Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 2001-2008
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in International Security
September 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40796
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Summary
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data
on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries
for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its policy oversight functions. All agreement and
delivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) transactions. Similar data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by
all suppliers, 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 2001-2008, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing
nations comprised 64.8% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer
agreements with developing nations constituted 69.2% of all such agreements globally from
2005-2008, and 76.4% of these agreements in 2008.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2008 was nearly $42.2
billion. This was a nominal increase from $41.1 billion in 2007. In 2008, the value of all arms
deliveries to developing nations was nearly $18.3 billion, the lowest total in these deliveries
values for the entire 2001-2008 period (in constant 2008 dollars), and only slightly below the
2007 total.
Recently, from 2005-2008, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the
developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second for three out of four years in
the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2005-2008, Russia made nearly $35.1 billion, 22.9%
of all such agreements, expressed in constant 2008 dollars. During this same period, the United
States made $56.3 billion in such agreements, 36.7% of all such agreements. Collectively, the
United States and Russia made 59.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
($91.4 billion (in constant 2008 dollars) during this four-year period.
In 2008, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with
$29.6 billion or 70.1% of these agreements, an extraordinary market share for a single year. Far
behind in second place was Russia with $3.3 billion or 7.8% of such agreements. France was
ranked third with $2.5 billion or 5.9%. In global arms transfer agreements in 2008, the United
States also dominated, ranking first with $37.8 billion in such agreements or 68.4% of all such
agreements. In 2008, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing
nations at $7.4 billion, or 40.9% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $5.2 billion or
28.5% of such deliveries.
In 2008, the United Arab Emirates ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all
developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $9.7 billion in such agreements. Saudi Arabia
ranked second with $8.7 billion in such agreements. Morocco ranked third with $5.4 billion.
Congressional Research Service
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Contents
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 ................................................ 1
Introduction and Overview.................................................................................................... 1
Major Findings ........................................................................................................................... 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide........................................................................ 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations...................................................... 6
United States................................................................................................................... 7
Russia. ............................................................................................................................ 8
China. ........................................................................................................................... 10
Major West European Suppliers. ................................................................................... 11
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements ................................................................................... 13
Near East. ..................................................................................................................... 13
Asia. ................................................................................................................................... 14
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers .................................................................... 15
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations .................................................... 15
Arms Values Data Tables and Charts for 2001-2008 .................................................................. 18
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008............................................... 62
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values, 2001-2008 ................................. 68
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 2001-2008 ............................................ 81
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts.............................................................. 82
Figures
Figure 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 2001-2008 Developed and Developing
Worlds Compared .................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide ....................................................................... 23
Figure 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations ................................................. 24
Figure 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 2001-
2008 ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East ................................................................. 28
Figure 6. Arms Transfer Agreement With Developing Nations in Asia ....................................... 29
Figure 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 2001-2008 Developed and Developing Worlds
Compared .............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 2001-2008.................... 31
Tables
Table 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World .................................................................................................................. 26
Table 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with Developing
World..................................................................................................................................... 32
Congressional Research Service
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 3. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ............. 34
Table 4. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ............. 35
Table 5. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ............. 36
Table 6. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ...................................... 37
Table 7. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 2001-2008...................... 38
Table 8. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 2001-2008 ................... 39
Table 9. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Leading
Suppliers Compared............................................................................................................... 40
Table 10. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2008: Leading
Suppliers Compared............................................................................................................... 42
Table 11. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier.............................................. 43
Table 12. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Agreements
by the Leading Recipients ...................................................................................................... 45
Table 13. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2008: Agreements by
Leading Recipients................................................................................................................. 47
Table 14. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008................................ 48
Table 15. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008................................ 49
Table 16. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008................................ 50
Table 17. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 2001-2008 ..................................................... 51
Table 18. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 2001-2008.................................. 52
Table 19. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 2001-2008.................... 53
Table 20. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 Leading Suppliers
Compared .............................................................................................................................. 54
Table 21. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2008: Leading Suppliers Compared .......... 56
Table 22. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier.................................................................. 57
Table 23. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: The Leading Recipients............. 59
Table 24. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2008: The Leading Recipients................... 61
Table 25. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Developing Nations ......................... 63
Table 26. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Asia and the Pacific ........................... 64
Table 27. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Near East ......................................... 65
Table 28. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Latin America .................................. 66
Table 29. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Africa ................................................ 67
Table 30. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ........................... 69
Table 31. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ........................... 70
Table 32. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ........................... 71
Table 33. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared .............................................................................................................................. 72
Table 34. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared .............................................................................................................................. 74
Congressional Research Service
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 35. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ............................................... 75
Table 36. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008 ............................................... 76
Table 37. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 2001-2008 ................................................ 77
Table 38. Arms Deliveries to the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers Compared .................... 78
Table 39. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2008: Leading Suppliers Compared.......................... 80
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 84
Congressional Research Service
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 2001-2008
Introduction and Overview
This report provides Congress with official, unclassified, background data from U.S. government
sources on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the period
2001 through 2008. It also includes some data on worldwide supplier transactions. It updates and
revises CRS Report RL34723, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2000-2007.
Data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing supplier-purchaser
relationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these data can assist Congress in its
oversight role of assessing whether the current nature of the international weapons trade affects
U.S. national interests. For most of recent American history, maintaining regional stability, and
ensuring the security of U.S. allies and friendly nations throughout the world, have been
important elements of U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the degree to which individual arms
suppliers are making arms transfers to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a
context for evaluating policy questions it may confront. Such policy questions may include, for
example, whether or not to support specific U.S. arms sales to given countries or regions or to
support or oppose such arms transfers by other nations. The data in this report may also assist
Congress in evaluating whether multilateral arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign
policy initiatives are being supported or undermined by the actions of arms suppliers.
The principal focus of this report is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to
nations in the developing world—where most of the potential for the outbreak of regional military
conflicts currently exists. For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional
weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and
its allies. This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies. The underlying rationale for
U.S. arms transfer policy then was to help ensure that friendly states were not placed at risk
through a military disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union or its allies.
Following the Cold War’s end, U.S. arms transfer policy has been based on assisting friendly and
allied nations in developing and maintaining their ability to deal with regional security threats and
concerns.
Data in this 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 the 21st Century in response to changing political, military, and
economic circumstances. Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign
suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be
based as much on economic considerations as those of foreign or national security policy.
Nations in the developing world continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by
conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 2001-2008, conventional arms
transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery) to developing nations comprised
64.8% of the value of all international arms transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with
developing countries constituted 69.2% of all agreements globally from 2005-2008. In 2008 arms
transfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 76.4% of the value of all such
agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from 2005-2008
Congressional Research Service
1
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
constituted 59.7% of all international arms deliveries. In 2008, arms deliveries to developing
nations constituted 57.2% 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 2001-2008 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 note
on page 3). U.S. commercially licensed arms export delivery values are excluded (see box note on
page 18). Also excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups. The definition
of developing nations, as used in this report, and the specific classes of items included in its
values totals are found in box notes below on page 2. The report’s table of contents provides a
detailed listing and description of the various data tables to guide the reader to specific items of
interest.
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 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. 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. Details on data used are outlined in notes
at the bottom of Tables 3, 14, 30 and 35.
ARMS TRANSFER VALUES
The values of arms transfer agreements (or deliveries) in this report refer to the total values of
conventional 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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
2
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
CONSTANT 2008 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. The report converts these dollar amounts (current
dollars) into constant 2008 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 4, 15, 31, and 36. Unless otherwise noted in the report, all dollar values are
stated in constant terms. The exceptions to this rule are all regional data tables that are composed
of four-year aggregate dollar totals (2001-2004 and 2005-2008). These tables are expressed in
current dollar terms. And 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.
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and developing nations)
in 2008 was $55.2 billion. This was a decrease in arms agreements values over 2007 of 7.6%, and
the lowest worldwide arms agreements total since 2005 (Figure 1) (Table 31).
In 2008, the United States overwhelmingly led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at $37.8 billion (68.4% of all such agreements), up dramatically from $25.4
billion in 2007. Italy ranked a very distant second with $3.7 billion in agreements (6.7% of these
agreements globally), up significantly from $1.2 billion in 2007. Russia ranked third, its arms
transfer agreements worldwide were $3.5 billion in 2008, down substantially from $10.8 billion
in 2007. The United States, Italy and Russia collectively made agreements in 2008 valued at $45
billion, 81.5% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (Figure
1).(Table 31, Table 32, and Table 34).
For the period 2005-2008, the total value of all international arms transfer agreements ($221.4
billion) was substantially higher than the worldwide value during 2001-2004 ($156.1 billion), an
increase of 29.4%. During the period 2001-2004, developing world nations accounted for 58.4%
of the value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2005-2008, developing
world nations accounted for 69.2% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2008,
developing nations accounted for 76.4% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide (Figure
1).(Table 31).
In 2008, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries worldwide, making
$12.2 billion in such deliveries or 38.4%. This is the eighth year in a row that the United States
has led in global arms deliveries. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2008,
making $5.4 billion in such deliveries. Germany ranked third in 2008, making $2.9 billion in such
deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in 2008 collectively delivered $20.5 billion, 64.5%
Congressional Research Service
3
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in that year (Table 2) (Table 36,Table 37, and
Table 39).
The value of all international arms deliveries in 2008 was $31.8 billion. This is a decrease in the
total value of arms deliveries from the previous year (a decline from $34.5 billion). The total
value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2005-2008 ($137.2 billion) was lower than the
deliveries worldwide from 2001-2004 ($148.2 billion, a decline of over $10 billion) (Table
2).(Table 36 and Table 37).(Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Developing nations from 2005-2008 accounted for 59.8% of the value of all international arms
deliveries. In the earlier period, 2001-2004, developing nations accounted for 66.9% of the value
of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2008, developing nations collectively accounted for 57.2% of
the value of all international arms deliveries (Table 2) (Table 15, Table 36, and Table 37).
Worldwide weapons orders fell in 2008. The total of nearly $55.2 billion, was a decrease from
$59.7 billion in 2007, or 7.5%. At first glance, the decline of overall weapons orders worldwide
does not appear to be especially large. However, the extraordinary magnitude and increase in the
value and share of worldwide United States weapons agreements total in 2008 ($37.8 billion or
68.4%) masked what otherwise would likely have been a much greater decline in the global arms
agreements total of all weapons suppliers in that year. The total value of U.S. arms transfer
agreements worldwide in 2008 marked the second year in a row that these values outstripped its
more traditional levels in the period from 2001-2008. Of the major arms orders secured in 2008
by the other major suppliers, most reflected one or two significant new acquisitions by the
purchasing country. For the others they reflected the continuation or support for an on-going
weapons-acquisition program.
The overall decline in new weapons sales world-wide in 2008 can be explained, in part, by the
decision of some purchasing nations to forego the purchase of major systems due to budgetary
considerations in the face of the severe international recession that struck hard from the summer
of 2008 onward. Some nations deferred individual purchases aimed at filling out gaps in their
military force structures. Others focused on completing the integration of major weapons systems
they had already purchased into their militaries. Others also limited contracts to training and
support services, as well as to selective upgrades of existing weapons systems. Individual orders
such as these can be expensive, and in given instances prove to be nearly as costly as orders for
new units of military equipment. Thus not every major supplier had to sell new weapons systems
in 2008 to post arms agreement values in excess of a billion dollars, but the clear decline in
overall arms orders secured by traditional major suppliers, such as Russia, and the United
Kingdom, reflects, in part, the effect of the international recession on those overall orders.
