Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

Order Code RL32547

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Conventional Arms Transfers to

Developing Nations, 1996-2003

August 26, 2004

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,

1996-2003

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 1996-2003, the value of arms

transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements

worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations

constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of

these agreements in 2003.

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was

over $13.7 billion. This was a substantial decrease over 2002, and the lowest total,

in real terms, for the entire period from 1996-2003. In 2003, the value of all arms

deliveries to developing nations was nearly $17 billion, the lowest total in deliveries

values for the entire period from 1996-2003 (in constant 2003 dollars).

Recently, from 2000-2003, the United States and Russia have dominated the

arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first and Russia

second each of the last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From

2000-2003, the United States made $35.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations, in constant 2003 dollars, 46.8% of all such agreements. Russia,

the second leading supplier during this period, made over $21 billion in arms transfer

agreements, or 27.5%.

In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations with over $6.2 billion or 45.4% of these agreements. Russia was

second with $3.9 billion or 23.4% of such agreements. In 2003, the United States

ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $6.3 billion, or

37.1% of all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4 billion or

23.5% of such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $3.3 billion or 19.4% of such

deliveries.

During the 2000-2003 period, China ranked first among developing nations

purchasers in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $9.3 billion in such

agreements. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second at $8.1 billion. Egypt

ranked third at $6.8 billion. In 2003, Egypt ranked first in the value of arms transfer

agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $1.8

billion in such agreements. China ranked second with $1.6 billion in such

agreements. Malaysia ranked third with $1.5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

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

Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Summary of Data Trends, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1996-2003:

Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1996-2003: Suppliers and Recipients . . . . 39

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 64

Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values, 1996-2003 . . . . 72

Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 72

Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 85

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . 87

List of Tables

Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’ Share

with Developing World (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21

Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’ Share with

Developing World (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . 35

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

1996-2003 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

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

1996-2003 (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

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

1996-2003 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

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

1996-2003 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

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

1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 48

Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 49

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

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

Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Agreements by the Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . 52

Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

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

Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1996-2003 . . . . 57

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

1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 59

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

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

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:

The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 78

Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 79

Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 83

Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 84

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing

Nations, 1996-2003

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 1996 through 2003. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier

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

to Developing Nations, 1995-2002,” published by the Congressional Research

Service (CRS) on September 22, 2003 (CRS Report RL32084).

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. Nonetheless, the

developing world continues to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by

conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 1996-2003,

conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery)

to developing nations have comprised 63.9% of the value of all international arms

transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with developing countries

constituted 60.4% of all agreements globally from 2000-2003. In 2003, arms transfer

agreements with developing countries accounted for 53.6% of the value of all such

agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from

2000-2003, constituted 53.1% of all international arms deliveries. In 2003, arms

deliveries to developing nations constituted 59.1% of the value of all such arms

deliveries worldwide.

The data in this new report supersede all data published in previous editions.

Since these new data for 1996-2003 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 15). 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 on

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

CONSTANT 2003 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 2003

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 (1996-1999 and

2000-2003), 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

As used in this report, the developing nations category 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.

ARMS TRANSFER VALUES

The values of arms transfer agreements (or deliveries) in this report

refer to the total values of arms orders (or deliveries as the case

may be) which include all categories of weapons and ammunition,

military spare parts, military construction, military assistance and

training programs, and all associated services.

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 2003 was over $25.6 billion. This is a significant decrease in

arms agreements values over 2002, and is the third consecutive year that total arms

agreements have declined (chart 1)(table 8A).

In 2003, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making

agreements valued at over $14.5 billion (56.7% of all such agreements), up from

$13.6 billion in 2002. Russia ranked second with $4.3 billion in agreements (16.8%

of these agreements globally), down from nearly $6 billion in 2002. Germany ranked

third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $1.4 billion in 2003. The

United States and Russia collectively made agreements in 2003 valued at over $18.8

billion, 73.5% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers

(figure 1)(tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).

For the period 2000-2003, the total value of all international arms transfer

agreements (about $126.9 billion) was lower than the worldwide value during 19961999 ($133.7 billion), a decrease of 5.1%. During the period 1996-1999, developing

world nations accounted for 67.3% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made

worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing world nations accounted for 60.4% of all

arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2003, developing nations accounted for

53.6% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).

In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries

worldwide, making over $13.6 billion in such deliveries or 47.5%. 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 years

immediately following the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. The United Kingdom

ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2003, making $4.7 billion in such

deliveries. Russia ranked third in 2003, making $3.4 billion in such deliveries.

These top three suppliers of arms in 2003 collectively delivered over $21.7 billion,

75.7% of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in that year. (Figure 2)(tables

9A, 9B and 9D).

The value of all international arms deliveries in 2003 was $28.7 billion. This

is a significant decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year

(a fall of over $13.1 billion), and by far the lowest total for the eight years covered

by this report. The total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2000-2003

($148.2 billion) was a substantial decrease in the value of arms deliveries by all

suppliers worldwide from 1996-1999 ($196.3 billion, a fall of $48.1 billion). (figure

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

Developing nations from 2000-2003 accounted for 53.1% of the value of all

international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1996-1999, developing nations

accounted for 66.9% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2003,

CRS-4

developing nations collectively accounted for 59.1% of the value of all international

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

The downturn in weapons orders worldwide since 2000 has been notable.

Global arms agreement values have fallen from $41 billion in 2000 to $25.6 billion

in 2003. Were it not for a few large military aircraft orders in 2003, the total for that

year would have been substantially lower. It has been the practice of developed

nations in recent years to seek to protect important elements of their national military

industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other developed nations. Instead

they have placed greater emphasis on joint production of various weapons systems

as a more effective way to preserve a domestic weapons production capability, while

sharing costs of new weapons development. Some traditional weapons producers

have been forced to consolidate sectors of their domestic defense industry in the face

of intense foreign competition, while other supplying nations have chosen to

manufacture items for niche arms markets where their specialized production

capabilities provide them with important advantages in the evolving international

arms marketplace.

The intensely competitive arms market of today has also led supplying states to

emphasize sales efforts directed toward regions and nations where individual

suppliers have had competitive advantages resulting from well established military

support relationships with the prospective customers. In recent years, the potential

has developed in Europe for arms sales to nations that have recently become

members of NATO. Although there are inherent limitations on these potential sales

due to the smaller defense budgets of several of these nations, creative seller

financing options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-production, and countertrade, to offset costs to purchasers, has resulted in some noteworthy contracts being

signed. Most noteworthy in 2003 was a $3.5 billion sales agreement between the

United States and Poland for the purchase of 48 F-16 C/D Block 52M fighter aircraft.

Elsewhere within NATO, Germany in 2003 concluded a $1.7 billion agreement with

Greece for 170 Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks. It seems likely that competition will

continue between the United States and other European countries or consortia over

the prospective arms contracts within the European region in the years ahead. Such

sales have the potential to compensate for lost contracts due to reduced demand for

weapons from traditional clients in the developing world.

In recent years, numerous developing nations have reduced their weapons

purchases primarily due to their lack of sufficient funds to pay for such weaponry.

Even those prospective arms purchasers in the developing world with significant

financial assets have exercised restraint and caution before embarking upon new and

costly weapons procurement endeavors. The unsettled state of the global economy

has influenced a number of developing nations to emphasize the upgrading of

existing weapons systems in their inventories, rather than the purchase of newer ones.

Given the substantial arms purchases made in the mid-1990s by a number of nations

in the developing world, there has been a notable reduction in new arms agreements

by these countries, since several of them are engaged in absorbing and integrating

previously purchased weapons systems into their military force structures.

At present, there appears to be fewer large weapons purchases being made by

developing nations in the Near East, while a relatively larger increase in purchases

CRS-5

are being made by developing nations in Asia. Nonetheless, these apparent trends

are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of either the international or

regional economies. The health of the domestic economies in various nations in the

developing world continue to be a very significant factor in their arms purchasing

decisions.

Although some nations in Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, in

Africa, have shown interest in updating important sectors of their military force

structures, many states in these regions also continue to be constrained by their

limited financial resources. Limited seller-supplied credit and financing seems likely

to continue to be a factor that inhibits the conclusion of major weapons deals in these

regions of the developing world.

General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was

$13.7 billion, a notable decrease over the $17.4 billion total in 2002. This was the

lowest annual total, in real terms, during the 8-year period from 1996-2003. (chart

1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2003, the value of all arms deliveries to developing

nations ($17 billion) was a clear decrease from the value of 2002 deliveries nearly

($18.7 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years (charts 7 and 8)(figure

2)(table 2A).

Recently, from 2000-2003, the United States and Russia have dominated the

arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first each of the

last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2000-2003, the United

States made over $35.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations,

46.8% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period,

made nearly $21.1billion in arms transfer agreements or 27.5%. France, the third

leading supplier, from 2000-2003 made $3.8 billion or 5% of all such agreements

with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1996-1999) the

United States ranked first with $27.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with

developing nations or 30.6%; Russia made $15.6 billion in arms transfer agreements

during this period or 17.3%. France made $10.7 billion in agreements or 11.9%

(table 1A).

During the period from 1996-1999, most arms transfers to developing nations

were made by two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has

ranked first among these suppliers every year from 1998 through 2003. Russia has

been a strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing

nations, ranking second every year from 1999 through 2003. Despite the larger

traditional client base for armaments held by other Major West European suppliers,

Russia’s recent successes in securing new arms orders suggests that despite the

traditional marketing advantage held by Major West European competitors, Russia

is likely to continue to rank higher in the value of new arms agreements than other

key European arms suppliers, for the near term. Since Russia’s largest value arms

transfer agreements in recent years have been with two countries, China and India,

continued Russian success in the arms trade with developed nations will depend on

its ability to expand its client base. In this regard, Russia has made some strides in

Southeast Asia. The Russian government has also stated that it has adopted more

CRS-6

flexible payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the developing world,

and is attempting to enhance the quality of its follow-on support services to make

Russian products more attractive and competitive.

Traditional arms suppliers such as France, the United Kingdom and Germany

occasionally conclude large orders with developing countries, based on either longterm supply relationships or their having specialized weapons systems they can

readily provide. Nevertheless, the United States continues to appear best equipped

to secure new arms agreements with developing nations that are able to afford major

new arms purchases. The purchase of new and highly expensive weapons by many

developing countries, however, seems likely to be limited in the near term, given the

tenuous state of the international economy, and the lack of sufficient funding for such

undertakings. The overall level of the arms trade with developing nations, which has

been generally declining in the years since 2001, is likely either to remain static or

continue to decline in the near term, even though a few wealthier developing nations

have been able to make some significant purchases more recently.

Other suppliers in the tier below the United States and Russia, such as China,

other European, and non-European suppliers, have participated in the arms trade with

developing nations at a much lower level. Yet these suppliers are capable of making

an occasional arms deal of significance. Most of their annual arms transfer

agreements values totals during 1996-2003 have been relatively low, and are based

upon generally smaller transactions of less sophisticated military equipment. It is

unlikely that many of these countries will be capable of rising to the status of a major

supplier of advanced weaponry on a consistent basis ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and

2G).

United States.

In 2003, the total value — in real terms — of United States arms transfer

agreements with developing nations fell notably to $6.2 billion from nearly $8.9

billion in 2002. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 45.4% in

2003, down from a 51% share in 2002 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and

1B).

