Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1991-1998

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1991-1998

Order Code RL30275
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1991-1998
August 4, 1999
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
This report is prepared annually to provide unclassified quantitative data on conventional
arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the
preceding eight calendar years. This report covers the years from 1991-1998. It also provides
some general data on worldwide conventional arms transfers for the same time period, but the
principal focus is on data illustrating the levels of such arms transfers by major weapons
suppliers to nations in the developing world. Data on deliveries by key suppliers of fourteen
categories of conventional weapons systems is also included for 1991-1998. The data in the
report show how global patterns of conventional arms transfers have changed in the post-Cold
War and post-Persian Gulf War years. Despite world changes since the Cold War's end, the
developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign transfer activity by
conventional weapons suppliers.

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
1991-1998
Summary

This report is prepared annually to provide unclassified quantitative data on
conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign
countries for the preceding eight calendar years. Some general data are provided on
worldwide conventional arms transfers, but the principal focus is the level of arms
transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.
Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales
activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1991-1998, the value of arms transfer
agreements with developing nations comprised 69.4% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements have declined generally, but
those with developing nations still constituted 66.4% of all such agreements globally
from 1995-1998.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1998 was
$13.2 billion. This was the lowest total, in real terms, since 1991. In 1998, the value
of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $23.2 billion, a notable decrease in
deliveries values from the previous year (in constant 1998 dollars).
Recently, from 1995-1998, the United States, Russia, and France have
dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States and
Russia making nearly the same level of arms transfer agreements. From 1995-1998,
the United States made $15.6 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations, 23.4% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this
period, made nearly $15 billion in arms transfer agreements or 22.5%. France, the
third leading supplier, made $11.1 billion or 16.7% of all such agreements with
developing nations during these years.
In 1998, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at roughly $4.6 billion, holding 34.7% of such agreements; France
was second with $2.4 billion or 18.2% of such agreements. Germany ranked third
with $2 billion or 15.2% of such agreements. The total value of U.S. arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in 1998 was a notable increase, in real terms,
from 1997. In 1998, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations at $7.8 billion, or 33.6% of all such deliveries. France ranked
second at $6.2 billion or 26.7% of such deliveries.
During the 1995-1998 period, Saudi Arabia ranked first among developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $7.9 billion in such
agreements. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second at $7.4 billion. China
ranked third with $6.9 billion. Among developing nations weapons purchasers, Saudi
Arabia ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements in 1998, concluding $2.7
billion in such agreements. The United Arab Emirates ranked second at $2.5 billion.
Malaysia ranked third with $2.1 billion.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major West European Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Weapon Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Major West European suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
All Other European suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary of Data Trends, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . 15
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1991-1998:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1998:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1991-1998:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1995-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values, 1991-1998 . . . . 74
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . 74
Total Worldwide Arms Delivery Values, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . 83
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
List of Tables
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, By Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . . 47
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 1998:
Agreements by Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . 55
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1990-1997 . . . 56
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . 57
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1991-1998 . . . . 59

Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:

The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Africa . . . . . . . 73
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . 77
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998 79
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . 82

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1991-1998
Introduction
This report provides unclassified background data from U.S. government sources
on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the
period 1991 through 1998. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1990-1997,” published by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) on July 31,1998 (CRS Report 98-647F).
The data in the report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms
transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.
Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in reaction to
changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Despite global changes
since the Cold War’s end, the developing world continues to be the primary focus of
foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of
this report, 1991-1998, conventional arms transfers to developing nations have
comprised 69.4% of the value of all international arms transfers. In 1998, arms
transfer agreements, which represent orders for future delivery, with developing
nations fell notably from 1997 totals, but still comprised 57.3% of the value of all such
agreements globally. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 66.4% of all agreements globally from 1995-1998. In the period from
1995-1998, deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations represented 76.7%
of the value of all international arms deliveries. In 1998, arms deliveries to developing
nations constituted over 77.8% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report completely supersede all data published in previous
editions. Since these new data for 1991-1998 reflect potentially significant updates
to and revisions in the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in
the most recent edition should be used. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the
calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box notes on page 2). U.S.
commercially licensed arms exports are noted separately (see box note on page 14).
Excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups.

CRS-2
CALENDAR YEAR DATA USED
All arms transfer and arms delivery data in this report are for the calendar
year or calendar year period given. This applies to both U.S. and foreign data
alike. United States government departments and agencies publish data on U.S.
arms transfers and deliveries but generally use the United States fiscal year as the
computational time period for these data. (A U.S. fiscal year covers the period
from October 1 through September 30). As a consequence, there are likely to
be distinct differences noted in those published totals using a fiscal year basis and
those provided in this report which uses a calendar year basis for its figures.
Details regarding data used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1,
2, 8 and 9.
CONSTANT 1998 DOLLARS
Throughout this report values of arms transfer agreements and values of
arms deliveries for all suppliers are expressed in U.S. dollars. Values for any
given year generally reflect the exchange rates that prevailed during that specific
year. In many instances, the report converts these dollar amounts (current
dollars) into constant 1998 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 Department of Defense and are set out at the bottom
of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9. Unless otherwise noted in the report, all dollar
values are stated in constant terms. Because all regional data tables are
composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (1991-1994 and 1995-1998), they
must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms
suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using
four-year aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.

CRS-3
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 1998 was nearly $23 billion. This is an increase in arms
agreements values over 1997. This total, however, is substantially lower than most
years since 1991--the period overlapping the end of the Cold War and the years of
post-Persian Gulf war rearmament. (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 1998, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at $7.1 billion (30.8% of all such agreements), up from $5.7 billion
in 1997. Germany ranked second with $5.5 billion in agreements (23.9% of these
agreements globally), up significantly from about $600 million in 1997. France ranked
third, as its arms transfer agreements worldwide dropped notably from $5 billion in
1997 to $3 billion in 1998. The United States, Germany, and France, collectively,
made agreements in 1998 valued at $15.6 billion, 67.8% of all international arms
transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A and 8B).
For the period 1995-1998, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $100.3 billion) has been notably less than the worldwide value
during 1991-1994 ($130.6 billion), a decline of 23.2%. As the worldwide arms
transfer agreement totals have declined, so have those to the developing world.
During the period 1991-1994, developing world nations accounted for 71.7% of the
value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1995-1998 developing
world nations accounted for 66.4% of all arms transfer agreements made globally.
In 1998, developing nations accounted for 57.3% of all arms transfer agreements
made worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 1998, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms
deliveries, making $10.5 billion in such deliveries or 35.3%. This is the eighth year
in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries, reflecting, in
particular, implementation of arms transfer agreements made during and in the
aftermath of the Persian Gulf war. France ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries
in 1998, making $6.5 billion in such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third in
1998, making $5.3 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in
1998 collectively delivered over $22.3 billion, 74.9% of all arms delivered worldwide
by all suppliers in that year. (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B).
The value of all international arms deliveries in 1998 was over $29.8 billion.
This is a notable decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year
($37.8 billion). The total value of all such arms deliveries worldwide from 1995-1998
($131.2 billion) was a notable increase in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
worldwide from 1991-1995 (about $120.4 billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and
9B)(charts 10 and 11).
Developing world nations from 1995-1998 accounted for 76.7% of the value of
all international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1991-1994, developing world
nations accounted for 69.4% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. Most

CRS-4
recently, in 1998, developing nations collectively accounted for 77.8% of the value
of all international arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, 9A and 9B).
Competition for available arms sales continues to intensify among major weapons
suppliers. The limited resources of most developing nations to expend on weapons,
and the need of many selling nations to secure cash for their weapons, continues to
place constraints on significant expansion of the arms trade. Developed nations are
likely to continue to seek to protect important elements of their own national military
industrial bases, and, consequently, are likely to limit their weapons purchases from
one another. In these circumstances, those nations that have effectively restructured
and consolidated their defense industries seem most likely to be the key players in the
international arms marketplace emerging in the post-Cold War era. Some traditional
arms supplying nations may feel compelled to engage in more joint production
ventures to maintain their defense industries. A continuing trend is the effort by
various weapons exporters to maintain and expand arms sales to nations and regions
where they have competitive advantages due to prior political/military ties to the
prospective buyers. New arms sales opportunities may develop with some European
nations in the new century due to the expansion of NATO, although, to date,
marketing efforts have not resulted in major weapons sales to new NATO member
states. The cost of new weaponry, and the limited financial resources of these new
NATO members have been important impediments to significant new purchases. Such
nations, therefore, may focus in the near term on upgrading their existing weapons
systems in various ways that require fewer major financial outlays.
It is possible that some significant arms sales may develop in the Near East, Asia
and Latin America, as individual countries attempt to replace older military
equipment. However, much of the developing world has not recovered from recent
major international financial problems. The 1997-1998 fall in the price of crude oil,
which has only recently abated, created great financial difficulties for some Persian
Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has found itself in significant financial straits,
given the various obligations it undertook during and after the 1990-1991 Persian
Gulf war, domestic spending priorities, and the magnitude of the costs associated
with its arms procurement program. Most recently, Saudi Arabia has even had
problems meeting its monthly payments to the United States for existing weapons
contracts, a situation that would have not seemed possible in the 1980s and early
1990s. Although in 1999 the price of crude oil has risen significantly, this fact does
not necessarily mean that major oil producing nations in the developing world, in
particular Saudi Arabia, will soon launch new and expensive weapons purchasing
programs, given the debts it has accrued. Other Persian Gulf nations, most notably,
the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), have made measured, but significant, purchases
of advanced weapons systems. The sound financial situation of the U.A.E. has made
it a key target for major arms suppliers, and has also given that nation significant
leverage in bargaining over new arms contracts in the current environment. The Asian
financial crisis of 1997 led to a major curtailment of planned weapons purchases by
several nations in that region. While the economic situation in Asia appears to have
stabilized somewhat, there does not yet appear to be a financial environment that
would lead to resumption of most of the arms procurement plans that had been
underway in several Asian nations when the financial crisis struck. Despite interest by
some Latin American states in modernizing older military equipment, domestic budget
constraints have so far curtailed implementation of such plans. The lack of sufficient