Despite the impact of the international economic climate, the international arms market still is
intensely competitive. Although new sales have become more difficult to secure most recently,
several weapons producing countries continue to focus sales efforts on prospective clients in
nations and regions where individual suppliers have had historically held competitive advantages
resulting from well-established military-support relationships. The possibility of making arms
sales to new NATO member nations in Europe to support their military modernization programs
have created additional opportunities for arms suppliers, while permitting these newer NATO
states to sell some of their older generation military equipment, in refurbished form, to other
nations in the developing world.
Congressional Research Service
4
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Inherent limitations exist to sales to developing nations with smaller defense budgets.
Consequently, creative seller financing options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-production,
and counter-trade agreements to offset costs to the buyers, are instruments being utilized to
facilitate new arms agreements. Given the limitations on significant growth of arms sales to less
affluent developing nations, competition between the United States and European countries or
consortia for prospective arms contracts within the European region is likely to be particularly
intense in the foreseeable future. Such sales seem especially important to European suppliers, as
they may partially compensate, in part, for lost weapons deals elsewhere in the developing world
resulting from reduced demand for new weapons.
Nations in the developed world continue their efforts to protect important elements of their
national military industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other developed nations.
Several major arms suppliers have been placing emphasis on the joint production of various
weapons systems with other developed nations as an effective way to preserve a domestic
weapons production capability, while sharing the costs of development of new weapons. Some
supplying nations, meanwhile, have chosen to manufacture items for niche weapons categories
where their specialized production capabilities give them important advantages in the
international arms marketplace. The strong competition for weapons contracts has also led to
consolidation of certain sectors of the domestic defense industries of key weapons-producing
nations.
While sometimes less-affluent nations in the developing world find themselves compelled by
financial considerations to limit their weapons purchases, other prospective purchasers in the
developing world with significant financial assets can continue to launch new and costly
weapons-procurement programs, due to their wealth. Increases in the price of oil has proven an
advantage for major oil producing states in funding their arms purchases even though such oil
price increases have caused economic difficulties for many oil consuming states, and contributed
to their decisions to curtail or defer new weapons acquisitions. Thus less affluent developing
nations have sometimes chosen to upgrade existing weapons systems in their inventories, instead
of purchasing new ones. These considerations may curtail sales of some new weapons systems.
But the weapons upgrade market can be very lucrative for some arms producers, and in some
instances help offset the effect of fewer opportunities for sales of major defense equipment items.
Despite a volatile international economy, some nations in the Near East and Asia regions have
resumed or continued large weapons purchases. These major orders have been made by a select
few developing nations in these regions. They have been made principally by India and China in
Asia, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the Near East. While some weapons
purchases have been made by some of these nations seemingly independent of the state of the
world economy, for the larger group of developing nations in these regions, the strength of their
individual economies appears to be the most significant factor in the timing of many of their arms
acquisitions.
In the case of Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, Africa, these regions have developing
nations that desire to modernize key sectors of their military forces. Within the last decade, some
nations in these regions have placed large arms orders, by regional standards, to advance those
ends. However, within Latin America and Africa, many countries have been significantly
constrained by their financial resources to the weapons they can purchase. As long as nations in
these regions face a limited availability of seller-supplied credit and financing for weapons
purchases, and their national budgets for military purchases remain relatively low in view of the
Congressional Research Service
5
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
troubled state of the world economy, it seems likely that they will conclude few, if any, major
weapons contracts.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2008 was $42.2 billion, an
increase from the $41.1 billion total in 2007 (Figure 1) (Table 1) (Table 3). In 2008, the value of
all arms deliveries to developing nations (nearly $18.3 billion) was lower than the value of 2007
deliveries (nearly $18.4 billion), and the lowest total for the 2001-2008 period (Figure 7 and
Figure 8) (Table 2) (Table 15).
Recently, from 2005-2008, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the
developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second for three out of these four years
in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2005-2008, the United States made $56.3 billion
of these agreements, or 36.7% of them. During this same period, Russia made nearly $35.5
billion, 22.9% of all such agreements, expressed in constant 2008 dollars. Collectively, the United
States and Russia made 59.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during
this four year period. The United Kingdom, the third leading supplier, from 2005-2008 made
$17.5 billion or 11.4% of all such agreements with developing nations during these years. In the
earlier period (2001-2004) the United States ranked first with $32.5 billion in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations or 35.7%; Russia made nearly $26.3 billion in arms transfer
agreements during this period or 28.8%. The United Kingdom made nearly $8 billion in
agreements or 8.7% (Table 4).
During the period from 2001-2008, most arms transfers to developing nations were made by two
or three major suppliers in any given year. The United States ranked first among these suppliers
for five of the last eight years during this period, falling to third place in 2005. Russia has been a
strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, ranking
second every year from 2001 through 2004, and first in 2004 and 2006. Russia has lacked the
larger traditional client base for armaments held by the United States and the major West
European suppliers. However, it has been a major source of weaponry for a few key purchasers in
the developing world. Russia’s most significant high value arms transfer agreements continue to
be with India and China. Russia has also had some success in concluding arms agreements with
clients beyond these two nations, in North Africa, the Near East, and in Southeast Asia.
Russia has also increased its sales efforts in Latin America, despite having essentially abandoned
major arms sales efforts there after the end of the Cold War. Venezuela has become a significant
new arms client for Russia in this region. The Russian government has adopted more flexible
payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the developing world generally, including
a willingness in specific cases to forgive outstanding debts owed to it by a prospective client in
order to secure new arms purchases. Russia has continued its efforts to enhance the quality of its
follow-on support services to make Russian products more attractive and competitive, attempting
to assure potential clients that it will effectively provide timely service and spare parts for the
weapons systems it exports.
Among the major West European arms suppliers, France and the United Kingdom, have been
successful in concluding significant orders with developing countries from 2001-2008 based on
either long-term supply relationships or their having specialized weapons systems readily
available. Germany has been especially successful in selling naval systems for developing
nations. While the United States faces on-going competition from other major arms suppliers, the
Congressional Research Service
6
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
U.S. appears likely to hold its position as the principal supplier to key developing world nations,
especially with those able to afford major new weapons. For decades, the United States has
developed an especially wide base of arms equipment clients globally with whom it is able to
conclude a continuing series of arms agreements annually, if only to provide upgrades, spare
parts, ordnance and support services for the large variety of weapons systems it has previously
sold to these clients. This large customer base provides distinct advantages to the United States. It
provides for a steady stream of orders from year to year, even when the U.S. does not conclude
major new arms agreements for major weapons systems.
The major arms-supplying nations continue to focus their sales efforts on the wealthier
developing countries, while arms transfers to the less affluent developing nations are still
constrained by the scarcity of funds in their defense budgets and the unsettled state of the
international economy. Between the years 2001 and 2003, the level of arms agreements with
developing nations was relatively stable. However, from 2004 through 2008 arms transfer
agreements with developing nations have increased every year. These agreements reached a peak
in 2008 at $42.2 billion. The increase in agreements with developing nations from 2003 forward
have been driven to an important degree by sales to the more affluent countries in this group.
Those developing nations that have benefitted from increases in the price of oil have been
especially active in seeking new weaponry in the period since 2004.
Less traditional European and non-European suppliers, including China, seem to have been
successful in securing some agreements with developing nations in recent years, although at
lower levels, and with more uneven results, when compared with the major weapons suppliers.
However, these non-major arms suppliers have occasionally made arms deals of consequence.
Although their agreement values appear larger when they are aggregated as a group, most of their
annual arms transfer agreement values during 2001-2008 have been comparatively low when they
are examined as individual suppliers. In various individual cases these suppliers have been
successful in selling older generation equipment. This tier of arms suppliers is more likely to be
sources of small arms and light weapons and associated ordnance, rather than routine sellers of
major military equipment. Most of these arms suppliers do not consistently rank high in
comparison with the traditional major suppliers of advanced weaponry in the value of their arms
agreements and deliveries (Table 4, Table 9, Table 10, Table 15, Table 20, and Table 21).
United States.
The total value—in real terms—of United States arms transfer agreements with developing
nations rose from $12.4 billion in 2007 to $29.6 billion in 2008. The U.S. share of the value of all
such agreements was 70.1% in 2008, an extraordinary increase from a 30.2% share in 2007
(Figure 1, Figure 7, and Figure 8) (Table 1) (Table 4 and Table 5).
In 2008, the extraordinary total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations
was attributable not only to major new orders from clients in the Near East and in Asia, but also
to the continuation of significant equipment and support services contracts with a broad-based
number of U.S. clients globally. The $29.6 billion arms agreement total for the United States in
2008 illustrates dramatically the continuing U.S. advantage of having well-established defense-
support arrangements with many weapons purchasers worldwide, based upon the existing variety
of U.S. weapons systems their militaries utilize. U.S. agreements with all of its clients in 2008
include not only sales of very costly major weapons systems, but also the upgrading of systems
previously provided. It is important to note that arms agreements involving a wide variety of
Congressional Research Service
7
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
items such as spare parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and support services have significant
value.
Among the larger valued arms transfer agreements the United States concluded in 2008 with
developing nations were: with the United Arab Emirates for a comprehensive Patriot air defense
missile system for over $6.5 billion; with Morocco for 24 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft for $2.1
billion; with Taiwan for 30 AH-64D Apache helicopters for $2 billion; with India for 6 C130J
cargo aircraft for $962 million; with Iraq for 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks for $683 million, and for 6
C130J cargo aircraft for $534 million. Other U.S. arms agreements in 2008 were with Saudi
Arabia for GE/Pratt & Whitney jet engines for $479 million, for 24 UH-60L Black Hawk
helicopters for $342 million, and for support of M1A2 and M1A2S tanks for $290 million; with
Egypt for TOW2A missiles and support, and Stinger Block 1 missiles for $261, with South Korea
for an Aegis weapons system, and various weapons, components and services for $228; with
Brazil for 6 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters for $159 million.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2008 was $3.3
billion, a substantial decrease from $10.4 billion in 2007, placing Russia a distant second in such
agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all developing world arms transfer
agreements also decreased dramatically, falling from 25.2% in 2007 to 7.8% in 2008 (Figure 1,
Figure 7, and Figure 8) (Table 1) (Table 4, Table 5, and Table 10).
Russian arms transfer agreement totals with developing nations have been notable during the last
four years. During the 2005-2008 period, Russia ranked first among all suppliers to developing
countries, making $35.1 billion in agreements (in current 2008 dollars) (Table 9). Russia’s status
as a leading supplier of arms to developing nations stems from a successful effort to overcome the
significant economic and political problems associated with the dissolution of the former Soviet
Union. Traditional arms clients of the former Soviet Union were generally less wealthy
developing countries; valued as much for their political support during the Cold War as for their
desire for Soviet weaponry. Several of these Soviet-era client states received substantial military
aid grants and significant discounts on their arms purchases. After 1991 Russia consistently
placed a premium on obtaining hard currency for the weapons it sold. Faced with stiff
competition from Western arms suppliers in the post-Cold War period, Russia modified and
adapted its selling practices in an effort to regain and sustain an important share of the
developing-world arms market.
Most recently, Russian leaders have made significant efforts to provide more creative financing
and payment options for prospective arms clients. They have agreed to engage in counter-trade,
offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make significant licensed production agreements in
order to sell Russia’s weapons. The willingness to license production has been a central element
in several cases involving Russia’s major arms clients, India and China. Russia’s efforts to expand
its arms customer base elsewhere have met with mixed results. Russia’s arms sales efforts, apart
from those with China and India, have been focused on Southeast Asia. Here Russia has secured
arms agreements with Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Russia has also concluded major arms
deals with Venezuela and with Algeria. Elsewhere in the developing world Russian military
equipment can be competitive because it ranges from the most basic to the highly advanced. For
less affluent developing nations Russia’s less expensive armaments are especially attractive.
Congressional Research Service
8
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Military aircraft and missiles continue to provide a significant portion of Russia’s arms exports.