In 2003, the value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations

was primarily attributable to purchases by key U.S. clients in the Near East and in

Asia. These arms agreement totals also reflect a continuation of well established

defense support arrangements with these and other purchasers worldwide. U.S.

agreements with its clients in 2003 include not only some sales of major weapons

systems, but also a continuation of the upgrading of some previously provided. The

U.S. totals also reflect agreements for a wide variety of spare parts, ammunition,

ordnance, training, and support services. Among major weapons systems agreements

the United States concluded in 2003 were: with Egypt for a co-production program

involving 125 M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank kits for $790 million; with Saudi

Arabia for a number of light infantry vehicles (LAWS) for $316 million; with South

Korea for 3 MK41 Vertical Launch Systems for $191 million; with Taiwan for a

number of Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs) for $150 million; with Israel for 1

AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter; with Oman for 2 Reconnaissance Systems;

and with Pakistan for 6 C-130E aircraft. The United States also concluded

CRS-7

agreements for the sale of various missile systems to nations in both the Near East

and in Asia. Among these agreements concluded were: with Egypt for 414 AIM-9M

Sidewinder missiles as well as Harpoon Block II missiles; with Israel for AGM-114

Hellfire missiles; and with Taiwan for 144 Standard SM2 III missiles.

Apart from weapons themselves, it must be emphasized that, the sale of

munitions, upgrades to existing systems, spare parts, training and support services to

developing nations worldwide account for a very substantial portion of the total value

of U.S. arms transfer agreements. This fact reflects the large number of countries in

the developing, and developed, world that have acquired and continue to utilize a

wide range of American weapons systems, and have a continuing requirement to

support, to modify, as well as to replace, these systems.

Russia.

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

in 2003 was $3.9 billion, a notable decline from $5.3 billion in 2002, but it still

placed a strong second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share

of all developing world arms transfer agreements decreased, falling from 30.7% in

2002 to 23.4% in 2003 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Russian arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations have been

notable during the last four years. During the 2000-2003 period, Russia ranked

second among all suppliers to developing countries, making $21 billion in

agreements. Russia’s status as the second leading supplier of arms to developing

nations stems from an increasingly successful effort to overcome the significant

economic and political problems associated with the dissolution of the former Soviet

Union. The traditional arms clients of the former Soviet Union were generally less

wealthy developing countries prized as much for their political support in the Cold

War, as for their desire for Soviet weaponry. Many of these traditional Soviet client

states received substantial military aid grants and significant discounts on their arms

purchases. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991 these practices

were greatly curtailed. The Russia that emerged in 1991 consistently placed a

premium on obtaining hard currency for the weapons it sold. Faced with stiff

competition from Western arms suppliers in the 1990s, Russian gradually adapted its

selling practices in an effort to regain and sustain an important share of the

developing world arms market.

In recent years, Russian leaders have made efforts to provide more flexible and

creative financing and payment options for prospective arms clients. It has also

agreed to engage in counter-trade, offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make

significant licensed production agreements in order to sell its weapons. The

willingness to license production has been a central element in several cases

involving Russia’s principal arms clients, China and India. Russia’s efforts to

expand its arms customer base have been met with mixed results. In the early 1990s,

Russia developed a supply relationship with Iran, providing that country with Mig-29

fighter aircraft, Su-24 fighter-bombers, T-72 Main Battle Tanks, and Kilo-class

attack submarines. Although new Russian sales to Iran were suspended for a period

from 1995-2000 in accordance with an agreement with the United States, Russia now

asserts its option to sell arms to Iran should it choose to do so. Although discussions

CRS-8

have been held between Russia and Iran on prospective future arms purchases, there

have not been, as of this date, major new Iranian procurements of advanced weapons

systems, comparable to the types and quantities obtained in the early 1990s. Russia’s

arms sales efforts, apart from those with China and India seem focused on Southeast

Asia, where it has had some success in securing arms agreements with Malaysia,

Vietnam and Indonesia. Similarly, Russian combat fighter aircraft sales have been

made in recent years to Algeria and Yemen. Elsewhere in the developing world

Russian military equipment still holds attractions because it ranges from the most

basic to the highly advanced, and can be less expensive than similar arms available

from other major suppliers.

Yet Russia continues to confront a significant obstacle in breaking into arms

markets traditionally dominated by Western suppliers, namely, its perceived inability

to provide consistent high-quality follow-on support, spare parts, and training for the

weapons systems it sells. There is an almost ingrained reluctance on the part of many

developing nations to purchase advanced armaments from a supplier like Russia that

is still engaged in reorganization and rationalization of its defense production base,

when more stable, well-known, and established sources of such weapons exist. And

though Russia may now be embarked on some programs of advanced military

research and development, the other major arms suppliers in the West are currently

in the process of producing weaponry much more advanced than those programs that

may, at some future point, be available from Russia.

Despite these difficulties, Russia continues to have major on-going arms transfer

programs involving China and India, which should provide it with sustained business

through this decade. Since the mid-1990s, Russia has sold major combat fighter

aircraft, and main battle tanks to India, and has provided other major weapons

systems though lease or licenced production. China, however, remains a lynchpin

of Russia’s arms export program, particularly in aircraft and naval systems. Since

1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft and agreed to licensed production

of them. It has also sold the Chinese quantities of Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft,

Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn anti-ship missiles, and Kiloclass Project 636 submarines. Russia has also sold the Chinese a variety of other

weapons systems and missiles. Most recently, in 2003, Russia sold China an

additional 24 Su-30 MKK multi-role fighter aircraft for $1 billion.

Other notable arms sales by Russia in 2003 include: a sale of 18 Su30 MKM

multi-role fighter aircraft to Malaysia for $900 million; a sale of 10 Mi-171Sh utility

helicopters to Malaysia for $71 million; a sale of 4 Su-30 MK fighter aircraft to

Vietnam for $110 million; a sale of 10 Project 12418 Molniya-class missile attack

boats to Vietnam for $120 million; a sale of 2 batteries of S-300 PMU air defense

systems to Vietnam for $250 million; and a sale of 2 Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft,

2 Su-27 fighter aircraft, and 2 Mil Mi-35 attack helicopters to Indonesia for about

$192 million.

China.

China was an important arms supplier to certain developing nations in the

1980s, primarily through arms agreements with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq war.

From 2000-2003, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing

CRS-9

nations has averaged about $580 million annually. During the period of this report,

the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations peaked in

1999 at $2.6 billion. Its sales figures that year 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. Similar arms deals with small scale

purchasers in these regions continue. In 2003, China’s arms transfer agreements total

was $300 million, its lowest agreements total for the entire 1996-2003 period. For

most of the mid-1990s on, China’s principal focus has not been on selling arms but

on advancing a significant military procurement program, aimed at modernizing its

military forces, with Russia serving as its principal supplier of advanced combat

aircraft, surface combatants, air defense systems, and submarines (tables 1A, 1G and

1H)(chart 3).

In recent years, few clients for weapons with financial resources have sought

to purchase Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and

sophisticated than weaponry available from Western suppliers or Russia. China does

not appear likely to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the international

arms market in the foreseeable future. Its likely clients are states in Asia and Africa

seeking quantities of small arms and light weapons, rather than major combat

systems. At the same time, China is an important source of missiles in the

developing world arms market. China supplied Silkworm anti-ship missiles to Iran.

Credible reports persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-surface

missiles to Pakistan, a long-standing client. Iran and North Korea have also

reportedly received Chinese missile technology. Credible reports of this nature raise

important questions about China’s stated commitment to the restrictions on missile

transfers set out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its

pledge not to assist others in building missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.

Given its continuing need for hard currency, and the fact that it has some military

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, and where some nations are seeking to develop asymmetric

military capabilities.

Major West European Suppliers.

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

and Italy), as a group, registered a decline in their collective share of all arms transfer

agreements with developing nations between 2002 and 2003. This group’s share fell

from 6.5% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2003. The collective value of this group’s arms

transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was $800 million compared

with a total of $1.1 million in 2002. Of these four nations, France was the leading

supplier with $500 million in agreements in 2003, an increase from $411 million in

2002. A notable portion of the French total in 2003 was attributable to a production

arrangement with the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) for light corvette vessels. Italy

increased its arms transfer agreements with the developing world from essentially nil

in 2002 to $300 million in 2003. Germany and the United Kingdom registered

effectively no new developing world arm orders in 2003. (charts 3 and 4)(tables

1A and 1B).

CRS-10

Collectively, the four major West European suppliers held a 17.7% share of all

arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1996-2003.

Soon after the Persian Gulf war, the major West European suppliers generally

maintained a notable share of arms transfer agreements. More recently this share has

declined. For the 2000-2003 period, they collectively held 8.4% of all arms transfer

agreements with developing nations ($6.5 billion). Individual suppliers within the

major West European group have had notable years for arms agreements, especially

France in 1997 and 1998 ($5.3 billion and $2.7 billion respectively). The United

Kingdom also had a large agreement year in 1996 ($3.2 billion), and at least $1

billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Germany concluded arms agreements totaling $1.7

billion in 1998, with its highest total at $2.2 billion in 1999. For each of these three

nations, large agreement totals in one year have usually reflected the conclusion of

very large arms contracts with one or more major purchasers in that particular year

(table 1A and 1B).

The Major West European suppliers have traditionally had their competitive

position in weapons exports strengthened through strong government marketing

support for their foreign arms sales. Since they can produce both advanced and basic

air, ground, and naval weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers

have competed successfully for arms sales contracts with developing nations against

both the United States, which has tended to sell to several of the same clients, and

with Russia, which has sold to nations not traditional customers of either the West

Europeans or the U.S. The demand for U.S. weapons in the global arms marketplace,

from a large established client base, has created a more difficult environment for

individual West European suppliers to secure large new contracts with developing

nations on a sustained basis. Furthermore, with the decline in demand by key Near

East countries for major weapons purchases, the levels of new arms agreements by

Major West European suppliers have fallen off notably.

Consequently, some of these suppliers have begun to phase out production of

certain types of weapons systems, and have increasingly sought to join joint

production ventures with other key European weapons suppliers or even client

countries in an effort to sustain major sectors of their individual defense industrial

bases. The Eurofighter project is one key example. Other European suppliers have

also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense production ventures with the

United States such as the Joint Strike fighter, to both meet their own requirements for

advanced combat aircraft, and to share in profits resulting from future sales of this

aircraft.

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements

A major stimulus to reaching arms transfer agreements with Near East nations

was the Persian Gulf crisis of August 1990-February 1991. This crisis, culminating

in a war to expel Iraq from Kuwait, 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. Egypt and

Israel continued their modernization and increased their weapons purchases from the

United States. The Gulf states’ arms purchase demands were not only a response to

Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but a reflection of concerns regarding perceived

threats from a potentially hostile Iran. It remains to be determined whether Gulf

CRS-11

states’ assessments of the future threat environment, in the post-Saddam Hussein era

in Iraq, will lead to declines in their arms purchases. However, in recent years, the

position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the Persian Gulf has notably

receded. In the period from 1996-1999, Saudi Arabia’s total arms agreements were

valued at $6 billion. For the period from 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia’s total arms

agreements had declined to $3.4 billion, a decline of over 43%. In Asia, efforts in

several developing nations have been focused on upgrading and modernizing defense

forces, and this has led to important new conventional weapons sales in that region.

Since the mid-1990s, Russia has become the principal supplier of advanced

conventional weaponry to China, while maintaining its position as principal arms

supplier to India. Russia has also made some progress in expanding its client base

in Asia with aircraft orders from Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The data on

regional arms transfer agreements from 1996-2003 continue to reflect that Near East

and Asian nations are the primary sources of orders for conventional weaponry in

the developing world.

Near East.

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

world. In 1996-1999, it accounted for nearly 44% of the total value of all developing

nations arms transfer agreements ($34.1 billion in current dollars), ranking it first

ahead of Asia which ranked second with 36.8% of these agreements. However,

during 2000-2003, the Near East region accounted for 37% of all such agreements

($24.6 billion in current dollars), placing it second to Asia in arms agreements with

the developing world. (tables 1C and 1D).

The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East

during the 1996-2003 period with 59.5% of their total value ($34.9 billion in current

dollars). France was second during these years with 12.6% ($7.4 billion in current

dollars). Recently, from 2000-2003, the United States accounted for 75.6% of arms

agreements with this region ($18.6 billion in current dollars), while Russia accounted

for 8.1% of the region’s agreements ($2 billion in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables

1C and 1E).

