# Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992-1999

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL30640

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** August 18, 2000
- **Citation:** RL30640

## Text

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 c

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL30640. Public record. Not legal advice.