Yet the absence of major new research and development efforts in this and other military
equipment areas may jeopardize long-term Russian foreign arms sales prospects. Military
weapons research and development (R&D) programs exist in Russia, but other major arms
suppliers have more advanced much more rapidly in developing and producing weaponry than
have current Russian military R&D programs, a factor that may deter expansion of the Russian
arms client base.
Nevertheless, Russia continues to have important arms development and sales programs
involving India and China, which should provide it with sustained business throughout this
decade. Through agreements concluded in 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 licensed production. It continues to provide support services and items for these various
weapons systems. Sales of advanced weaponry in South Asia by Russia have been a matter of
ongoing concern to the United States because of long-standing tensions between India and
Pakistan. A key U.S. policy objective is keeping a potentially destabilizing arms race in this
region within check. In support of that end, the United States has recently expanded its military
cooperation with India.1
Russia’s other key arms client in Asia has been China, especially for advanced aircraft and naval
systems. Since 1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft and agreed to licensed
production of them. It has sold the Chinese quantities of Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft,
Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn anti-ship missiles, and Kilo-class Project
636 submarines. Russia has also sold the Chinese a variety of other weapons systems and
missiles. In 2005, Russia agreed to sell China 30 IL-76TD military transport aircraft and 8 IL-
78M aerial refueling tanker aircraft for more than $1 billion. Russia also signed new arms transfer
agreements with China for a number of AL-31F military aircraft engines for $1 billion, and
agreed to sell jet engines for China’s FC-1 fighter aircraft at a cost in excess of $250 million.
Chinese arms acquisitions are apparently aimed at enhancing its military projection capabilities in
Asia, and its ability to influence events throughout the region. These acquisitions continue to be
monitored by U.S. policymakers. The U.S. policy interest is, among other things, ensuring that it
provides appropriate military equipment to U.S. allies and friendly states in Asia to help offset
any prospective threat China may pose to such nations, while keeping the U.S. military aware of
any threat it may face in any confrontation with China.2 Most recently there have been no
especially large Russian arms agreements with China, possibly because the Chinese military is
focused on absorbing and integrating into its force structure the significant weapons systems
previously purchased from Russia.
The most significant arms transfer agreements Russia made in 2008 were with India for 80 Mi-17
helicopters for $1.3 billion, and a separate agreement for $500 million for upgrades to a
1 For detailed background see CRS Report RL33515, Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia: Potential Implications, by
Christopher Bolkcom, Richard F. Grimmett, and K. Alan Kronstadt; CRS Report RS22757, U.S. Arms Sales to
Pakistan, by Richard F. Grimmett; CRS Report RL32115, Missile Proliferation and the Strategic Balance in South
Asia, by Andrew Feickert and K. Alan Kronstadt; and CRS Report RL30427, Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise
Missiles of Selected Foreign Countries, by Andrew Feickert.
2 For detailed background see CRS Report RL30700, China's Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions: Background
and Analysis, by Shirley A. Kan, Christopher Bolkcom, and Ronald O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL33153, China Naval
Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
9
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
previously purchased aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorskhov. Russia also concluded an agreement
with India to upgrade MiG-29 fighter aircraft for approximately $1 billion.
China.
During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s China became an important supplier of less expensive
weapons to some developing nations. Throughout that conflict China demonstrated that it was
willing to provide arms to both combatants in the war, in quantity and without conditions.
Subsequently, China’s arms sales have been more regional and targeted. From 2005-2008, the
value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations averaged about $1.6 billion
annually. During the period of this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations were highest in 2005 at $2.8 billion. A significant portion of that total can be
attributed to a significant contract with Pakistan associated with the production of the J-17 fighter
aircraft. Generally, China’s sales figures reflect several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia,
Africa, and the Near East, rather than one or two especially large agreements for major weapons
systems. The most notable Chinese arms contract in 2008 was the sale of an Airborne Warning
and Control System (AWACS) to Pakistan for $278 million (Table 4, Table 10, and Table 11)
(Figure 7)
Few developing nations with significant financial resources have sought to purchase Chinese
military equipment during the eight-year period of this report, because most Chinese weapons for
export are less advanced and sophisticated than weaponry available from Western suppliers or
Russia. China, consequently, does not appear likely to be a key supplier of major conventional
weapons in the international arms market for the foreseeable future. China’s likely client base
could be states in Asia and Africa seeking quantities of small arms and light weapons, rather than
major combat systems. At the same time, China has been 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 and important client. Iran and North Korea have also reportedly received Chinese
missile technology, which may have increased their capabilities to threaten other countries in their
respective neighborhoods. The continued reporting of such activities by credible sources 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. Since China has some military
products—particularly missiles—that some developing countries would like to acquire, it can
present an 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.3
China, among others, has been a key source of a variety of small arms and light weapons
transferred to African states. However, since the prospects for significant revenue earnings from
these arms sales are limited, China may view such sales as one means of enhancing its status as
an international political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant natural
resources, especially oil. Controlling the sales of small arms and light weapons to regions of
3 For detailed background on the MTCR and proliferation control regimes and related policy issues see CRS Report
RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status, coordinated by Mary Beth Nikitin; and CRS Report
RL31848, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile
Proliferation (ICOC): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
10
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
conflict, in particular to some African nations, has been a matter of concern to the United States.
The United Nations also has undertaken an examination of this issue in an effort to achieve
consensus on a path to address it.4
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European arms suppliers—France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and
Italy—are nations that can supply a wide variety of more highly sophisticated weapons to would-
be purchasers. They provide alternative sources of armaments that the United States chooses not
to supply for policy reasons. The United Kingdom sold major combat fighter aircraft to Saudi
Arabia in the mid-1980s, when the U.S. chose not to sell a comparable aircraft for policy reasons.
These four NATO nations have been allies of the United States and generally have supported the
U.S. position in restricting arms sales to certain nations during the Cold War era. In the post-Cold
War era, their national defense export policies have not been fully coordinated with the United
States as likely would have been the case at the Cold War’s height.
The leading European arms supplying states, particularly France, view arms sales foremost as a
matter for national decision. France has also frequently used foreign military sales as an
important means for underwriting development and procurement of weapons systems for its own
military forces. The potential exists, therefore, for policy differences between the United States
and major West European supplying states over conventional weapons transfers to specific
countries. In recent years, such a conflict resulted from an effort led by France and Germany to
lift the arms embargo on arms sales to China currently adhered to by members of the European
Union. The United States viewed this as a misguided effort, and vigorously opposed it. The
proposal to lift the embargo was ultimately not adopted, but it proved to be a source of significant
tension between the U.S. and the European Union. Arms sales activities of major European
suppliers, in this context, will continue to be of interest to U.S. policymakers, given their
capability to make sales of advanced military equipment to countries of concern to U.S. national
security policy.5
The four major West European suppliers (France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy), as a
group, registered a significant decline in their collective share of all arms transfer agreements
with developing nations between 2007 and 2008. This group’s share fell from 33.2% in 2007 to
10.9% in 2008. The collective value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2008 was $4.6 billion compared with a total of $13.7 billion in 2007. Of these four
nations, France was the leading supplier with $2.5 billion in agreements in 2008, registering a
doubling of its agreements total from $1.2 billion in 2007. Italy, meanwhile registered $1.5 billion
in arms agreements in 2008, up from $800 million in 2007 (Figure 7 and Figure 8) (Table 4 and
Table 5).
4 For background on China’s actions and motivations for increased activities in Africa see CRS Report RL33055,
China and Sub-Saharan Africa, by Raymond W. Copson, Kerry Dumbaugh, and Michelle Weijing Lau. For
background on U.S. Policy concerns regarding small arms and light weapons transfers see CRS Report RS20958,
International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy, by Richard F. Grimmett.
5For detailed background see CRS Report RL32870, European Union's Arms Embargo on China: Implications and
Options for U.S. Policy, by Kristin Archick, Richard F. Grimmett, and Shirley A. Kan. It should be noted that members
of the European Union, and others, have agreed to a common effort to attempt some degree of control on the transfer of
certain weapons systems, but the principal vehicle for this cooperation—the Wassenaar Arrangement—lacks a
mechanism to enforce its rules. For detailed background see CRS Report RS20517, Military Technology and
Conventional Weapons Export Controls: The Wassenaar Arrangement, by Richard F. Grimmett.
Congressional Research Service
11
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Collectively, the four major West European suppliers held a 10.9% share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations during 2008. In the period from 2005-2008 they have
generally been important participants in the developing world arms market. Individual suppliers
within the major West European group have had notable years for arms agreements, especially
France in 2005 ($7 billion). The United Kingdom also had large agreement years in 2007 ($10.1
billion), in 2004 ($4.7 billion), and ($4.2 billion) in 2006. Germany concluded arms agreements
totaling over $1 billion in 2006, and $1.5 billion in 2007. In the case of each of these three
European 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 4 and Table
5).
The Major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in weapons exports
strengthened over the years through strong government marketing support for their foreign arms
sales. As they all 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 United States. The continuing 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, on a sustained basis, large new contracts with
developing nations.
The strong demand for U.S. defense equipment as well as concern for maintaining their market
share of the arms trade has led European Union (EU) member states to adopt a new code of
conduct for defense procurement practices. This code was agreed to on November 21, 2005 at the
European Defense Agency’s (EDA) steering board meeting. Currently voluntary, the EU hopes it
will become mandatory, and through its mechanisms foster greater competition within the
European defense equipment sector in the awarding of contracts for defense items. The larger
hope is that by fostering greater intra-European cooperation and collaboration in defense
contracting, and the resulting programs, that the defense industrial bases of individual EU states
will be preserved, and the ability of European defense firms to compete for arms sales in the
international arms marketplace will be substantially enhanced.
Some European arms suppliers have begun to phase out production of certain types of weapons
systems. Such suppliers have increasingly sought to engage in 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—even if a substantial portion of the weapons
produced are for their own armed forces. The Eurofighter and Eurocopter projects are examples.
Other European suppliers have also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense production
ventures with the United States such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), rather than attempting to
compete directly, thereby meeting their own requirements for advanced combat aircraft, while
positioning themselves to share in profits resulting from future sales of this new fighter aircraft.6
6 For detailed background on issues relating to the Joint Strike Fighter program see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
12
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
Markets for arms in regions of the developing world historically have been predominately in the
Near East and Asia. Nations in the Latin America and Africa regions, by contrast, have not been
major purchasers of weapons, except on rare occasions. The regional arms agreement data tables
in this report demonstrate this. United States policymakers have placed emphasis on helping to
maintain stability throughout the regions of the developing world. Thus, the U.S. has made and
supported arms sales and transfers it has believed would advance that goal, while discouraging
significant sales by other suppliers to states and regions where military threats to nations in the
area are minimal. Other arms suppliers do not necessarily share the U.S. perspective on what
constitutes an appropriate arms sale, and in some instances the financial benefit of the sale to the
supplier trumps other considerations. The regional and country specific arms-transfer data in this
report provide an indication of where various arms suppliers are focusing their attention and who
their principal clients are. By reviewing these data, policymakers can identify potential
developments which may be of concern, and use this information to assist their review of options
they may choose to consider given the circumstances. What follows below is a review of data on
arms-transfer agreement activities in the two regions that lead in arms acquisitions, the Near East
and Asia. This is followed, in turn, by a review of data regarding the leading arms purchasers in
the developing world.
Near East.7
The principal catalyst for major new weapons procurements in the Near East region in the last
decade was the Persian Gulf crisis of August 1990-February 1991. This crisis, culminating in a
U.S.-led 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. Subsequently, concerns over the growing
strategic threat from Iran has become the principal driver of GCC states’ arms purchases. Because
GCC states do not share a land border with Iran, their weapons purchases have focused primarily
on air, naval, and missile defense systems. Egypt and Israel, meanwhile, have continued their
military modernization programs, increasing their arms purchases from the United States.
