash for their weapons, also places constraints on

significant expansion of the arms trade. Developed nations are likely to continue to

seek to protect important elements of their own national military industrial bases, and,

as a result, are likely to limit their weapons purchases from one another. In these

circumstances, those nations that effectively restructure and consolidate their defense

industries seem most likely to be the key players in the emerging international arms

marketplace. Some traditional arms supplying nations may further deem it necessary

to engage in more joint production ventures or in multinational mergers, such as some

German and French defense firms did in forming EADS (European Aeronautic,

Defense and Space Company) in 1999, to sustain the competitiveness and viability of

their national defense industrial sectors.

Various weapons exporters are seeking to maintain and expand arms sales to

nations and regions where they have competitive advantages due to prior

political/military ties to the prospective buyers. New arms sales opportunities may yet

develop with some European nations in the new century due to the expansion of

NATO. To date, this has not occurred to any notable degree. The limited financial

resources of the new NATO members has been an important impediment to

significant new arms purchases by them. Consequently, these nations are likely, in the

near term, to focus on upgrades of existing weapons systems in ways that require

fewer major expenditures by their governments.

As individual nations in the Near East, Asia, and Latin America attempt to

replace older military equipment, it is possible that additional notable arms sales may

result. Nonetheless, a large part of the developing world has not recovered fully from

recent international financial problems. The 1997-1998 fall in the price of crude oil,

now reversed, created great financial difficulties for some Persian Gulf states. Saudi

Arabia found itself in significant financial straits, in light of the various obligations it

undertook during and after the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war, its domestic spending

programs, and the magnitude of the costs associated with its weapons procurement

program. Although since 1999, the price of crude oil has risen significantly, that fact

does not necessarily mean that most major oil producing nations in the developing

world will soon launch new, expensive, weapons procurements. The United Arab

Emirates (U.A.E.) has made measured and significant purchases of advanced military

hardware, particularly combat aircraft. The U.A.E. has been in sound financial

condition, and this circumstance has made it a prime client for major arms suppliers,

while giving it significant leverage in bargaining over final weapons contracts.

The financial crisis in Asia in 1997 led to a major curtailment of planned weapons

purchases by several states in that region, and had the additional effect of reducing the

income of other developing countries dependent on trade with Asia. While the

economic situation in Asia appears to have stabilized, the improved financial

environment has not resulted in full restoration of arms procurement plans underway

in key Asian nations at the time they fell into financial difficulties. Although some

Latin American states have expressed interest in modernizing older items in their

CRS-5

military inventories, domestic budget constraints have so far curtailed implementation

of these programs. A lack of necessary national funds and the paucity of financing

credits has also led many developing nations to curtail or defer purchases of additional

weaponry. Given the present international economic environment, it seems likely that

major weapons purchases will be made by more affluent developing countries, and

that the remainder of the arms trade will be based on the support and maintenance of

existing weapons systems and related equipment, and/or significant upgrades of these

systems and equipment, where feasible.

General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1999 was

nearly $20.6 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1996. The total

value of new arms transfer agreements with developing nations has generally declined

since 1992 (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 1999, the value of all arms deliveries

to developing nations ($22.7 billion) was a substantial decrease from the value of

1998 deliveries values ($26.5 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years

(charts 7 and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).

Recently, from 1996-1999, the United States, Russia, and France have

dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking

first each of the last two years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 19961999, the United States made $25.7 billion in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations, 33.6% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier

during this period, made $14.3 billion in arms transfer agreements or 18.7%. France,

the third leading supplier, made nearly $9 billion or 11.7% of all such agreements with

developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1992-1995) the United

States ranked first with nearly $43.3 billion in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations or 41.3%; France made $26.2 billion in agreements or 25%.

Russia made nearly $13 billion in arms transfer agreements during this period or

12.3% (table 1A)(figure 1).

Throughout the 1990s, most arms transfers to developing nations were made by

two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has ranked either

first or second among these suppliers every year from 1992-1999. France has been

a consistent competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing

nations, ranking first in 1994 and 1997, and second in 1992, 1993, and 1998, although

Russia has ranked second or third during the 1996-1999 period. As competition over

the international arms market intensifies, France seems more likely to rank higher in

arms deals with developing nations than Russia. As a supplier nation, Russia has

more significant limitations in its prospective arms client base than other major

western suppliers. Arms suppliers like the United Kingdom and Germany, from time

to time, may conclude significant orders with developing countries. At the turn of a

new century, however, the United States seems best positioned to lead in new arms

agreements with developing nations. Furthermore, it seems likely that very expensive

weapons orders from individual developing countries will be sporadic in the near

term. Consequently, the overall level of the arms trade is likely to remain generally

flat for the foreseeable future, with annual sales totals well below those of the Persian

Gulf war period.

CRS-6

Suppliers in the tier below the United States, France, Russia, and the United

Kingdom–such as Germany, China, other European, and non-European suppliers have

been participants in the arms trade with developing nations at a much lower level.

They are, nonetheless, capable, of making an occasional arms deal of a significant

nature. However, most of their annual arms transfer agreements totals during 19921999 are at comparatively low levels. Few of these countries are likely to be major

suppliers of advanced weaponry on a sustained basis. With a few exceptions, most

of them are more likely to make sales of less sophisticated and less expensive military

equipment ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).

United States.

In 1999, the total value, in real terms, of United States arms transfer agreements

with developing nations rose to about $8.1 billion from $6.4 billion in 1998. The U.S.

share of the value of all such agreements was 39.2% in 1999, a slight increase from

38.3% in 1998 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and 1B).

The high value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations is

attributable to major purchases by key U.S. clients in the Near East, and to a lesser

extent in Asia, together with continuation of well established defense support

arrangements with such purchasers. U.S. transactions with these buyers in 1999

included not only the sale of new weapons systems, but the upgrading of existing

ones, and provision of various spare parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and

support services. Among major weapons systems sold in 1999 by the United States

were 50 F16D fighter aircraft to Israel for over $2 billion and 24 F16C/D fighter

aircraft to Egypt for about $1billion. Egypt also purchased an M1A1 Abrams main

battle tank package for co-production of 100 tanks. In Asia, the United States sold

Singapore 8 AH-64D Apache helicopters for about $400 million. Taiwan also

purchased CH-47SD Chinook helicopters and 2 E2 Hawkeye AEW aircraft. Although

such sales of new weapons systems were an important element of the U.S. sales totals

for 1999, the sale of spare parts, upgrades to existing systems, munitions, training,

and support services still accounted for a very significant part of overall U.S. arms

orders, reflecting the large number of nations in the developing world that have

acquired and continue to use American military equipment.

Russia.

The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing

nations rose notably from about $2.3 billion in 1998 to $4.1 billion in 1999, placing

it second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all

developing world arms transfer agreements increased as well, rising from 13.4% in

1998 to 19.9% in 1999 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Russia’s arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations declined every

year from 1995 through 1998, although during this four-year period it actually ranked

second among all major suppliers to developing countries, making over $14.3 billion

in agreements. Its arms agreement values ranged from a high of $5.8 billion in 1995

to a low of $1.4 billion in 1993 (in constant 1999 dollars). Russia’s arms sales

performance reflects the continuing effect of the economic and political problems

stemming from the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Many of Russia’s traditional

CRS-7

arms clients are less wealthy developing nations that were once provided generous

grant military assistance and deep discounts on arms purchases. After the dissolution

of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Russia did not resume those practices. Russia

now actively seeks to sell weapons as a means of obtaining hard currency. Although

some former arms clients in the developing world continue to express interest in

obtaining additional Russian weaponry, they have been restricted in doing so by a lack

of funds to pay for the armaments they seek.

In its efforts to make lucrative new sales of conventional weapons, Russia has

confronted significant difficulties as most potential cash-paying arms purchasers have

been longstanding customers of the United States or major West European suppliers.

These prospective arms buyers have proven reluctant to replace their weapons

inventories with unfamiliar non-Western armaments when newer versions of existing

equipment are readily available from their traditional suppliers, even in an era of

intense competition. The difficult transition Russia has been making from the state

supported and controlled industrial system of the former Soviet Union has also led

some potential arms customers to question whether the Russian defense industries can

be reliable suppliers of the spare parts and support services necessary for the

maintenance of weapons systems they sell abroad.

Nevertheless, because Russia has had a wide variety of weaponry to sell, from

the most basic to the highly sophisticated, and despite the internal problems evident

in the Russian defense industrial sector, various developing countries still view Russia

as a potential source of their military equipment. Accordingly, Russia has made

strong efforts to gain arms agreements with developing nations that can pay cash for

their purchases, and Russian sales since 1995 indicate that Russia has had varying

degrees of success in doing so. During this period, Russia made smaller arms deals

with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates for armored fighting vehicles and with

Malaysia for MiG-29 fighter aircraft. Iran, primarily due to its own economic

difficulties, as well as U.S. pressure on Russia, recently ceased to be a major

purchaser of arms from the Russians. Iran had been a primary purchaser of Russian

armaments in the early 1990s, receiving such items as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24

fighter-bombers, T-72 tanks and Kilo class attack submarines. Iraq was once a major

purchaser of advanced weaponry from Russia, but has been a lost source of orders

since the Persian Gulf war.

Russia’s principal arms clients since 1994 have been China and India. Among

Russia’s notable arms deals during the most recent years have been the sale of 40 new

Su-30MK fighter aircraft to India, a major longstanding client. Various elements of

a longer range plan for procurement as well as co-production of a number of

advanced Russian weapons systems were agreed to with India in 1999, which are

likely to result in significant aircraft, missile, and naval craft sales to the Indian

government in the near future. Russia’s arms supplying relationship with China began

to mature in 1994. By 1996 Russia had sold China at least 72 Su-27 fighter aircraft

as well as four Kilo class attack submarines. Subsequently, a licensing agreement was

finalized between Russia and China, permitting the Chinese to co-produce at least 200

Su-27 aircraft. Russia also sold China two Sovremenny-class destroyers. In 1999,

the Chinese purchased between 40-60 Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft for an

estimated $2 billion, and other deals for future procurement of other weapons systems

CRS-8

were agreed to in principle. Thus it appears likely that China and India will continue

to figure significantly in Russia’s arms export calculus for the foreseeable future.

China.

China emerged as an important arms supplier to developing nations in the 1980s,

primarily due to arms agreements made with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq war.

During the period of this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with

developing nations reached its peak in 1999 at $1.9 billion. Its sales figures in 1999

resulted generally from several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the

Near East, rather than one or two especially large sales of major weapons systems.

Pakistan continues as a key Chinese client. From 1992 through 1999, the value of

China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations has averaged $860 million

annually. China, more recently, has become a major purchaser of arms, primarily from

Russia (tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).

Since the late 1980s, few clients with financial resources have sought to purchase

Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and sophisticated than

weaponry available from Western suppliers and Russia. China does not appear likely

to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the international arms market in the

foreseeable future. However, reports persist in various publications that China has

sold surface-to-surface missiles to Pakistan, a traditional client. Iran and North Korea

have also reportedly received Chinese missile technology. These reports raise

important questions about China’s expressed commitment to the restrictions on

missile transfers set out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). With

a need for hard currency, and with products (especially missiles) that some developing

countries would like to acquire, China can present an important obstacle to efforts to

stem proliferation of advanced missile systems to some areas of the developing world

where political and military tensions are significant.