Asia.

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

in 2000-2003, Asia ranked first, accounting for 50.8% of the total value of all arms

transfer agreements with developing nations ($33.8 billion in current dollars). In the

earlier period, 1996-1999, the region accounted for 36.8% of all such agreements

($28.6 billion in current dollars), ranking second. (tables 1C and 1D).

In the earlier period (1996-1999), Russia ranked first in the value of arms

transfer agreements with Asia with 35.4%($10.1 billion in current dollars). The

United States ranked second with 21.6% ($6.2 billion in current dollars). The major

West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.5% of this region’s agreements in

1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in Asian agreements

with 48.8% ($16.5 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combat aircraft

sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with 20.6% ($7.1 billion

CRS-12

in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13% of this

region’s agreements in 2000-2003. (Chart 6)(table 1E).

Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers

The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading developing world arms

purchaser from 1996-2003, making arms transfer agreements totaling $15.7 billion

during these years (in current dollars). In the 1996-1999 period, the United Arab

Emirates (UAE) ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $7.6 billion (in current

dollars). In 2000-2003, however, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements,

with a dramatic increase to $9.3 billion from $4.4 billion in the earlier period (in

current dollars). This increase reflects the military modernization effort by China in

the 1990s, based primarily on major arms agreements with Russia. The total value

of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1996-2003 was $150.6

billion in current dollars. Thus the United Arab Emirates alone was responsible for

10.4% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In

the most recent period, 2000-2003, China made $9.3 billion in arms transfer

agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted 12.8% of all arm transfer

agreements with developing nations during these years, which totaled $72.9 billion

during these years. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second in arms

transfer agreements during 2000-2003 with $8.1 billion (in current dollars), or 11.8%

of the value of all developing world arms transfer agreements. (tables 1, 1H, 1I and

1J).

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

recipient nations in both the 1996-1999 and 2000-2003 periods accounted for the

largest portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1996-1999, the

top ten recipients collectively accounted for 62.6% of all developing world arms

transfer agreements. During 2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted

for 71.7% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten

developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $9 billion in 2003 or 65.5% 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).

Egypt ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms

transfer agreements in 2003, concluding $1.8 billion in such agreements. China

ranked second in agreements in 2003 at $1.6 billion. Malaysia ranked third with $1.5

billion in agreements. Six of these top ten recipients were in the Asian region, four

were in the Near East (table 1J).

Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing

world recipients in 2003, receiving $5.8 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia

alone received 34.1% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations

in 2003. Egypt ranked second in arms deliveries in 2003 with $2.1 billion. India

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

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

valued at nearly $17 billion, or 89.4% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in

CRS-13

2003. Six of these top ten recipients were in Asia; four were in the Near East (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 67-71).

Weapons deliveries to the Near East, historically 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 2000-2003 from table 5 (page 67):

United States.

276 tanks and self-propelled guns

46 APCs and armored cars

2 major surface combatants

2 minor surface combatants

26 supersonic combat aircraft

14 helicopters

374 surface-to-air missiles

63 anti-ship missiles

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Russia.

! 70 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 150 APCs and armored cars

! 30 supersonic combat aircraft

! 50 helicopters

! 880 surface-to-air missiles

! 30 anti-ship missiles

China.

! 50 Artillery pieces

! 40 APCs and armored cars

! 1 guided missile boat

! 20 anti-ship missiles

Major West European Suppliers.

! 290 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 20 APCs and armored cars

! 4 major surface combatants

! 27 minor surface combatant

! 4 guided missile boats

! 1 submarine

CRS-14

!

!

30 helicopters

90 anti-ship missiles

All Other European Suppliers.

! 420 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 220 APCs and armored cars

! 1 major surface combatant

! 9 minor surface combatants

! 20 supersonic combat aircraft

! 380 surface-to-air missiles

All Other Suppliers.

! 10 tanks and self-propelled guns

! 120 APCs and armored cars

! 48 minor surface combatants

! 20 helicopters

! 20 surface-to-surface missiles

! 20 anti-ship missiles

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

from 2000-2003, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, major

and minor surface combatants, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air defense

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

supersonic combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles to the region. Russia, the United

States, and European suppliers in general were principal suppliers of tanks and selfpropelled guns, APCs and armored cars, surface-to-air missiles, as well as

helicopters. 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 by the United States, Russia,

and European suppliers to the Near East region during the 2000-2003 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 important security threats within the region. In

particular, from 2000-2003, China delivered to the Near East region 20 anti-ship

missiles, the major West European suppliers delivered 90, while the United States

delivered 63, and Russia 30. China also delivered one guided missile boat to the

Near East, while the major West European suppliers collectively delivered 4 guided

missile boats, and 27 minor surface combatants. Other non-European suppliers

delivered 48 minor surface combatants, as well as 20 surface-to-surface missiles, a

weapons category not delivered by any of the other major weapons suppliers during

this period.

CRS-15

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS

The United States commercial deliveries data set out below in this report are included in

the main data tables for deliveries worldwide and for deliveries to developing nations

collectively. They are presented separately here to provide an indicator of their overall

magnitude in the U.S. aggregate deliveries totals to the world and to all 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 are 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 1996-2003, in

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

Fiscal Year

Commercial Deliveries

(Worldwide)

Commercial Deliveries

(to Developing Nations)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

$1,563,000,000

$1,818,000,000

$2,045,000,000

$654,000,000

$478,000,000

$821,000,000

$341,000,000

$2,727,000,000

$696,000,000

$1,141,000,000

$798,000,000

$323,000,000

$233,000,000

$588,000,000

$213,000,000

$342,000,000

CRS-16

Summary of Data Trends, 1996-2003

Tables 1 through 1J (pages 42-52) present data on arms transfer agreements

with developing nations by major suppliers from 1996-2003. 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 53-63). Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 75-79) provide data

on worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1996-2003, while tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C

and 9D (pages 80-84) 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

arms 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. Where graphic representations of some major points are made in individual

charts, their underlying data is taken from the pertinent tables of this report.

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 2003 was $13.7 billion. This was a substantial decrease over

2002, but still the lowest total, in real terms, for arms transfer

agreements with developing nations for the 8-year period from 19962003 (tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).

!

The total value of United States agreements with developing nations

fell notably from $8.9 billion in 2002 to $6.2 billion in 2003. The

United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer

agreements fell from 51% in 2002 to 45.4% in 2003 (tables 1A and

1B)(chart 3).

!

In 2003, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer

agreements with developing nations declined notably from the

previous year, falling from $5.3 billion in 2002 to $3.9 billion in

2003. The Russian share of all such agreements declined from

30.7% in 2002 to 23.4% in 2003 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and

1B).

CRS-17

Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1996-2003

Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-18

Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-19

Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-20

Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 1996-2003

(billions of constant 2003 dollars)

CRS-21

Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 and

Suppliers’ Share with Developing World

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 1996-1999

45,405

17,766

14,207

10,909

6,790

11,583

2,301

15,577

9,190

133,728

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

60.60

87.70

75.30

62.20

86.50

36.20

55.30

73.40

71.80

67.30

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 2000-2003

59,995

22,504

10,213

2,104

2,318

5,105

2,586

15,116

6,933

126,874

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

59.70

93.60

37.50

39.30

100.00

23.30

24.00

39.40

71.50

60.40

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide Agreements

Value 2003

14,543

4,300

1,000

100

300

1,400

600

2,300

1,100

25,643

Percentage of Total with

Developing World

42.90

90.70

50.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

50.00

73.90

72.70

53.60

CRS-22

!

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

Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a decline in their collective

share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations

between 2002 and 2003. This group’s share fell from 6.5% in 2002

to 5.8% in 2003. The collective value of this group’s arms transfer

agreements with developing nations in 2003 was $800 million

compared with a total of $1.1 billion in 2002 (tables 1A and

1B)(charts 3 and 4).

!

France registered a slight increase in its share of all arms transfer

agreements with developing nations, rising from 2.4% in 2002 to

3.6% in 2003. The value of its agreements with developing nations

rose from $411 million in 2002 to $500 million in 2003 (tables 1A

and 1B).

!

In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements

with developing nations at $6.2 billion. Russia ranked second at

$3.9 billion. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003

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

individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003.

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 1996-1999 and 20002003. Among the facts reflected in these tables are the following:

Near East.

1

!

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

developing world. In 1996-1999, it accounted for nearly 44% of the

total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($34.1

billion in current dollars), ranking it first ahead of Asia which ranked

second with 36.8% of these agreements. However, during 20002003, the Near East region accounted for nearly 37% of all such

agreements ($24.6 billion in current dollars), placing it second to

Asia in arms agreements with the developing world (tables 1C and

1D).

!

The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the

Near East during the 1996-2003 period with 59.5% of their total

value ($34.9 billion in current dollars). France was second during

these years with 12.6% ($7.4 billion in current dollars). Recently,

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

be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-23

from 2000-2003, the United States accounted for 75.6% of arms

agreements with this region ($18.6 billion in current dollars), while

Russia accounted for 8.1% of the region’s agreements ($2 billion in

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

!

For the period 1996-1999, the United States concluded 68.5% of its

developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In

2000-2003, the U.S. concluded 67.2% of its agreements with this

region (table 1D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, the four major West European suppliers

collectively made 44.4% of their developing world arms transfer

agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003, the major West

Europeans made 18% of their arms agreements with the Near East

(table 1D) .

!

For the period 1996-1999, France concluded 73.1% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,

France made 16.7% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, the United Kingdom concluded 24.6% of

its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.

In 2000-2003, the United Kingdom made 50% of its agreements

with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, China concluded 34% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,

China made 23.8% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, Russia concluded 15.7% of its developing

world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,

Russia made 9.9% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).

!

In the earlier period (1996-1999), the United States ranked first in

arms transfer agreements with the Near East with 47.9%. France

ranked second with 19.9%. Russia ranked third with 6.2%. The

major West European suppliers, as a group, made 25.5% of this

region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003),

the United States ranked first in Near East agreements with 75.6%.

Russia ranked second with 8.1%. The major West European

suppliers, as a group, made 4.5% of this region’s agreements in

2000-2003 (table 1E)(chart 5).

Asia.

!

Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the

developing world. Yet in 2000-2003, Asia ranked first, accounting

for 50.8% of the total value of all arms transfer agreements with

developing nations ($33.8 billion in current dollars). In the earlier

period, 1996-1999, the region accounted for 36.8% of all such

CRS-24

agreements ($28.6 billion in current dollars), ranking second

(tables 1C and 1D).

CRS-25

Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-26

Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Asia

(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-27

!

In the earlier period (1996-1999), Russia ranked first in the value of

arms transfer agreements with Asia with 35.4% ($10.1 billion in

current dollars). The United States ranked second with 21.6% ($6.2

billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as

a group, made 23.5% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In

the later period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in Asian

agreements with 48.8% ($16.5 billion in current dollars), primarily

due to major combat aircraft sales to India and China. The United

States ranked second with 20.6% ($7.1 billion in current dollars).

The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13% of this

region’s agreements in 2000-2003. (Chart 6)(table 1E).

Latin America.

!

In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in

arms transfer agreements with Latin America with 22.3%. France

ranked second with 12.9%. The major West European suppliers, as

a group, made 14.7% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In

the later period, 2000-2003, the United States ranked first with

47.1%. Russia ranked second with 10.1%. All other non-major

European suppliers as a group, and all other non-European suppliers

collectively each made 17.6% of the region’s agreements in 20002003. Latin America registered a significant decline in the total

value of its arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003,

falling from $5.4 billion in the earlier period to $4 billion in the

latter (tables 1C and 1E).

Africa.

!