Most recently, Saudi Arabia has been the principal arms purchaser in the Persian Gulf region. In
the period from 2005-2008, Saudi Arabia’s total arms agreements were valued at $28.3 billion (in
current dollars). Also placing substantial orders during this same period was the U.A.E., making
$12.8 billion in agreements (in current dollars).
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing world. However, in
2001-2004, it accounted for 42.4% of the total value of all developing nations arms transfer
agreements ($33.9 billion in current dollars), ranking it second behind Asia which was first with
49.6% of these agreements ($39.7 billion in current dollars). But, during 2005-2008, the Near
East region accounted for 54.6% of all such agreements ($83.3 billion in current dollars), again
placing it first in arms agreements within the developing world. The Asia region ranked second in
2005-2008 with $53.5 billion in agreements or 42.4% (Table 6 and Table 7).
7 In this report the Near East region includes the following nations: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The
countries included in the other geographic regions are listed at the end of the report.
Congressional Research Service
13
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East during the 2001-2004
period with 56.1% of their total value ($19 billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom was
second during these years with 13.3% ($4.5 billion in current dollars). Recently, from 2005-2008,
the United States accounted for 48.9% of arms agreements with this region ($40.7 billion in
current dollars), while the United Kingdom accounted for 18.7% of the region’s agreements
($15.6 billion in current dollars). Russia accounted for 15.4% of the region’s agreements in the
most recent period ($15.4 billion in current dollars) (Figure 5) (Table 6 and Table 8).
Asia.
Several developing nations in Asia have been focused on upgrading and modernizing defense
forces, and this has led to new conventional weapons sales in that region. Since the mid-1990s,
Russia has been the principal supplier of advanced conventional weaponry to China—selling it
fighters, submarines, destroyers, and missiles—while establishing itself as the principal arms
supplier to India. Russian arms sales to these two countries have been primarily responsible for
the increase in Asia’s overall share of the arms market in the developing world during the period
of this report. Russia has also expanded its client base in Asia, securing aircraft orders from
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. It is notable that India, while still a key Russian arms
customer, has begun to expand its weapons supplier base, purchasing the Phalcon early warning
defense system aircraft in 2004 from Israel for $1.1 billion, and numerous items from France in
2005, in particular 6 Scorpene diesel attack submarines for $3.5 billion. In 2008 India purchased
6 C130J cargo aircraft from the United States for $962 million. In coming years, Russian may
face strong new competition from other major weapons suppliers for the India arms market. In
other major arms agreements with Asia more recently, the United States concluded a multi-billion
dollar sale to Pakistan in 2006 of new F-16 fighter aircraft, weapons, and aircraft upgrades, while
Sweden sold it a SAAB-2000 based AWACS airborne radar system for over a billion dollars. In
2007, Pakistan contracted with China for production of J-17 fighter aircraft, and in 2008 Pakistan
purchased an AWACS aircraft from China for $278 million. The data on regional arms-transfer
agreements from 2001-2008 continue to reflect that Asia and the Near East are the regions of the
developing world that are the primary sources of orders for conventional weaponry.
Asia has traditionally been the second largest developing-world arms market. In 2005-2008, Asia
ranked second, accounting for 42.4% of the total value of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($33.9 billion in current dollars). Yet in the earlier period, 2001-2004, the Asia
region ranked first, accounting for 49.6% of all such agreements ($39.7 billion in current dollars)
(Table 6 and Table 7).
In the earlier period (2001-2004), Russia ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements
with Asia with 44.5% ($17.7 billion in current dollars). The United States ranked second with
nearly 18% ($7.1 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made
15.8% of this region’s agreements in 2001-2004. In the later period (2005-2008), Russia ranked
first in Asian agreements with 29.9% ($16 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major
combat aircraft and naval system sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with
22.4% ($12 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made
21.3% of this region’s agreements in 2005-2008. (Figure 6) (Table 8).
Congressional Research Service
14
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
Saudi Arabia was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 2001-2008, making arms
transfer agreements totaling $36.7 billion during these years (in current dollars). In the 2001-2004
period, India ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $10.6 billion (in current dollars). In 2005-
2008 Saudi Arabia ranked first in arms transfer agreements, with a large increase to $28.3 billion
from $8.4 billion in the earlier 2001-2004 period (in current dollars). These increases reflect the
military modernization efforts by both Saudi Arabia and India, underway since the 1990s. The
total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 2001-2008 was $225
billion (in current dollars). Thus Saudi Arabia alone accounted for 16.3% of all developing-world
arms-transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period, 2005-2008, Saudi
Arabia made $28.3 billion in arms transfer agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted
19.2% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during these four years ($147.4
billion in current dollars). India ranked second in arms transfer agreements during 2005-2008
with $20.2 billion (in current dollars), or 13.7% of the value of all developing-world arms-
transfer agreements (Table 3, Table 12, and Table 13).
During 2001-2004, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 66.4% of all developing
world arms transfer agreements. During 2005-2008, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 66.1% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world
recipients, as a group, totaled $34.8 billion in 2008 or 82.6% of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in that year. These percentages reflect the continued concentration of major
arms purchases by developing nations among a few countries (Table 3, Table 12, and Table 13).
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first among all developing world recipients in the
value of arms transfer agreements in 2008, concluding $9.7 billion in such agreements. Saudi
Arabia ranked second in agreements with $8.7 billion. Morocco ranked third with $5.4 billion in
agreements. Six of the top ten recipients were in the Near East region; four were in the Asian
region (Table 13).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing world recipients in
2008, receiving $1.8 billion in such deliveries. India ranked second in arms deliveries in 2008
with $1.8 billion (both totals are rounded, with Saudi Arabia’s unrounded total being higher).
Venezuela ranked third with $1.5 billion (Table 24).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were valued at $12.2
billion, or 66.8% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2008. Five of these top ten
recipients were in Asia; four were in the Near East; one was in Latin America.(Table 14 and
Table 24).
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply and type of conventional
weaponry actually transferred 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 25-29) (pages 63-67).
Congressional Research Service
15
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, historically the largest purchasing region in the developing
world, reflect the 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 2005-2008 from
Table 27:
United States.
• 396 tanks and self-propelled guns
• 542 APCs and armored cars
• 6 minor surface combatants
• 90 supersonic combat aircraft
• 42 helicopters
• 413 surface-to-air missiles
• 10 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
• 290 tanks and self-propelled guns
• 2,300 APCs and armored cars
• 30 supersonic combat aircraft
• 20 helicopters
• 2,540 surface-to-air missiles
• 10 anti-ship missiles
China.
• 150 APCs and armored cars
• 40 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
• 1 major surface combatants
• 22 minor surface combatants
• 6 guided missile boats
• 120 anti-ship missiles
Congressional Research Service
16
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
All Other European Suppliers.
• 130 tanks and self-propelled guns
• 1,310 APCs and armored cars
• 4 minor surface combatants
• 9 guided missile boats
• 20 supersonic combat aircraft
• 520 surface-to-air missiles
• 70 anti-ship missiles
All Other Suppliers.
• 240 APCs and armored cars
• 55 minor surface combatants
• 20 helicopters
• 30 surface-to-surface missiles
• 50 anti-ship missiles
Significant quantities of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region from 2005-
2008, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, minor surface combatants,
supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air defense and anti-ship missiles. The United States and
Russia made deliveries of supersonic combat aircraft to the region. The United States, China, and
the European suppliers delivered many anti-ship missiles. The United States, Russia, and
European suppliers in general were the principal suppliers of tanks and self-propelled 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 a large portion of the dollar values of arms deliveries by the United
States, Russia, and European suppliers to the Near East region during the 2005-2008 period.
Naval combatant vessels are generally very costly, and the 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 nonetheless deadly and can create
important security threats within the region. For example, from 2005-2008, the four major West
European suppliers collectively delivered 120 anti-ship missiles to the Near East region, China
delivered 40, and the other European suppliers delivered 70. The United States delivered six
minor surface combatants to the Near East, while the four major West European suppliers
collectively delivered one major surface combatant, 22 minor surface combatants and six guided
missile boats. The other European suppliers collectively delivered 130 tanks and armored cars,
12,310 APCs and armored cars, and 520 surface-to-air missiles. Other non-European suppliers
collectively delivered 240 APCs and armored cars, 55 minor surface combatants, 50 anti-ship
missiles, as well as 30 surface-to-surface missiles—a weapons category not delivered by any of
the other major weapons suppliers during this period to any region.
Congressional Research Service
17
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
United States commercially licensed arms deliveries data are not included in this report. 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
authorization, 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 commercially licensed arms deliveries data are obtained from shipper’s export documents
and completed licenses from ports of exit by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency
which are then provided to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau takes these arms export
data, and, following a minimal review of them, submits them to the Directorate of Defense Trade
Controls in the Political-Military Bureau (PM/DDTC) of the State Department, which makes the
final compilation of such data—details of which are not publicly available. Once compiled by the
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls at the State Department, these commercially licensed arms
deliveries data are not revised. By contrast, the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program data,
for both agreements and deliveries, maintained by the Defense Department, are systematically
collected, reviewed for accuracy on an on-going basis, and are revised from year-to-year as
needed to reflect any changes or to correct any errors in the information. This report includes all
FMS deliveries data. By excluding U.S. commercial licensed arms deliveries data, the U.S. arms
delivery totals will be understated.
Some have suggested that a systematic data collection and reporting system for commercial
licensed exports, comparable to the one which exists now in the Department of Defense, should
be established by the Department of State. Having current and comprehensive agreement and
delivery data on commercially licensed exports would provide a more complete picture of the
U.S. arms export trade, in this view, and thus facilitate Congressional oversight of this sector of
U.S. exports.
Arms Values Data Tables and Charts for 2001-2008
Tables 3 through 13 (pages 34-47) present data on arms transfer agreements with developing
nations by major suppliers from 2001-2008. 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 14 through 24 (pages 48-61). Table 30, Table 31,
Congressional Research Service
18
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 32, Table 33, and Table 34 (pages 69-74) provide data on worldwide arms transfer
agreements from 2001-2008, while Table 35, Table 36, Table 37, Table 38, and Table 39 (pages
75-80) 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 magnitude of arms transactions by arms suppliers with
recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise noted. Illustrative pie and
bar charts are provided in this section to give the relative market share of individual arms
suppliers globally, to the developing world and to specific regions. Table 1 (pages 26-27)
provides the value of worldwide arms transfer agreements for 2001-2004. 2005-2008 and 2008,
and the suppliers’ share of such agreements with the developing world. Table 2 (pages 32-33)
provides the value of worldwide arms deliveries for 2001-2004, 2005-2008 and 2008, and the
suppliers’ share of such deliveries with the developing world. Specific content of other individual
data tables is described below.
Table 3 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements to developing nations
by major suppliers from 2001-2008. This table provides the data from which Table 4 (constant
dollars) and Table 5 (supplier percentages) are derived.
• Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 2001-2008
Table 6 gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and individual regions of
the developing world for the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008. These values are expressed in
current U.S. dollars. Table 7, derived from Table 6, gives the percentage distribution of each
supplier’s agreement values within the regions for the two time periods. Table 8, also derived
from Table 6, illustrates what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms
transfer agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 2001-2004 and 2005-2008.
• Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Leading
Suppliers Compared
Table 9 gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing nations from 2001-2008
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—2001-
2004, 2005-2008 and 2001-2008.
• Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared
Table 10 ranks and gives for 2008 the values of arms transfer agreements with developing nations
of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars.
• Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 2001-2008: Suppliers and Recipients
Table 11 gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the Near East nations by suppliers or
categories of suppliers for the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008. These values are expressed in
current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in Table 3 and Table 6.