CRS-5
national funds and/or the scarcity of financing credits has also led other developing
nations to defer or curtail purchases of weapons. This general international economic
environment suggests that, in the near term, major weapons purchases will be by the
few more affluent developing countries, and that much of the remainder of the
weapons trade will be based on the upgrading and maintenance of existing weapons
systems and related equipment.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1998 was
nearly $13.2 billion. This was the lowest total, in real terms, since 1991. The total
value of new arms transfer agreements with developing nations has generally declined
since 1993 (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 1998, the value of all arms deliveries to
developing nations ($23.2 billion) was a substantial decrease from the value of 1997
deliveries values ($30.3 billion (charts 10 and 11)(table 2A).
Recently, from 1995-1998, the United States, Russia and France have dominated
the arms market in the developing world, with the United States and Russia making
nearly the same level of arms transfer agreements. From 1995-1998, the United States
made nearly $15.6 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, 23.4%
of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period, made
nearly $15.6 billion in arms transfer agreements or 23.4%. France, the third leading
supplier, made $11.1 billion or 16.7% of all such agreements with developing nations
during these years. In the earlier period,(1991-1994) as the Cold War was ending, the
United States ranked first with nearly $31 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations or 33.1%, France made nearly $26.2 billion in agreements or about
28%. Russia made $15.2 billion in arms transfer agreements during this period or
16.2%(table 1A).
Throughout the 1990s, most arms transfers to developing nations were made
by two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has ranked
either first or second among these suppliers every year from 1991-1998, with the sole
exception of 1997. France has been the most consistent competitor for the lead in
arms transfer agreements with developing nations, ranking first in 1992, 1994 and
1997. As competition over a shrinking international arms market intensifies, France
seems more likely to rank higher in arms deals with developing nations than Russia,
a supplying nation with seemingly more significant limitations in its prospective arms
client base than other major western suppliers. Major arms suppliers like the United
Kingdom and Germany may from time to time conclude significant orders with
developing countries. Yet it seems that, at the turn of the new century, the United
States is best positioned to lead in new arms agreements with developing nations. At
the same time it seems likely that very large weapons orders from individual
developing nations will be less frequent in the near term. As a consequence, the
overall level of the arms trade is likely to remain fairly static in the foreseeable future,
not approaching the sales levels of the Cold War or Persian Gulf war periods.
Nations in the tier of suppliers below the United States, France, Russia, and the
United Kingdom—such as Germany, China, other European, and non-European
suppliers have been sporadic participants in the arms trade with developing nations.
Most of their annual arms transfer agreements totals during 1991-1998 are at

CRS-6
relatively low levels. Few of these countries are likely to be major suppliers of
advanced weaponry on a sustained basis. With some exceptions, most of them are
much more likely to make sales of less sophisticated and less expensive military
equipment (tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).
United States.
In 1998, the total value, in real terms, of U.S. arms transfer agreements with
developing nations rose significantly to about $4.6 billion from $2.6 billion in 1997.
The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 34.7% in 1998, a substantial
increase from 15.7% in 1997 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1) (tables 1A and 1B).
The increase in United States arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 1998 is primarily attributable to a large number of less costly purchases by key U.S.
clients in the Near East. U.S. arms transfers to developing nations in 1998 reflect the
continuation of established defense support arrangements, including weapons systems
upgrades, training and support services, and the purchase of air-to-air, air-to-ground,
and anti-ship missile systems, helicopters, spare parts and ammunition. Among such
items sold by the United States in 1998 to Saudi Arabia were AIM-9L missile
upgrades, 90mm weapons systems for armored vehicles, various support services to
upgrade the capabilities of the Saudi Arabia National Guard (SANG), and the Saudi
C3 system, among others. Egypt purchased CH-47D Chinook helicopters, support for
co-production of M88A2 recovery vehicles, and AGM-84G Harpoon missiles. The
Kuwait government ordered 2 Paladin artillery battalions, and a Patriot air defense
system. Israel ordered AGM-142D missiles, AIM-120B AMRAAM missiles, and
Harpoon missiles. The United Arab Emirates ordered RGM-84G Harpoon missiles.
In Asia, South Korea purchased MK-41 vertical launch missiles systems and support,
MLRS-ER Rocket Pods, MLRS spare parts, and F-16 aircraft modification kits.
Taiwan purchased Harpoon missiles and MK-46 torpedoes. Singapore ordered KC-
135 tanker upgrades and support services. Although new arms sales involving major
weapons systems may develop for the United States as international economic
conditions improve, in the near term it appears likely that an important component of
U.S. arms transfers will continue to be upgrades, spare parts, missiles, ammunition,
and training related to major weapons systems the United States has previously
provided to its clients.
Russia.*
* Russia is used throughout the text, tables and charts, although data for all years prior
(continued...)

CRS-7
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations fell
from about $3.2 billion in 1997, to $1.4 billion in1998, placing it fourth in such
agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all developing world arms
transfer agreements decreased as well, falling from 18.9% in 1997 to 10.6% in 1998
(charts 1 and 3)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Russia’s arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations declined every
year from 1995 until 1998, although during this four-year period it actually ranked
second among all major suppliers to developing countries, making $15 billion in
agreements. Its arms agreements values ranged from a high of $8.3 billion in 1991
to a low of $1.3 billion in 1993 (in constant 1998 dollars). This decline in arms sales
reflects the continuing effect of the economic and political problems of the former
Soviet Union as the Cold War drew to a close. Many of Russia’s traditional arms
clients have been less wealthy developing nations that were once provided generous
grant military assistance and deep discounts on arms purchases. The breakup of the
Soviet Union at the end of 1991 terminated that practice. Russia now actively seeks
to sell weapons as a means of obtaining hard currency. Some of Russia’s former arms
clients in the developing world continue to express interest in obtaining additional
weaponry from it but have been restricted in this effort by a lack of funds to pay for
these armaments.
Russia has confronted significant difficulties in making lucrative new sales of
conventional weapons because most potential cash-paying arms purchasers have been
longstanding customers of the United States or major West European suppliers.
These prospective arms buyers are not likely to replace their weapons inventories with
unfamiliar non-Western armaments when newer versions of existing equipment are
readily available from traditional suppliers, even in an era of heightened competition.
The difficult transition Russia has been making from the state supported and
controlled industrial model of the former Soviet Union has also led some prospective
arms customers to question whether Russian defense companies can be reliable
suppliers of the spare parts and support services needed to maintain weapons systems
they sell.
But because Russia has had a wide range of armaments to sell, from the most
basic to the highly sophisticated, and despite the internal problems evident in the
Russian defense industrial sector, various developing countries view Russia as a
potential source of their military equipment. Accordingly, Russia has made strong
efforts to gain arms agreements with developing nations that can pay cash for their
purchases, and the figures from 1994 through1997 suggest Russia has had some
success in doing so. During this period, Russia also made small arms deals with
Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates for armored fighting vehicles and with Malaysia
for MiG-29 fighter aircraft. Iran, primarily due to its own economic problems, as well
as U.S. pressure on Russia, recently has ceased to be a major purchaser of arms from
(...continued)
*
to 1992 represent transactions of the former Soviet Union as a whole. Russia was by far the
principal arms producer and exporter of all the former Soviet republics, and the political
center for decision-making by the former Soviet Union. Data for 1992-1998 are for Russia
exclusively.