In the earlier period, 1996-1999, Germany ranked first in agreements

with Africa with 15.8% ($1.5 billion in current dollars). Russia,

China, and the United Kingdom tied for second with 9.5%. The

major West European suppliers, as a group, made 35.8% of the

region’s agreements in 1996-1999. The United States made 1%. In

the later period, 2000-2003, Russia ranked first in agreements with

31.4% ($1.3 billion). China ranked second with 12.1% ($500

million). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made

16.9% of this region’s agreements in 2000-2003. All other European

suppliers collectively made 29% ($1.2 billion). The United States

made 3.3%. Africa registered a substantial decline in the total value

of its arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003,

falling from $9.5 billion in the earlier period to $4.1 billion in the

latter (in current dollars). The notable fall in the level of arms

agreements reflected, to an important degree, that South Africa’s

substantial new defense procurement program orders were placed

during the earlier time period (tables 1C and 1E).

CRS-28

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,

1996-2003: Leading Suppliers Compared

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

nations from 1996-2003 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 — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003.

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 2000-2003

($34.1 billion), and first for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($57.9

billion).

!

Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in

the value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($20.1

billion), and second from 1996-2003 ($33.5 billion).

!

France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($3.6 billion),

and third from 1996-2003 ($12.8 billion).

!

China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($2.2 billion),

and fourth from 1996-2003 ($7.3 billion).

!

The United Kingdom ranked ninth among all suppliers to developing

nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003

($800 million), and fifth from 1996-2003 ($6.6 billion).

Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 1G ranks and gives for 2003 the values of arms transfer agreements 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 and Russia, the year’s top two arms suppliers —

ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements — collectively

made agreements in 2003 valued at $10.1 billion, 73.8% of all arms

transfer agreements made with developing nations by all suppliers

($13.7 billion).

!

In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements

with developing nations, making $6.2 billion in such agreements, or

45.4% of them.

CRS-29

!

Russia ranked second and the Netherlands third in arms transfer

agreements with developing nations in 2003, making $3.9 billion

and $700 million in such agreements respectively.

!

France ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing

nations in 2003, making $500 million in such agreements, while

Poland ranked fifth with $400 million.

Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1996-2003:

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 1996-1999 and 20002003. 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, 2000-2003, the principal purchasers of

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

were: the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ($7.1 billion); Egypt ($6.2

billion), Israel ($5.1 billion), and Saudi Arabia ($2.7 billion). The

principal purchasers of Russian arms were: Algeria, the U.A.E, and

Yemen($400 million each), Egypt ($300 million), and Iran and Syria

($200 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from China

were Egypt and Kuwait ($200 million each), and Iran and Yemen

($100 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from the four

major West European suppliers, as a group, were: Saudi

Arabia($500 million); Oman, and the U.A.E. ($300 million each).

The principal purchasers of arms from all other European suppliers

collectively were the U.A.E. ($300 million); Saudi Arabia ($200

million). The principal purchasers of arms from all other suppliers

combined were Libya ($300 million), and Kuwait and Jordan ($200

million each).

!

For the period from 2000-2003, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)

made $8.1 billion in arms transfer agreements. The United States

($7.1 billion), and Russia ($400 million) were its largest suppliers.

Egypt made $6.8 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major

supplier was the United States ($6.2 billion). Israel made $5.2

billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal supplier was the

United States ($5.1 billion). Saudi Arabia made $3.4 billion in arms

transfer agreements. Its principal suppliers were: the United States

($2.7 billion), and the four major West European suppliers

collectively ($500 million).

!

The total value of arms transfer agreements by China with Iran fell

from $800 million to $100 million during the periods from 19961999 to 2000-2003 respectively. The value of Russia’s arms transfer

CRS-30

agreements with Iran fell from $400 million in the earlier period to

$200 million from 2000-2003.

!

The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with

Saudi Arabia fell notably from the 1996-1999 period to the 20002003 period, declining from $4.6 billion in the earlier period to $2.7

million in the later period. Saudi Arabia still made 79.4% of all its

arms transfer agreements with the United States during 2000-2003.

Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements with the United Arab Emirates

(U.A.E.) by the major West European suppliers decreased

significantly from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003, falling from $6.1 billion

to $300 million.

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

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 1996-2003 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 — 19961999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003. Among the facts reflected in this table are the

following:

!

The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading developing

world arms purchaser from 1996-2003, making arms transfer

agreements totaling $15.7 billion during these years (in current

dollars). In the 1996-1999 period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $7.6 billion (in current

dollars). In 2000-2003, however, China ranked first in arms transfer

agreements, with a dramatic increase to $9.3 billion from $4.4

billion in the earlier period (in current dollars). This increase

reflects the military modernization effort by China in the 1990s,

based primarily on major arms agreements with Russia. The total

value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from

1996-2003 was $150.6 billion in current dollars. Thus the United

Arab Emirates alone was responsible for 10.4% of all developing

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

recent period, 2000-2003, China made $9.3 billion in arms transfer

agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted 12.8% of all

arm transfer agreements with developing nations during these years,

which totaled $72.9 billion during these years. The United Arab

Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second in arms transfer agreements during

2000-2003 with $8.1 billion (in current dollars), or 11.1% of the

value of all developing world arms transfer agreements (tables 1,

1H, 1I and 1J).

!

During 1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for

62.6% of all developing world arms transfer agreements. During

CRS-31

2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 71.7%

of all such agreements (tables 1 and 1I).

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements With Leading Recipients

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

agreements in 2003. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current

dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2003. Among the

facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Egypt ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the

value of arms transfer agreements in 2003, concluding $1.8 billion

in such agreements. China ranked second with $1.6 billion.

Malaysia ranked third with $1.5 billion.

!

Six of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer

agreements in 2003 were in Asia. Four were in the Near East .

!

Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world

recipients, as a group, in 2003 totaled $13.7 billion or 65.5% of all

such agreements with the developing world, reflecting a continuing

concentration of developing world arms purchases among 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 1996-2003. 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 2003 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17

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

year, ($18.7 billion in constant 2003 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table

2A).

!

The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2003 was

37.1%, slightly down from 37.8% in 2002. In 2003, the United

States, for the eighth year in a row, ranked first in the value of arms

deliveries to developing nations ($6.3 billion) (in constant 2003

dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of post Persian Gulf

War era arms transfer agreements. The second leading supplier in

2003 was the United Kingdom, at $4 billion. The United Kingdom’s

share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2003 was 23.5%, up

from 18.7% in 2002. Russia, the third leading supplier in 2003,

made $3.3 billion in deliveries. Russia’s share of all arms deliveries

CRS-32

to developing nations in 2003 was 19.4%, up from 17.1% in 2002.

The share of major West European suppliers deliveries to

developing nations in 2003 was 32.4%, up from 27% in 2002 (tables

2A and 2B).

!

The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing

nations from 2000-2003 ($78.7 billion in constant 2003 dollars) was

dramatically lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers

to developing nations from 1996-1999 ($131.4 billion in constant

2003 dollars)(table 2A).

!

During the years 1996-2003, arms deliveries to developing nations

comprised 61% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2003, the

percentage of arms deliveries to developing nations was 59.1% of all

arms deliveries worldwide (tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-33

Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1996-2003

Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-34

Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1996-2003

(in billions of constant 2003 dollars)

CRS-35

Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’

Share with Developing World

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

1996-1999

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

91,133

12,987

26,161

26,543

3,381

7,865

1,601

16,390

10,203

196,264

56.30

86.60

87.60

85.10

93.30

29.50

86.10

69.50

49.10

66.90

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

2000-2003

76,083

15,693

7,984

21,136

2,824

4,177

1,363

9,934

8,989

148,183

Worldwide

Deliveries Value

2003

Percentage of Total to

Developing World

13,648

3,400

1,200

4,700

500

1,200

100

2,400

1,600

28,748

46.20

97.00

43.80

85.10

100.00

58.30

0.00

29.20

43.80

59.10

Supplier

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

TOTAL

38.00

91.90

65.90

78.20

96.20

29.70

15.30

50.90

48.80

53.10

CRS-36

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1996-2003

Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions

of the developing world for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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 1996-1999, it accounted for

57.2% of the total value of all developing nations deliveries ($63.9

billion in current dollars). During 2000-2003 the region accounted

for 50.7% of all such deliveries ($41.4 billion in current dollars)

(tables 2C and 2D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, the United States made 63.6% of its

developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 20002003, the United States made 47.4% of its developing world arms

deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, the United Kingdom made 81% of its

developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 20002003, the United Kingdom made 91.3% of its developing world

arms deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, 46.2% of France’s arms deliveries to the

developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent

period, 2000-2003, 93.9% of France’s developing world deliveries

were to nations of the Near East region (table 2D).

!

For the period 1996-1999, Russia made 29.4% of its developing

world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2000-2003, Russia

made 9.5% of such deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).

!

In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to the Near East with 42.7% ($27.3 billion

in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 25.4%

($16.2 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 14.4%

($9.2 billion in current dollars). The major West European

suppliers, as a group, held 41% of this region’s delivery values in

1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003), the United States

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

be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-37

ranked first in Near East delivery values with 39.6% ($16.4 billion

in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 34.8%

($14.4 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 11.1%

($4.6 billion in current dollars).The major West European suppliers,

as a group, held 46.9% of this region’s delivery values in 2000-2003

(tables 2C and 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, 1996-1999, 35.8% of all arms deliveries to developing

nations were to those in Asia ($39.9 billion in current dollars). In

the later period, 2000-2003, Asia accounted for 42.6% of such arms

deliveries ($35.4 billion in current dollars). For the period 20002003, Russia made 84.7% of its developing world arms deliveries to

Asia. Germany made 53.9% of its developing world deliveries to

Asia. China made 52% of its developing world deliveries to Asia,

while the United States made 47.3% (tables 2C and 2D).

!

In the period from 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in the

value of arms deliveries to Asia with 34.9% ($13.9 billion in current

dollars). France ranked second with 26% ($10.4 billion in current

dollars). Russia ranked third with 13.5% ($5.4 billion in current

dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 38.8%

of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999 ($15.5 billion). In the

period from 2000-2003, the United States ranked first in Asian

delivery values with 47.1% ($16.4 billion in current dollars). Russia

ranked second with 33.4% ($11.6 billion in current dollars) (tables

2C and 2E).

Latin America.

!

In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the value of all arms deliveries to

Latin America was $4.3 billion. The United States ranked first in

the value of arms deliveries to Latin America with 36.9% ($1.7

billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom and Russia tied for

second with 7.2% ($100 million each in current dollars). The major

West European suppliers, as a group, held 18.7% of this region’s

delivery values in 1996-1999. In the later period, 2000-2003, the

United States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with

65.8% ($1.7 billion in current dollars). Russia and France tied for

second with 3.8% each. The major West European suppliers, as a

group, held 3.8% of this region’s delivery values in 2000-2003.

During 2000-2003, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin America

was $2.6 billion, a substantial decline from the $4.3 billion

deliveries total for 1996-1999 (tables 2C and 2E).

CRS-38

Africa.

!

In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the value of all arms deliveries to

Africa was over $3.5 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of

arms deliveries to Africa with 22.7% ($800 million in current

dollars). China ranked second with 14.2% ($500 million in current

dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 11.3%

of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999. The United States

held 3.6%. In the later period, 2000-2003, Russia ranked first in

African delivery values with 24.2% ($700 million in current dollars).

China ranked second with 13.8% ($400 million in current dollars).

The United States held 3.3%. The other non-major European

suppliers collectively held 27.6% ($800 million in current dollars).

All other non-European suppliers collectively held 20.7% ($600

million in current dollars). During this later period, the value of all

arms deliveries to Africa decreased notably from $3.5 billion in

1996-1999 to $2.9 billion (in current dollars) (Tables 2C and 2E).

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 19962003 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 — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003. 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 2000-2003 ($27.6

billion), and first for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($72 billion).

!

The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to

developing nations in the value of arms deliveries from 2000-2003

($15.8 billion), and second for the entire period from 1996-2003

($35.8 billion).

!

Russia ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the

value of arms deliveries from 2000-2003 ($13.8 billion), and fourth

for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($23.1 billion).

Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

Table 2G ranks and gives for 2003 the values of arms deliveries to developing

nations of the top ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the facts reflected in

this table are the following:

!

The United States, the United Kingdom and Russia — the year’s top

three arms suppliers — ranked by the value of their arms deliveries

CRS-39

— collectively made deliveries in 2003 valued at $13.6 billion, 80%

of all arms deliveries made to developing nations by all suppliers.

!

In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries

to developing nations, making $6.3 billion in such agreements, or

37.1% of them.

!

The United Kingdom ranked second and Russia third in deliveries

to developing nations in 2003, making $4 billion and $3.3 billion in

such deliveries respectively.

!

France ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in

2003, making $800 million in such deliveries, while Germany

ranked fifth with $700 million in deliveries.

Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1996-2003:

Suppliers and Recipients

Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers

or categories of suppliers for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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, 2000-2003, the principal arms recipients

of the United States in the Near East region, based on the value of

their arms deliveries were Saudi Arabia ($6.3 billion), Egypt ($4.8

billion), Israel ($2.9 billion), and Kuwait ($1.1 billion). The

principal arms recipients of Russia were Algeria ($300 million , Iran,

Egypt and Yemen ($200 million each). The principal arms

recipients of China were Kuwait ($400 million), Egypt ($200

million), and Algeria, and Yemen ($100 million each). The

principal arms recipients of the four major West European suppliers,

as a group, were Saudi Arabia ($16.6 billion), the U.A.E. ($1.9

billion), Israel and Kuwait ($300 million each). The principal arms

recipient of all other European suppliers collectively was Saudi

Arabia ($1 billion). The principal arms recipient of all other

suppliers, as a group, was Iran ($400 million).

!

For the period 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia received $23.9 billion in

arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($6.3

billion), and the four major West Europeans, as a group ($16.6

billion). Egypt received $5.4billion in arms deliveries. Its principal

supplier was the United States ($4.8 billion). Israel received $3.2

billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United

States ($2.9 billion). The U.A.E. received $2.6 billion in arms

deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West

Europeans, as a group ($1.9 billion). Kuwait received $2.1 billion in

arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($1.1

billion). Iran received $600 million in arms deliveries. Its principal

CRS-40

suppliers were Russia ($200 million) and all other non-European

suppliers ($400 million).

!

The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined

dramatically from $16.6 billion in 1996-1999 to $6.3 billion in

2000-2003, as implementation of major orders placed during the

Persian Gulf war era continued to be concluded.

!

The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined dramatically

from the 1996-1999 period to the 2000-2003 period. Russian arms

deliveries fell from $900 million to $200 million.

!

Chinese arms deliveries to Iran dropped substantially from 19961999 to 2000-2003, falling from $700 million in 1996-1999 to nil in

2000-2003.

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

The Leading Recipients

Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of

arms in the developing world from 1996-2003 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 — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and

1996-2003. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world

recipients of arms from 1996-2003, receiving deliveries valued at

$61.1 billion and $19.4 billion, respectively, during these years. The

total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations from 19962003 was $188.7 billion in current dollars (see table 2). Thus,

Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 32.4% and 10.3%,

respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these eight

years — together 32.7% of the total. In the most recent period —

2000-2003 — Saudi Arabia and China ranked first and second in the

value of arms received by developing nations ($23.9 billion and $6.9

billion, respectively, in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and

China accounted for 41% of all developing world arms deliveries

($30.8 billion out of $75.2 billion — the value of all deliveries to

developing nations in 2000-2003 (in current dollars).

!

For the 2000-2003 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $23.9 billion

in arms deliveries (in current dollars), or 31.8% of all deliveries to

developing nations during this period.

!

During 1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for

74.5% of all developing world arms deliveries. During 2000-2003,

the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 75.6% of all such

deliveries (tables 2 and 2I).

CRS-41

Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements With Leading Recipients

Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer

agreements in 2003. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current

dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2003. Among the

facts reflected in this table are the following:

!

Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2003

among developing nations, receiving $5.8 billion in such deliveries,

or 34.1% of all deliveries to developing nations. Egypt ranked

second with $2.1 billion. India ranked third with $2 billion (tables

2 and 2J).

!

Arms deliveries in 2003 to the top ten developing nation recipients,

collectively, constituted $15.2 billion, or 89.4% of all developing

nations deliveries. Six of the top ten arms recipients in the

developing world in 2003 were in the Asian region; four were in the

Near East region (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-42

Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1996-2003

United States

6,568

2,913

6,119

8,238

12,358

6,872

8,635

6,242

57,945

Russia

4,500

3,200

2,100

3,600

6,000

5,000

5,200

3,900

33,500

France

1,100

4,500

2,400

1,200

2,100

600

400

500

12,800

United Kingdom

2,700

1,000

1,000

1,100

0

200

600

0

6,600

China

1,000

1,300

500

2,300

600

1,000

300

300

7,300

Germany

100

100

1,500

2,000

900

100

100

0

4,800

Italy

300

300

0

500

100

200

0

300

1,700

All Other European

3,000

1,500

1,400

4,000

1,700

1,300

1,000

1,700

15,600

All Others

2,000

600

1,200

1,900

1,900

1,300

700

800

10,400

TOTAL

21,268

15,413

16,219

24,838

25,658

16,572

16,935

13,742

150,645

*Dollar inflation

Index:(2003=1.00)

0.8332

0.8507

0.874

0.8949

0.919

0.9458

0.9732

1

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Developing nations category excludes 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 all categories 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. The United States total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial

agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-43

Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1996-2003

United States

7,883

3,424

7,001

9,205

13,447

7,266

8,873

6,242

63,341

Russia

5,401

3,762

2,403

4,023

6,529

5,287

5,343

3,900

36,648

France

1,320

5,290

2,746

1,341

2,285

634

411

500

14,527

United Kingdom

3,241

1,176

1,144

1,229

0

211

617

0

7,618

China

1,200

1,528

572

2,570

653

1,057

308

300

8,188

Germany

120

118

1,716

2,235

979

106

103

0

5,377

Italy

360

353

0

559

109

211

0

300

1,892

All Other European

3,601

1,763

1,602

4,470

1,850

1,374

1,028

1,700

17,388

All Others

2,400

705

1,373

2,123

2,067

1,374

719

800

11,561

TOTAL

25,526

18,119

18,557

27,755

27,919

17,520

17,402

13,742

166,540

CRS-44

Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

United States

30.88%

18.90%

37.73%

33.17%

48.16%

41.47%

50.99%

45.42%

Russia

21.16%

20.76%

12.95%

14.49%

23.38%

30.17%

30.71%

28.38%

France

5.17%

29.20%

14.80%

4.83%

8.18%

3.62%

2.36%

3.64%

United Kingdom

12.70%

6.49%

6.17%

4.43%

0.00%

1.21%

3.54%

0.00%

China

4.70%

8.43%

3.08%

9.26%

2.34%

6.03%

1.77%

2.18%

Germany

0.47%

0.65%

9.25%

8.05%

3.51%

0.60%

0.59%

0.00%

Italy

1.41%

1.95%

0.00%

2.01%

0.39%

1.21%

0.00%

2.18%

All Other European

14.11%

9.73%

8.63%

16.10%

6.63%

7.84%

5.90%

12.37%

All Others

9.40%

3.89%

7.40%

7.65%

7.41%

7.84%

4.13%

5.82%

[Major West European*

19.75%

38.28%

30.21%

19.33%

12.08%

6.64%

6.50%

5.82% ]

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 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

6,166

7,084

16,335

18,583

1,238

1,871

98

137

Russia

10,100

16,500

2,100

2,000

300

400

900

1,300

France

1,200

2,900

6,800

600

700

0

600

100

United Kingdom

3,400

400

1,400

400

0

0

900

0

China

2,300

1,100

1,700

500

100

0

900

500

Germany

1,600

1,000

400

0

0

100

1,500

0

500

100

100

100

100

200

400

200

All Other European

1,400

2,200

3,500

1,300

1,800

700

3,200

1,200

All Others

1,900

2,500

1,800

1,100

1,200

700

1,000

700

[Major West

European*

6,700

4,400

8,700

1,100

800

300

3,400

300 ]

TOTAL

28,566

33,784

34,135

24,583

5,438

3,971

9,498

4,137

Italy

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1999-2002 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial

agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-46

Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1996-2003

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

TOTAL

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

25.87%

25.60%

68.53%

67.15%

5.19%

6.76%

0.41%

0.50%

100.00%

100.00%

Russia

75.37%

81.68%

15.67%

9.90%

2.24%

1.98%

6.72%

6.44%

100.00%

100.00%

France

12.90%

80.56%

73.12%

16.67%

7.53%

0.00%

6.45%

2.78%

100.00%

100.00%

United Kingdom

59.65%

50.00%

24.56%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

15.79%

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

China

46.00%

52.38%

34.00%

23.81%

2.00%

0.00%

18.00%

23.81%

100.00%

100.00%

Germany

45.71%

90.91%

11.43%

0.00%

0.00%

9.09%

42.86%

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Italy

45.45%

16.67%

9.09%

16.67%

9.09%

33.33%

36.36%

33.33%

100.00%

100.00%

All Other

European

14.14%

40.74%

35.35%

24.07%

18.18%

12.96%

32.32%

22.22%

100.00%

100.00%

All Others

32.20%

50.00%

30.51%

22.00%

20.34%

14.00%

16.95%

14.00%

100.00%

100.00%

[Major West

European*

34.18%

72.13%

44.39%

18.03%

4.08%

4.92%

17.35%

4.92%

100.00%

100.00% ]

TOTAL

36.79%

50.82%

43.97%

36.98%

7.00%

5.97%

12.23%

6.22%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-47

Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1996-2003

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

21.59%

20.59%

47.85%

75.59%

22.77%

47.12%

1.03%

3.31%

Russia

35.36%

48.84%

6.15%

8.14%

5.52%

10.07%

9.48%

31.42%

France

4.20%

8.58%

19.92%

2.44%

12.87%

0.00%

6.32%

2.42%

United Kingdom

11.90%

1.18%

4.10%

1.63%

0.00%

0.00%

9.48%

0.00%

China

8.05%

3.26%

4.98%

2.03%

1.84%

0.00%

9.48%

12.09%

Germany

5.60%

2.96%

1.17%

0.00%

0.00%

2.52%

15.79%

0.00%

Italy

1.75%

0.30%

0.29%

0.41%

1.84%

5.04%

4.21%

4.83%

All Other

European

4.90%

6.51%

10.25%

5.29%

33.10%

17.63%

33.69%

29.01%

All Others

6.65%

7.40%

5.27%

4.47%

22.07%

17.63%

10.53%

16.92%

[Major West European*

23.45%

13.02%

25.49%

4.47%

14.71%

7.55%

35.80%

7.25% ]

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-48

Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,

1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Sweden

Israel

Ukraine

Belarus

Italy

Agreements Value 1996-1999

23,838

13,400

9,200

5,800

5,100

3,700

2,400

1,700

1,600

1,600

1,100

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 2000-2003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States*

Russia

France

China

Israel

Ukraine

Germany

Spain

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Italy

34,107

20,100

3,600

2,200

1,500

1,500

1,100

800

800

800

600

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1996-2003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States*

Russia

France

China

United Kingdom

Germany

Israel

Ukraine

Sweden

Belarus

Italy

57,945

33,500

12,800

7,300

6,600

4,800

3,200

3,100

2,500

1,900

1,700

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The United States total includes a $6.432 billion licensed

commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-49

Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with

Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 2003

1

United States

6,242

2

Russia

3,900

3

Netherlands

700

4

France

500

5

Poland

400

6

Israel

400

7

Ukraine

300

8

China

300

9

Italy

300

10

Czech Republic

100

11

Spain

100

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.

Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-50

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

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Recipient

Country

1996-1999

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

2000-2003

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

600

5,800

0

0

4,300

300

500

0

0

0

0

0

4,600

0

0

200

0

500

0

400

400

0

0

0

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

100

0

100

300

100

100

0

200

300

800

500

100

0

6,100

200

800

0

100

100

0

0

0

0

0

100

200

0

0

900

100

0

800

300

0

0

0

300

0

300

100

100

0

600

200

0

0

0

0

0

100

200

1,500

600

6,800

1,700

0

4,700

700

900

100

700

600

300

800

6,000

500

0

7,600

700

0

400

6,200

0

0

5,100

700

1,700

0

0

0

900

0

2,700

0

0

7,100

0

400

0

300

200

0

0

0

100

0

100

0

0

0

0

200

0

400

400

0

0

200

100

0

0

0

200

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

500

100

0

300

0

100

0

0

100

100

100

100

0

0

100

0

0

0

200

0

0

300

100

0

0

0

100

100

0

200

200

0

300

100

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

500

400

6,800

500

200

5,200

1,000

2,200

0

500

100

1,200

0

3,400

300

0

8,100

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. **The United States total for 2000-2003

includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-51

Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

Agreements by the Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Recipient

U.A.E.

Egypt

Saudi Arabia

India

South Africa

Israel

China

South Korea

Pakistan

Malaysia

Recipient

China

U.A.E.*

Egypt

India

Israel

South Korea

Saudi Arabia

Malaysia

Singapore

Kuwait

Agreements Value 1996-1999

7,600

6,800

6,000

6,000

5,200

4,700

4,400

3,900

2,300

1,900

Agreements Value 2000-2003

9,300

8,100

6,800

6,600

5,200

4,900

3,400

3,000

2,800

2,200

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Recipient

U.A.E.*

China

Egypt

India

Israel

Saudi Arabia

South Korea

South Africa

Malaysia

Pakistan

Agreements Value 1996-2003

15,700

13,700

13,600

12,600

9,900

9,400

8,800

5,300

5,000

3,800

Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals

are the same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial

agreement with the United States in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-52

Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2003:

Agreements by Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

Agreements Value

2003

1

Egypt

1,800

2

China

1,600

3

Malaysia

1,500

4

Indonesia

900

5

Saudi Arabia

700

6

Israel

700

7

South Korea

600

8

India

400

9

Jordan

400

10

Taiwan

400

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the

actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-53

Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1996-2003

United States

9,915

11,204

10,834

12,415

8,398

6,090

6,859

6,299

72,014

Russia

2,600

1,900

2,200

2,600

3,500

3,900

3,100

3,300

23,100

France

3,200

6,100

6,500

4,000

1,900

900

1,400

800

24,800

United Kingdom

5,800

6,400

3,300

4,500

4,700

3,700

3,400

4,000

35,800

China

700

1,100

600

300

700

600

800

500

5,300

Germany

700

400

200

700

400

100

0

700

3,200

Italy

100

400

200

500

0

100

100

0

1,400

All Other European

2,500

3,100

2,100

2,100

1,900

1,000

1,200

700

14,600

All Others

1,300

1,200

1,000

800

900

1,300

1,300

700

8,500

TOTAL

26,815

31,804

26,934

27,915

22,398

17,690

18,159

16,999

188,714

Dollar inflation index:

(2003=1.00)*

0.8332

0.8507

0.874

0.8949

0.919

0.9458

0.9732

1

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 all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, military assistance and training

programs, and all associated services. 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-54

Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

TOTAL

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1996-2003

United States

11,900

13,170

12,396

13,873

9,138

6,439

7,048

6,299

80,263

Russia

3,120

3,056

2,174

2,905

3,808

4,123

3,185

3,300

25,671

France

3,841

7,171

7,437

4,470

2,067

952

1,439

800

28,177

United Kingdom

6,961

6,818

3,776

5,028

5,114

3,912

3,494

4,000

39,103

China

840

1,293

686

335

762

634

822

500

5,872

Germany

840

470

229

782

435

106

0

700

3,562

Italy

120

470

229

559

0

106

103

0

1,587

All Other European

3,000

3,644

2,403

2,347

2,067

1,057

1,233

700

16,451

All Others

1,560

1,411

1,144

894

979

1,374

1,336

700

9,398

TOTAL

32,182

37,503

30,474

31,193

26,370

18,703

18,660

16,999

210,084

CRS-55

Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

United States

36.98%

35.23%

40.22%

44.47%

37.49%

34.43%

37.77%

37.06%

Russia

9.70%

5.97%

8.17%

9.31%

15.63%

22.05%

17.07%

19.41%

France

11.93%

19.18%

24.13%

14.33%

8.48%

5.09%

7.71%

4.71%

United Kingdom

21.63%

20.12%

12.25%

16.12%

20.98%

20.92%

18.72%

23.53%

China

2.61%

3.46%

2.23%

1.07%

3.13%

3.39%

4.41%

2.94%

Germany

2.61%

1.26%

0.74%

2.51%

1.79%

0.57%

0.00%

4.12%

Italy

0.37%

1.26%

0.74%

1.79%

0.00%

0.57%

0.55%

0.00%

All Other European

9.32%

9.75%

7.80%

7.52%

8.48%

5.65%

6.61%

4.12%

All Others

4.85%

3.77%

3.71%

2.87%

4.02%

7.35%

7.16%

4.12%

[Major West European*

36.55%

41.82%

37.87%

34.75%

31.25%

27.13%

26.98%

32.35%

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-56

Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

13,944

16,360

27,300

16,400

1,584

1,732

126

95

Russia

5,400

11,600

2,700

1,300

300

100

800

700

France

10,400

200

9,200

4,600

200

100

100

0

United Kingdom

3,300

1,200

16,200

14,400

300

0

200

0

China

1,200

1,300

800

800

100

0

500

400

Germany

1,000

700

700

400

300

0

0

200

800

700

100

0

0

0

100

100

All Other European

1,900

1,100

5,600

2,100

1,000

400

1,000

800

All Others

2,000

2,200

1,300

1,400

500

300

700

600

[Major West European*

15,500

2,200

26,200

19,400

800

100

400

300]

TOTAL

39,944

35,360

63,900

41,400

4,284

2,632

3,526

2,895

Italy

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-57

Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1996-2003

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

TOTAL

TOTAL

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

32.46%

47.30%

63.56%

47.42%

3.69%

5.01%

0.29%

0.27%

100.00%

100.00%

Russia

58.70%

84.67%

29.35%

9.49%

3.26%

0.73%

8.70%

5.11%

100.00%

100.00%

France

52.26%

4.08%

46.23%

93.88%

1.01%

2.04%

0.50%

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

United Kingdom

16.50%

7.69%

81.00%

92.31%

1.50%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

China

46.15%

52.00%

30.77%

32.00%

3.85%

0.00%

19.23%

16.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Germany

50.00%

53.85%

35.00%

30.77%

15.00%

0.00%

0.00%

15.38%

100.00%

100.00%

Italy

80.00%

50.00%

10.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00%

50.00%

100.00%

100.00%

All Other European

20.00%

25.00%

58.95%

47.73%

10.53%

9.09%

10.53%

18.18%

100.00%

100.00%

All Others

44.44%

48.89%

28.89%

31.11%

11.11%

6.67%

15.56%

13.33%

100.00%

100.00%

[Major West European*

36.13%

10.00%

61.07%

88.18%

1.86%

0.45%

0.93%

1.36%

100.00%

100.00% ]

TOTAL

35.77%

42.55%

57.23%

50.68%

3.84%

3.22%

3.16%

3.54%

100.00%

100.00%

*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-58

Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1996-2003

Asia

Near East

Latin America

Africa

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

1996-99

2000-03

United States

34.91%

47.07%

42.72%

39.61%

36.97%

65.81%

3.57%

3.28%

Russia

13.52%

33.37%

4.23%

3.14%

7.00%

3.80%

22.69%

24.18%

France

26.04%

0.58%

14.40%

11.11%

4.67%

3.80%

2.84%

0.00%

United Kingdom

8.26%

3.45%

25.35%

34.78%

7.00%

0.00%

5.67%

0.00%

China

3.00%

3.74%

1.25%

1.93%

2.33%

0.00%

14.18%

13.82%

Germany

2.50%

2.01%

1.10%

0.97%

7.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.91%

Italy

2.00%

0.29%

0.16%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.84%

3.45%

All Other European

4.76%

3.16%

8.76%

5.07%

23.34%

15.20%

28.36%

27.63%

All Others

5.01%

6.33%

2.03%

3.38%

11.67%

11.40%

19.85%

20.73%

[Major West European*

38.80%

6.33%

41.00%

46.86%

18.67%

3.80%

11.34%

10.36%]

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-59

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

Leading 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

France

Russia

China

Sweden

Germany

Ukraine

Israel

Belarus

Italy

Deliveries Value 1996-1999

44,368

20,000

19,800

9,300

2,700

2,500

2,000

1,600

1,300

1,200

1,200

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

Russia

France

China

Israel

Ukraine

Germany

North Korea

Sweden

Belgium

Deliveries Value 2000-2003

27,646

15,800

13,800

5,000

2,600

1,200

1,200

1,200

600

600

500

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

France

Russia

China

Germany

Sweden

Ukraine

Israel

Belarus

Italy

Deliveries Value 1996-2003

72,014

35,800

24,800

23,100

5,300

3,200

3,100

2,800

2,500

1,700

1,400

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-60

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Deliveries Value

2003

1

United States

6,299

2

United Kingdom

4,000

3

Russia

3,300

4

France

800

5

Germany

700

6

China

500

7

Israel

400

8

Ukraine

300

9

Belgium

100

10

South Korea

100

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-61

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

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Recipient

Country

1996-1999

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

U.A.E.

Yemen

2000-2003

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

3,500

0

0

3,500

200

2,500

100

0

100

0

0

16,600

0

100

400

0

400

0

400

900

0

0

0

400

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

0

300

0

100

0

0

700

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

100

0

700

0

1,400

100

0

200

400

1,800

17,600

100

0

3,600

100

500

0

400

300

0

0

0

100

0

100

100

100

0

3,000

0

100

700

200

200

0

0

0

0

300

100

0

0

100

200

100

0

0

100

0

100

100

1,200

300

4,400

2,000

0

4,500

300

4,400

200

200

600

600

1,800

37,200

500

200

5,100

400

0

600

4,800

0

0

2,900

300

1,100

0

0

100

0

0

6,300

0

0

300

0

300

0

200

200

0

0

0

100

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

100

200

100

0

200

0

0

0

0

400

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

100

0

0

300

100

300

0

0

100

0

0

16,600

0

0

1,900

0

200

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

0

100

100

0

0

1,000

0

0

200

200

100

0

0

400

100

0

100

200

0

200

0

100

0

0

100

0

100

100

700

600

5,400

600

200

3,200

600

2,100

0

400

300

100

0

23,900

200

0

2,600

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-62

Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:

The Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Recipient

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

South Korea

U.A.E.

Israel

Egypt

Kuwait

China

Pakistan

Malaysia

Recipient

Saudi Arabia

China

Egypt

India

Taiwan

Israel

South Korea

U.A.E.

Kuwait

Pakistan

Recipient

Saudi Arabia

Taiwan

China

Egypt

South Korea

Israel

U.A.E.

Kuwait

India

Pakistan

Deliveries Value 1996-1999

37,200

15,300

5,200

5,100

4,500

4,400

4,400

3,300

3,000

2,100

Deliveries Value 2000-2003

23,900

6,900

5,400

4,300

4,100

3,200

3,100

2,600

2,100

1,300

Deliveries Value 1996-2003

61,100

19,400

10,200

9,800

8,300

7,700

7,700

6,500

6,000

4,300

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-63

Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:

The Leading Recipients

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Recipient

Deliveries Value

2003

1

Saudi Arabia

5,800

2

Egypt

2,100

3

India

2,000

4

Israel

1,900

5

China

1,000

6

South Korea

700

7

Malaysia

600

8

Taiwan

500

9

Kuwait

300

10

Indonesia

300

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-64

Selected Weapons Deliveries to

Developing Nations, 1996-2003

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 1996-2003 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).