Congressional Research Service
19
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
• Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Agreements With Leading
Recipients
Table 12 gives the values of arms transfer agreements made by the top ten recipients of arms in
the developing world from 2001-2008 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—2001-2004, 2005-2008 and 2001-2008.
• Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2008: Agreements With Leading
Recipients
Table 13 names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in 2007. The
table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective
agreements with all suppliers in 2008.
• Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values
Table 14 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred) to
developing nations by major suppliers from 2001-2008. The utility of these particular data is that
they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide the data from which Table 15 (constant
dollars) and Table 16 (supplier percentages) are derived.
• Regional Arms Delivery Values, 2001-2008
Table 17 gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions of the developing
world for the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008. These values are expressed in current U.S.
dollars. Table 18, derived from Table 17, gives the percentage distribution of each supplier’s
deliveries values within the regions for the two time periods. Table 19, also derived from Table
17, illustrates what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms delivery values
was held by specific suppliers during the years 2001-2004 and 2005-2008.
• Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared
Table 20 gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 2001-2008 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—2001-2004, 2005-
2008 and 2001-2008.
• Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2008: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 21 ranks and gives for 2008 the values of arms deliveries to developing nations of the top
ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars.
• Arms Deliveries to Near East, 2001-2008: Suppliers and Recipients
Table 22 gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers or categories of
suppliers for the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008. These values are expressed in current U.S.
dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in Table 14 and Table 17.
• Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: The Leading Recipients
Table 23 gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms in the
developing world from 2001-2008 by all suppliers collectively. The table ranks recipients on the
Congressional Research Service
20
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
basis of the total current dollar values of their respective deliveries from all suppliers for each of
three periods—2001-2004, 2005-2008 and 2001-2008.
• Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2008: Agreements With Leading
Recipients
Table 24 names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in 2008. The
table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective
agreements with all suppliers in 2008.
Congressional Research Service
21
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Figure 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 2001-2008 Developed and
Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant 2008 dollars
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Developing
Developed
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
22
Figure 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide
(supplier percentage of value)
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-23
Figure 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations
(supplier percentage of value)
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-24
Figure 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 2001-2008
(billions of constant 2008 dollars)
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-25
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2001-2004
Developing World
United States
60,780
53.50%
Russia 27,467
95.70%
France 12,684
32.60%
United Kingdom
9,263
85.90%
China 3,644
100.00%
Germany 9,943
4.8%
Italy 3,211
39.80%
Al Other European
17,516
42.20%
Al Others
11,554
65.00%
TOTAL 156,062
58.40%
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2005-2008
Developing World
United States
94,102
59.90%
Russia 36,356
96.50%
France 18,563
60.20%
United Kingdom
17,651
99.40%
China 6,461
100.00%
Germany 6,318
63.00%
Italy 7,842
38.50%
Al Other European
22,775
49.80%
Al Others
11,295
68.50%
TOTAL 221,362
69.20%
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
26
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (Continued)
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2008
Developing World
United States
37,796
70.15%
Russia 3,500
94.30%
France 2,600
96.20%
United Kingdom
200
100.00%
China 800
100.00%
Germany 1,000
40.00%
Italy 3,700
40.50%
Al Other European
3,200
75.00%
Al Others
2,400
62.50%
TOTAL
55,196 76.40%
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
27
Figure 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East
(supplier percentage of value)
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-28
Figure 6. Arms Transfer Agreement With Developing Nations in Asia
(supplier percentage of value)
(excludes Japan, Australia, and New Zealand)
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-29
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Figure 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 2001-2008 Developed and Developing Worlds
Compared
(in billions of constant 2008 dollars)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Developing
Developed
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
30
Figure 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 2001-2008
(in billions of constant 2008 dollars)
United States
Russia
10
7
9
6
8
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Major West European
All Others
6
12
5
10
8
4
6
3
4
2
2
1
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-31
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Deliveries
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Value 2001-2004
Developing World
United States
49,324
60.20%
Russia 21,458
94.50%
France 13,297
78.40%
United Kingdom
23,075
76.90%
China 4,021
91.10%
Germany 7,028
33.10%
Italy 2,027
35.20%
Al Other European
14,790
51.40%
Al Others
13,212
50.90%
TOTAL 148,232
66.90%
Worldwide Deliveries
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Value 2005-2008
Developing World
United States
51,279
63.40%
Russia 21,006
95.00%
France 7,591
50.50%
United Kingdom
12,855
69.30%
China 4,977
97.90%
Germany 10,700
26.10%
Italy 2,637
23.70%
Al Other European
15,297
34.80%
Al Others
10,861
29.40%
TOTAL 137,203
59.80%
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
32
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 2001-2008 and Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(Continued)
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Deliveries
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Value 2008
Developing World
United States
12,232
61.00%
Russia 5,400
96.30%
France 900
55.60%
United Kingdom
2,000
45.00%
China 1,500
93.30%
Germany 2,900
37.90%
Italy 400
25.00%
Al Other European
4,000
32.50%
Al Others
2,600
11.50%
TOTAL
31,932 57.20%
Source: U.S. Government
Congressional Research Service
33
Table 3. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
6,291
8,357
5,902
6,969
4,618
8,765
12,090
29,612
82,604
Russia 5,400
5,400
4,400
7,100
5,600
14,500
10,100
3,300
55,800
France 1,100
400
900
1,100
6,400
400
1,200
2,500
14,000
United
Kingdom
200
700
1,900
4,100
2,800
4,000
9,800
200
23,700
China 1,100
400
600
1,000
2,600
1,400
1,300
800
9,200
Germany 100
100
100
100
900
1,000
1,500
400
4,200
Italy 200
0
300
600
600
600
800
1,500
4,600
All Other
European
1,100
1,400
1,400
2,400
3,500
2,900
2,000
2,400
17,100
Al Others
1,600
1,000
1,200
2,600
1,300
3,300
1,300
1,500
13,800
TOTAL 17,091 17,757
16,702
25,969
28,318
36,865
40,090
42,212
225,004
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al 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.
CRS-34
Table 4. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
7,721
9,995
6,907
7,905
5,064
9,242
12,409
29,612
88,855
Russia 6,627
6,459
5,149
8,054
6,141
15,289
10,366
3,300
61,385
France 1,350
478
1,053
1,248
7,018
422
1,232
2,500
15,301
United Kingdom
245
837
2,224
4,651
3,071
4,218
10,059
200
25,503
China 1,350
478
702
1,134
2,851
1,476
1,334
800
10,127
Germany 123
120
117
113
987
1,054
1,540
400
4,454
Italy 245
0
351
681
658
633
821
1,500
4,889
Al Other European
1,350
1,674
1,638
2,722
3,838
3,058
2,053
2,400
18,734
Al Others
1,964
1,196
1,404
2,949
1,426
3,480
1,334
1,500
15,253
TOTAL 20,976
21,238
19,546
29,457
31,054
38,871
41,147
42,212
244,501
Dol ar inflation
Index::(2008= 1)*
0.8148
0.8361
0.8545
0.8816
0.9119
0.9484
0.9743
1
Source: U.S. Government
* Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator
CRS-35
Table 5. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
United States
36.81%
47.06%
35.34%
26.84%
16.31%
23.78%
30.16%
70.15%
Russia 31.60%
30.41%
26.34%
27.34%
19.78%
39.33%
25.19%
7.82%
France 6.44%
2.25%
5.39%
4.24%
22.60%
1.09%
2.99%
5.92%
United Kingdom
1.17%
3.94%
11.38%
15.79%
9.89%
10.85%
24.44%
0.47%
China 6.44%
2.25%
3.59%
3.85%
9.18%
3.80%
3.24%
1.90%
Germany 0.59%
0.56%
0.60%
0.39%
3.18%
2.71%
3.74%
0.95%
Italy 1.17%
0.00%
1.80%
2.31%
2.12%
1.63%
2.00%
3.55%
Al Other European
6.44%
7.88%
8.38%
9.24%
12.36%
7.87%
4.99%
5.69%
Al Others
9.36%
5.63%
7.18%
10.01%
4.59%
8.95%
3.24%
3.55%
[Major West European*
9.36%
6.76%
19.16%
22.72%
37.79%
16.28%
33.18%
10.90%]
TOTAL 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
CRS-36
Table 6. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
United States
7,144
12,008
19,039
40,729
1,181
2,190
156
158
Russia 17,700
16,000
3,400
12,900
300
4,300
900
400
France 3,100
7,300
2,100
4,700
100
200
100
800
United Kingdom
2,800
500
4,500
15,600
0
700
0
0
China 1,600
3,200
800
1,500
0
500
600
900
Germany 200
2,200
200
1,400
0
200
0
0
Italy 200
1,400
500
1,700
200
100
200
300
Al Other European
2,900
6,200
2,100
3,700
600
2,500
800
600
Al Others
4,100
4,700
1,300
1,100
800
1,200
500
600
[Major West European*
6,300
11,400
7,300
23,400
300
1,200
300
1,100]
TOTAL 39,744
53,508
33,939
83,329
3,181
11,890
3,256
3,758
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All foreign data rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-37
Table 7. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 2001-2008
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
United States
25.96%
21.80%
69.18%
73.94%
4.29%
3.98%
0..57%
0.29%
100 %
100%
Russia 79.37%
47.60%
15.25%
38.39%
1.35
12.80
4.04%
1.19%
100% 100%
France 57.41%
56.15%
38.89%
36.15%
1.85
1.54
1.85%
6.15%
100% 100%
United
Kingdom 38.36% 2.98% 61.64% 92.86% 0.00 4.17 0.00% 0.00% 100% 100%
China 53.33%
52.46%
26.67%
24.59%
0.00
8.20
20.00%
14.75%
100% 100%
Germany 50.00%
57.89%
50.00%
36.84%
0.00
5.26
0.00%
0.00%
100% 100%
Italy
18.18% 40.00% 45.45% 48.57% 18.18 2.86 18.18% 8.57% 100% 100%
Al Other European
45.31%
47.69%
32.81%
28.46%
9.38
19.23
12.50%
4.62%
100% 100%
Al
Others
61.19% 61.84% 19.40% 14.47% 11.94 15.79 7.46% 7.89% 100% 100%
[Major West European*
44.37% 30.73% 51.41% 63.07% 2.11 3.23 2.11% 2.96% 100%
100%]
TOTAL
49.61% 35.09% 42.36% 54.65% 3.97 7.80 4.06% 2.46% 100% 100%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-38
Table 8. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 2001-2008
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
United States
17.98%
22.44%
56.10%
48.88%
37.13%
18.42%
4.79%
4.20%
Russia 44.54%
29.90%
10.02%
15.48%
9.43%
36.16%
27.64%
10.64%
France 7.80%
13.64%
6.19%
5.64%
3.14%
1.68%
3.07%
21.29%
United Kingdom
7.05%
0.93%
13.26%
18.72%
0.00%
5.89%
0.00%
0.00%
China 4.03%
5.98%
2.36%
1.80%
0.00%
4.21%
18.43%
23.95%
Germany 0.50%
4.11%
0.59%
1.68%
0.00%
1.68%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy 0.50%
2.62%
1.47%
2.04%
6.29%
0.84%
6.14%
7.98%
Al Other European
7.30%
11.59%
6.19%
4.44%
18.86%
21.03%
24.57%
15.97%
Al Others
10.32%
8.78%
3.83%
1.32%
25.15%
10.09%
15.36%
15.97%
[Major West European*
15.85%
21.31%
21.51%
28.08%
9.43%
10.09%
9.21%
29.27%
TOTAL 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-39
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 9. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Leading
Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreement Value 2001-2004
1 United
States 27,519
2 Russia 22,300
3 United
Kingdom 6.900
4 France 3.500
5 China 3,100
6 Israel 2,700
7 Ukraine 1,700
8 Netherlands 1,200
9 Italy 1,100
10 Poland 900
11 Brazil 500
Rank
Supplier
Agreement Value 2005-2008
1 United
States 55,085
2 Russia 33,500
3 United
Kingdom 16,800
4 France 10,500
5 China 6,100
6 Germany 3,800
7 Israel 3,500
8 Italy 3,500
9 Spain 2,100
10 Sweden 1,600
11 Ukraine 1,300
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
40
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared (Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreement Value 2001-2008
1 United
States 82,604
2 Russia 55,800
3 United
Kingdom 23,700
4 France 14,000
5 China 9,200
6 Israel 6,200
7 Italy 4,600
8 Germany 4,200
9 Ukraine 3,000
10 Spain 2,500
11 Netherlands 2,400
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
41
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 10. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2008: Leading
Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2008
1
United States
29, 612
2 Russia 3,300
3 France 2,500
4 Italy 1,500
5 Netherlands 900
6 China 800
7 Sweden 600
8 Brazil 500
9 Germany 400
10 Israel 400
11 United
Kingdom 200
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
42
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 11. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
Major West
All Other
All
Country
U.S.