Major West European Suppliers.

The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,

and Italy), as a group, registered a significant decrease in their collective share of all

arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 1998 and 1999. This

group’s share fell from 30.5% in 1998 to 16% in 1999. The collective value of this

group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1999 was $3.3 billion

compared with a total of over $5.1 billion in 1998. Of these four, Germany was the

principal supplier with $2 billion in agreements, an increase from $1.5 billion in 1998.

The German agreement total in 1999 was primarily attributable to the sale to South

Africa of four MEKO A200 patrol corvettes and three Class 209 diesel-electric

submarines. France registered a significant decline in arms agreements from $2.6

billion in 1998 to $400 million in 1999. The United Kingdom also registered a

notable decline in arms agreements from over $1 billion in 1998 to $500 million in

1999. Italy, meanwhile, registered an increase from essentially nil in 1998 to $400

million in 1999 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).

The four major West European suppliers, collectively, held a 30% share of all

arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1992-1999.

Since the end of the Persian Gulf war, the major West European suppliers have

CRS-9

generally maintained a notable share of arms transfer agreements. For the 1996-1999

period, they collectively held 24% of all arms transfer agreements with developing

nations ( $18.4 billion). Individual suppliers within the major West European group

have had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 1992, 1993, 1994,

and 1997 ($10.1 billion, $4.5 billion, $9 billion, and $4.8 billion respectively). The

United Kingdom also had large agreement years in 1992, 1993, and 1996 ($2.1

billion, $2.6 billion, and $2.1 respectively). Germany’s agreement total in 1999 of $2

billion was its highest over the last eight years. For each of these three nations, large

agreement totals in a single year have reflected the conclusion of a few very large

arms contracts with one or more major purchasers in the particular year (table 1A

and 1B).

The major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in

weapons exports enhanced by traditionally strong government marketing support for

foreign arms sales. Since they can produce both advanced and basic air, ground, and

naval weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers have proven capable

of competing successfully with the United States and Russia for arms sales contracts

with developing nations. The relative decline in overall demand in the global arms

marketplace does, however, create a more difficult environment for individual West

European suppliers to secure large new contracts with developing nations on a

sustained basis. Consequently, some of these suppliers may chose not to compete for

some sales of certain types of weapons systems, even reducing or eliminating some

categories of items they have been producing. Instead, they may embrace increasing

numbers of joint production ventures with other key European weapons suppliers or

even purchasers in an effort to sustain major sectors of their individual defense

industrial bases. The recent trend toward mergers of various European defense firms

may encourage more joint ventures of this kind.

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements

The Persian Gulf war from August 1990-February 1991 played a major role in

stimulating high levels of arms transfer agreements with nations in the Near East

region. The war created new demands by key purchasers such as Saudi Arabia,

Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation

Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons systems. These demands were not

only a response to Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but concerns regarding perceived

threats from a potentially hostile Iran. In Asia, efforts in several countries focused on

upgrading and modernizing defense forces have led to important new conventional

weapons sales in that region. Russia also, in the 1990s, developed a significant role

as the principal supplier of advanced conventional weaponry to China. The data on

regional arms transfer agreements from 1992-1999 continue to reflect the primacy of

developing nations in the Near East and Asia regions as customers for conventional

armaments.

Near East.

The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing

world. In 1992-1995, it accounted for 52.1% of the total value of all developing

nations arms transfer agreements ($48.1 billion in current dollars). During 1996-

CRS-10

1999, the region accounted for 46.3% of all such agreements ($34.3 billion in current

dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).

The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East

during the 1992-1999 period with 50.9% of their total value ($41.9 billion in current

dollars). France was second during these years with 26.6% ($21.9 billion in current

dollars). Recently, from 1996-1999, the United States accounted for 49.3% of arms

agreements with this region (over $16.9 billion), while France accounted for 20.4%

of the region’s agreements ($7 billion in current dollars), representing most of the

arms transfer agreements by the major West European suppliers with the Near East

(chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).

Asia.

Asia has generally been the second largest developing world arms market. In the

earlier period (1992-1995), Asia accounted for 40.4% of the total value of all arms

transfer agreements with developing nations ($37.3 billion in current dollars). During

1996-1999, the region accounted for 37.6% of all such agreements ($27.9 billion in

current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).

In the earlier period (1992-1995), the United States ranked first in the value of

arms transfer agreements with Asia with 30.6%. Russia ranked second with 22.3%.

The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 32.2% of this region’s

agreements in 1992-1995. In the later period (1996-1999), Russian ranked first in

Asian agreements with 37%, on the strength of major combat aircraft sales to China

and India. The United States ranked second with 23.9%. The major West European

suppliers, as a group, made 20.8% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. (Chart

6)(table 1E).

Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers

Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing world arms

purchaser from 1992-1999, making arms transfer agreements totaling $28.9 billion

during these years (in current dollars). In the 1992-1995 period, the value of its arms

transfer agreements was high ($21.8 billion in current dollars). From 1996-1999,

however, the total value of Saudi Arabia’s arms transfer agreements dropped

significantly to $7.1 billion (in current dollars). This decline resulted from Saudi debt

obligations stemming from the Persian Gulf era, coupled with a significant fall in

Saudi revenues caused by the notable decline in the market price of its oil. The total

value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1992-1999 was

$166.1 billion in current dollars. Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for 17.4% of all

developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most

recent period, 1996-1999, Saudi Arabia ranked third in arms transfer agreements by

developing nations behind the United Arab Emirates ($7.7 billion in current dollars)

and India ($7.3 billion in current dollars), yet still accounted for nearly 10% of the

value of all developing world arms transfer agreements ($7.1 billion out of $73.9

billion in current dollars) (tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).

CRS-11

The values of the arms transfer agreements of the top ten developing world

recipient nations in both the 1992-1995 and 1996-1999 periods accounted for the

major portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1992-1995, the

top ten recipients collectively accounted for 76.3% of all developing world arms

transfer agreements. During 1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted

for 64.3% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten

developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $15.9 billion in 1999 or 77.3% of all

arms transfer agreements with developing nations in that year. This reflects the

continued concentration of major arms purchases by developing nations within a few

countries (tables 1, 1I and 1J).

South Africa ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of

arms transfer agreements in 1999, concluding $3.3 billion in such agreements. Egypt

ranked second in agreements in 1999 at $2.6 billion. Israel ranked third with $2.3

billion in agreements (table 1J).

Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing

world recipients in 1999, receiving $6.9 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia alone

received 30.4% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 1999.

Taiwan ranked second in arms deliveries in 1999 with $2.6 billion. Israel ranked third

with $2 billion (tables 2 and 2J).

Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were

valued at $18.2 billion, or 80.3% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 1999.

Six of these top ten recipients were in Asia (tables 2 and 2J).

Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations

Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of

conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the United

States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery

of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the other

European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable

of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing

nations (tables 3-7) (pages 64-68).

Weapons deliveries to the Near East, the largest purchasing region in the

developing world, reflect the substantial quantities and types delivered by both major

and lesser suppliers. The following is an illustrative summary of weapons deliveries

to this region for the period 1996-1999 from table 5 (page 66):

United States.

! 393 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 1,576 APCs and armored cars

! 4 minor surface combatants

! 91 supersonic combat aircraft

! 62 helicopters

! 799 surface-to-air missiles

! 57 anti-ship missiles

CRS-12

Russia.

! 290 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 510 APCs and armored cars

! 1 submarine

! 20 supersonic combat aircraft

! 60 helicopters

! 140 surface-to-air missiles

China.

! 5 guided missile boats

! 10 supersonic combat aircraft

! 300 surface-to-air- missiles

! 160 anti-ship missiles

Major West European Suppliers.

! 270 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 390 APCs and armored cars

! 2 major surface combatants

! 15 minor surface combatants

! 8 guided missile boats

! 2 submarines

! 30 supersonic combat aircraft

! 10 anti-ship missiles

All Other European Suppliers.

! 120 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 110 artillery

! 1,230 APCs and armored cars

! 2 major surface combatants

! 5 minor surface combatants

! 20 supersonic combat aircraft

! 30 helicopters

All Other Suppliers.

! 3 minor surface combatants

! 20 surface-to-surface missiles

Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region

from 1996-1999, in particular, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, minor

surface combatants, artillery pieces, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air

defense and anti-ship missiles. The United States made significant deliveries of

supersonic combat aircraft to the region. Russia, the United States, and European

suppliers in general were the principal suppliers of tanks and self-propelled guns.

Three of these weapons categories–supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, and tanks

and self-propelled guns–are especially costly and are an important portion of the

dollar values of arms deliveries of the United States, Russia, and European suppliers

to the Near East region during the 1996-1999 period. The cost of naval combatants

is also generally high, and suppliers of such systems during this period had their

delivery value totals notably increased due to these transfers. Some of the less

expensive weapons systems delivered to the Near East are deadly and can create

CRS-13

important security threats within the region. In particular, from 1996-1999, China

delivered to the Near East region 160 anti-ship missiles, while the United States

delivered 57. China also delivered 5 guided missile boats to the Near East, while the

major West European suppliers collectively delivered 8 guided missile boats. Other

non-European suppliers delivered 20 surface-to-surface missiles.

CRS-14

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS

The United States commercial deliveries data set out below are included in the main data

tables for deliveries in this report. They are presented separately here to provide an indicator of

their overall magnitude in the U.S. aggregate deliveries totals for the world and for developing

nations. The United States is the only major arms supplier that has two distinct systems for the

export of weapons: the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, and

the licensed commercial export system. It should be noted that data maintained on U.S.

commercial sales agreements and deliveries are incomplete, and not collected or revised on an

on-going basis, making them significantly less precise than those for the U.S. FMS

program–which accounts for the overwhelming portion of U.S. conventional arms transfer

agreements and deliveries involving weapons systems. There are no official compilations of

commercial agreement data comparable to that for the FMS program maintained on an annual

basis. Once an exporter receives from the State Department a commercial license authorization

to sell–valid for four years–there is no current requirement that the exporter provide to the State

Department, on a systematic and on-going basis, comprehensive details regarding any sales

contract that results from the license approval, including if any such contract is reduced in scope

or cancelled. Nor is the exporter required to report that no contract with the prospective buyer

resulted. Annual commercial deliveries data are obtained from shipper’s export documents and

completed licenses returned from ports of exit by the U.S. Customs Service to the Office of

Defense Trade Controls (PM/DTC) of the State Department, which makes the final compilation

of such data. This process for obtaining commercial deliveries data is much less systematic and

much less timely than that taken by the Department of Defense for government-to-government

FMS transactions. Recently, efforts have been initiated by the U.S. government to improve the

timeliness and quality of U.S. commercial deliveries data. The values of U.S. commercial arms

deliveries to all nations and deliveries to developing nations for fiscal years 1992-1999, in

current dollars, according to the U.S. State Department, were as follows:

Fiscal Year

Commercial Deliveries

(Worldwide)

Commercial Deliveries

(to Developing Nations)

1992

$2,667,000,000

$1,522,000,000

1993

$3,808,000,000

$2,921,000,000

1994

$3,339,000,000

$2,155,000,000

1995

$3,173,000,000

$1,804,000,000

1996

$1,563,000,000

$696,000,000

1997

$1,818,000,000

$1,141,000,000

1998

$2,045,000,000

$797,000,000

1999

$654,000,000

$321,000,000

CRS-15

Summary of Data Trends, 1992-1999

Tables 1 through 1J (pages 39-49) present data on arms transfer agreements

with developing nations by major suppliers from 1992-1998. These data show the

most recent trends in arms contract activity by major suppliers. Delivery data, which

reflect implementation of sales decisions taken earlier, are shown in Tables 2 through

2J (pages 50-60). Tables 8, 8A and 8B (pages 71-73) provide data on worldwide

arms transfer agreements from 1992-1999, while Tables 9, 9A and 9B (pages 74-76)

provide data on worldwide arms deliveries during this period. To use these data

regarding agreements for purposes other than assessing general trends in seller/buyer

activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can be readily invalidated by future

events–precise values and comparisons, for example, may change due to cancellations

or modifications of major arms transfer agreements. These data sets reflect the

comparative order of magnitude of arms transactions by arm suppliers with recipient

nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise noted.