CRS-8
the Russians. Before the Cold War ended, Iran was a primary purchaser of Russian
armaments, receiving such items as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24 fighter-bombers,
T-72 tanks and Kilo class attack submarines. Syria, deeply in debt to Russia for earlier
large-scale arms purchases from the former Soviet Union, is seeking newer Russian
equipment but may not be able to afford it without financial assistance.
Since 1994, Russia’s principal arms clients have been China and India. Among
Russia’s most notable arms deals during these years were the sale of 40 new Su-
30MK fighter aircraft to India, a longstanding arms client. Russia's arms supplying
relationship with China has also matured since 1994. By 1996, Russia had sold China
at least 72 Su-27 fighter aircraft as well as four Kilo class attack submarines.
Subsequently, a licensing agreement was finalized between Russia and China,
permitting China to co-produce as many as 200 Su-27 aircraft. Russia also sold China
two Sovremenny-class destroyers. Although there were no large new arms
agreements with China or India in 1998, others may be in prospect as it appears that
China, in particular, is a key component in Russia’s arms export calculus for the
immediate future (table 1H) (chart 4).
China.
China emerged as an important arms supplier to developing nations in the 1980s,
primarily due to arms agreements made with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq war.
In the period of this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations peaked in 1997 at $1.6 billion. From 1991 through 1998 the value
of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations has averaged about
$720 million annually. In 1998, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations was $500 million. China has become, more recently, a major
purchaser of arms, primarily from Russia.(tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, few clients with financial resources have
sought to purchase Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and
sophisticated than weaponry available from Western suppliers and Russia. China does
not appear likely to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the international
arms market in the foreseeable future. Reports have persisted in various publications
that China has sold surface-to-surface missiles to a longstanding arms client,
Pakistan. Iran and North Korea have also reportedly received Chinese missile
technology. Such reports raise important questions about China’s expressed
commitment to the restrictions on missile transfers set out in the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR). With a need for hard currency and products (missiles) that
some developing nations would like to obtain, China may pose an important problem
for those seeking to stem proliferation of advanced missile systems into volatile areas
of the developing world.
Major West European Countries.

CRS-9
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a slight decrease in their collective share of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations between 1997 and 1998. This group’s
share fell from 36.7% in 1997 to 35.7% in 1998. The collective value of this group’s
arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1998 was $4.7 billion compared
with a total of over $6.1 billion in 1997. Of these four, France was the principal
supplier with $2.4 billion in agreements, a notable decline from $4.7 billion in 1997.
However, in 1994 and 1997, France did rank first among all suppliers to developing
nations. The French agreements total in 1998 was primarily based on a contract for
the sale to the United Arab Emirates of 30 Mirage 2000-9 fighter aircraft. The United
Kingdom registered a notable decline in arms agreements from over $1 billion in
1997 to $200 million in 1998. Italy registered a decline from $300 million in 1997 to
$100 million in 1998. In 1997, Germany’s agreements with developing nations were
about $100 million, but in 1998 they rose significantly to $2 billion, based in part on
a contract with Malaysia to build jointly the first six of 27 offshore patrol vessels
(charts 3 and 4) (tables 1A and 1B).
As a group, the major West European suppliers held a 34.5% share of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1991-1998. Since
the end of the Cold War, the major West European suppliers have generally
maintained a notable share of arms transfer agreements. For the 1995-1998 period,
they collectively held 28.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
(over $19 billion). Individual suppliers within the major West European group have
had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 1992, 1993, 1994 and
1997 ($9.8 billion, $4.3 billion, $8.5 billion and $4.7 billion respectively). The United
Kingdom also had large agreement years in 1993 ($2.6 billion) and 1996 ($2.1 billion)
(in constant 1998 dollars). For both nations, these totals have reflected the conclusion
of a few large arms contracts with one or more major purchasers in a given year
(tables 1A and 1B ).
Major West European suppliers have had their competitive standing in weapons
exports enhanced by historically strong government marketing support for foreign
arms sales. Because they can produce both advanced and basic air, ground, and naval
weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers have proven capable of
competing successfully with the United States and Russia for arms sales contracts
with developing nations. Nonetheless, a declining global marketplace for conventional
weapons may make it more difficult for individual West European suppliers to secure
large new weapons contracts with developing nations. Accordingly, some of these
suppliers may decide not to compete for sales of some weapons categories, reducing
or eliminating some categories they currently produce. Instead, they may seek joint
production ventures with other key European weapons suppliers or purchasers in an
effort to sustain key elements of their respective defense industrial bases.
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements

CRS-10
In the Near East, the Persian Gulf war from August 1990-February 1991 played
a major role in stimulating high levels of arms transfer agreements with nations in that
region. The war created new demands by key Near East nations such as Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons systems. These demands were not
only a response to Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but an effort to address concerns
regarding perceived threats from a potentially hostile Iran. In Asia, efforts focused on
upgrading and modernizing defense forces in several countries have led to important
new conventional weapons sales in that region. Russian has also developed a
significant role as principal supplier of advanced conventional arms to China. Data
on regional arms transfer agreements from 1991-1998 continue to reflect the primacy
of developing nations in the Near East and Asian regions as consumers of
conventional weaponry.
Near East.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1991-1994 it accounted for 60.8% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($50.5 billion in current dollars). During 1995-1998,
the region accounted for 44.2% of all such agreements ($28.6 billion in current
dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1991-1998 time period with 42.3% of their total value ($33.5 billion in
current dollars). France was second during these years with 27.8% ($22 billion in
current dollars). Recently, from 1995-1998, the United States accounted for 35.1%
of arms agreements with this region, (over $10 billion in current dollars), while France
accounted for 31.1% of the region's arms agreements ($8.9 billion in current dollars),
representing most of the arms transfer agreements by the major West European
suppliers with the Near East (chart 5) (tables 1C and 1E).

Asia.
Asia has generally been the second largest developing world arms market. In the
earlier period (1991-1994), Asia accounted for 32.5% of the total value of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations (nearly $27 billion in current dollars).
During 1995-1998, the region accounted for 44.4% of all such agreements ($28.7
billion in current dollars), which was fractionally higher than the 44.2% share ($28.6
billion) held by Near East region during these same four years (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1991-1994), France ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with over 35.9%. Russia ranked second with 25.2%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 48.5% of this region’s
agreements in 1991-1994. In the later period (1995-1998), Russia ranked first in
Asian agreements with 40% on the strength of major aircraft sales to China and India.
The United States ranked second with 15.8%. The major West European suppliers,
as a group, made about 23.7% of this region’s agreements in 1995-1998 (chart 6)
(table 1E).

CRS-11
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing world arms
purchaser from 1991-1998, making arms transfer agreements totaling $32.2 billion
during these years (in current dollars). In the 1991-1994 period, the value of its arms
transfer agreements was high ($24.3 billion). From 1995-1998, however, the total
value of Saudi Arabia's arms transfer agreements dropped significantly to $7.9 billion
(in current dollars). This decline resulted from Saudi debt obligations stemming from
the Persian Gulf war era, coupled with a significant fall in Saudi revenues caused by
the notable decline in the market price of its oil. The total value of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1991-1998 was about $147.8 billion (in
current dollars). Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for over 21.8% of all developing
world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period--
1995-1998--Saudi Arabia alone accounted for 12.3% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements ($7.9 billion out of $64.4 billion in current dollars) (chart 9)
(tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).
The values of the arms transfer agreements of the top ten developing world
recipient nations in both the 1991-1994 and 1995-1998 time periods accounted for
the major portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1991-1994 the
top ten collectively accounted for 91.9% of all developing world arms transfer
agreements. During 1995-1998 the top ten collectively accounted for 72.4% of all
such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world
recipients, as a group, totaled $11.2 billion in 1998 or 85% of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in that year. This reflects the continued
concentration of major arms purchases in a few nations. (tables 1, 1I and 1J).
Saudi Arabia ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of
arms transfer agreements in 1998, concluding $2.7 billion in such agreements. The
United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked second in agreements in 1998 at $2.5 billion.
Malaysia ranked third with $2.1 billion in agreements (table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 1998, receiving $8.7 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia alone
received 37.5% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 1998.
Taiwan ranked second in arms deliveries in 1998 with $5 billion; Singapore ranked
third with $1.6 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group,
constituted $23 billion, or 99.1% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 1998.
Six of the top ten recipients were in the Near East region (tables 2 and 2J).
Weapon Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though Russia, the
United States 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

CRS-12
European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable
of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing
nations (tables 3-7) (pages 69-73).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, the largest purchasing region in the
developing world, reflect the substantial quantities and types delivered by both major
and lesser suppliers. The following is an illustrative summary of weapons deliveries
to this region for the period 1995-1998 from table 5 (page 71):
United States.
! 817 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 69 artillery pieces
! 2,727 APCs and armored cars
! 13 minor surface combatants
! 126 supersonic combat aircraft
! 90 helicopters
! 1,284 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)
! 287 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 290 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 610 APCs and armored cars
! 1 submarine
! 10 supersonic combat aircraft
! 90 helicopters
! 140 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)
China.
! 8 guided missile boats
! 10 supersonic combat aircraft
! 120 anti-ship missiles
Major West European suppliers.
! 220 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 340 APCs and armored cars
! 2 major surface combatants
! 14 minor surface combatants
! 8 guided missile boats
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 350 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)
! 20 anti-ship missiles

CRS-13
All Other European suppliers.
! 200 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 880 APCs and armored cars
! 2 major surface combatants
! 15 minor surface combatants
! 10 supersonic combat aircraft
All Other suppliers.
! 3 minor surface combatants
! 30 surface-to-air-missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 1995-1998, in particular, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, minor
surface combatants, artillery pieces, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air
defense and anti-ship missiles. The United States made significant deliveries of
supersonic combat aircraft to the region. Russia, the United States, and European
suppliers generally were the principal suppliers of tanks and self-propelled guns.
These two weapons categories—supersonic combat aircraft and tanks and self-
propelled guns—are especially costly and are an important part of the dollar values
of arms deliveries of Russia and the United States to the Near East region during the
1995-1998 period. The cost of naval combatants is generally high, and suppliers of
such systems during this period had their deliveries values totals notably increased due
to these transfers. Some of the less expensive weapons systems delivered to the Near
East are deadly and can create important security threats within the region. In
particular, from 1995-1998, the United States delivered 287 anti-ship missiles; China
delivered 120. China also delivered 8 guided missile boats, as did the major West
European suppliers collectively.