Russia China
European*
European
Others
Total
2001-2004
Algeria 0
200
100
0
0
0
300
Bahrain 300
0
0
100
0
0
400
Egypt 5,200
300
100
100
400
0
6,100
Iran 0
300
300
0
100
100
800
Iraq 0
100
0
300
300
200
900
Israel 3,200
300
0
0
100
0
3,600
Jordan 700
0
0
0
100
100
900
Kuwait 1,700
100
200
0
0
200
2,200
Lebanon 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya 0
300
0
0
200
200
700
Morocco 0
0
0
100
0
0
100
Oman 900
0
0
1,200
0
0
2,100
Qatar 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
4,100
0
0
4,300
0
0
8,400
Syria 0
1,100
0
0
0
200
1,300
Tunisia 0
0
0
100
0
0
100
U.A.E. 800
100
0
1,000
500
100
2,500
Yemen 0
700
100
0
200
100
1,100
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate
figure.
Congressional Research Service
43
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier (Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
Major West
All Other
All
Country
U.S.
Russia China
European*
European
Others
Total
2005-2008
Algeria 0
4,300
100
200
0
0
4,600
Bahrain 400
0
0
0
0
0
400
Egypt 5,200
500
400
0
100
0
6,200
Iran 0
1,900
300
0
300
100
2,600
Iraq 3,500
100
100
200
600
100
4,600
Israel 2,700
0
0
800
0
0
3,500
Jordan 1,000
200
100
0
300
0
1,600
Kuwait 1,500
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
Lebanon 100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Libya 0
300
0
1,000
300
0
1,600
Morocco 2,500
200
0
1,300
900
100
5,000
Oman 200
0
0
1,500
0
0
1,700
Qatar 0
0
0
500
0
100
600
Saudi Arabia
11,200
200
400
15,600
800
100
28,300
Syria 0
4,700
100
0
0
400
5,200
Tunisia 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E. 10,000
300
0
2,200
100
200
12,800
Yemen 0
200
0
0
200
0
400
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate
figure.
Congressional Research Service
44
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 12. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 2001-2004
1 India 10,600
2 China 10,000
3 Saudi
Arabia 8,400
4 Egypt 6,100
5 Israel 3,600
6 South
Korea 3,200
7 Malaysia 2,600
8 U.A.E. 2,500
9 Pakistan 2,300
10 Kuwait 2,200
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 2005-2008
1 Saudi
Arabia 28,300
2 India 20,200
3 U.A.E. 12,800
4 Pakistan 9,500
5 Egypt 6,200
6 Venezuela 5,600
7 Syria 5,200
8 Morocco 5,000
9 Algeria 4,600
10 South
Korea 4,400
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
45
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2001-2008: Agreements by the
Leading Recipients (Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 2001-2008
1 Saudi
Arabia 36,700
2 India 30,800
3 U.A.E. 15,300
4 China 12,900
5 Egypt 12,300
6 Pakistan 11,800
7 Israel 7,100
8 Syria 6,500
9 Venezuela 5,800
10 Algeria 4,900
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: Alldata are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
46
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 13. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2008: Agreements
by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars
Rank
Recipient
Agreement Value 2008
1 U.A.E 9,700
2 Saudi
Arabia 8,700
3 Morocco 5,400
4 India 4,000
5 Iraq 2,000
6 Egypt 1,400
7 South
Korea 1,300
8 Taiwan 1,300
9 Israel 1,000
10 Pakistan 800
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
47
Table 14. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
5,362
6,288
6,092
7,463
8,309
8,039
7,290
7,466
56,309
Russia 4,300
3,500
4,100
5,300
3,100
5,900
5,000
5,200
36,400
France 1,000
900
1,900
5,200
2,000
400
700
500
12,600
United Kingdom
3,400
3,400
5,800
2,400
3,000
3,600
900
900
23,400
China 800
800
700
800
800
1,100
1,400
1,400
7,800
Germany 100
300
800
800
300
900
400
1,100
4,700
Italy 200
200
100
100
100
200
200
100
1,200
Al Other European
1,800
1,900
1,600
1,100
1,200
1,200
1,400
1,300
11,500
Al Others
1,400
1,500
1,000
1,800
1,500
600
600
300
8,700
TOTAL 18,362
18,788
22,092
24,963
20,309
21,939
17,890
18,266
162,609
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.
CRS-48
Table 15. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
6,581
7,521
7,129
8,465
9,112
8,476
7,482
7,466
62,232
Russia 5,277
4,186
4,798
6,012
3,399
6,221
5,131
5,200
40,225
France 1,227
1,076
2,224
5,898
2,193
422
718
500
14,259
United Kingdom
4,173
4,066
6,788
2,722
3,290
3,796
924
900
26,659
China 982
957
819
907
877
1,160
1,437
1,400
8,539
Germany 123
359
936
907
329
949
411
1,100
5,114
Italy 245
239
117
113
110
211
205
100
1,341
Al Other European
2,209
2,272
1,872
1,248
1,316
1,265
1,437
1,300
12,920
Al Others
1,718
1,794
1,170
2,042
1,645
633
616
300
9,918
TOTAL
22,536
22,471
25,854
28,316
22,271
23,133
18,360
18,266
181,206
Dollar Inflation index:
(2008=1)*
0.8148
0.8361
0.8545
0.8816
0.9119
0.9484
0.9744
1
Source: U.S. Government
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator
CRS-49
Table 16. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2001-2008
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
United States
29.20%
33.47%
27.58%
29.90%
40.91%
36.64%
40.75%
40.87%
Russia 23.42%
18.63%
18.56%
21.23%
15.26%
26.89%
27.95%
28.47%
France 5.45%
4.79%
8.60%
20.83%
9.85%
1.82%
3.91%
2.74%
United Kingdom
18.52%
18.10%
26.25%
9.61%
14.77%
16.41%
5.03%
4.93%
China 4.36%
4.26%
3.17%
3.20%
3.94%
5.01%
7.83%
7.66%
Germany 0.54%
1.60%
3.62%
3.20%
1.48%
4.10%
2.24%
6.02%
Italy 1.09%
1.06%
0.45%
0.40%
0.49%
0.91%
1.12%
0.55%
Al Other European
9.80%
10.11%
7.24%
4.41%
5.91%
5.47%
7.83%
7.12%
Al Others
7.62%
7.98%
4.53%
7.21%
7.39%
2.73%
3.35%
1.64%
[Major West European*
25.60%
25.55%
38.93%
34.05%
26.59%
23.25%
12.30%
14.23%
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-50
Table 17. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
United States
8,531
9,908
15,898
19,699
666
1,342
110
154
Russia 14,700
11,800
1,800
4,000
100
3,200
700
200
France 1,200
1,700
7,700
1,700
200
400
100
0
United Kingdom
1,500
1,400
14,500
5,900
0
400
0
700
China 1,900
2,200
800
1,300
0
400
400
700
Germany 2,300
1,500
100
300
0
0
600
900
Italy 100
200
100
0
300
100
100
300
Al Other European
2,600
1,900
3,500
1,400
600
1,100
600
700
Al Others
3,300
1,700
1,200
900
800
300
500
200
[Major West European*
5,100
4,800
22,400
7,900
500
900
800
1,900]
TOTAL 36,131
32,308
45,598
35,199
2,666
7,242
3,110
3,854
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-51
Table 18. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 2001-2008
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
2005-
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004 2005-2008 2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2008
United States
33.85%
31.86%
63.07%
63.33%
2.64%
4.31%
0.44%
0.50%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia 84.97%
61.46%
10.40%
20.83%
0.58%
16.67%
4.05%
1.04%
100.00%
100.00%
France 13.04%
44.74%
83.70%
44.74%
2.17%
10.53%
1.09%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
9.38%
16.67%
90.63%
70.24%
0.00%
4.76%
0.00%
8.33%
100.00%
100.00%
China 61.29%
47.83%
25.81%
28.26%
0.00%
8.70%
12.90%
15.22%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany 76.67%
55.56%
3.33%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
33.33%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy 16.67%
33.33%
16.67%
0.00%
50.00%
16.67%
16.67%
50.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
European
35.62%
37.25%
47.95%
27.45%
8.22%
21.57%
8.22%
13.73%
100.00%
100.00%
Al Others
56.90%
54.84%
20.69%
29.03%
13.79%
9.68%
8.62%
6.45%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
European*
17.71%
30.97%
77.78%
50.97%
1.74%
5.81%
2.78%
12.26%
100.00%
100.00%]
TOTAL
41.29%
41.10%
52.11%
44.78%
3.05%
9.21%
3.55%
4.90%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-52
Table 19. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 2001-2008
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
2001-2004
2005-2008
United States
23.61%
30.67%
34.87%
55.96%
24.98%
18.53%
3.54%
4.00%
Russia 40.69%
36.52%
3.95%
11.36%
3.75%
44.19%
22.51%
5.19%
France 3.32%
5.26%
16.89%
4.83%
7.50%
5.52%
3.22%
0.00%
United Kingdom
4.15%
4.33%
31.80%
16.76%
0.00%
5.52%
0.00%
18.16%
China 5.26%
6.81%
1.75%
3.69%
0.00%
5.52%
12.86%
18.16%
Germany 6.37%
4.64%
0.22%
0.85%
0.00%
0.00%
19.29%
23.35%
Italy 0.28%
0.62%
0.22%
0.00%
11.25%
1.38%
3.22%
7.78%
Al Other European
7.20%
5.88%
7.68%
3.98%
22.51%
15.19%
19.29%
18.16%
Al Others
9.13%
5.26%
2.63%
2.56%
30.01%
4.14%
16.08%
5.19%
[Major West European*
14.12%
14.86%
49.12%
22.44%
18.75%
12.43%
25.72%
49.30%]
TOTAL 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-53
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 20. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 Leading Suppliers
Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1 United
States 25,205
2 Russia 17,200
3 United
Kingdom 15,000
4 France 9,000
5 China 3,100
6 Sweden 2,100
7 Germany 2,000
8 Israel 1,900
9 Ukraine 1,200
10 North
Korea 600
11 Italy 600
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2005-2008
1 United
States 31,104
2 Russia 19,200
3 United
Kingdom 8,400
4 China 4,700
5 France 3,600
6 Germany
2,700
7 Netherlands 1,100
8 Israel 1,000
9 Ukraine 700
10 Italy 600
11 Poland 500
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
54
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 Leading Suppliers Compared
(Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2008
1 United
States 56,309
2 Russia 36,400
3 United
Kingdom 23,400
4 France 12,600
5 China 7,800
6 Germany
4,700
7 Israel 2,900
8 Sweden 2,400
9 Ukraine 1,900
10 Netherlands 1,400
11 Italy 1,200
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
55
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 21. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2008
1 United
States 7,466
2 Russia 5,200
3 China 1,400
4 Germany 1,100
5 United
Kingdom 900
6 France 500
7 Netherlands 400
8 Sweden 200
9 Switzerland 200
10 Ukraine 100
11 Turkey 100
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
56
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 22. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
Major West
All Other
Country
U.S.