What follows is a detailed summary of data trends from the tables in the report.

The summary statements also reference tables and/or charts pertinent to the point(s)

noted.

Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values

Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements with

developing nations. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they

are, by themselves, of somewhat limited use. They provide, however, the data from

which table 1A (constant dollars) and table 1B (supplier percentages) are derived.

Some of the more noteworthy facts reflected by these data are summarized below.

!

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in

1999 was nearly $20.6 billion. This was the highest total, in real

terms, for arms transfer agreements with developing nations since

1996 (tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).

!

The total value of United States agreements with developing nations

rose from $6.4 billion in 1998 to $8.1 billion in 1999. The United

States’ share of all developing world arms transfer agreements

increased from 38.3% in 1998 to 39.2% in 1999 (tables 1A and

1B)(chart 3).

!

In 1999, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer

agreements with developing nations increased notably from the

previous year, rising from $2.3 billion 1998 to $4.1 billion in 1999.

The Russian share of all such agreements rose from 13.4% in 1998

to 19.9% in 1999 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).

CRS-16

Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1992-1999

Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-17

Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-18

Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-19

Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 1992-1999

(billions of constant 1999 dollars)

CRS-20

Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1992-1999 and

Suppliers’ Share with Developing World

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 1992-1995

72,803

17,529

28,834

6,968

2,047

4,898

2,581

8,877

5,857

150,394

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

59.40

73.90

90.90

88.70

100.00

34.80

78.60

70.70

71.30

69.70

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 1996-1999

41,683

16,080

12,326

8,513

5,261

9,876

2,269

12,519

6,818

115,345

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

61.70

89.10

72.80

55.50

92.00

36.90

45.70

70.50

66.00

66.40

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 1999

11,768

4,800

900

800

1,900

4,000

600

4,600

900

30,268

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

68.60

85.40

44.40

62.50

100.00

50.00

66.70

56.50

66.70

68.00

CRS-21

!

The four major West European suppliers, as a group, (France, United

Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a significant decrease in their

collective share of all arms transfer agreements with developing

nations between 1998 and 1999. This group’s share fell from 30.5%

in 1998 to 16% in 1999. The collective value of this group’s arms

transfer agreements with developing nations in 1998 was over $5.1

billion compared with a total of $3.3 billion in 1999 (tables 1A and

1B)(charts 3 and 4).

!

France registered a dramatic decline in its share of all arms transfer

agreements with developing nations, falling from 15.3% in 1998 to

1.9% in 1999. The value of its agreements with developing nations

fell from about $2.6 billion in 1998 to $400 million in 1999 (tables

1A and 1B).

!

In 1999, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements

with developing nations at $8.1 billion. Russia ranked second at $4.1

billion, while Germany ranked third at $2 billion (charts 3 and

4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1992-1999

Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and

individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1992-1995 and 1996-1999.

These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars.1 Table 1D, derived from table

1C, gives the percentage distribution of each supplier’s agreement values within the

regions for the two time periods. Table 1E, also derived from table 1C, illustrates

what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms transfer

agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 1992-1995 and 1996-1999.

Among the facts reflected in these tables are the following:

Near East.

1

!

The Near East has generally been the largest regional arms market in

the developing world. In 1992-1995, it accounted for 52.1% of the

total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($48.1

billion in current dollars). During 1996-1999, the region accounted

for 46.3% of all such agreements ($34.3 billion in current dollars)

(tables 1C and 1D).

!

The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the

Near East during the 1992-1999 period with 50.9% of their total

value ($41.9 billion in current dollars). France was second during

these years with 26.6% ($21.9 billion in current dollars). Most

recently, from 1996-1999, the United States accounted for 49.3% of

all arms transfer agreements with the Near East region (over $16.9

Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must be

expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-22

billion in current dollars). France accounted for 20.4% of agreements

with this region ($7 billion in current dollars), representing most of

the arms transfer agreements by the major West European suppliers

to this region (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).

!

For the period 1992-1995, the United States concluded 66% of its

developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In

1996-1999, the U.S. concluded 68.1% of its agreements with this

region (table 1D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, the four major West European suppliers

collectively made 37.6% of their developing world arms transfer

agreements with the Near East. In 1996-1999, the major West

Europeans made 24.8% of their arms agreements with the Near East

(table 1D) .

!

For the period 1992-1995, France concluded 64.8% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1996-1999,

France made 81.4% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, the United Kingdom concluded 45.3% of

its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.

In 1996-1999, the United Kingdom made 28.9% of its agreements

with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, China concluded 27.8% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1996-1999,

China made 35.4% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, Russia concluded 19% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1996-1999,

Russia made 17.4% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

In the earlier period (1992-1995), the United States ranked first in

arms transfer agreements with the Near East with 52%. France

ranked second with 31%. The United Kingdom ranked third with

5%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 37.6%

of this region’s agreements in 1992-1995. In the later period (19961999), the United States ranked first in Near East agreements with

49.3%. France ranked second with 20.4%. Russia ranked third with

7%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 24.8%

of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999 (table 1E)(chart 5).

CRS-23

Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-24

Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Asia

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-25

Asia.

!

Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the

developing world. In the 1992-1995 period, Asia accounted for

40.4% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations

($37.3 billion in current dollars). In the more recent period, 19961999, it accounted for nearly 37.6% of all developing nations arms

transfer agreements ($27.9 billion in current dollars)(tables 1C and

1D).

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, the United States ranked first in

arms transfer agreements with Asia with 30.5%. Russia ranked

second with 22.3%. The major West European suppliers, as a group,

made 32.2% of this region’s agreements in 1992-1995. In the later

period, 1996-1999, Russia ranked first in Asian agreements with

37%, on the strength of major aircraft and naval vessel sales to China

and India. The United States ranked second with 23.9% .The major

West European suppliers, as a group, made 20.8% of this region’s

agreements in 1996-1999 (chart 6) (table 1E).

Latin America.

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, the United States ranked first in

arms transfer agreements with Latin America with 30.3%. Russia

ranked second with 10.9%. The major West European suppliers, as

a group, made 28.3% of this region’s agreements in 1992-1995. In

the later period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first with

27.4%. France ranked second with 9.1%. Russia was third with

6.8%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 11.3%

of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. Latin America registered

a decrease in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from

1992-1995 to 1996-1999, falling from about $4.6 billion in the earlier

period to $4.4 billion in the latter (tables 1C and 1E).

Africa.

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, Russian ranked first in agreements

with Africa with 26.3% ($600 million in current dollars). France was

second with 8.8%. The major West European suppliers, as a group,

made 8.8% of the region’s agreements in 1992-1995, with France

being the only supplier from this group. The United States made

3.8%. In the later period, 1996-1999, Germany ranked first in

agreements with 26.7% ($2 billion). China ranked second with

13.4% ($1 billion). The major West European suppliers, as a group,

made 40.1% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. Africa

registered a significant increase in the total value of its arms transfer

agreements from 1992-1995 to 1996-1999, rising from $2.3 billion

in the earlier period to $7.5 billion in the latter (in current dollars).

The notable rise in the level of arms agreements reflected, to an

CRS-26

important degree, South Africa’s new defense procurement program

(tables 1C and 1E).

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing

nations from 1992-1999 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers

on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with the

developing world for each of three periods–1992-1995, 1996-1999 and 1992-1999.

Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing

nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999

($24.9 billion), and first for the entire period from 1992-1999 ($62.7

billion).

!

Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in

the value of arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 ($13.8

billion), and third from 1992-1999 ($25.4 billion).

!

France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 ($8.6 billion), and

second from 1992-1999 ($31.6 billion).

!

The United Kingdom ranked fifth among all suppliers to developing

nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999

($4.5 billion), and fourth from 1992-1999 ($9.9 billion).

!

China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 ($4.7 billion), and

fifth from 1992-1999 ($6.5 billion).

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 1G ranks and gives for 1999 the arms transfer agreements values with

developing nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the

facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

The United States, Russia and Germany, the year’s top three arms

suppliers–ranked by the value of their arms transfer

agreements–collectively made agreements in 1999 valued at nearly

$14.2 billion, 68.9% of all arms transfer agreements made with

developing nations by all suppliers.

!

In 1999, the United States was the clear leader in arms transfer

agreements with developing nations, making $8.1 billion in such

agreements, or 39.2% of them.

CRS-27

!

Russia ranked second and Germany third in arms transfer agreements

with developing nations in 1999, making $4.1 billion and $2 billion

in such agreements respectively.

!

China ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing

nations in 1999, making $1.9 billion in such agreements, while

Sweden ranked fifth with $700 million.

Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1992-1999: Suppliers

And Recipients

Table 1H gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the Near East

nations by suppliers or categories of suppliers for the periods 1992-1995 and 19961999. These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the

data contained in table 1 and table 1C. Among the facts reflected by this table are

the following:

!

For the most recent period, 1996-1999, the principal purchasers of

U.S. arms in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements

were: Egypt ($5.8 billion), Saudi Arabia ($5.5 billion), and Israel

($4.2 billion).The principal purchasers of Russian arms were: Algeria

($600 million), Egypt and the U.A.E. ($400 million each). The

principal purchasers of arms from China were Iran ($800 million),

and Egypt ($400 million). The principal purchasers of arms from the

four major West European suppliers, as a group, were: the U.A.E.

($6 billion), Qatar ($800 million), and Saudi Arabia ($400 million).

The principal purchasers of arms from all other European suppliers

collectively were Saudi Arabia ($900 million), Algeria and the

U.A.E. ($800 million each). The principal purchaser of arms from all

other suppliers combined was Saudi Arabia ($300 million).

!

For the period from 1996-1999, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)

made $7.7 billion in arms transfer agreements. The major West

Europeans, collectively, were its largest supplier ($6 billion). Saudi

Arabia made $7.1 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal

suppliers were: the United States ($5.5 billion), the four major West

European suppliers, as a group, ($400 million), and all other

European suppliers collectively ($900 million). Egypt made $6.7

billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major supplier was the United

States ($5.8 billion). Israel made $4.5 billion in arms transfer

agreements. Its principal supplier was the United States ($4.2

billion).