CRS-14
DEFINITION OF THE DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
The developing nations category, as used in this report, includes all countries except the United
States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. A listing of countries
located in the regions defined for purpose of this analysis—Asia, Near East, Latin America, and
Africa—is provided at the end of the report.
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
U.S. commercial sales and deliveries data are excluded from the main data tables. This is done
because the data maintained on U.S. commercial sales agreements and deliveries are incomplete, and
not collected or revised on an on-going basis, making them significantly less precise than those for the
U.S. Foreign Military Sales (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 approval-
-valid for four years--there is no current requirement that the exporter provide the State Department,
on a systematic and on-going basis, with comprehensive details regarding any sales contract that may
result from the license approval, including if any such contract is reduced in scope or canceled. Annual
commercial deliveries data are obtained from shipper’s export documents and completed licenses
returned from ports of exit by the U.S. Customs Service to the Office of Defense Trade Controls
(PM/DTC) of the State Department, which makes the final compilation. This approach to obtaining
commercial deliveries data is also much less systematic and much less timely than that taken by the
Department of Defense for government-to-government transactions.
The annual rank of the United States in deliveries to developing nations in the period from 1991-
1998 has possibly been affected--in a couple of prior years--by exclusion of the existing data on U.S.
commercial arms deliveries to those nations (see table 2). Since the total values of all U.S. deliveries
are understated by exclusion of commercial arms deliveries figures, those commercial data are
provided here to complete this element of the available record. It should be noted that the U.S. is the
only major arms supplier that has two distinct systems for the export of weapons, the government-to-
government (FMS) system and the licensed commercial export system. The values of U.S. commercial
arms deliveries to developing nations for fiscal years 1991-1998, in current dollars, according to the
State Department, were as follows:
FY 1991
$1, 644,000,000
FY 1992
$627,000,000
FY 1993
$701,000,000
FY 1994
$818,000,000
FY 1995
$908,000,000
FY 1996
$461,000,000
FY 1997
$276,000,000
FY 1998
$151,000,000

CRS-15
Summary of Data Trends, 1991-1998
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 44-54) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1991-1998. These data show the
most recent trends in arms contract activity by major suppliers. Delivery data, which
reflect implementation of sales decisions taken earlier, are shown in Tables 2 through
2J (pages 55-65). Tables 8, 8A and 8B (pages 77-79) provide data on worldwide
arms transfers agreements from 1991-1998, while Tables 9, 9A and 9B (pages 80-
82) provide data on worldwide arms deliveries during this period. To use these data
regarding agreements for purposes other than assessing general trends in seller/buyer
activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can be readily invalidated by future
events—precise values and comparisons, for example, may change due to
cancellations or modifications of major arms transfer agreements. These data sets
reflect the comparative order of magnitude of arms transactions by arms suppliers
with recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise noted.
What follows is a detailed summary of data trends from the tables in the report.
The summary statements also reference tables and/or charts pertinent to the point(s)
noted.
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values
Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements
with developing nations. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation,
they are, by themselves, of somewhat limited use. They provide, however, the data
from which tables 1A (constant dollars) and 1B (supplier percentages) are derived.
Some of the more noteworthy facts reflected by these data are summarized below.
! The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1998 was
nearly $13.2 billion. This was the lowest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations since 1991(tables 1 and 1A) (chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations rose
significantly from $2.6 billion in 1997, to about $4.6 billion in 1998. The
United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer agreements
increased from 15.7% in 1997, to 34.7% in 1998 (tables 1A and 1B) (chart
3).
! In 1998, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer agreements
with developing nations declined from the previous year, falling from about
$3.2 billion in 1997 to $1.4 billion in 1998. The Russian share of all such
agreements fell from 18.9% in 1997 to 10.6% in 1998 (charts 3 and 4)(tables
1A and 1B).

CRS-16
Chart 1
Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide 1991-1998
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-17
Chart 2

CRS-18
Chart 3

CRS-19
Chart 4
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1991-1998: By Major Supplier
(billi
ons
of
const
ant
1998
dolla
rs)

CRS-20
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1991-1998 and Suppliers’
Share With Developing World (in millions of constant 1998 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements Value
Percentage of Total
Supplier
1991-1994
with Developing World
United States
55,130
56.20
Russia
17,192
88.40
France
28,980
90.40
United Kingdom
6,381
89.50
China
2,580
100.00
Germany
5,968
51.60
Italy
1,579
78.30
All Other European
8,650
65.00
All Others
4,161
73.10
TOTAL
130,621
71.70
Worldwide Agreements Value
Percentage of Total
Supplier
1995-1998
with Developing World
United States
28,430
54.90
Russia
18,456
81.20
France
13,678
81.20
United Kingdom
7,964
49.50
China
3,586
88.60
Germany
6,748
35.90
Italy
2,891
54.20
All Other European
10,781
78.90
All Others
7,770
67.90
TOTAL
100,304
66.40
Percentage of Total
Supplier
Worldwide Agreements Value 1998
with Developing World
United States
7,081
64.50
Russia
1,700
82.40
France
3,000
80.00
United Kingdom
1,200
16.70
China
700
88.60
Germany
5,500
36.40
Italy
1,000
10.00
All Other European
1,600
62.50
All Others
1,200
83.30
TOTAL
22,981
57.30

CRS-21
! The four major West European suppliers, as a group (France, United
Kingdom, Germany and Italy), registered a slight decrease in their collective
share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 1997
and 1998. This group’s share fell from 36.7% in 1997 to 35.7% in 1998. The
collective value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 1997 was about $6.1 billion compared with a total of $4.7 billion in
1998 (tables 1A and 1B) (charts 3 and 4).
! France registered a notable decline in its share of all arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, falling from 28.1% in 1997 to 18.2% in 1998. The
value of its agreements with developing nations fell from $4.7 billion in 1997
to $2.4 billion in 1998 (tables 1A and 1B).
! In 1998 the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $4.6 billion. France ranked second at $2.4 billion, while
Germany ranked third at $2 billion (charts 3 and 4) (tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1991-1998
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1991-1994 and 1995-1998.
These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars.
** Table 1D, derived from table
1C, gives the percentage distribution of each supplier’s agreement values within the
regions for the two time periods. Table 1E, also derived from table 1C, illustrates
what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms transfer
agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 1991-1994 and 1995-1998.
Among the facts reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
! The Near East has generally been the largest regional arms market in the
developing world. In 1991-1994 it accounted for 60.8% of the total value of
all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($50.5 billion in current
dollars). During 1995-1998, the region accounted for 44.2% of all such
agreements ($28.6 billion in current dollars)(tables 1C and 1D).
! The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1991-1998 time period with 42.3% of their total value ($33.5 billion
in current dollars). France was second during these eight years with 27.8%
($22 billion in current dollars). Most recently, from 1995-1998, the United
States accounted for 35.1% of all arms transfer agreements with the Near East
region (over $10 billion in current dollars). France accounted for 31.1% of
agreements with this region ($8.9 billion in current dollars). (chart 5) (tables
1C and 1E).
** Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they
must be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-22
Chart 5

CRS-23
! For the period 1991-1994, the United States concluded 84.6% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1995-1998,
the U.S. concluded 66.3% of its arms agreements with this region (table 1D).
! For the period 1991-1994, the four major West European suppliers collectively
made 55.8% of their arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1995-
1998, the major West Europeans made 54.8% of their arms agreements with
the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1991-1994, France concluded 56.2% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1995-1998, France made
81.7% of its developing world agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1991-1994, the United Kingdom concluded 51% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1995-1998,
the United Kingdom concluded 32.4% of its developing world agreements with
the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1991-1994, China concluded 43.5% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with nations in the Near East. For the more recent
period, 1995-1998, China concluded 41.9% of its developing world arms
transfer agreements with nations in the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1991-1994, Russia concluded 38.8% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East region. For the period 1995-
1998, Russia concluded 13.9% of its developing world arms transfer
agreements with the Near East region (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), the United States ranked first in arms
transfer agreements with the Near East with 46.4%. France ranked second
with 25.9%. Russia ranked third with 10.3%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 35.4% of this region’s agreements in 1991-1994.
In the later period (1995-1998), the United States ranked first in Near East
agreements with 35.1%. France ranked second with 31.1%. The major West
European suppliers, as a group, made 36% of this region’s agreements in
1995-1998 (table 1E) (chart 5).

CRS-24
Chart 6

CRS-25
Asia.
! Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the developing
world. In the 1991-1994 period Asia accounted for 32.5% of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations (nearly $27 billion in current dollars). In
the more recent period, 1995-1998, it accounted for nearly 44.4% of all
developing nations arms transfer agreements ($28.8 billion in current dollars)
(tables 1C and 1D).
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), France ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Asia with over 35.9%. Russia ranked second with 25.2%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 48.5% of this region’s
agreements in 1991-1994. In the later period (1995-1998), Russia ranked first
in Asian agreements with 40% on the strength of major aircraft and naval
vessel sales to China and India. The United States ranked second with 15.8%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made about 23.7% of this
region’s agreements in 1995-1998 (chart 6) (table 1E).

