# Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32547

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** August 26, 2004
- **Citation:** RL32547

## Text

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
I

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32547. Public record. Not legal advice.