!

The total value of arms transfer agreements by China to Iran rose

from $200 million to $800 million during the period from 1992-1995

to 1996-1999.

CRS-28

!

The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with

Saudi Arabia fell significantly from the 1992-1995 period to the

1996-1999 period, declining from $14.9 billion in the earlier period

to $5.5 billion in the later period. Saudi Arabia made 77.5% of its

arms transfer agreements with the United States during 1996-1999.

Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements with Saudi Arabia by the major

West European suppliers also decreased significantly from 19921995 to 1996-1999, falling from $6.5 billion to $400 million in

current dollars.

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients

Table 1I gives the values of arms transfer agreements made by the top ten

recipients of arms in the developing world from 1992-1999 with all suppliers

collectively. The table ranks recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values

of their respective agreements with all suppliers for each of three periods–1992-1995,

1996-1999 and 1992-1999. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing

world purchaser of arms from 1992-1999, making agreements

totaling $28.9 billion during these years. The total value of all arms

transfer agreements with developing nations from 1992-1999 was

$166.1 billion in current dollars. Saudi Arabia alone was responsible

for over 17.4% of all developing world arms transfer agreements

during these years. In the most recent period–1996-1999–Saudi

Arabia ranked third in arms transfer agreements by developing

nations behind the U.A.E. ($7.7 billion in current dollars) and India

($7.3 billion in current dollars) yet still accounted for nearly 10% of

all developing world arms transfer agreements ($7.1 billion out of

nearly $73.9 billion in current dollars)(tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).

!

During 1992-1995, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for

76.3% of all developing world arms transfer agreements. During

1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 64.3%

of all such agreements. In 1999, the top ten recipients collectively

accounted for 77.3% of all such agreements (tables 1, 1I and 1J).

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients

Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer

agreements in 1999. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current

dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 1999. Among the

facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

South Africa ranked first among all developing nations recipients in

the value of arms transfer agreements in 1999, concluding $3.3

CRS-29

billion in such agreements. Egypt ranked second with $2.6 billion.

Israel ranked third with $2.3 billion.

!

Five of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer

agreements in 1999 were in Asia. Four were in the Near East.

!

Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world

recipients, as a group, in 1999 totaled $15.9 billion or 77.3% of all

such agreements with the developing world, reflecting a continuing

concentration of developing world arms purchases within a few

nations (tables 1 and 1J).

Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values

Table 2 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually

transferred) to developing nations by major suppliers from 1992-1999. The utility of

these particular data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide

the data from which tables 2A (constant dollars) and table 2B (supplier percentages)

are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized

below.

!

In 1999 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($22.7

billion) was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous

year, ($26.5 billion in constant 1999 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table

2A).

!

The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 1999 was

50.1%, up from 42.6% in 1998. In 1999, the United States, for the

eighth year in a row, ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to

developing nations (in constant 1999 dollars), reflecting continuing

implementation of Persian Gulf war era arms transfer agreements.

The United Kingdom’s share of all arms deliveries to developing

nations in 1999 was 17.2%, up from 12.8% in 1998. The share of

major West European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in

1999 was 29.6%, down notably from 38% in 1998 (tables 2A and

2B).

!

The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing

nations from 1996-1999 ($108.8 billion in constant 1999 dollars) was

higher than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing

nations from 1992-1995 ($105.7 billion in constant 1999

dollars)(table 2A).

!

During the years 1992-1999, arms deliveries to developing nations

comprised 72.5% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 1999, the

percentage of arms deliveries to developing nations was 66.8% of all

arms deliveries worldwide (tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-30

Chart 7

Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1992-1999

Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-31

Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1992-1999

(in billions of constant 1999 dollars)

CRS-32

Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1992-1999 and Suppliers’ Share

with Developing World

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

1992-1995

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

65,539

12,663

8,964

24,022

3,980

6,538

1,254

14,946

8,252

145,888

69.53

89.40

57.70

96.20

97.10

41.10

44.60

57.40

59.00

72.60

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

1996-1999

68,503

10,800

19,238

22,508

2,609

4,871

1,045

13,017

7,670

150,261

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

66.20

79.80

90.70

87.50

96.10

33.80

70.50

72.80

43.60

77.90

Supplier

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

1999

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

18,351

2,700

2,400

4,500

300

1,200

100

2,400

2,000

33,951

61.90

74.10

91.70

86.70

100.00

50.00

0.00

75.00

25.00

66.80

CRS-33

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1992-1999

Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions

of the developing world for the periods 1992-1995 and 1996-1999. These values are

expressed in current U.S. dollars.2 Table 2D, derived from table 2C, gives the

percentage distribution of each supplier’s deliveries values within the regions for the

two time periods. Table 2E, also derived from table 2C, illustrates what percentage

share of each developing world region’s total arms delivery values was held by

specific suppliers during the years 1992-1995 and 1996-1999. Among the facts

reflected in these tables are the following:

Near East.

2

!

The Near East has generally led in the value of arms deliveries

received by the developing world. In 1992-1995, it accounted for

63.8% of the total value of all developing nations deliveries ($54.3

billion in current dollars). During 1996-1999, the region accounted

for nearly 59% of all such deliveries ($60.8 billion in current dollars)

(tables 2C and 2D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, the United States made 69.2% of its

developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 19961999, the United States made 65.2% of its developing world arms

deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, the United Kingdom made 87.2% of its

developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 19961999, the United Kingdom made 85.2% of its developing world arms

deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, 65.2% of France’s arms deliveries to the

developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent

period, 1996-1999, 42.9% of France’s developing world deliveries

were to nations of the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1992-1995, Russia made about 36% of its developing

world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1996-1999, Russia

made 29.8% of such deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, the United States ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to the Near East with 44.2% (nearly $24

billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with

30.2% ($16.4 billion in current dollars). Russia ranked third with

5.9% ($3.2 billion in current dollars). The major West European

suppliers, as a group, held 36.5% of this region’s delivery values in

1992-1995. In the later period (1996-1999), the United States

Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must be

expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-34

ranked first in Near East delivery values with 44.9% ($27.3 billion in

current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 26.5%

($16.1 billion in current dollars). The major West European

suppliers, as a group, held 39.5% of this region’s delivery values in

1996-1999 (table 2E).

Asia.

!

The Asia region has generally ranked second in the value of arms

deliveries from most suppliers in both time periods. In the earlier

period, 1992-1995, 26% of all arms deliveries to developing nations

were to those in Asia ($22.1 billion in current dollars). In the later

period, 1996-1999, Asia accounted for 34.1% of such arms deliveries

($35.2 billion in current dollars). For the period 1996-1999, Italy

made 75% of its developing world deliveries to Asia. Russia made

57.1% of its developing world arms deliveries to Asia. France made

nearly 56%, while Germany made 46.7% (tables 2C and 2D).

!

In the period from 1992-1995, the United States ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to Asia with 36.8%. Russia ranked second

with 21.7%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held

22.1% of this region’s delivery values in 1992-1995. In the later

period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in Asian delivery

values with 36.9%. France ranked second with 26.7%. Russia

ranked third with 13.7%. The major West European suppliers, as a

group, held 37% of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999 (table

2E).

Latin America.

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, the value of all arms deliveries to

Latin America was $5 billion. The United States ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to Latin America with 48.2% ($2.4 billion).

Russia ranked second with 8% ($400 million). The major West

European suppliers, as a group, held 15.9% of this region’s delivery

values in 1992-1995. In the later period, 1996-1999, the United

States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with 38.7%

($1.5 billion). Russia and the United Kingdom tied for second rank

with 7.7% each. The major West European suppliers, as a group,

held 15.3% of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999. During the

latter period, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin America was

$3.9 billion, a notable decline from the $5 billion deliveries total for

1992-1995 (tables 2C and 2E).

Africa.

!

In the earlier period, 1992-1995, the value of all arms

deliveries to Africa was $3.6 billion. Russia ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to Africa with 13.9% ($500 million).

The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 19.4%

CRS-35

of this region’s delivery values in 1992-1995. France alone

made 11.1%. The United States made 3.1%. In the later

period, 1996-1999, Russia ranked first in African delivery

values with 24.9% ($800 million). China ranked second with

15.6%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held

12.5%. The other European suppliers collectively held 31.1%.

During this later period, the value of all arms deliveries to

Africa fell to $3.2 billion (Tables 2C and 2E).

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 19921999 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the

total current dollar values of their respective deliveries to the developing world for

each of three periods–1992-1995, 1996-1999 and 1992-1999. Among the facts

reflected in this table are the following:

!

The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing

nations in the value of arms deliveries from 1996-1999 ($43.8

billion), and first for the entire period from 1992-1999 ($84.1

billion).

!

The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to

developing nations in the value of arms deliveries from 1996-1999

($18.9 billion), and second for the entire period ($21.4 billion).

!

France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms deliveries from 1996-1999 ($16.8 billion).

Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 2G ranks and gives for 1999 the values of arms deliveries to developing

nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the facts reflected

in this table are the following:

!

The United States, the United Kingdom and France, the year’s top

three arms suppliers–ranked by the value of their arms

deliveries–collectively made deliveries in 1999 valued at $17.5

billion, 77.1% of all arms deliveries made to developing nations by

all suppliers.

!

In 1999, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries

to developing nations, making $11.4 billion in such agreements, or

50.1% of them.

CRS-36

!

The United Kingdom ranked second and France third in deliveries to

developing nations in 1999, making $3.9 billion and $2.2 billion in

such deliveries respectively.

!

Russia ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in

1999, making $2 billion in such deliveries, while Germany ranked

fifth with $600 million.

Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1992-1999:

Suppliers and Recipients

Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers

or categories of suppliers for the periods 1992-1995 and 1996-1999. These values

are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in table

2 and table 2C. Among the facts reflected by this table are the following:

!

For the most recent period, 1996-1999, the principal arms

recipients of the United States in the Near East region, based

on the value of their arms deliveries were: Saudi Arabia ($15.5

billion), Israel ($3.5 billion), Egypt ($3.2 billion), Kuwait ($2.5

billion). The principal arms recipients of Russia were Iran

($700 million), Kuwait, Egypt, and Algeria ($400 million

each). The principal arms recipient of China was Iran ($700).

The principal arms recipients of the four major West European

suppliers, as a group, were Saudi Arabia ($16.3 billion), the

U.A.E. ($3.1 billion), Qatar ($1.7 billion), and Kuwait ($1.4

billion). The principal arms recipient of all other European

suppliers collectively was Saudi Arabia ($3 billion). The

principal arms recipient of all other suppliers, as a group, was

Israel ($300 million).

!

For the period 1996-1999, Saudi Arabia received $34.8 billion

in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major

West Europeans, as a group ($16.3 billion), and the United

States ($15.5 billion). The U.A.E. received $4.5 billion in arms

deliveries. Its principal suppliers were: the four major West

Europeans, as a group, ($3.1 billion). Israel received $4.5

billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United

States ($3.5 billion). Kuwait received $4.3 billion in arms

deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($2.5

billion), and the four major West Europeans, collectively, ($1.4

billion). Egypt received $3.9 billion in arms deliveries. Its

principal supplier was the United States ($3.5 billion). Iran

received $1.7 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers

were China and Russia ($700 million each).