Caution is warranted in using the quantitative data within 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 and

operational 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, 2000-2003

!

The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the

United States was a leading supplier of several major classes of

conventional weaponry from 2000-2003. Russia transferred

significant quantities of certain weapons classes, although generally

fewer than the United States or other supplier groups in most

regions, during these years.

!

The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in

weapons deliveries from 2000-2003 making notable deliveries of

certain categories of armaments to every region of the developing

world — most particularly to the Near East, Asia, and to Latin

America. In Africa, all European suppliers, China and all other nonEuropean suppliers were major sources of weapons delivered.

!

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,

CRS-65

such as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery pieces,

and the various missile categories, surface-to-surface, surface-to-air,

and anti-ship, to 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 2000-2003 included the following:

Asia.

Russia delivered 310 tanks and self-propelled guns, 310 APCs and armored

cars, 5 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface combatants, 1 submarine, 200

supersonic combat aircraft, 220 helicopters, 1,250 surface-to-air missiles, and 190

anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 88 tanks and self-propelled guns,

108 artillery pieces, 8 major surface combatants, 16 supersonic combat aircraft, 81

helicopters, 2,557 surface-to-air missiles, and 232 anti-ship missiles. China

delivered 40 tanks and self-propelled guns, 370 artillery pieces, 310 APCs and

armored cars, 2 minor surface combatants, 60 supersonic combat aircraft, and 490

surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European suppliers as a group

delivered 2 major surface combatants, 4 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters,

and 80 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 120

tanks and self-propelled guns, 120 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface

combatant, 22 minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 10 supersonic combat

aircraft, 10 helicopters, and 60 surface-to-surface missiles. All other non-European

suppliers collectively delivered 130 artillery pieces, 80 APCs and armored cars, 3

major surface combatants, 20 minor surface combatants, and 30 supersonic combat

aircraft.

Near East.

Russia delivered 70 tanks and self-propelled guns, 150 APCs and armored cars,

30 supersonic combat aircraft, 50 helicopters, 880 surface-to-air missiles, and 30

anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 276 tanks and self-propelled guns,

46 APCs and armored cars, 26 supersonic combat aircraft, 14 helicopters, 374

surface-to-air missiles, and 63 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 40 APCs and

armored cars, 1 guided missile boat, and 20 anti-ship missiles. The four major West

European suppliers collectively delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 4

major surface combatants, 27 minor surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 1

submarines, 30 helicopters, and 90 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers

as a group delivered 420 tanks and self-propelled guns, 220 APCs and armored cars,

1 major surface combatant, 9 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat

aircraft, and 380 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers collectively delivered

120 APCs and armored cars, 48 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters, 20

surface-to-surface missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles.

CRS-66

Latin America.

Russia delivered 10 helicopters, and 60 surface-to-air missiles. The United

States delivered 24 artillery pieces, 2 major surface combatants, 4 supersonic combat

aircraft, 25 helicopters, and 13 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 10 minor surface

combatants, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European

suppliers collectively delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2 major surface

combatants, 1 minor surface combatants, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. All other

European suppliers collectively delivered 120 tanks and self-propelled guns, 30

helicopters, and 40 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as

a group delivered 20 artillery pieces, 40 surface-to-air missiles, and 30 anti-ship

missiles.

Africa.

Russia delivered 10 tanks and self-propelled guns, 20 artillery pieces, 9 minor

surface combatants, and 10 helicopters. The United States delivered 8 other aircraft.

China delivered 60 tanks and self-propelled guns, 10 APCs and armored cars, 9

minor surface combatants, and 10 helicopters. The four major West European

suppliers collectively delivered 1 major surface combatant, 6 minor surface

combatants, and 10 helicopters. All other European suppliers collectively delivered

150 tanks and self-propelled guns, 440 artillery pieces, 440 APCs and armored cars,

6 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, 40 helicopters, and 90

surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 60

tanks and self-propelled guns, 380 artillery pieces, 330 APCs and armored cars, 15

minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, and 60 helicopters, and 20

surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-67

Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Developing Nations

Weapons Category

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

2000-2003

Tanks and Self-Propelled

Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

1,202

340

240

340

1,250

120

199

1,705

3

33

0

0

386

2

51

169

1,021

0

266

200

720

1

5

0

5

140

10

30

240

1,480

0

100

180

120

1

24

9

0

80

0

60

0

770

0

250

110

790

17

42

14

9

110

70

80

70

1,750

0

170

370

2,170

11

92

0

0

70

30

150

120

2,460

0

0

970

390

2

67

3

2

70

30

120

40

850

30

10

200

390

100

320

810

90

203

67

12

2

0

0

46

15

43

120

2,953

0

308

30

460

5

11

0

1

230

0

50

290

2,190

0

220

440

360

0

21

1

0

60

0

90

10

540

0

20

90

50

9

38

4

1

0

30

110

60

50

0

170

590

780

2

37

0

2

70

10

110

80

570

0

0

540

530

3

83

0

0

50

0

110

90

540

20

50

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All

data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals

as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based

on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery

categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-68

Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Asia and the Pacific

Weapons Category

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

2000-2003

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

476

148

58

1

8

0

0

284

0

15

56

148

0

201

30

60

70

1

5

0

3

80

10

0

90

1,340

0

100

100

50

120

1

17

4

0

60

0

40

0

350

0

90

0

40

180

12

13

0

6

80

60

10

10

1,650

0

60

340

40

70

1

6

0

0

0

10

20

20

100

0

0

0

840

90

2

49

0

2

70

0

40

0

80

10

0

88

108

20

8

0

0

0

16

15

8

81

2,557

0

232

310

10

310

5

2

0

1

200

0

20

220

1,250

0

190

40

370

310

0

2

0

0

60

0

30

0

490

0

0

0

10

20

2

4

0

0

0

30

0

20

0

0

80

120

90

120

1

22

0

2

10

0

40

10

60

0

0

20

130

80

3

20

0

0

30

0

50

10

480

0

0

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given.

Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating

to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide

range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily

definitive.

CRS-69

Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Near East

Weapons Category

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

2000-2003

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

393

34

1,576

0

4

0

0

102

0

17

62

799

0

57

290

40

510

0

0

0

2

20

0

10

50

140

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

5

0

10

0

10

0

300

0

160

280

10

370

2

18

8

2

30

10

30

20

30

0

70

140

110

1,820

2

8

0

0

20

0

40

30

0

0

0

0

20

40

0

3

0

0

0

0

40

0

20

20

0

276

71

46

2

2

0

0

26

0

26

14

374

0

63

70

0

150

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

50

880

0

30

0

50

40

0

0

1

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

20

290

70

20

4

27

4

1

0

0

90

30

0

0

90

420

30

220

1

9

0

0

20

0

40

0

380

0

0

10

10

120

0

48

0

0

0

0

30

20

0

20

20

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy

totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates

based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two weapons

delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-70

Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Latin America

Weapons Category

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

2000-2003

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

0

17

71

2

18

0

0

0

2

19

51

74

0

8

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

70

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

120

0

0

50

50

160

3

3

6

1

0

0

30

30

70

0

40

280

70

50

8

71

0

0

20

20

40

20

1,110

0

0

20

30

0

0

3

2

0

0

20

20

10

0

0

10

0

24

1

2

0

0

0

4

0

1

25

22

0

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

60

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

50

0

0

30

10

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

20

0

50

0

0

120

30

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

0

40

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

20

30

40

0

0

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy

totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates

based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two weapons

delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-71

Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers

to Africa

Weapons Category

1996-1999

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

2000-2003

Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns

Artillery

APCs and Armored Cars

Major Surface Combatants

Minor Surface Combatants

Guided Missile Boats

Submarines

Supersonic Combat Aircraft

Subsonic Combat Aircraft

Other Aircraft

Helicopters

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

Anti-Ship Missiles

U.S.

Russia

China

Major West

European

All Other

European

All

Others

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

100

110

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

30

0

0

0

140

0

0

0

7

0

0

10

0

10

0

0

0

0

10

10

80

0

8

0

0

0

0

10

10

0

0

0

490

150

230

0

7

0

0

30

0

50

50

1,250

0

0

100

80

260

0

12

1

0

0

10

20

30

750

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

10

20

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

30

10

0

0

0

60

20

10

0

9

0

0

0

0

30

10

0

0

0

0

0

10

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

150

440

440

0

6

0

0

40

10

10

40

90

0

0

60

380

330

0

15

0

0

20

0

10

60

20

0

0

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and

Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are

estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two

weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-72

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,

1996-2003

Ten tables follow. Tables 8, 8A, and 8B and tables 9, 9A and 9B, provide the total dollar

values for arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide for the years 1996-2003 in the

same format and detail as do tables 1, 1A and 1B and tables 2, 2A and 2B for arms transfer

agreements with and arms deliveries to developing nations. Tables 8C, 8D, 9C and 9D provide a

list of the top eleven arms suppliers to the world based on the total values (in current dollars) of

their arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide during calendar years 1996-1999,

2000-2003, and 2003. These tables are set out in the same format and detail as tables 1F and 1G for

arms transfer agreements with, and tables 2F and 2G for arms deliveries to developing nations,

respectively.

Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1996-2003

Table 8 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements worldwide. Since

these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are, by themselves, of limited use. They

provide, however, the data from which tables 8A (constant dollars) and 8B (supplier percentages)

are derived. Some of the more notable facts reflected by these data are summarized below. Unless

otherwise noted, dollar values are expressed in constant 2003 U.S. dollars.

!

The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms

transfer agreements from 2000-2003, and first for the entire period from 1996-2003

(figure 1) (table 8C).

!

Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer

agreements from 2000-2003, and second from 1996-2003.

!

France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer

agreements from 2000-2003, and third from 1996-2003.

!

In 2003, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was $25.6 billion.

This is the lowest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements, in real terms, for

any year since 1997.

!

In 2003, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the

world, making $14.5 billion in such agreements, or 56.7% of all arms transfer

agreements. Russia ranked second with $4.3 billion in arms transfer agreements,

or 16.8% of all arms transfer agreements. Germany ranked third with $1.4 billion.

United States arms transfer agreements increased from $13.6 billion in 2002 to

$14.5 billion in 2003. The U.S. share of agreements rose from 46.8% to 56.7%.

Russia’s worldwide arms transfer agreements fell about $6 billion in 2002 to $4.3

billion in 2003 (table 8A)(table 8B)(table 8D).

!

The United States and Russia, the top two arms suppliers to the world in 2003 —

respectively (ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements) collectively

made agreements in 2003 valued at over $18.8 billion, 73.5% of all arms transfer

agreements made with the world by all suppliers.

!

The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 2000-2003 ($126.9

billion) was lower than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers

worldwide from 1996-1999 ($133.7 billion), a decline of 5.1% (figure 1).

CRS-73

!

During the period from 1996-1999, developing world nations accounted for 67.3%

of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing

world nations accounted for 60.4% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).

!

In 2003, developing nations were recipients of 53.6% of all arms transfer

agreements made worldwide (figure 1).

Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1996-2003

Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)

worldwide by major suppliers from 1996-2003. The utility of these data is that they reflect transfers

that have occurred. They provide the data from which tables 9A (constant dollars) and 9B (supplier

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

below. Unless otherwise noted the dollar values are expressed in constant 2003 U.S. dollars.

!

In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide,

making $13.6 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that United

States has led in such deliveries, reflecting continuing implementation of arms

agreements concluded during and immediately after the Persian Gulf war. The U.S.

total, however, is a significant decline from 2002 when its delivery values totaled

over $24.5 billion (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).

!

The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2003, making

$4.7 billion in such deliveries.

!

Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2003, making $3.4 billion in

such deliveries.

!