Russia
China
European*
European
All Others
Total
2001-2004
Algeria
0 300 100 0 100 100 600
Bahrain 300 0 0 0 0 0 300
Egypt 5,000
200
400
100
100
0
5,800
Iran
0 100 100 0 100 300 600
Iraq
0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Israel 3,500
0 0 0 100
0
3,600
Jordan
300 0 0 100 100 100 600
Kuwait 800 100 200 0
0 200 1,300
Lebanon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Libya
0 100 0 0 100 200 400
Morocco 0 0 0 200 0 0 200
Oman 0 0 0 200 0 0 200
Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saudi
Arabia
4,300 0 0 15,900
2,400 0 22,600
Syria
0 200 0 0 100 100 400
Tunisia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U.A.E.
300 300 0 5,700 300 100 6,700
Yemen
0 400 100 100 200 100 900
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Congressional Research Service
57
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier (Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
Major West
All Other
Country
U.S.
Russia
China
European*
European
All Others
Total
2005-2008
Algeria
0 1,400 100 0
0 0 1,500
Bahrain
300 0 0 100 0 0
400
Egypt
4,800 100 500
0
400 0 5,800
Iran
0 500 100 0 0 100
700
Iraq
900 100 0
0 200 100 1,300
Israel
5,600 100 0
0
0
0 5,700
Jordan
800 100 100 0 200 0 1,200
Kuwait
1,600
0 0 0 0 0
1,600
Lebanon
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Libya
0 200 0 0 100 0 300
Morocco
100 100 0 0 0 100
300
Oman
700 0 0 100 0 0
800
Qatar
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saudi Arabia
4,400 0 400 6,500 0 0 11,300
Syria
0 1,000 0
0
0 400
1,400
Tunisia
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U.A.E.
600 200 0 1,100 300 0 2,200
Yemen
0 200 100 0 100 100 500
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
* Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Congressional Research Service
58
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 23. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1 Saudi
Arabia 22,600
2 China 9,200
3 India 6,900
4 U.A.E. 6,700
5 Egypt 5,800
6 Taiwan 3,800
7 Israel 3,500
8 South
Korea 3,100
9 Pakistan 2,500
10 Malaysia 1,500
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2005-2008
1 Saudi
Arabia 11,300
2 China 7,000
3 India 6,600
4 Egypt 5,800
5 Israel 5,700
6 Taiwan 3,900
7 Venezuela 3,400
8 South
Korea 3,300
9 Pakistan 2,800
10 U.A.E. 2,200
Syria
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
59
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2001-2008: The Leading Recipients
(Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2001-2008
1 Saudi
Arabia 34,900
2 China 16,200
3 India 13,500
4 Egypt 11,600
5 Israel 9,200
6 U.A.E. 8,900
7 Taiwan 7,700
8 South
Korea 6,400
9 Pakistan 5,300
10 Malaysia 3,200
Source: U.S. Government
Notes: All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
60
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 24. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2008: The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2008
1 Saudi
Arabia 1,800
2 India 1,800
3 Venezuela 1,500
4 South
Korea 1,400
5 Israel 1,200
6 Egypt 1,100
7 China 1,100
8 Singapore 800
9 Iraq 800
10 Pakistan 700
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
61
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Other useful data for assessing arms transfers are those that indicate who has actually delivered
specific numbers of specific classes of military items to a region. These data are relatively “hard”
in that they reflect actual transfers of military equipment. They have the limitation of not giving
detailed information regarding either the sophistication or the specific name of the equipment
delivered. However, these data show relative trends in the delivery of important classes of
military equipment and indicate who the leading suppliers are from region to region over time.
Data in the following tables set out actual deliveries of fourteen categories of weaponry to
developing nations from 2001-2008 by the United States, Russia, China, the four major West
European suppliers as a group, all other European suppliers as a group, and all other suppliers as
a group. The tables show these deliveries data for all of the developing nations collectively, for
Asia, for the Near East, for Latin America, and for Africa.
Care should be taken in using the quantitative data within these specific tables. Aggregate data on
weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provide precise indices of the quality and/or
quantity of the weaponry delivered. The history of recent conventional conflicts suggests that
quality and/or sophistication of weapons can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do
not provide an indication of the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the
weapons delivered to them. Superior training—coupled with good equipment, tactical and
operational proficiency, and sound logistics—may, in the last analysis, be a more important factor
in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional warfare than the size of its weapons
inventory.
Congressional Research Service
62
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 25. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Developing Nations
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China Major West European*
All Other European
All Others
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
506
390
240
320
530
70
Artillery 177
40
670
100
1,680
300
APCs and Armored Cars
54
490
390
150
850
740
Major Surface Combatants
10
4
0
11
3
3
Minor Surface Combatants
15
5
54
60
72
114
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
5
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
2
3
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
59
300
50
50
30
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
0
0
20
10
0
Other Aircraft
58
10
110
130
120
160
Helicopters 92
390
0
80
60
60
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,500
1,920
600
20
670
580
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
342
70
100
80
0
50
2005-2008
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
511
360
110
50
370
10
Artillery 240
30
330
10
140
1,090
APCs and Armored Cars
596
2,550
650
130
2,230
390
Major Surface Combatants
0
2
0
14
6
2
Minor Surface Combatants
10
5
36
35
35
72
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
7
9
1
Submarines 0
8
0
5
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
100
100
40
30
60
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
10
50
10
30
Other Aircraft
34
40
170
0
70
40
Helicopters 80
180
0
60
30
30
Surface-to-Air Missiles
909
3,720
1,010
340
790
100
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
209
370
70
120
80
50
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al
data are for calendar years given. * Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Congressional Research Service
63
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 26. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Asia and the Pacific
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West European* All Other European
All Others
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
32
370
240
0
110
0
Artillery 90
10 320
10
310
90
APCs and Armored Cars
18
310
310
20
260
120
Major Surface Combatants
6
4
0
0
1
2
Minor Surface Combatants
2
3
10
7
29
14
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
2 3
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
8
240
50
20
0
50
Subsonic
Combat
Aircraft 15 0 0
20
0
0
Other Aircraft
8
10
30
10
40
50
Helicopters
65 230 0
20
10
10
Surface-to-Air
Missiles
2153 850 600
0
70
540
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
202
70
10
60
0
0
2005-2008
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
115
70
90
30
20
0
Artillery 103
30 110
10
80
30
APCs and Armored Cars
54
250
60
110
810
20
Major Surface Combatants
0
2
0
6
3
1
Minor Surface Combatants
4
5
14
8
6
12
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines 0
8
0
0 0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
50
20
20
10
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
10
20
0
20
Other Aircraft
12
30
50
0
30
10
Helicopters 22
70
0
20 10
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
496
1180
1010
340
60
100
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
189
360
30
0
0
0
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al
data are for calendar years given. * Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Congressional Research Service
64
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 27. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Near East
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia China
Major West European*
All Other European
All Others
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
474
10
0
300
270
0
Artillery 72
0
70
70
30
0
APCs and Armored Cars
35
60
50
60
170
450
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
4
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
4
0
0
33
37
74
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
5
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
47
30
0
30
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
38
0
60
90
50
70
Helicopters 13
80
0
30
20
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
347
1000
0
0
540
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
140
0
90
10
0
20
2005-2008
Tanks and Self-Propel ed Guns
396
290
0
0
130
0
Artillery 36
0
100
0
20
40
APCs and Armored Cars
542
2300
150
0
1310
240
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
6
0
0
22
4
55
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
6
9
0
Submarines 0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
90
30
0
0
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
10
0
0
Other Aircraft
9
0
70
0
20
10
Helicopters 42
20
0
0
0
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
413
2540
0
0
520
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
10
10
40
120
70
50
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al
data are for calendar years given. * Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Congressional Research Service
65
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 28. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Latin America
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia China
Major West European*
All Other European
All Others
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
20
40
20
Artillery 15
0
0
0
0
20
APCs and Armored Cars
1
0
0
0
0
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
3
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
9
0
20
1
0
2
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
4
0
0
0
0
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
12
0
0
20
10
30
Helicopters 14
10
0
10
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
30
0
10
40
40
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
2005-2008
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
20
0
0
Artillery 101
0
10
0
10
0
APCs and Armored Cars
0
0
30
0
20
0
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
7
3
1
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
0
5
4
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
2
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
10
20
0
10
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
13
10
0
0
10
10
Helicopters 16
60
0
10
0
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
10
0
0
0
10
0
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al
data are for calendar years given. * Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Congressional Research Service
66
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 29. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Africa
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West European*
All Other European All Others
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
10
0
0
110
50
Artillery 0
30
280
20
1,340
190
APCs and Armored Cars
0
120
30
70
420
170
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
4
0
1
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
24
19
6
24
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines 0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
30
0
0
20
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Other Aircraft
0
0
20
10
20
10
Helicopters 0
70
0
20
20
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
40
0
10
20
2
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
10
0
0
2005-2008
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
20
0
220
10
Artillery 0
0
110
0
30
1,020
APCs and Armored Cars
0
0
410
20
90
130
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
22
0
21
5
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
1
0
1
Submarines 0
0
0
3
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
20
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
20
10
0
Other Aircraft
0
0
50
0
10
10
Helicopters 0
30
0
30
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
210
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Al
data are for calendar years given. * Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Congressional Research Service
67
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and
Deliveries Values, 2001-2008
• Ten tables follow. Table 30, Table 31, Table 32, Table 35, Table 36 and Table
37 provide the total dollar values for arms transfer agreements and arms
deliveries worldwide for the years 2001-2008 in the same format and detail as
Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 provide the total
dollar values for arms transfer agreements with and arms deliveries to developing
nations. Table 33, Table 34, Table 38, and Table 39 provide a list of the top
eleven arms suppliers to the world based on the total values (in current dollars)
of their arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide during calendar
years 2001-2004, 2005-2008, and 2008. These tables are set out in the same
format and detail as Table 9 and Table 10 for arms transfer agreements with, and
Table 20 and Table 21 for arms deliveries to developing nations, respectively.
• Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 2001-2008
Table 30 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements
worldwide. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are,
by themselves, of limited use. They provide, however, the data from which Table
31 (constant dollars) and Table 32 (supplier percentages) are derived.
• Total Worldwide Delivery Values 2001-2008
Table 35 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually
transferred) worldwide by major suppliers from 2001-2008. The utility of these data is that
they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide the data from which Table 36
(constant dollars) and Table 37 (supplier percentages) are derived.
Congressional Research Service
68
Table 30. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
11,340
12,990
14,477
12,681
12,803
16,026
24,719
37,796
142,832
Russia 5,600
5,700
4,600
7,400
6,000
14,700
10,500
3,500
58,000
France 4,400
600
2,800
2,900
7,300
5,600
2,000
2,600
28,200
United Kingdom
600
700
2,500
4,200
2,800
4,100
9,800
200
24,900
China 1,100
400
600
1,000
2,600
1,400
1,300
800
9,200
Germany 2,000
1,000
1,500
4,000
2,100
1,400
1,500
1,000
14,500
Italy 1,100
400
600
600
1,500
1,200
1,200
3,700
10,300
Al Other European
2,700
4,600
2,200
5,400
7,500
5,800
5,100
3,200
36,500
Al Others
2,600
2,200
1,700
3,300
2,300
4,000
2,100
2,400
20,600
TOTAL 31,440
28,590
30,977
41,481
44,903
54,226
58,219
55,196
345,032
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess defense
articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling
prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
CRS-69
Table 31. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
13,918
15,536
16,942
14,384
14,040
16,898
25,368
37,796
154,882
Russia 6,873
6,817
5,383
8,394
6,580
15,500
10,776
3,500
63,823
France 5,400
718
3,277
3,289
8,005
5,905
2,053
2,600
31,247
United Kingdom
736
837
2,926
4,764
3,071
4,323
10,057
200
26,914
China 1,350
478
702
1,134
2,851
1,476
1,334
800
10,125
Germany 2,455
1,196
1,755
4,537
2,303
1,476
1,539
1,000
16,261
Italy 1,350
478
702
681
1,645
1,265
1,232
3,700
11,053
Al Other European
3,314
5,502
2,575
6,125
8,225
6,116
5,234
3,200
40,291
Al Others
3,191
2,631
1,989
3,743
2,522
4,218
2,155
2,400
22,849
TOTAL 38,586
34,194
36,252
47,052
49,241
57,176
59,749
55,196
377,445
Dol ar inflation
index:(2008=1 )*
0.8148
0.8361
0.8545
0.8816
0.9119
0.9484
0.9744
1
Source: U.S. Government
* Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.