!

The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia

increased notably from $12.3 billion in 1992-1995 to $15.5

CRS-37

billion in 1996-1999, as various items ordered during the

Persian Gulf war were delivered.

!

A dramatic decline in the value of arms deliveries by Russia to

Iran occurred from the 1992-1995 period to the 1996-1999

period. Russian arms deliveries fell from $1.7 billion to $700

million.

!

Arms deliveries to Iran dropped notably from 1992-1995 to

1996-1999, falling from $3 billion in 1992-1995 to $1.7 billion

in 1996-1999. Russia and China delivered 82.4% of Iran’s

arms during the 1996-1999 period ($700 million each).

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

The Leading Recipients

Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms in

the developing world from 1992-1999 by all suppliers collectively. The table ranks

recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective deliveries

from all suppliers for each of three periods–1992-1995, 1996-1999 and 1992-1999.

Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world

recipients of arms from 1992-1999, receiving deliveries valued at

$66.1 billion and $20.6 billion, respectively, during these years. The

total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations from 19921999 was $195.5 billion in current dollars (see table 2). Thus, Saudi

Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 33.8% and 10.5%,

respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these

years–together 44.3% of the total. In the most recent period–19961999–Saudi Arabia and Taiwan ranked first and second in the value

of arms received by developing nations($34.8 billion and $16.2

billion, respectively, in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and

Taiwan accounted for 48.7% of all developing world arms deliveries

($51 billion out of nearly $104.8 billion–the value of all deliveries to

developing nations in 1996-1999 (in current dollars).

!

For the 1996-1999 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $34.8 billion

in arms deliveries (in current dollars), or 33.2% of all deliveries to

developing nations during this period.

!

During 1992-1995, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for

69.1% of all developing world arms deliveries. During 1996-1999,

the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 76.7% of all such

deliveries. In 1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for

80.3% of all such agreements (tables 2 , 2I and 2J).

CRS-38

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements With Leading Recipients

Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer

agreements in 1999. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current

dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 1999. Among the

facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 1999

among developing nations, receiving $6.9 billion in such deliveries,

or 30.4%. Taiwan ranked second with $2.6 billion. Israel ranked

third with $2 billion (tables 2 and 2J).

!

Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients,

collectively, constituted $18.2 billion, or 80.3% of all developing

nations deliveries in 1999. Six of the top ten recipients in the

developing world recipients of arms in 1999 were in the Asian

region; four were in the Near East (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-39

Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1992-1999

United States

12,444

14,436

6,748

4,235

6,900

3,635

6,273

8,072

62,743

Russia

1,400

1,200

3,700

5,300

4,200

3,300

2,200

4,100

25,400

France

8,600

3,900

8,100

2,400

1,100

4,600

2,500

400

31,600

United Kingdom

1,800

2,300

700

600

2,000

1,000

1,000

500

9,900

China

600

500

600

200

800

1,300

700

1,900

6,500

Germany

200

1,000

0

300

0

100

1,500

2,000

5,100

Italy

500

300

200

800

300

300

0

400

2,800

All Other European

1,100

500

1,600

2,400

2,900

1,700

1,300

2,600

14,100

All Others

1,100

600

500

1,500

1,700

1,100

900

600

8,000

TOTAL

27,644

24,736

22,148

17,735

19,900

17,035

16,373

20,572

166,143

0.8516

0.8761

0.8957

0.9135

0.9329

0.953

0.973

1

*Dollar inflation

Index:

(1999=1.00)*

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Developing nations category excluded the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given except for U. S. MAP (Military

Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Excess Defense Article data which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given

include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries

are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-40

Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1992-1999

United States

14,612

16,478

7,534

4,636

7,396

3,814

6,447

8,072

68,989

Russia

1,644

1,370

4,131

5,802

4,502

3,463

2,261

4,100

27,272

France

10,099

4,452

9,043

2,627

1,179

4,827

2,569

400

35,196

United Kingdom

2,114

2,625

782

657

2,144

1,049

1,028

500

10,898

China

587

571

670

219

858

1,364

719

1,900

6,888

Germany

235

1,141

0

328

0

105

1,542

2,000

5,351

Italy

587

342

223

876

322

315

0

400

3,065

All Other European

1,292

571

1,786

2,627

3,109

1,784

1,336

2,600

15,104

All Others

1,292

685

558

1,642

1,822

1,154

925

600

8,678

TOTAL

32,461

28,234

24,727

19,414

21,331

17,875

16,827

20,572

181,443

CRS-41

Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreement with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

United States

45.02%

58.36%

30.47%

23.88%

34.67%

21.34%

38.31%

39.24%

Russia

5.06%

4.85%

16.71%

29.88%

21.11%

19.37%

13.44%

19.93%

France

31.11%

15.77%

36.57%

13.53%

5.53%

27.00%

15.27%

1.94%

United Kingdom

6.51%

9.30%

3.16%

3.38%

10.05%

5.87%

6.11%

2.43%

China

1.81%

2.02%

2.71%

1.13%

4.02%

7.63%

4.28%

9.24%

Germany

0.72%

4.04%

0.00%

1.69%

0.00%

0.59%

9.16%

9.72%

Italy

1.81%

1.21%

0.90%

4.51%

1.51%

1.76%

0.00%

1.94%

All Other European

3.98%

2.02%

7.22%

13.53%

14.57%

9.98%

7.94%

12.64%

All Others

3.98%

2.43%

2.26%

8.46%

8.54%

6.46%

5.50%

2.92%

[Major West

European*

40.15%

30.32%

40.64%

23.12%

17.09%

35.22%

30.54%

16.04%]

TOTAL

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-42

Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

11,393

6,650

25,010

16,932

1,394

1,210

86

89

Russia

8,300

10,300

2,200

2,400

500

300

600

800

France

7,600

1,100

14,900

7,000

300

400

200

100

United Kingdom

2,500

2,600

2,400

1,300

400

0

0

600

China

1,200

2,100

500

1,700

0

0

100

1,000

Germany

1,100

1,600

100

100

300

0

0

2,000

800

500

700

100

300

100

0

300

All Other European

2,400

1,400

1,800

3,500

700

1,700

500

1,900

All Others

2,000

1,600

500

1,300

700

700

800

700

[Major West

European*

12,000

5,800

18,100

8,500

1,300

500

200

3,000]

TOTAL

37,293

27,850

48,110

34,332

4,594

4,410

2,286

7,489

Italy

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.

*Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-43

Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1992-1999

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

TOTAL

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

30.07%

26.73%

66.02%

68.05%

3.68%

4.86%

0.23%

0.36%

100.00%

100.00%

Russia

71.55%

74.64%

18.97%

17.39%

4.31%

2.17%

5.17%

5.80%

100.00%

100.00%

France

33.04%

12.79%

64.78%

81.40%

1.30%

4.65%

0.87%

1.16%

100.00%

100.00%

United Kingdom

47.17%

57.78%

45.28%

28.89%

7.55%

0.00%

0.00%

13.33%

100.00%

100.00%

China

66.67%

43.75%

27.78%

35.42%

0.00%

0.00%

5.56%

20.83%

100.00%

100.00%

Germany

73.33%

43.24%

6.67%

2.70%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

54.05%

100.00%

100.00%

Italy

44.44%

50.00%

38.89%

10.00%

16.67%

10.00%

0.00%

30.00%

100.00%

100.00%

All Other

European

44.44%

16.47%

33.33%

41.18%

12.96%

20.00%

9.26%

22.35%

100.00%

100.00%

All Others

50.00%

37.21%

12.50%

30.23%

17.50%

16.28%

20.00%

16.28%

100.00%

100.00%

[Major West

European*

32.18%

20.83%

37.62%

24.76%

28.30%

11.34%

8.75%

40.06%

100.00%

100.00%]

TOTAL

40.41%

37.59%

52.13%

46.34%

4.98%

5.95%

2.48%

10.11%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-44

Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1992-1999

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

30.55%

23.88%

51.99%

49.32%

30.34%

27.44%

3.76%

1.19%

Russia

22.26%

36.98%

4.57%

6.99%

10.88%

6.80%

26.25%

10.68%

France

20.38%

3.95%

30.97%

20.39%

6.53%

9.07%

8.75%

1.34%

United Kingdom

6.70%

9.34%

4.99%

3.79%

8.71%

0.00%

0.00%

8.01%

China

3.22%

7.54%

1.04%

4.95%

0.00%

0.00%

4.37%

13.35%

Germany

2.95%

5.75%

0.21%

0.29%

6.53%

0.00%

0.00%

26.71%

Italy

2.15%

1.80%

1.45%

0.29%

6.53%

2.27%

0.00%

4.01%

All Other

European

6.44%

5.03%

3.74%

10.19%

15.24%

38.55%

21.87%

25.37%

All Others

5.36%

5.75%

1.04%

3.79%

15.24%

15.87%

35.00%

9.35%

[Major West

European*

32.18%

20.83%

37.62%

24.76%

28.30%

11.34%

8.75%

40.06%]

TOTAL

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-45

Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 19921999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1992-1995

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States

France

Russia

United Kingdom

China

Italy

Germany

Israel

Spain

Netherlands

Ukraine

37,863

23,000

11,600

5,400

1,800

1,800

1,500

900

900

700

700

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1996-1999

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States

Russia

France

China

United Kingdom

Germany

Belarus

Ukraine

Israel

Italy

Sweden

24,880

13,800

8,600

4,700

4,500

3,600

1,500

1,500

1,500

1,000

1,000

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1992-1999

United States

France

Russia

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

Israel

Ukraine

Belarus

South Africa

62,743

31,600

25,400

9,900

6,500

5,100

2,800

2,400

2,200

1,700

1,500

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained

CRS-46

Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with

Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1999

1

United States

8,072

2

Russia

4,100

3

Germany

2,000

4

China

1,900

5

Sweden

700

6

Belgium

600

7

United Kingdom

500

8

Italy

400

9

France

400

10

Ukraine

300

11

Canada

200

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.

Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained

CRS-47

Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Recipient

Country

1992-1995

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

1996-1999

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European*

All Other

European

All

Others

Total

0

200

2,500

0

0

3,200

100

3,400

100

0

100

0

0

14,900

0

100

300

0

300

0

300

200

0

0

0

800

0

0

0

0

0

0

200

0

400

0

0

0

0

200

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

100

0

0

0

1,800

0

0

400

500

2,000

6,500

0

0

6,500

0

100

0

200

400

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

100

0

400

200

100

100

200

0

0

0

200

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

400

200

3,100

1,100

0

3,300

100

6,100

100

0

500

700

2,000

21,800

500

200

7,300

300

0

500

5,800

0

0

4,200

300

800

0

0

0

0

0

5,500

0

0

300

0

600

0

400

200

0

0

300

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

400

0

200

0

400

800

0

0

0

200

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

100

100

100

0

200

300

800

400

100

0

6,000

200

800

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

300

100

0

900

100

0

800

300

100

0

0

100

0

200

100

0

0

0

100

0

0

300

0

0

200

100

1,700

500

6,700

1,100

0

4,500

800

1,100

100

100

600

400

800

7,100

500

0

7,700

600

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European

includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.