CRS-26
Chart 7

CRS-27
Latin America.
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), Russia ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Latin America with 26.6%. The United States ranked second
with 20.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.7% of
this region’s agreements in 1991-1994. In the later period (1995-1998), France
and Italy tied for first with 10.9% each. The United States ranked a close
second with 10.8%. Russia was third with 8.7%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 28.3% of this region’s agreements in 1995-1998.
Latin America registered an increase in the total value of its arms transfer
agreements from 1991-1994 to 1995-1998, rising from about $3.4 billion in the
earlier period to nearly $4.6 billion in the latter.(chart 7) (tables 1C and 1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), Russia ranked first in agreements with Africa
with 23% ($500 million in current dollars). France was second with 9.2% . The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13.8% of this region’s
agreements in 1991-1994. The United States made 3.4%. In the later period
(1995-1998), China ranked first with 21.7%. Russia ranked second with 18.1%
($600 million). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made nearly
14.5% of this region’s agreements in 1995-1998. Africa registered an increase
in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1991-1994 to 1995-
1998, rising from about $2.2 billion in the earlier period to about $2.8 billion
in the latter (in current dollars). This comparatively low level of arms
agreements reflects the ending of major Cold War related conflicts in this
region (tables 1C and 1E).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1991-1998 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—1991-1994, 1995-1998 and 1991-1998.
Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 ($15.1 billion), and first for
the entire period from 1991-1998 ($42.8 billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in the value
of arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 ($14.4 billion), and third from
1991-1998 ($27.8 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 ($10.8 billion), and second from
1991-1998($34.2 billion).

CRS-28

! The United Kingdom ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations
in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 ($3.8 billion), and
fourth from 1991-1998 ($8.9 billion).
! China ranked fifth among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 ($3.1 billion), and fifth from 1991-
1998 ($5.4 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives the values of 1998 arms transfer agreements with
developing nations by the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United States, France, and Germany, the year's top three arms suppliers
to developing nations—ranked by the value of their arms transfer
agreements—collectively made agreements in 1998 valued at nearly $9 billion,
68.1% of all arms transfer agreements made with developing nations by all
suppliers.
! In 1998, the United States was the clear leader in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, making $4.6 billion in such agreements, or 34.7% of
them.
! France ranked second and Germany third in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 1998, making $2.4 billion and $2 billion in such
agreements respectively.
! Russia ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing nations in
1998, making $1.4 million in such agreements, while Israel ranked fifth with
$500 million.

CRS-29
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1991-1998: Suppliers
And Recipients
Table 1H gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the Near East
nations by suppliers or categories of suppliers for the periods 1991-1994 and 1995-
1998. These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the
data contained in table 1 and table 1C. Among the facts reflected by this table are
the following:
! For the most recent period, 1995-1998, the principal purchasers of U. S. arms
in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements, were: Saudi
Arabia ($5.1 billion), Egypt ($4.5 billion) and Israel ($2.6 billion). The
principal purchasers of Russian arms were: Algeria, Egypt and the U.A.E.
($400 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from China were: Iran
($800 million), Algeria and Kuwait ($200 million each). The principal
purchasers of arms from the four major West European suppliers, as a group,
were: the United Arab Emirates ($6 billion), Saudi Arabia ($1.7 billion), and
Qatar ($900 million). The principal purchasers of arms from all other European
suppliers collectively were: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and the U.A.E. ($800
million each). The principal purchasers of arms from all other suppliers, as a
group, was Saudi Arabia ($300 million).
! For the period from 1995-1998, Saudi Arabia made $7.9 billion in arms
transfer agreements. Its principal suppliers were: the United States ($5.1
billion), the four major West European suppliers, as a group, ($1.7 billion)
and all other European suppliers collectively ($800 million). The United
Arab Emirates made $7.4 billion in arms transfer agreements. The major
West Europeans were its largest supplier ($6 billion). Egypt made $5
billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major supplier was the United States
($4.5 billion). Israel made $2.9 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its
principal supplier was the United States ($2.6 billion).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by Russia to the Near East fell
dramatically from the 1991-1994 period to the 1995-1998 period. The
largest decline involved arms agreements with Iran, falling from $3 billion
to $200 million. China’s arms transfer agreements with Iran rose from $600
million to $800 million (chart 8).
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with Saudi
Arabia fell significantly from the 1991-1994 period to the 1995-1998
period, declining from $17.7 billion in the earlier period to $5.1 billion in the
later period. Saudi Arabia made 64.6% of its arms transfer agreements with
the United States during 1995-1998. Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements
with Saudi Arabia by the major West European suppliers also decreased
significantly from 1991-1994 to 1995-1998, falling from $5.8 billion to $1.7
billion in current dollars (chart 9).

CRS-30
Chart 8

CRS-31
Chart 9

CRS-32
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1I gives the values of arms transfer agreements made by the top ten
recipients of arms in the developing world from 1991-1998 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—1991-
1994, 1995-1998 and 1991-1998. Among the facts reflected in this table are the
following:
! Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing world
purchaser of arms from 1991-1998, making agreements totaling $32.2 billion
during these years. The total value of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations from 1991-1998 was $147.8 billion in current dollars.
Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for over 21.8% of all developing world
arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period--
1995-1998--Saudi Arabia alone accounted for 12.3% of all developing world
arms transfer agreements ($7.9 billion out of nearly $64.4 billion in current
dollars) (tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J)(chart 9).
! During 1991-1994, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 91.9% of
all developing world arms transfer agreements. During 1995-1998 the top ten
collectively accounted for 72.4% of all such agreements. In 1998, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 85% of all such agreements (Tables 1, 1I
and 1J).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 1998:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 1998. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 1998. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Six of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in
1998 were in the Near East. Three were in Asia.
! Saudi Arabia ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the value
of arms transfer agreements in 1998, concluding $2.7 billion in such
agreements. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was second with $2.5 billion.
Malaysia was third with $2.1 billion.
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world recipients, as a
group, in 1998 totaled $11.2 billion or 85% of all such agreements with the
developing world. This reflects a continuing concentration of total developing
world arms purchases within relatively few countries. (Tables 1 and 1J).

CRS-33
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values
Table 2 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items
actually transferred) to developing nations by major suppliers from 1991-1998. The
utility of these particular data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They
provide the data from which tables 2A (constant dollars) and 2B (supplier
percentages) are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are
summarized below.
! In 1998, the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ( $23.2 billion)
was a substantial decrease in deliveries values from the previous year, ($30.3
billion) when measured in constant 1998 dollars (charts 10 and 11)(table 2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 1998 was 33.6%,
down from 36.3% in 1997. In 1998, the United States, for the second year in
a row, ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations (in
constant 1998 dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of Persian Gulf
war era arms transfer agreements. France’s share of all arms deliveries to
developing nations in 1998 was 26.7%, up from 18.9% in 1997.The share of
major West European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in 1998 was
49.6%, up from 40.8% in 1997 (tables 2A and 2B).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations from
1995-1998 (over $100.6 billion in constant 1998 dollars) was significantly
higher than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations
from 1991-1994 (nearly $83.6 billion in constant 1998 dollars), an increase of
20.4% (table 2A).
! During the years 1991-1998, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised
73.2% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 1998, the percentage of arms
deliveries to developing nations was 77.8% of all arms deliveries worldwide
(tables 2A and 9A) (figure 2).

CRS-34
Chart 10

CRS-35
Chart 11
Arms Deliveries To Developing Nations By Major Supplier, 1991-1998
(billions of constant 1998 dollars)

CRS-36
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1991-1998 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 1998 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Deliveries
Value
Percentage of Total
Supplier
1991-1994
to Developing World
United States
35,930
66.70
Russia
15,446
87.00
France
9,317
65.00
United Kingdom
23,387
85.50
China
4,857
97.70
Germany
7,776
40.60
Italy
1,579
21.40
All Other European
13,458
52.30
All Others
8,630
69.40
TOTAL
120,380
69.40
Worldwide Deliveries
Value
Percentage of Total
Supplier
to Developing World
1995-1998
United States
44,774
73.44
Russia
11,192
78.70
France
20,204
89.70
United Kingdom
24,022
91.40
China
2,989
96.70
Germany
6,099
30.60
Italy
1,131
82.10
All Other European
13,561
69.40
All Others
7,240
51.50
TOTAL
131,212
76.70
Worldwide Deliveries
Percentage of Total
Supplier
Value 1998
to Developing World
United States
10,531
74.10
Russia
2,000
85.00
France
6,500
95.40
United Kingdom
5,300
90.60
China
600
83.30
Germany
1,600
31.30
Italy
100
0.00
All Other European
1,800
61.10
All Others
1,400
42.90
TOTAL
29,831
77.80