In 2003, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United

Kingdom, and Russia, collectively delivered over $21.7 billion, 75.7% of all arms

deliveries made worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).

!

The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2003 was 47.5%, down notably

from its 58.6% share in 2002. The United Kingdom’s share in 2003 was 16.4%, up

from 11.8% in 2002. Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in 2003 was 11.8%,

up from 8.1% in 2002 (table 9B).

!

In 2003, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was $28.7 billion, a substantial

decline in the total value of deliveries from 2002 ($41.9 billion in constant 2003

dollars), and the lowest deliveries total by far during the entire period from 19962003 (chart 7) (table 9A).

!

During the period from 1996-1999, developing world nations accounted for 66.9%

of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing world

nations accounted for 53.1% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).

!

In 2003, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 59.1% of all arms

deliveries received worldwide (figure 2).

!

The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 2000-2003

($148.2 billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all

CRS-74

suppliers worldwide from 1996-1999 ($196.3 billion in constant 2003 dollars), a

decline of 12.5% (figure 2)(table 9A).

CRS-75

Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

TOTAL

1996-2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

10,527

4,900

2,500

4,900

1,000

200

400

4,000

3,400

7,187

3,400

4,900

1,000

1,300

600

300

1,900

700

9,652

2,500

3,100

2,000

700

5,000

600

1,900

1,500

11,884

4,500

1,700

1,400

2,900

4,400

700

5,700

2,300

17,799

6,200

4,300

600

600

1,200

200

4,600

2,200

11,786

5,200

3,900

500

1,000

1,200

700

3,500

1,600

13,258

5,800

400

800

300

1,100

1,000

4,000

1,700

14,543

4,300

1,000

100

300

1,400

600

2,300

1,100

96,636

36,800

21,800

11,300

8,100

15,100

4,500

27,900

14,500

TOTAL

31,827

21,287

26,952

35,484

37,699

29,386

28,358

25,643

236,636

Dollar inflation index:

(2003=1.00)*

0.8332

0.8507

0.874

0.8949

0.919

0.9458

0.9732

1

Source: U.S. Government

Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess defense articles,

which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, excess

defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded

to the nearest $100 million. The U.S. total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Based on Department

of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-76

Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

TOTAL

1996-2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

12,634

5,881

3,000

5,881

1,220

240

480

4,801

4,081

8,448

3,997

5,760

1,176

1,528

705

353

2,233

823

11,043

2,860

3,547

2,288

801

5,721

686

2,174

1,716

13,280

5,028

1,900

1,564

3,241

4,917

782

6,369

2,570

19,368

6,746

4,679

653

653

1,306

218

5,005

2,394

12,461

5,498

4,123

529

1,057

1,269

740

3,701

1,692

13,623

5,960

411

822

308

1,130

1,028

4,110

1,747

14,543

4,300

1,000

100

300

1,400

600

2,300

1,100

105,400

40,270

24,420

13,013

9,088

16,688

4,887

30,693

16,123

TOTAL

38,198

25,023

30,836

39,651

41,022

31,070

29,139

25,643

260,582

CRS-77

Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

33.08%

15.40%

7.85%

15.40%

3.14%

0.63%

1.26%

12.57%

10.68%

33.76%

15.97%

23.02%

4.70%

6.11%

2.82%

1.41%

8.93%

3.29%

35.81%

9.28%

11.50%

7.42%

2.60%

18.55%

2.23%

7.05%

5.57%

33.49%

12.68%

4.79%

3.95%

8.17%

12.40%

1.97%

16.06%

6.48%

47.21%

16.45%

11.41%

1.59%

1.59%

3.18%

0.53%

12.20%

5.84%

40.11%

17.70%

13.27%

1.70%

3.40%

4.08%

2.38%

11.91%

5.44%

46.75%

20.45%

1.41%

2.82%

1.06%

3.88%

3.53%

14.11%

5.99%

56.71%

16.77%

3.90%

0.39%

1.17%

5.46%

2.34%

8.97%

4.29%

[Major West European*

25.14%

31.94%

39.70%

23.11%

16.71%

21.44%

11.64%

12.09%

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-78

Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 19962003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1996-1999

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States

Russia

France

Germany

United Kingdom

China

Sweden

Israel

Italy

Ukraine

Belarus

39,250

15,300

12,200

10,200

9,300

5,900

3,600

3,300

2,000

2,000

1,600

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 2000-2003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States*

Russia

France

Germany

Ukraine

Israel

Spain

Italy

China

United Kingdom

Sweden

57,386

21,500

9,600

4,900

3,600

3,200

2,600

2,500

2,200

2,000

1,400

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 1996-2003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

United States*

Russia

France

Germany

United Kingdom

China

Israel

Ukraine

Sweden

Italy

Spain

96,636

36,800

21,800

15,100

11,300

8,100

6,500

5,600

5,000

4,500

3,200

Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where

rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The U.S. total includes a $6.432

billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-79

Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with

the World in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Agreements Value 2003

1

United States

14,543

2

Russia

4,300

3

Germany

1,400

4

France

1,000

5

Netherlands

800

6

Israel

800

7

Italy

600

8

Poland

400

9

Ukraine

400

10

Switzerland

300

11

China

300

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.

Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-80

Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

TOTAL

1996-2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

15,122

3,300

3,900

6,500

700

1,900

100

3,500

2,100

16,614

2,300

6,700

7,300

1,100

1,200

400

4,400

2,500

29,061

2,400

7,300

3,900

700

1,500

200

3,300

1,900

18,081

3,200

4,700

5,100

400

2,200

700

2,900

2,300

13,127

4,100

2,500

6,200

700

1,300

300

2,900

2,100

22,342

4,200

1,900

4,500

700

700

400

2,100

2,300

23,872

3,300

2,000

4,800

800

800

500

2,100

2,600

13,648

3,400

1,200

4,700

500

1,200

100

2,400

1,600

151,867

26,200

30,200

43,000

5,600

10,800

2,700

23,600

17,400

TOTAL

37,122

42,514

50,261

39,581

33,227

39,142

40,772

28,748

311,367

Dollar inflation index:

(2003=1.00)*

0.8332

0.8507

0.874

0.8949

0.919

0.9458

0.9732

1

Source: U.S. Government

Note: 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 all categories of weapons and ammunition, military

spare parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. 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-81

Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003

(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

TOTAL

1996- 2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

18,148

3,961

4,681

7,801

840

2,280

120

4,201

2,520

19,530

2,704

7,876

8,581

1,293

1,411

470

5,172

2,939

33,251

2,746

8,352

4,462

801

1,716

229

3,776

2,174

20,204

3,576

5,252

5,699

447

2,458

782

3,241

2,570

14,284

4,461

2,720

6,746

762

1,415

326

3,156

2,285

23,622

4,441

2,009

4,758

740

740

423

2,220

2,432

24,529

3,391

2,055

4,932

822

822

514

2,158

2,672

13,648

3,400

1,200

4,700

500

1,200

100

2,400

1,600

167,217

28,680

34,145

47,679

6,205

12,042

2,964

26,324

19,192

TOTAL

44,553

49,976

57,507

44,229

36,155

41,385

41,895

28,748

344,448

CRS-82

Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1996-2003

(expressed as a percent of total, by year)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

United States

Russia

France

United Kingdom

China

Germany

Italy

All Other European

All Others

40.74%

8.89%

10.51%

17.51%

1.89%

5.12%

0.27%

9.43%

5.66%

39.08%

5.41%

15.76%

17.17%

2.59%

2.82%

0.94%

10.35%

5.88%

57.82%

4.78%

14.52%

7.76%

1.39%

2.98%

0.40%

6.57%

3.78%

45.68%

8.08%

11.87%

12.88%

1.01%

5.56%

1.77%

7.33%

5.81%

39.51%

12.34%

7.52%

18.66%

2.11%

3.91%

0.90%

8.73%

6.32%

57.08%

10.73%

4.85%

11.50%

1.79%

1.79%

1.02%

5.37%

5.88%

58.55%

8.09%

4.91%

11.77%

1.96%

1.96%

1.23%

5.15%

6.38%

47.47%

11.83%

4.17%

16.35%

1.74%

4.17%

0.35%

8.35%

5.57%

[Major West European*

33.40%

36.69%

25.67%

32.09%

31.00%

19.16%

19.87%

25.05 ]

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-83

Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1996-2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

France

Russia

Deliveries Value 1996-1999

78,878

22,800

22,600

11,200

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Germany

Sweden

China

Israel

Ukraine

Italy

Netherlands

6,800

3,900

2,900

2,000

1,800

1,400

1,300

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

Russia

France

Germany

Ukraine

China

Israel

Italy

Sweden

North Korea

Deliveries Value 2000-2003

72,989

20,200

15,000

7,600

4,000

3,400

2,700

2,100

1,300

1,000

600

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Supplier

United States

United Kingdom

France

Russia

Germany

China

Ukraine

Sweden

Israel

Italy

Belarus

Deliveries Value 1996-2003

151,867

43,000

30,200

26,200

10,800

5,600

5,200

4,900

4,100

2,700

1,800

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-84

Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2003:

Leading Suppliers Compared

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank

Supplier

Deliveries Value

2003

1

United States

13,648

2

United Kingdom

4,700

3

Russia

3,400

4

Ukraine

1,500

5

France

1,200

6

Germany

1,200

7

China

500

8

Israel

400

9

Italy

100

10

Belgium

100

11

Norway

100

Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the

same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-85

Description of Items Counted in

Weapons Categories, 1996-2003

Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavy

tanks; self-propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns.

Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket

launchers and recoilless rifles — 100 mm and over; FROG launchers — 100mm and

over.

Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includes

personnel carriers, armored and amphibious; armored infantry fighting vehicles;

armored reconnaissance and command vehicles.

Major Surface Combatants: This category includes aircraft carriers, cruisers,

destroyers, frigates.

Minor Surface Combatants: This category includes minesweepers, subchasers,

motor torpedo boats, patrol craft, motor gunboats.

Submarines: This category includes all submarines, including midget submarines.

Guided Missile Patrol Boats: This category includes all boats in this class.

Supersonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft

designed to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.

Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft

designed to function operationally at speeds below Mach 1.

Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, including

trainers, transports, reconnaissance aircraft, and communications/utility aircraft.

Helicopters: This category includes all helicopters, including combat and transport.

Surface-to-air Missiles: This category includes all ground-based air defense

missiles.

Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missiles

without regard to range, such as Scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles.

It also excludes all anti-ship missiles, which are counted in a separate listing.

Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the

Harpoon, Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.

CRS-86

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and

Charts

ASIA

NEAR EAST

EUROPE

Afghanistan

Australia

Bangladesh

Brunei

Burma (Myanmar)

China

Fiji

India

Indonesia

Japan

Kampuchea

(Cambodia)

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Malaysia

Nepal

New Zealand

North Korea

Pakistan

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Pitcairn

Singapore

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Tunisia

United Arab Emirates

Yemen

Albania

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia/Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Belgium

Canada

Croatia

Czechoslovakia/

Czech Republic

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

FYR/Macedonia

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Moldova

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Y u go s l a v i a / F e d e r a l

Republic(Serbia/Mont.)

CRS-87

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and

Charts (Cont.)

AFRICA

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cameroon

Cape Verde

Central African Republic

Chad

Congo

Côte d’Ivoire

Djibouti

Equatorial Guinea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Ghana

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mozambique

Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Réunion

Rwanda

Senegal

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Somalia

South Africa

Sudan

Swaziland

Tanzania

Togo

Uganda

Zaire

Zambia

Zimbabwe

LATIN AMERICA

Antigua

Argentina

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Bermuda

Bolivia

Brazil

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador

French Guiana

Grenada

Guadeloupe

Guatemala

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Martinique

Mexico

Montserrat

Netherlands Antilles

Nicaragua

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

St. Kitts & Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Pierre & Miquelon

St. Vincent

Suriname

Trinidad

Turks & Caicos

Venezuela