CRS-48

Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Agreements by the Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

U.A.E.

China

Kuwait

Israel

Egypt

Malaysia

Pakistan

South Korea

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

U.A.E.

India

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Israel

China

South Africa

South Korea

Taiwan

Pakistan

Rank

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

U.A.E.

China

Egypt

India

Israel

Kuwait

Malaysia

Pakistan

Agreements

Value

1992-1995

21,800

13,300

7,300

7,000

6,100

3,300

3,100

3,000

2,800

2,700

Agreements

Value

1996-1999

7,700

7,300

7,100

6,700

4,500

3,900

3,400

2,700

2,100

2,100

Agreements

Value

1992-1999

28,900

15,400

15,000

10,900

9,800

8,600

7,800

7,200

4,900

4,900

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the same, the rank order is

maintained.

CRS-49

Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 1999:

Agreements by Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

Agreements Value

1999

1

South Africa

3,300

2

Egypt

2,600

3

Israel

2,300

4

China

1,800

5

Saudi Arabia

1,600

6

India

1,600

7

Pakistan

1,000

8

Singapore

700

9

Taiwan

500

10

U.A.E.

500

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the same, the

actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-50

Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1992-1999

United States

9,564

10,804

8,531

11,401

9,872

11,565

10,974

11,366

84,077

Russia

2,600

2,100

1,400

2,700

2,200

2,200

1,900

2,000

17,100

France

1,100

800

700

2,000

2,900

5,700

6,000

2,200

21,400

United Kingdom

5,400

3,800

4,700

4,900

5,800

5,900

3,300

3,900

37,700

China

1,000

1,100

600

700

600

1,000

500

300

5,800

Germany

200

600

800

800

400

100

500

600

4,000

Italy

100

0

200

200

100

600

0

0

1,200

All Other European

1,800

1,300

2,200

2,300

2,300

3,100

1,900

1,800

16,700

All Others

1,100

1,100

1,000

1,100

1,100

900

700

500

7,500

TOTAL

22,864

21,604

20,131

26,101

25,272

31,065

25,774

22,666

195,477

0.8516

0.8761

0.8957

0.9135

0.9329

0.953

0.973

1

Dollar inflation index

(1999=1.00)*

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Developing nations category excludes the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given,

except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), Excess Defense Articles, and commercially licensed

deliveries, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military

assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the

nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-51

Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1992-1999

United States

11,231

12,332

9,524

12,481

10,582

12,135

11,279

11,366

90,929

Russia

3,053

2,968

2,345

2,956

2,358

2,308

1,953

2,000

19,940

France

1,292

913

782

2,189

3,109

5,981

6,166

2,200

22,632

United Kingdom

6,341

6,164

5,247

5,364

6,217

6,191

3,392

3,900

42,816

China

1,174

1,256

670

766

643

1,049

514

300

6,372

Germany

235

685

893

876

429

105

514

600

4,336

Italy

117

0

223

219

107

630

0

0

1,296

All Other European

2,114

1,484

2,456

2,518

2,465

3,253

1,953

1,800

18,043

All Others

1,292

1,256

1,116

1,204

1,179

944

719

500

8,211

TOTAL

26,848

27,056

23,257

28,573

27,090

32,597

26,489

22,666

214,576

CRS-52

Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

United States

41.83%

50.01%

42.38%

43.38%

39.06%

37.23%

42.58%

50.15%

Russia

11.37%

9.72%

6.95%

10.34%

8.71%

7.08%

7.37%

8.82%

France

4.81%

3.70%

3.48%

7.66%

11.48%

18.35%

23.28%

9.71%

United Kingdom

23.62%

17.59%

23.35%

18.77%

22.95%

18.99%

12.80%

17.21%

China

4.37%

5.09%

2.98%

2.68%

2.37%

3.22%

1.94%

1.32%

Germany

0.87%

2.78%

3.97%

3.07%

1.58%

0.32%

1.94%

2.65%

Italy

0.44%

0.00%

0.99%

0.77%

0.40%

1.93%

0.00%

0.00%

All Other European

7.87%

6.02%

10.93%

8.81%

9.10%

9.98%

7.37%

7.94%

All Others

4.81%

5.09%

4.97%

4.21%

4.35%

2.90%

2.72%

2.21%

[Major West European*

29.74%

24.07%

31.79%

30.27%

36.40%

39.59%

38.02%

29.56%]

TOTAL

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-53

Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1992- 1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

8,133

12,963

23,972

27,284

2,423

1,515

110

114

Russia

4,800

4,800

3,200

2,500

400

300

500

800

France

900

9,400

3,000

7,200

300

100

400

100

United Kingdom

2,000

2,300

16,400

16,100

200

300

200

200

China

2,000

1,000

1,100

900

0

100

200

500

Germany

1,700

700

400

600

300

200

0

0

300

600

0

100

0

0

100

100

1,600

1,900

5,100

5,400

600

1,000

500

1,000

700

1,500

1,100

700

800

400

1,600

400

[Major West European*

4,900

13,000

19,800

24,000

800

600

700

400]

TOTAL

22,133

35,163

54,272

60,784

5,023

3,915

3,610

3,214

Italy

All Other European

All Others

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million..

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-54

Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1992-1999

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

TOTAL

TOTAL

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

23.48%

30.96%

69.21%

65.15%

7.00%

3.62%

0.32%

0.27%

100.00%

100.00%

Russia

53.93%

57.14%

35.96%

29.76%

4.49%

3.57%

5.62%

9.52%

100.00%

100.00%

France

19.57%

55.95%

65.22%

42.86%

6.52%

0.60%

8.70%

0.60%

100.00%

100.00%

United Kingdom

10.64%

12.17%

87.23%

85.19%

1.06%

1.59%

1.06%

1.06%

100.00%

100.00%

China

60.61%

40.00%

33.33%

36.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.06%

20.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Germany

70.83%

46.67%

16.67%

40.00%

12.50%

13.33%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Italy

75.00%

75.00%

0.00%

12.50%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00%

12.50%

100.00%

100.00%

All Other European

20.51%

20.43%

65.38%

58.06%

7.69%

10.75%

6.41%

10.75%

100.00%

100.00%

All Others

16.67%

50.00%

26.19%

23.33%

19.05%

13.33%

38.10%

13.33%

100.00%

100.00%

[Major West European*

18.70%

34.21%

75.57%

63.16%

3.05%

1.58%

2.67%

1.05%

100.00%

100.00%]

TOTAL

26.03%

34.11%

63.82%

58.97%

5.91%

3.80%

4.25%

3.12%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-55

Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1992-1999

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

1992-95

1996-99

United States

36.75%

36.87%

44.17%

44.89%

48.24%

38.70%

3.05%

3.55%

Russia

21.69%

13.65%

5.90%

4.11%

7.96%

7.66%

13.85%

24.89%

France

4.07%

26.73%

5.53%

11.85%

5.97%

2.55%

11.08%

3.11%

United Kingdom

9.04%

6.54%

30.22%

26.49%

3.98%

7.66%

5.54%

6.22%

China

9.04%

2.84%

2.03%

1.48%

0.00%

2.55%

5.54%

15.56%

Germany

7.68%

1.99%

0.74%

0.99%

5.97%

5.11%

0.00%

0.00%

Italy

1.36%

1.71%

0.00%

0.16%

0.00%

0.00%

2.77%

3.11%

All Other European

7.23%

5.40%

9.40%

8.88%

11.95%

25.54%

13.85%

31.11%

All Others

3.16%

4.27%

2.03%

1.15%

15.93%

10.22%

44.32%

12.45%

[Major West European*

22.14%

36.97%

36.48%

39.48%

15.93%

15.33%

19.39%

12.45%]

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

TOTAL

* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-56

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

Lending Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

Russia

France

China

Germany

Sweden

Israel

Canada

South Africa

Spain

Deliveries Value 1992-1995

40,300

18,800

8,800

4,600

3,400

2,400

2,000

1,800

1,000

700

600

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

France

Russia

Sweden

China

Germany

Ukraine

Israel

Belarus

Netherlands

Deliveries Value 1996-1999

43,777

18,900

16,800

8,300

2,500

2,400

1,600

1,500

1,000

1,000

900

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

France

Russia

China

Sweden

Germany

Israel

Ukraine

Canada

South Africa

Deliveries Value 1992-1999

84,077

37,700

21,400

17,100

5,800

4,400

4,000

2,800

1,800

1,600

1,500

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the same, the

rank order is maintained.

CRS-57

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1999:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

Deliveries Value

1999

1

United States

11,366

2

United Kingdom

3,900

3

France

2,200

4

Russia

2,000

5

Germany

600

6

Sweden

500

7

Ukraine

400

8

Belarus

300

9

China

300

10

Israel

200

11

Bulgaria

200

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are

the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-58

Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Recipient

Country

1992-1995

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

1996-1999

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European*

All Other

European

All

Others

Total

0

300

5,400

0

0

2,300

100

2,400

100

0

100

0

0

12,300

0

100

700

0

300

0

100

1,700

0

0

0

400

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

300

0

0

0

0

700

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

200

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

100

0

300

0

300

0

0

100

700

1,400

15,000

0

0

1,800

0

100

0

200

200

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

100

0

3,700

300

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

100

100

0

500

0

400

300

5,800

3,000

0

2,700

100

3,300

100

0

200

800

1,400

31,300

700

100

3,300

100

0

200

3,200

0

0

3,500

200

2,500

100

0

0

0

0

15,500

0

0

400

0

400

0

400

700

0

0

0

400

0

0

0

0

0

0

200

0

300

0

100

0

0

700

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

700

0

1,400

0

0

200

400

1,700

16,300

0

0

3,100

0

600

0

200

300

0

0

0

0

0

100

100

100

0

3,000

0

100

700

200

0

0

0

0

0

300

100

0

0

0

100

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

1,100

200

3,900

1,700

0

4,500

300

4,300

100

100

400

600

1,700

34,800

300

100

4,500

200

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West

European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.

CRS-59

Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1992-1999:

The Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Taiwan

South Korea

Kuwait

U.A.E.

Iran

China

Israel

Malaysia

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

South Korea

U.A.E.

Israel

Kuwait

Egypt

China

Pakistan

India

Recipient

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

Egypt

South Korea

U.A.E.

Kuwait

Israel

China

Iran

Pakistan

Deliveries Value

1992-1995

31,300

5,800

4,400

4,100

3,300

3,300

3,000

2,800

2,700

2,000

Deliveries Value

1996-1999

34,800

16,200

4,700

4,500

4,500

4,300

3,900

3,100

2,400

2,000

Deliveries Value

1992-1999

66,100

20,600

9,700

8,800

7,800

7,600

7,200

5,900

4,700

4,200

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-60

Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1999:

The Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

Deliveries Value

1999

1

Saudi Arabia

6,900

2

Taiwan

2,600

3

Israel

2,000

4

South Korea

1,800

5

Malaysia

1,200

6

Pakistan

1,000

7

U.A.E.