CRS-37
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1991-1998
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1991-1994, and 1995-1998. These values are
expressed in current U.S. dollars. Table 2D, derived from table 2C, gives the
percentage distribution of each supplier’s delivery values within the regions for the
two time periods. Table 2E, also derived from table 2C, illustrates what percentage
share of each developing world region’s total arms delivery values was held by
specific suppliers during the years 1991-1994 and 1995-1998. Among the facts
reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
! The Near East region has generally led in the value of arms deliveries received
by the developing world. In 1991-1994, it accounted for 63.7% of the total
value of all developing world arms deliveries ($43.3 billion in current dollars).
During 1995-1998, the Near East region accounted for 48.2% of all such
deliveries ($38.6 billion in current dollars)(tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1991-1994, the United States made 75.9% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1995-1998, the U.S. made
62.7% of such arms deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1991-1994, the United Kingdom made 53.1% of its developing
world deliveries to the Near East region. In 1995-1998, the United Kingdom
made 36.4% of such deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1991-1994, 91.6% of France’s arms deliveries to the developing
world were to nations in the Near East region. In the more recent period,
1995-1998, 47.9% of France’s developing world deliveries were to nations of
this region (table 2D).
! For the period 1991-1994, Russia made 40.9% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region. In 1995-1998, Russia made 25.6% of such
deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), the United States ranked first in the value
of arms deliveries to the Near East with 37.4% ($16.2 billion in current
dollars). France ranked second with 30.3% ($13.1 billion in current dollars).
Russia ranked third with 12% ($5.2 billion in current dollars). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, held 41.3% of this region’s delivery values in
1991-1994. In the later period (1995-1998), the United States ranked first in
Near East delivery values with 51.9% (over $20 billion). France ranked
second with 23% ($8.9 billion). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, held 26.7% of this region’s delivery values in 1995-1998(table 2E).

CRS-38
Asia.
! The Asia region has generally ranked second in the value of arms deliveries
from most suppliers in both time periods. In the earlier period, 1991-1994,
about 28% of all arms deliveries to developing nations were to those in Asia
(over $19 billion in current dollars). In the later period, 1995-1998, Asia
accounted for 42.4% of such arms deliveries (nearly $34 billion in current
dollars). For the period 1995-1998, Germany made 76.5% of its developing
world deliveries to Asia. Russia made 62.8% of its developing world deliveries
to Asia. The United Kingdom made 57.6%, while Italy made 50% (tables 2C
and 2D).
! In the period from 1991-1994, Russia ranked first in the value of arms
deliveries to Asia with 32.1%. The United States ranked second with 22.7%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 21.6% of this region’s
delivery values in 1991-1994. In the later period (1995-1998), the United
States ranked first in Asian delivery values with 32.9%. France ranked second
with 26.8%. Russia ranked third with 14.4%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 38.3% of this region’s delivery values in 1995-1998
(table 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), the value of all arms deliveries to Latin
America was $3.4 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms deliveries
to Latin America with 26.2% ($900 million). The United States ranked second
with 21.5% ($740 million). The major West European suppliers, as a group,
held 23.3% of this region’s delivery values in 1991-1994. In the later period
(1995-1998), the United States ranked first in Latin American delivery values
with 13.9% ($662 million). France and Italy tied for second rank with 10.5%
each. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 27.3% of this
region’s delivery values in 1995-1998. During the later period, the value of all
arms deliveries to Latin America was nearly $4.8 billion, a notable increase
from the $3.4 billion deliveries total for 1991-1994 (tables 2C and 2E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period (1991-1994), the value of all arms deliveries to Africa was
about $2.2 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to Africa
with nearly 23% ($500 million). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, held 13.8% of this region’s delivery values in 1991-1994. France made
9.2% of these arms deliveries. The United States made 3.6%. In the later
period (1995-1998), China ranked first in African delivery values with 21.6%
($600 million). Russia ranked second with 18%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 14.4%. The other European suppliers as a group
collectively held 25.2% of this region’s delivery values in 1995-1998. The
United States held 2.6%. During this later period, the value of all arms
deliveries to Africa increased to about $2.8 billion (tables 2C and 2E).

CRS-39
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1991-
1998 by their top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the
total current dollar values of their respective deliveries to developing nations for each
of three periods—1991-1994, 1995-1998 and 1991-1998 Among the facts reflected
in this table are the following:
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing nations in
deliveries values from 1995-1998 ($31.9 billion in current dollars).
! The United Kingdom ranked second in the value of deliveries to developing
nations from 1995-1998 ($21.3 billion in current dollars).
! France ranked third in the value of deliveries to developing nations from 1995-
1998 ($17.7 billion in current dollars).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations in 1998 by
the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the total
dollar values of their respective deliveries to developing nations in 1998. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The top three suppliers of arms to the developing nations in 1998 collectively
delivered $18.8 billion in arms to developing countries in that year, or 81% of
all arms deliveries made to developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 1998 the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations, making over $7.8 billion in such deliveries. This is the
second year in a row the United States has led in such deliveries.
! France ranked second in arms deliveries to developing nations in 1998, making
$6.2 billion in such deliveries.
! The United Kingdom ranked third in arms deliveries to developing nations in
1998, making $4.8 billion in such deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1991-1998:
Suppliers And Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1991-1991 and 1995-1998. These values
are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in table
2 and table 2C. Among the facts reflected by this table are the following:

CRS-40
! For the most recent period, 1995-1998 the principal arms recipients of the
United States in the Near East region, based on the value of their arms
deliveries were: Saudi Arabia ($16.4 billion), Egypt ($4 billion), Kuwait ($2.7
billion), and Israel ($2.4 billion). The principal arms recipients of Russia were
Kuwait ($800 million), Iran ($600 million), and Egypt ($500 million). The
principal arms recipient of China was Iran ($700 million). The principal arms
recipients of the four major West European suppliers, as a group, were Saudi
Arabia ($18.5 billion), the U.A.E. ($3.1 billion), Kuwait ($3 billion), and Qatar
($1.7 billion). The principal arms recipient of all other European suppliers
collectively was Saudi Arabia ($3.1 billion). The principal arms recipients of
all other suppliers, as a group, were: Iran ($800 million) and Israel ($300
million).
! For the period from 1995-1998, Saudi Arabia received $38 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West Europeans, as a
group, ($18.5 billion) and the United States ($16.4 billion). Kuwait received
$6.6 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States
($2.7 billion) and the major West Europeans collectively ($3 billion). Egypt
received $5 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United
States ($4 billion). The U.A.E. received $4.6 billion in arms deliveries. Its
principal suppliers were: the four major West Europeans collectively ($3.1
billion). Israel received $2.8 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was
the United States ($2.4 billion). Iran received $2.5 billion in arms deliveries.
China was its principal individual supplier ($700 million) followed by Russia
($600 million).
! A dramatic decline in the value of arms deliveries by Russia to Iran occurred
from the 1991-1994 period, these deliveries fell from $2.2 billion to $600
million in 1995-1998. A notable decline in the value of China’s arms deliveries
to Iran also occurred, falling from $1.1 billion in 1991-1994 to $700 million in
1995-1998.
! The value of arms deliveries by the United States to Saudi Arabia increased
substantially from $10.5 billion in 1991-1994 to $16.4 billion in 1995-1998.
! Russia and China together delivered 52% of Iran’s arms during the 1995-1998
period.
! Arms deliveries to Iran dropped significantly from 1991-1994 to 1995-1998,
falling from $5.2 billion in 1991-1994 to $2.5 billion in 1995-1998 (in
current dollars).

CRS-41
Chart 12

CRS-42
Chart 13

CRS-43
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms
in the developing world from 1991-1998 by all suppliers collectively. The table ranks
these recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective
deliveries from all suppliers for each of three periods—1991-1994, 1995-1998 and
1991-1998. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world arms recipients
from 1991-1998, receiving deliveries valued at $67.8 billion and $20 billion,
respectively, during these years. The total value of all arms deliveries to
developing nations from 1991-1998 was $171.9 billion (in current dollars) (see
table 2). Thus, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 39.4% and
11.6%, respectively, of all developing world arms deliveries during the 1991-
1998 time period—together 51% of the total.
! For the 1995-1998 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $38 billion in arms
deliveries (in current dollars), or 38.9% of all deliveries to developing nations
during this period.
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2J gives the names of the top ten developing world recipients of arms
delivered in 1998. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective deliveries from all suppliers in 1998. Among the facts
reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
nations in 1998, receiving $8.7 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia alone
received 37.5% of the total value of all arms deliveries to the developing
nations in 1998. Taiwan ranked second with $5 billion in deliveries (21.5%) in
1998 (tables 2 and 2J).
! Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group,
constituted $23 billion, or 99.1% of all arms deliveries to developing nations
in 1998. Six of the top ten recipients in 1998 were in the Near East region,
four were in Asia (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-44
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
6,927
2,183 12,761
5,795
2,867
5,153
2,569
4,569
42,824
Russia*
7,100
1,400
1,200
3,700
5,300
4,600
3,100
1,400
27,800
France
3,100
8,600
3,900
7,800
2,400
1,400
4,600
2,400
34,200
United Kingdom
300
1,800
2,300
700
600
2,000
1,000
200
8,900
China
600
500
500
700
200
800
1,600
500
5,400
Germany
1,500
200
1,000
0
300
0
100
2,000
5,100
Italy
100
500
300
200
800
300
300
100
2,600
All Other European
1,500
1,200
500
1,800
2,400
2,800
2,000
1,000
13,200
All Others
500
1,100
600
500
1,300
1,700
1,100
1,000
7,800
TOTAL
21,627 17,483 23,061 21,195 16,167 18,753 16,369 13,169
147,824
**Dollar inflation
index: (1998=1.00)
0.8604
0.8768
0.9021
0.9227
0.9407
0.9604
0.9801
1.0000
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., former U.S.S.R., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET
(International Military Education and Training) data which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given
include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance and training programs.
Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. U.S. commercial sales contract values are excluded.
All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Prior to 1992 reflects data for the former Soviet Union.**Based on
Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-45
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of constant 1998 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
8,051
2,490
14,146
6,280
3,048
5,365
2,621
4,569
46,570
Russia
8,252
1,597
1,330
4,010
5,634
4,790
3,163
1,400
30,176
France
3,603
9,808
4,323
8,453
2,551
1,458
4,693
2,400
37,290
United Kingdom
349
2,053
2,550
759
638
2,082
1,020
200
9,650
China
697
570
554
759
213
833
1,632
500
5,759
Germany
1,743
228
1,109
0
319
0
102
2,000
5,501
Italy
116
570
333
217
850
312
306
100
2,805
All Other European
1,743
1,369
554
1,951
2,551
2,915
2,041
1,000
14,124
All Others
581
1,255
665
542
1,382
1,770
1,122
1,000
8,317
TOTAL
25,136
19,940
25,564
22,971
17,186
19,526
16,701
13,169
160,193