CRS-70
Table 32. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
United States
36.07%
45.44%
46.73%
30.57%
28.51%
29.55%
42.46%
68.48%
Russia 17.81%
19.94%
14.85%
17.84%
13.36%
27.11%
18.04%
6.34%
France 13.99%
2.10%
9.04%
6.99%
16.26%
10.33%
3.44%
4.71%
United Kingdom
1.91%
2.45%
8.07%
10.13%
6.24%
7.56%
16.83%
0.36%
China 3.50%
1.40%
1.94%
2.41%
5.79%
2.58%
2.23%
1.45%
Germany 6.36%
3.50%
4.84%
9.64%
4.68%
2.58%
2.58%
1.81%
Italy 3.50%
1.40%
1.94%
1.45%
3.34%
2.21%
2.06%
6.70%
Al Other European
8.59%
16.09%
7.10%
13.02%
16.70%
10.70%
8.76%
5.80%
Al Others
8.27%
7.69%
5.49%
7.96%
5.12%
7.38%
3.61%
4.35%
[Major West European*
25.76%
9.44%
23.89%
28.21%
30.51%
22.68%
24.91%
13.59%
TOTAL 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Columns may not total due to rounding.
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-71
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 33. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001-2004
1 United
States 51,488
2 Russia 23,300
3 France 10,700
4 Germany 8,500
5 United
Kingdom 8,000
6 Israel 4,600
7 Ukraine 3,500
8 Sweden 3,400
9 China 3,100
10 Italy 2,700
11 Netherlands 2,100
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2005-2008
1 United
States 91,344
2 Russia 34,300
3 France 17,500
4 United
Kingdom 16,900
5 Italy 7,600
6 China
6,100
7 Germany 6,000
8 Israel 5,300
9 Spain 4,400
10 Austria 3,100
11 Sweden 2,400
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank
order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
72
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers Compared
(Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001-2008
1 United
States
142,832
2 Russia 57,600
3 France 28,200
4 United
Kingdom 24,900
5 Germany 14,500
6 Italy
10,300
7 Israel 9,900
8 China 9,200
9 Sweden 5,800
10 Ukraine 5,100
11 Spain 5,000
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
73
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 34. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2008: Leading Suppliers
Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreement Value 2008
1 United
States 37,796
2 Italy 3,700
3 Russia 3,500
4 France 2,600
5 Germany 1,000
6 Netherlands 900
7 China 800
8 Sweden 600
9 Israel 500
10 Brazil 500
11 South
Korea 400
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
74
Table 35. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
9,138
9,846
11,106
11,757
11,970
12,452
12,463
12,232
90,964
Russia 4,700
3,600
4,300
5,600
3,400
6,300
5,100
5,400
38,400
France 2,000
1,500
2,400
5,500
2,600
1,500
2,200
900
18,600
United Kingdom
4,300
5,000
6,900
3,300
3,700
4,500
2,000
2,000
31,700
China 900
900
700
900
800
1,100
1,500
1,400
8,200
Germany 700
1,200
2,300
1,800
1,800
2,800
2,800
2,900
16,300
Italy 500
600
400
200
1,000
400
700
400
4,200
Al Other European
3,000
3,000
4,100
2,400
3,000
3,700
4,000
4,000
27,200
Al Others
2,500
3,000
2,500
3,200
2,800
2,100
2,900
2,600
21,600
TOTAL 27,738
28,646
34,706
34,657
31,070
34,852
33,663
31,832
257,164
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess defense
articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling
prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
CRS-75
Table 36. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2001-2008
(in millions of constant U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001-2008
United States
11,215
11,776
12,997
13,336
13,126
13,129
12,792
12,232
100,604
Russia 5,768
4,306
5,032
6,352
3,728
6,643
5,235
5,400
42,464
France 2,455
1,794
2,809
6,239
2,851
1,582
2,258
900
20,887
United Kingdom
5,277
5,980
8,075
3,743
4,057
4,745
2,053
2,000
35,931
China 1,105
1,076
819
1,021
877
1,160
1,540
1,400
8,998
Germany 859
1,435
2,692
2,042
1,974
2,952
2,874
2,900
17,728
Italy 614
718
468
227
1,097
422
718
400
4,663
Al Other European
3,682
3,588
4,798
2,722
3,290
3,901
4,106
4,000
30,087
Al Others
3,068
3,588
2,926
3,630
3,071
2,214
2,976
2,600
24,073
TOTAL 34,043
34,261
40,616
39,311
34,072
36,748
34,551
31,832
285,435
Dol ar inflation
index:(2008=1)*
0.8148
0.8361
0.8545
0.8816
0.9119
0.9484
0.9744
1
Source: U.S. Government
* Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.
CRS-76
Table 37. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 2001-2008
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
United States
32.94%
34.37%
32.00%
33.92%
38.53%
35.73%
37.02%
38.43%
Russia 16.94%
12.57%
12.39%
16.16%
10.94%
18.08%
15.15%
16.96%
France 7.21%
5.24%
6.92%
15.87%
8.37%
4.30%
6.54%
2.83%
United Kingdom
15.50%
17.45%
19.88%
9.52%
11.91%
12.91%
5.94%
6.28%
China 3.24%
3.14%
2.02%
2.60%
2.57%
3.16%
4.46%
4.4%
Germany 2.52%
4.19%
6.63%
5.19%
5.79%
8.03%
8.32%
9.11%
Italy 1.80%
2.09%
1.15%
0.58%
3.22%
1.15%
2.08%
1.26%
Al Other European
10.82%
10.47%
11.81%
6.93%
9.66%
10.62%
11.88%
12.57%
Al Others
9.01%
10.47%
7.20%
9.23%
9.01%
6.03%
8.61%
8.17%
[Major West European*
27.04%
28.97%
34.58%
31.16%
29.29%
26.40%
22.87%
19.48%
TOTAL 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.
CRS-77
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 38. Arms Deliveries to the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1 United
States 41,847
2 United
Kingdom 19,500
3 Russia 18,200
4 France 11,400
5 Germany 6,000
6 Israel 3,800
7 China 3,400
8 Sweden 3,200
9 Ukraine 2,900
10 Canada 2,900
11 Italy 1,700
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2005-2008
1 United
States 49,117
2 Russia 20,200
3 United
Kingdom 12,200
4 Germany 10,300
5 France 7,200
6 China 4,800
7 Sweden 3,200
8 Canada 3,000
9 Israel 3,000
10 Netherlands 2,600
11 Italy 2,500
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained
Congressional Research Service
78
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Arms Deliveries to the World, 2001-2008: Leading Suppliers Compared (Continued)
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2008
1 United
States 90,964
2 Russia 38,400
3 United
Kingdom 31,700
4 France 18,600
5 Germany 16,300
6 China
8,200
7 Israel 6,800
8 Sweden 6,400
9 Canada 5.900
10 Italy 4,200
11 Ukraine 4,000
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
79
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Table 39. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2008: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2008
1 United
States 12,232
2 Russia 5,400
3 Germany 2,900
4 United
Kingdom 2.000
5 China 1,400
6 France 900
7 Israel 900
8 Sweden 800
9 Netherlands 700
10 Austria 500
11 Spain 400
Source: U. S. Government
Notes: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Congressional Research Service
80
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 2001-2008
Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavy tanks; self-
propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns.
Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and
recoilless rifles—100 mm and over; FROG launchers—100mm and over.
Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includes personnel
carriers, armored and amphibious; armored infantry fighting vehicles; armored reconnaissance
and command vehicles.
Major Surface Combatants: This category includes aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers,
frigates.
Minor Surface Combatants: This category includes minesweepers, subchasers, motor torpedo
boats, patrol craft, motor gunboats.
Submarines: This category includes all submarines, including midget submarines.
Guided Missile Patrol Boats: This category includes all boats in this class.
Supersonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft designed to
function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.
Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft designed to
function operationally at speeds below Mach 1.
Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, including trainers,
transports, reconnaissance aircraft, and communications/utility aircraft.
Helicopters: This category includes all helicopters, including combat and transport.
Surface-to-air Missiles: This category includes all ground-based air defense missiles.
Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missiles without regard
to range, such as Scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles. It also excludes all anti-
ship missiles, which are counted in a separate listing.
Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the Harpoon,
Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.
Congressional Research Service
81
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts
ASIA
NEAR EAST
EUROPE
Afghanistan
Algeria
Albania
Australia
Bahrain
Armenia
Bangladesh
Egypt
Austria
Brunei
Iran
Azerbaijan
Burma (Myanmar)
Iraq
Belarus
China
Israel
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Fiji
Jordan
Bulgaria
India
Kuwait
Belgium
Indonesia
Lebanon
Croatia
Japan
Libya
Czechoslovakia/
Cambodia
Morocco
Czech Republic
Kazakhstan
Oman
Cyprus
Kyrgyzstan
Qatar
Denmark
Laos
Saudi Arabia
Estonia
Malaysia
Syria
Finland
Nepal
Tunisia
France
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
FYR/Macedonia
North Korea
Yemen
Georgia
Pakistan
Germany
Papua New Guinea
Greece
Philippines
Hungary
Pitcairn
Iceland
Singapore
Ireland
South Korea
Italy
Sri Lanka
Latvia
Taiwan
Liechtenstein
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Thailand
Luxembourg
Turkmenistan
Malta
Uzbekistan
Moldova
Vietnam
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia/Serbia/Montenegro
Congressional Research Service
82
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
AFRICA
LATIN AMERICA
Angola
Antigua
Benin
Argentina
Botswana
Bahamas
Burkina Faso
Barbados
Burundi
Belize
Cameroon
Bermuda
Cape Verde
Bolivia
Central African Republic
Brazil
Chad
British Virgin Islands
Congo
Cayman Islands
Côte d’Ivoire
Chile
Djibouti
Colombia
Equatorial Guinea
Costa Rica
Ethiopia
Cuba
Gabon
Dominica
Gambia
Dominican Republic
Ghana
Ecuador
Guinea
El Salvador
Guinea-Bissau
French Guiana
Kenya
Grenada
Lesotho
Guadeloupe
Liberia
Guatemala
Madagascar
Guyana
Malawi
Haiti
Mali
Honduras
Mauritania
Jamaica
Mauritius
Martinique
Mozambique
Mexico
Namibia
Montserrat
Niger
Netherlands Antilles
Nigeria
Nicaragua
Réunion
Panama
Rwanda
Paraguay
Senegal
Peru
Seychelles
St. Kitts & Nevis
Sierra Leone
St. Lucia
Somalia
St. Pierre & Miquelon
South Africa
St. Vincent
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad
Tanzania
Turks & Caicos
Togo
Venezuela
Uganda
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Congressional Research Service
83
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008
Author Contact Information
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in International Security
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7675
Congressional Research Service
84