800

8

Egypt

800

9

India

600

10

China

500

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-61

Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations,

1992-1999

Other useful data for assessing arms transfers are those that indicate who has

actually delivered specific numbers of specific classes of military items to a region.

These data are relatively “hard” in that they reflect actual transfers of military

equipment. They have the limitation of not giving detailed information regarding

either the sophistication or the specific name of the equipment delivered. However,

these data show relative trends in the delivery of important classes of military

equipment and indicate who the leading suppliers are from region to region over time.

Data in the following tables set out actual deliveries of fourteen categories of

weaponry to developing nations from 1992-1999 by the United States, Russia, China,

the four major West European suppliers as a group, all other European suppliers as

a group, and all other suppliers as a group (tables 3-7).

A note of caution is warranted regarding the quantitative data with these specific

tables. Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provide

precise indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The history

of recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication of weapons

can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide an indication of

the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the weapons

delivered to them. Superior training–coupled with good equipment, tactical

proficiency, and sound logistics–may, in the last analysis, be a more important factor

in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional warfare than the size of its

weapons inventory.

Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1996-1999

!

The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the United

States was the leading supplier of several major classes of

conventional weaponry from 1996-1999. Russia transferred

substantial quantities of various weapons classes, delivering more

than the United States, and other suppliers, in some regions.

!

The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in

weapons deliveries from 1996-1999 making notable deliveries of

certain categories of armaments to every region of the developing

world–most particularly to the Near East and to Latin America. In

Africa, European suppliers and all other non-European suppliers

were principal competitors for Russia in arms deliveries.

!

Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply

of conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even

though the United States, Russia, and the four major West European

suppliers tend to dominate the delivery of the fourteen classes of

weapons examined, it is also evident that the other European

suppliers, and non-European suppliers, including China, are fully

capable of providing specific classes of conventional armaments, such

as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, and artillery pieces, to

CRS-62

developing nations should their systems prove attractive to

prospective purchasers.

Noteworthy deliveries of specific categories of weapons to regions of the developing

world by specific suppliers from 1996-1999 included the following:

Asia.

Russia delivered 3 minor surface combatants, 3 submarines, 70 supersonic

combat aircraft, 70 helicopters 1,020 surface-to-air missiles, and 70 anti-ship missiles.

The United States delivered 476 tanks and self-propelled guns, 284 supersonic

combat aircraft, 46 helicopters, 108 surface-to-air missiles, and 163 anti-ship missiles.

China delivered 100 tanks and self-propelled guns, 120 APCs and armored cars, 1

major surface combatant,15 minor surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 60

supersonic combat aircraft, 370 surface-to-air missiles, and 30 anti-ship missiles. The

four major West European suppliers as a group delivered 180 APCs and armored

cars, 12 major surface combatant, 9 minor surface combatants, 4 submarines, 80

supersonic combat aircraft, 500 surface-to-air missiles, and 40 anti-ship missiles. All

other European suppliers collectively delivered 340 tanks and self-propelled guns, 1

major surface combatant, 4 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic combat aircraft,

and 20 helicopters. All other non-European suppliers collectively delivered 33

minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 30 supersonic aircraft, 80 surface-to-air

missiles, and 10 surface-to-surface missiles.

Near East.

Russia delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 510 APCs and armored cars,

1 submarine, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, 60 helicopters, and 140 surface-to-air

missiles. The United States delivered 393 tanks and self-propelled guns, 1,576 APCs

and armored cars, 4 minor surface combatants, 91 supersonic combat aircraft, 62

helicopters, 799 surface-to-air missiles, and 57 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 5

guided missile boats, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 300 surface-to-air missiles, and

160 anti-ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers collectively

delivered 270 tanks and self-propelled guns, 390 APCs and armored cars, 2 major

surface combatants, 15 minor surface combatants, 8 guided missile boats, 2

submarines, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, and 10 anti-ship missiles. All other

European suppliers as a group delivered 120 tanks and self-propelled guns, 110

artillery pieces, 1,230 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 5 minor

surface combatants, 30 helicopters, and 20 supersonic combat aircraft. All other

suppliers collectively delivered 3 minor surface combatants, and 20 surface-tosurface missiles.

Latin America.

Russia delivered 60 helicopters and 750 surface-to-air missiles. The United

States delivered 71 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 18 minor

surface combatants, and 51 helicopters. China delivered 120 surface-to-air missiles.

The four major West European suppliers collectively delivered 40 tanks and selfpropelled guns, 160 APCs and armored cars, 3 major surface combatants, 3 minor

CRS-63

surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 1 submarine, 20 helicopters, and 20 antiship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 290 tanks and

self-propelled guns, 28 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, 10

helicopters, and 1,110 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers

as a group delivered 20 tanks and self-propelled guns, 3 minor surface combatants,

2 guided missile boats, 10 helicopters, and 10 anti-ship missiles.

Africa.

Russia delivered 50 tanks and self-propelled guns, 80 APCs and armored cars,

100 artillery pieces, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, and 30 helicopters. China

delivered 140 tanks and self-propelled guns, 7 minor surface combatants, and 10

supersonic combat aircraft. The four major West European suppliers collectively

delivered 80 APCs and armored cars, 3 minor surface combatants, and 10 helicopters.

All other European suppliers collectively delivered 510 tanks and self-propelled

guns, 150 artillery pieces, 230 APCs and armored cars, 4 minor surface combatants,

30 supersonic combat aircraft, 50 helicopters, and 950 surface-to-surface missiles.

All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled

guns, 60 artillery pieces, 40 APCs and armored cars, 10 minor surface combatants,

1 guided missile boat, 20 helicopters, and 150 surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-64

Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Developing Nations

Weapons Category

1992-1995

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

1,623

540

310

90

610

170

260

2,091

0

44

0

0

265

92

43

283

1,619

0

439

480

1,460

0

13

0

4

70

0

20

210

1,600

0

20

410

40

5

11

14

0

110

0

70

0

330

30

140

270

450

43

53

4

7

0

100

80

140

3,260

0

60

1,150

2,150

0

29

0

0

60

0

260

100

750

0

0

280

270

2

50

2

0

40

0

80

20

350

110

0

869

370

240

320

1,260

50

183

1,705

3

33

0

0

375

2

45

159

907

0

220

200

690

0

3

0

4

130

0

30

220

1,910

0

70

50

120

1

22

9

0

80

0

60

0

790

0

190

110

810

17

30

12

7

110

50

50

40

560

0

70

300

1,540

3

41

0

0

110

30

180

110

2,060

0

0

160

80

0

49

3

2

30

30

160

30

250

30

10

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy

totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are

estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two

weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-65

Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Asia and the Pacific

Weapons Category

1992-1995

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

54

110

310

0

120

140

58

46

0

7

0

0

26

39

16

64

482

0

152

320

100

0

11

0

2

60

0

10

80

750

0

0

250

40

5

8

4

0

80

0

40

0

190

30

30

40

170

38

12

0

6

0

50

40

50

2,110

0

0

430

90

0

1

0

0

20

0

80

50

50

0

0

60

190

2

27

0

0

30

0

10

0

30

0

0

476

30

100

0

340

0

132

58

1

8

0

0

284

0

15

46

108

0

163

60

70

0

3

0

3

70

0

0

70

1,020

0

70

20

120

1

15

4

0

60

0

40

0

370

0

30

40

180

12

9

0

4

80

40

0

0

500

0

40

20

70

1

4

0

0

40

10

20

20

0

0

0

60

40

0

33

0

2

30

0

130

0

80

10

0

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given.

Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data

relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a variety of sources

having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery categories are not

necessarily definitive.

CRS-66

Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Near East

Weapons Category

1992-1995

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

1,569

290

0

40

420

0

191

2,040

0

24

0

0

239

0

2

99

1,137

0

287

60

740

0

0

0

2

0

0

10

60

30

0

20

20

0

0

3

10

0

30

0

0

0

70

0

110

180

100

0

35

4

0

0

40

30

20

1,080

0

40

640

1,420

0

10

0

0

20

0

100

10

0

0

0

130

10

0

4

0

0

0

0

20

0

50

90

0

393

290

0

270

120

0

34

1,576

0

4

0

0

91

0

17

62

799

0

57

40

510

0

0

0

1

20

0

10

60

140

0

0

30

0

0

0

5

0

10

0

10

0

300

0

160

10

390

2

15

8

2

30

10

30

10

30

0

10

110

1,230

2

5

0

0

20

0

90

30

0

0

0

10

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

20

0

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy

totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are

estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two

weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-67

Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Latin America

Weapons Category

1992-1995

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

0

70

0

20

0

0

10

0

0

12

0

0

0

53

16

60

0

0

0

70

120

0

2

0

0

10

0

0

30

820

0

0

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

70

0

0

40

30

5

5

0

1

0

0

0

40

30

0

20

0

520

0

10

0

0

20

0

30

20

700

0

0

40

30

0

4

2

0

0

0

40

20

270

0

0

0

0

0

40

290

20

17

71

2

18

0

0

0

2

13

51

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

60

750

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

120

0

0

50

160

3

3

4

1

0

0

10

20

30

0

20

20

10

0

28

0

0

20

20

30

10

1,110

0

0

30

0

0

3

2

0

0

20

20

10

0

0

10

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy

totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are

estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two

weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-68

Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Africa

Weapons Category

1992-1995

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

0

70

0

30

70

30

1

5

0

1

0

0

0

0

9

60

0

0

0

30

500

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

10

150

0

1

0

0

0

10

10

30

40

0

0

80

120

0

8

0

0

0

0

50

20

0

0

0

50

40

0

15

0

0

10

0

10

0

0

20

0

0

50

140

10

510

30

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

80

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

10

0

10

0

0

0

0

10

80

0

3

0

0

0

0

10

10

0

0

0

150

230

0

4

0

0

30

0

40

50

950

0

0

60

40

0

10

1

0

0

10

10

20

150

0

0

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and

Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are

estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two

weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-69

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,

1992-1999

The six tables below, tables 8,8A, and 8B and tables 9, 9A and 9B, provide the total dollar

values for arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide in the same format and detail as

do tables 1,1A and 1B and tables 2,2A and 2B for arms transfer agreements with and arms

deliveries to developing nations.

Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1992-1999

Table 8 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements worldwide. Since

these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are, by themselves, of limited use. They

provide, however, the data from which tables 8A (constant dollars) and 8B (supplier percentages)

are derived. Some of the more notable facts reflected by these data are summarized below. Unless

otherwise noted, dollar values are expressed in constant 1999 U.S. dollars.

!

The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms

transfer agreements from 1996-1999, and first for the entire period form 1992-1999

(figure 1).

!

Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer

agreements from 1996-1999, and third from 1992-1999.

!

France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer

agreements from 1996-1999, and second from 1992-1999.

!

The United Kingdom ranked fourth among all suppliers to the world in the value of

arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999, and fourth from 1992-1999.

!

In 1999, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was nearly $30.3

billion. This is the highest total for arms transfer agreements in any year since 1996,

and an increase over 1998 which totaled $28.3 billion.

!