CRS-46
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
United States
32.03%
12.49%
55.34%
27.34%
17.73%
27.48%
15.69%
34.70%
Russia
32.83%
8.01%
5.20%
17.46%
32.78%
24.53%
18.94%
10.63%
France
14.33%
49.19%
16.91%
36.80%
14.85%
7.47%
28.10%
18.22%
United Kingdom
1.39%
10.30%
9.97%
3.30%
3.71%
10.66%
6.11%
1.52%
China
2.77%
2.86%
2.17%
3.30%
1.24%
4.27%
9.77%
3.80%
Germany
6.94%
1.14%
4.34%
0.00%
1.86%
0.00%
0.61%
15.19%
Italy
0.46%
2.86%
1.30%
0.94%
4.95%
1.60%
1.83%
0.76%
All Other European
6.94%
6.86%
2.17%
8.49%
14.85%
14.93%
12.22%
7.59%
All Others
2.31%
6.29%
2.60%
2.36%
8.04%
9.07%
6.72%
7.59%
[ Major West European*
23.12%
63.49%
32.52%
41.05%
25.36%
19.73%
36.65%
35.69% ]
TOTAL
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-47
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, By Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
United States
3,492
4,550
23,418
10,048
683
496
74
65
Russia*
6,800
11,500
5,200
2,000
900
400
500
500
France
9,700
1,400
13,100
8,900
300
500
200
100
United Kingdom
2,000
2,300
2,600
1,200
500
0
0
200
China
1,200
1,100
1,000
1,300
0
100
100
600
Germany
1,100
2,200
1,500
100
0
300
0
0
Italy
300
900
700
100
0
500
100
100
All Other European
1,700
2,300
2,300
3,700
500
1,600
500
700
All Others
700
2,500
700
1,300
500
700
700
500
[ Major West
European**
13,100
6,800
17,900
10,300
800
1,300
300
400
TOTAL
26,992
28,750
50,518
28,648
3,383
4,596
2,174
2,765
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
*Prior to 1992 reflects data for the former Soviet Union.
**Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-48
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1991-1998
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL TOTAL

1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
1991-94
1995-98 1991-94 1995-98 1991-94
1995-98
United States
12.62%
30.02%
84.64%
66.28%
2.47%
3.27%
0.27%
0.43% 100.00%
100.00%
Russia
50.75%
79.86%
38.81%
13.89%
6.72%
2.78%
3.73%
3.47% 100.00%
100.00%
France
41.63%
12.84%
56.22%
81.65%
1.29%
4.59%
0.86%
0.92% 100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
39.22%
62.16%
50.98%
32.43%
9.80%
0.00%
0.00%
5.41% 100.00%
100.00%
China
52.17%
35.48%
43.48%
41.94%
0.00%
3.23%
4.35%
19.35% 100.00%
100.00%
Germany
42.31%
84.62%
57.69%
3.85%
0.00%
11.54%
0.00%
0.00% 100.00%
100.00%
Italy
27.27%
56.25%
63.64%
6.25%
0.00%
31.25%
9.09%
6.25% 100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
34.00%
27.71%
46.00%
44.58%
10.00%
19.28%
10.00%
8.43% 100.00%
100.00%
All Others
26.92%
50.00%
26.92%
26.00%
19.23%
14.00%
26.92%
10.00% 100.00%
100.00%
[ Major West
European*
40.81%
36.17%
55.76%
54.79%
2.49%
6.91%
0.93%
2.13% 100.00%
100.00% ]

TOTAL
32.49%
44.40%
60.82%
44.24%
4.07%
7.10%
2.62%
4.27% 100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-49
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1991-1998
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa

1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98 1991-94 1995-98
United States
12.94%
15.83%
46.36%
35.07%
20.19%
10.79%
3.40%
2.35%
Russia
25.19%
40.00%
10.29%
6.98%
26.60%
8.70%
23.00%
18.08%
France
35.94%
4.87%
25.93%
31.07%
8.87%
10.88%
9.20%
3.62%
United Kingdom
7.41%
8.00%
5.15%
4.19%
14.78%
0.00%
0.00%
7.23%
China
4.45%
3.83%
1.98%
4.54%
0.00%
2.18%
4.60%
21.70%
Germany
4.08%
7.65%
2.97%
0.35%
0.00%
6.53%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
1.11%
3.13%
1.39%
0.35%
0.00%
10.88%
4.60%
3.62%
All Other European
6.30%
8.00%
4.55%
12.92%
14.78%
34.81%
23.00%
25.32%
All Others
2.59%
8.70%
1.39%
4.54%
14.78%
15.23%
32.20%
18.08%
[ Major West European*
48.53%
23.65%
35.43%
35.95%
23.65%
28.29%
13.80%
14.47% ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00% 100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-50
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1991-
1998: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1991-1994
1
U.S.
27,666
2
France
23,400
3
USSR/Russia
13,400
4
U.K.
5,100
5
Germany
2,700
6
China
2,300
7
Italy
1,100
8
Spain
900
9
Netherlands
700
10
Israel
700
11
Czech Republic
500
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1995-1998
1
U.S.
15,148
2
Russia
14,400
3
France
10,800
4
U.K.
3,800
5
China
3,100
6
Germany
2,400
7
Israel
1,700
8
Ukraine
1,600
9
Italy
1,500
10
Belarus
1,500
11
South Africa
1,200
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1991-1998
1
U.S.
42,824
2
France
34,200
3
Russia
27,800
4
U.K.
8,900
5
China
5,400
6
Germany
5,100
7
Italy
2,600
8
Israel
2,400
9
Ukraine
1,700
10
Belarus
1,500
11
South Africa
1,400
Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100
million. Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-51
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements
Value
1998
1
U.S.
4,569
2
France
2,400
3
Germany
2,000
4
Russia
1,400
5
Israel
500
6
China
500
7
Belarus
500
8
U.K.
200
9
Bulgaria
200
10
Italy
100
11
Ukraine
100
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-52
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Major West
All Other
Recipient Country
U.S.
Russia China
European*
European
All Others
Total
1991-1994
Algeria
0
300
0
0
100
0
400
Bahrain
200
0
0
0
0
0
200
Egypt
3,600
300
0
200
400
0
4,500
Iran
0
3,000
600
100
200
400
4,300
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,700
0
100
1,100
0
0
3,900
Jordan
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Kuwait
3,800
800
0
1,200
0
0
5,800
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
0
100
0
100
100
300
Morocco
100
0
0
400
0
0
500
Oman
0
0
0
800
0
0
800
Qatar
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
2,000
Saudi Arabia
17,700
0
0
5,800
800
0
24,300
Syria
0
500
0
0
400
100
1,000
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
800
400
0
6,300
0
100
7,600
Yemen
0
0
200
0
200
0
400
1995-1998
Algeria
0
400
200
0
800
0
1,400
Bahrain
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
Egypt
4,500
400
0
100
0
0
5,000
Iran
0
200
800
0
300
100
1,400
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,600
0
0
100
0
200
2,900
Jordan
300
300
0
0
0
100
700
Kuwait
900
0
200
700
100
0
1,900
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Morocco
0
0
0
200
300
100
600
Oman
0
0
0
300
100
100
500
Qatar
0
0
0
900
0
0
900
Saudi Arabia
5,100
0
0
1,700
800
300
7,900
Syria
0
200
0
0
100
0
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
100
400
0
6,000
800
100
7,400
Yemen
0
0
0
200
300
100
500
Source: U.S. Government. Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to
nearest $100 million. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and
Italy totals as an aggregate figure.