In 1999, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the

world, making about $11.8 billion in such agreements, or 38.9% of all arms transfer

agreements. Russia ranked second with $4.8 billion in arms transfer agreements, or

15.9% of all arms transfer agreements. Germany ranked third with $4 billion or

13.2%. United States agreements increased from $10.3 billion in 1998 to about

$11.8 billion in 1999. France’s arms transfer agreements fell significantly from about

$3.4 billion 1998 to $900 million in 1999.

!

The United States, Russia and Germany, the top three arms suppliers to the world

in 1999–respectively–ranked by the value of their arms transfer

agreements–collectively made agreements in 1999 valued at nearly $20.6 billion,

68% of all arms transfer agreements made with the world by all suppliers.

!

The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 1996-1999 ($115.3

billion) was notably less than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers

worldwide from 1992-1995 ($150.4 billion), a decline of 23.3% (figure 1).

CRS-70

!

During the period from 1992-1995, developing world nations accounted for 69.7%

of all arms transfer agreements made world wide. During 1996-1999, developing

world nations accounted for 66.4% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).

!

In 1999, developing nations were recipients of 68% of all arms transfer agreements

made worldwide (figure 1).

Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1992-1999

Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)

worldwide by major suppliers from 1992-1999. The utility of these data is that they reflect transfers

that have occurred. They provide the data from which tables 9A(constant dollars) and 9B (supplier

percentages) are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized

below. Unless otherwise noted the dollar values are expressed in constant 1999 U.S. dollars.

!

In 1999, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide,

making nearly $18.4 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that

United States has led in such deliveries, reflecting implementation of arms

agreements concluded during and immediately after the Persian Gulf war (figure 2).

!

The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 1999, making

$4.5 billion in such deliveries.

!

Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 1999, making $2.7 billion in such

deliveries.

!

In 1999, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United

Kingdom, and Russia, collectively delivered nearly $25.6 billion, 75.3% of all arms

deliveries made worldwide by all suppliers.

!

The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 1999 was 54.1%, up from its

46.9% share in 1998. The United Kingdom’s share in 1999 was 13.3% up from

10.7% in 1998. Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in 1999 was 8%, up from

5.9% in 1998 (table 9B).

!

In 1999, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was nearly $34 billion, a decline

in the total value of deliveries from the previous year ($35.4 billion in constant 1999

dollars), and the lowest deliveries total since 1994 (chart 8)(table 9A).

!

During the period from 1992-1995, developing world nations accounted for 72.6%

of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 1996-1999, developing world

nations accounted for 77.9% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).

!

In 1999, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 66.8% of all arms

deliveries received worldwide (figure 2).

!

The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1996-1999

($150.3 billion) was an increase of 3% from the value of arms deliveries by all

suppliers worldwide from 1992-1995 ($145.9 billion in constant 1999 dollars)

(figure 2)(table 9A).

CRS-71

Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

TOTAL

1992-1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

20,644

1,800

9,000

1,800

500

1,300

500

1,700

1,200

21,524

2,400

5,000

2,800

500

1,300

400

900

1,100

12,792

4,000

8,700

700

600

1,200

200

2,400

800

8,872

7,500

2,600

800

200

500

1,200

2,900

2,100

11,111

4,700

2,600

4,300

1,000

100

400

3,800

3,000

7,341

3,500

5,000

1,000

1,300

600

300

2,000

1,400

10,024

2,500

3,300

2,000

900

5,000

900

1,700

1,200

11,768

4,800

900

800

1,900

4,000

600

4,600

900

104,076

31,200

37,100

14,200

6,900

14,000

4,500

20,000

11,700

TOTAL

38,444

35,924

31,392

26,672

31,011

22,441

27,524

30,268

243,676

Dollar inflation

index (1999=1.00)*

0.8516

0.8761

0.8957

0.9135

0.9329

0.9530

0.973

1

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All data are for the calendar year given except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Excess

Defense Articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services,

military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded

to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-72

Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1992-1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

24,241

2,114

10,568

2,114

587

1,527

587

1,996

1,409

24,568

2,739

5,707

3,196

571

1,484

457

1,027

1,256

14,282

4,466

9,713

782

670

1,340

223

2,679

893

9,712

8,210

2,846

876

219

547

1,314

3,175

2,299

11,910

5,038

2,787

4,609

1,072

107

429

4,073

3,216

7,703

3,673

5,247

1,049

1,364

630

315

2,099

1,469

10,302

2,569

3,392

2,055

925

5,139

925

1,747

1,233

11,768

4,800

900

800

1,900

4,000

600

4,600

900

114,486

33,609

41,160

15,481

7,308

14,773

4,839

21,397

12,675

TOTAL

45,143

41,004

35,047

29,198

33,242

23,548

28,288

30,268

265,738

CRS-73

Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

53.70%

4.68%

23.41%

4.68%

1.30%

3.38%

1.30%

4.42%

3.12%

59.92%

6.68%

13.92%

7.79%

1.39%

3.62%

1.11%

2.51%

3.06%

40.75%

12.74%

27.71%

2.23%

1.91%

3.82%

0.64%

7.65%

2.55%

33.26%

28.12%

9.75%

3.00%

0.75%

1.87%

4.50%

10.87%

7.87%

35.83%

15.16%

8.38%

13.87%

3.22%

0.32%

1.29%

12.25%

9.67%

32.71%

15.60%

22.28%

4.46%

5.79%

2.67%

1.34%

8.91%

6.24%

36.42%

9.08%

11.99%

7.27%

3.27%

18.17%

3.27%

6.18%

4.36%

38.88%

15.86%

2.97%

2.64%

6.28%

13.22%

1.98%

15.20%

2.97%

[Major West European*

32.77%

26.44%

34.40%

19.12%

23.86%

30.75%

40.69%

20.81%]

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

TOTAL

* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-74

Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

TOTAL

1992-1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

13,309

2,600

2,100

6,100

1,000

1,000

400

3,900

1,700

15,177

3,400

1,500

4,600

1,200

1,600

300

2,400

1,800

13,501

1,700

1,300

5,200

600

1,600

200

3,400

1,900

16,000

3,500

2,800

5,300

700

1,600

200

3,500

1,900

14,713

2,900

3,600

6,500

600

1,300

100

3,400

1,700

16,487

2,700

6,100

6,800

1,000

700

700

4,000

2,100

16,620

2,100

6,400

3,800

600

1,500

100

2,700

1,600

18,351

2,700

2,400

4,500

300

1,200

100

2,400

2,000

124,158

21,600

26,200

42,800

6,000

10,500

2,100

25,700

14,700

TOTAL

32,109

31,977

29,401

35,500

34,813

40,587

35,420

33,951

273,758

Dollar inflation

index (1999=1.00)*

0.8516

0.8761

0.8957

0.9135

0.9329

0.953

0.973

1

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All data are for the calendar year given. All data are for the calendar year given except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military

Education and Training), Excess Defense Articles, and commercially licensed deliveries, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the

values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries

are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. * Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-75

Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1992-1999

(in millions of constant 1999 U.S. dollars)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

TOTAL

1992-1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

15,628

3,053

2,466

7,163

1,174

1,174

470

4,580

1,996

17,323

3,881

1,712

5,251

1,370

1,826

342

2,739

2,055

15,073

1,898

1,451

5,806

670

1,786

223

3,796

2,121

17,515

3,831

3,065

5,802

766

1,752

219

3,831

2,080

15,771

3,109

3,859

6,968

643

1,394

107

3,645

1,822

17,300

2,833

6,401

7,135

1,049

735

735

4,197

2,204

17,081

2,158

6,578

3,905

617

1,542

103

2,775

1,644

18,351

2,700

2,400

4,500

300

1,200

100

2,400

2,000

134,043

23,463

27,932

46,529

6,589

11,408

2,299

27,963

15,922

TOTAL

37,704

36,499

32,825

38,862

37,317

42,589

36,403

33,951

296,149

CRS-76

Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1992-1999

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

41.45%

8.10%

6.54%

19.00%

3.11%

3.11%

1.25%

12.15%

5.29%

47.46%

10.63%

4.69%

14.39%

3.75%

5.00%

0.94%

7.51%

5.63%

45.92%

5.78%

4.42%

17.69%

2.04%

5.44%

0.68%

11.56%

6.46%

45.07%

9.86%

7.89%

14.93%

1.97%

4.51%

0.56%

9.86%

5.35%

42.26%

8.33%

10.34%

18.67%

1.72%

3.73%

0.29%

9.77%

4.88%

40.62%

6.65%

15.03%

16.75%

2.46%

1.72%

1.72%

9.86%

5.17%

46.92%

5.93%

18.07%

10.73%

1.69%

4.23%

0.28%

7.62%

4.52%

54.05%

7.95%

7.07%

13.25%

0.88%

3.53%

0.29%

7.07%

5.89%

[Major West European*

29.90%

25.02%

28.23%

27.89%

33.03%

35.23%

33.31%

24.15% ]

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

TOTAL

* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-77

Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories,

1992-1999

Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavy

tanks; self-propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns.

Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket

launchers and recoilless rifles–100 mm and over; FROG launchers–100mm and over.

Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includes

personnel carriers, armored and amphibious; armored infantry fighting vehicles;

armored reconnaissance and command vehicles.

Major Surface Combatants: This category includes aircraft carriers, cruisers,

destroyers, frigates.

Minor Surface Combatants: This category includes minesweepers, subchasers,

motor torpedo boats, patrol craft, motor gunboats.

Submarines: This category includes all submarines, including midget submarines.

Guided Missile Patrol Boats: This category includes all boats in this class.

Supersonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft

designed to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.

Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft

designed to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.

Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, including

trainers, transports, reconnaissance aircraft, and communications/utility aircraft.

Helicopters: This category includes all helicopters, including combat and transport.

Surface-to-air Missiles: This category includes all ground-based air defense missiles.

Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missiles

without regard to range, such as Scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles

and all anti-ship missiles.

Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the

Harpoon, Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.

CRS-78

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts

ASIA

Afghanistan

Australia

Bangladesh

Brunei

Burma (Myanmar)

China

Fiji

India

Indonesia

Japan

Kampuchea

(Cambodia)

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Malaysia

Nepal

New Zealand

North Korea

Pakistan

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Pitcairn

Singapore

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

NEAR EAST

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

United Arab Emirates

Yemen

EUROPE

Albania

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia/Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Belgium

Canada

Croatia

Czechoslovakia/

Czech Republic

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

FYR/Macedonia

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Moldova

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Yugoslavia/Federal

Republic

CRS-79

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.)

AFRICA

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cameroon

Cape Verde

Central African Republic

Chad

Congo

Côte d’Ivoire

Djibouti

Equatorial Guinea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Ghana

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mozambique

Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Réunion

Rwanda

Senegal

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Somalia

South Africa

Sudan

Swaziland

Tanzania

Togo

Uganda

Zaire

Zambia

Zimbabwe

LATIN AMERICA

Antigua

Argentina

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Bermuda

Bolivia

Brazil

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador

French Guiana

Grenada

Guadeloupe

Guatemala

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Martinique

Mexico

Montserrat

Netherlands Antilles

Nicaragua

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

St. Kitts & Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Pierre & Miquelon

St. Vincent

Suriname

Trinidad

Turks & Caicos

Venezuela