CRS-53
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1991-1998
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
1991-1994
1
Saudi Arabia
24,300
2
Taiwan
15,800
3
U.A.E.
7,600
4
Kuwait
5,800
5
South Korea
4,800
6
Egypt
4,500
7
Iran
4,300
8
Israel
3,900
9
China
3,100
10
Malaysia
2,500
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
1995-1998
1
Saudi Arabia
7,900
2
U.A.E.
7,300
3
China
6,900
4
India
6,300
5
Egypt
5,000
6
South Korea
3,600
7
Malaysia
3,200
8
Israel
2,900
9
Kuwait
1,900
10
Indonesia
1,700
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
1991-1998
1
Saudi Arabia
32,200
2
Taiwan
17,300
3
U.A.E.
15,000
4
China
10,000
5
Egypt
9,500
6
South Korea
8,400
7
Kuwait
7,700
8
India
7,500
9
Israel
6,800
10
Malaysia
5,700
Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where data totals are the same, the rank order is maintained.

CRS-54
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations
in 1998:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
1998
1
Saudi Arabia
2,700
2
U.A.E.
2,500
3
Malaysia
2,100
4
Egypt
1,200
5
Algeria
500
6
Israel
500
7
Kuwait
500
8
Ethiopia
400
9
India
400
10
South Korea
400
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data
totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-55
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
4,395
5,854
6,474
4,618
7,584
5,769
10,787
7,805
53,286
Russia*
6,000
2,500
1,900
1,400
2,800
2,200
1,800
1,700
20,300
France
1,500
1,100
800
2,000
3,000
2,900
5,600
6,200
23,100
United Kingdom
3,900
5,400
3,800
4,700
4,900
5,800
5,800
4,800
39,100
China
1,400
1,000
1,100
700
700
600
1,000
500
7,000
Germany
1,200
200
600
800
800
400
100
500
4,600
Italy
100
100
0
100
200
100
600
0
1,200
All Other European
1,000
1,800
1,300
2,200
2,300
2,500
3,200
1,100
15,400
All Others
1,000
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
800
600
7,900
TOTAL
20,495
19,054
17,074
17,618
23,384
21,369
29,687
23,205
171,886
Dollar inflation
index (1998=100.00)**
0.8604
0.8768
0.9021
0.9227
0.9407
0.9604
0.9801
1
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, former U.S.S.R., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are
for the calendar year given. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance
and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. U.S. commercial sales delivery values are excluded.
All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Prior to 1992 reflects data for the former Soviet Union.
**Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-56
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1990-1997
(in millions of constant 1998 dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
5,108
6,677
7,177
5,005
8,062
6,007
11,006
7,805
56,847
Russia
6,974
2,851
2,106
1,517
2,977
2,291
1,837
1,700
22,253
France
1,743
1,255
887
2,168
3,189
3,020
5,714
6,200
24,176
United Kingdom
4,533
6,159
4,212
5,094
5,209
6,039
5,918
4,800
41,964
China
1,627
1,141
1,219
759
744
625
1,020
500
7,635
Germany
1,395
228
665
867
850
416
102
500
5,023
Italy
116
114
0
108
213
104
612
0
1,267
All Other European
1,162
2,053
1,441
2,384
2,445
2,603
3,265
1,100
16,453
All Others
1,162
1,255
1,219
1,192
1,169
1,145
816
600
8,558
TOTAL
23,820
21,733
18,926
19,094
24,858
22,250
30,290
23,205
184,176

CRS-57
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
United States
21.44%
30.72%
37.92%
26.21%
32.43%
27.00%
36.34%
33.63%
Russia
29.28%
13.12%
11.13%
7.95%
11.97%
10.30%
6.06%
7.33%
France
7.32%
5.77%
4.69%
11.35%
12.83%
13.57%
18.86%
26.72%
United Kingdom
19.03%
28.34%
22.26%
26.68%
20.95%
27.14%
19.54%
20.69%
China
6.83%
5.25%
6.44%
3.97%
2.99%
2.81%
3.37%
2.15%
Germany
5.86%
1.05%
3.51%
4.54%
3.42%
1.87%
0.34%
2.15%
Italy
0.49%
0.52%
0.00%
0.57%
0.86%
0.47%
2.02%
0.00%
All Other European
4.88%
9.45%
7.61%
12.49%
9.84%
11.70%
10.78%
4.74%
All Others
4.88%
5.77%
6.44%
6.24%
4.70%
5.15%
2.69%
2.59%
[ Major West
32.69%
35.69%
30.46%
43.14%
38.06%
43.05%
40.76%
49.56%
European*
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-58
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
United States
4,315
11,175
16,207
20,035
740
662
79
73
Russia*
6,100
4,900
5,200
2,000
900
400
500
500
France
700
9,100
13,100
8,900
300
500
200
100
United Kingdom
1,800
1,900
2,600
1,200
500
0
0
200
China
2,300
1,300
1,000
1,300
0
100
100
600
Germany
1,400
1,300
1,500
100
0
300
0
0
Italy
200
700
700
100
0
500
100
100
All Other European
1,300
1,900
2,300
3,700
500
1,600
500
700
All Others
900
1,700
700
1,300
500
700
700
500
[ Major West
European**
4,100
13,000
17,900
10,300
800
1,300
300
400
TOTAL
19,015
33,975
43,307
38,635
3,440
4,762
2,179
2,773
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Prior to 1992 reflects data for the former Soviet Union.
**Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-59
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1991-1998
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
1990-93
1994-97
United States
20.22%
34.98%
75.94%
62.72%
3.47%
2.07%
0.37%
0.23%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
48.03%
62.82%
40.94%
25.64%
7.09%
5.13%
3.94%
6.41%
100.00%
100.00%
France
4.90%
48.92%
91.61%
47.85%
2.10%
2.69%
1.40%
0.54%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
36.73%
57.58%
53.06%
36.36%
10.20%
0.00%
0.00%
6.06%
100.00%
100.00%
China
67.65%
39.39%
29.41%
39.39%
0.00%
3.03%
2.94%
18.18%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
48.28%
76.47%
51.72%
5.88%
0.00%
17.65%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
20.00%
50.00%
70.00%
7.14%
0.00%
35.71%
10.00%
7.14%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
28.26%
24.05%
50.00%
46.84%
10.87%
20.25%
10.87%
8.86%
100.00%
100.00%
All Others
32.14%
40.48%
25.00%
30.95%
17.86%
16.67%
25.00%
11.90%
100.00%
100.00%
[ Major West European*
17.75%
52.00%
77.49%
41.20%
3.46%
5.20%
1.30%
1.60%
100.00%
100.00%
TOTAL
27.99%
42.39%
63.74%
48.21%
5.06%
5.94%
3.21%
3.46%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-60
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1991-1998
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94
1995-98
1991-94 1995-98
United States
22.69%
32.89%
37.42%
51.86%
21.51%
13.90%
3.63%
2.63%
Russia
32.08%
14.42%
12.01%
5.18%
26.16%
8.40%
22.95%
18.03%
France
3.68%
26.78%
30.25%
23.04%
8.72%
10.50%
9.18%
3.61%
United Kingdom
9.47%
5.59%
6.00%
3.11%
14.53%
0.00%
0.00%
7.21%
China
12.10%
3.83%
2.31%
3.36%
0.00%
2.10%
4.59%
21.64%
Germany
7.36%
3.83%
3.46%
0.26%
0.00%
6.30%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
1.05%
2.06%
1.62%
0.26%
0.00%
10.50%
4.59%
3.61%
All Other European
6.84%
5.59%
5.31%
9.58%
14.53%
33.60%
22.95%
25.24%
All Others
4.73%
5.00%
1.62%
3.36%
14.53%
14.70%
32.12%
18.03%
[ Major West European*
21.56%
38.26%
41.33%
26.66%
23.26%
27.30%
13.77%
14.42%]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-61
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1991-1994
1
U.S.
21,341
2
U.K.
17,800
3
U.S.S.R./Russia.
11,800
4
France
5,400
5
China
4,200
6
Germany
2,800
7
Israel
1,900
8
Sweden
1,500
9
Canada
700
10
North Korea
600
11
Spain
600
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1995-1998
1
U.S.
31,945
2
U.K.
21,300
3
France
17,700
4
Russia
8,500
5
China
2,800
6
Sweden
2,200
7
Germany
1,800
8
Israel
1,500
9
Ukraine
1,300
10
Netherlands
1,000
11
South Africa
900
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1991-1998
1
U.S.
53,286
2
U.K.
39,100
3
France
23,100
4
U.S.S.R./Russia
20,300
5
China
7,000
6
Germany
4,600
7
Sweden
3,700
8
Israel
3,400
9
Canada
1,500
10
South Africa
1,500
11
Ukraine
1,300
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are
the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-62
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
1998
1
U.S.
7,805
2
France
6,200
3
United Kingdom
4,800
4
Russia
1,700
5
Germany
500
6
China
500
7
Ukraine
400
8
Israel
200
9
Bulgaria
200
10
Netherlands
200
11
South Africa
100
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-63
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient Country
U.S. Russia China Major West
All Other
All
Total
European* European
Others
1991-1994
Algeria
0
200
0
0
100
0
300
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
4,500
100
0
0
300
0
4,900
Iran
0 2,200 1,100
100
200
1,600
5,200
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,200
0
100
400
0
100
2,800
Jordan
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Kuwait
2,100
0
0
200
100
100
2,500
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
400
100
0
0
100
600
Morocco
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Oman
100
0
0
400
0
0
500
Qatar
0
0
0
2,700
0
0
2,700
Saudi Arabia
10,500
100
300
15,500
3,000
400 29,800
Syria
0 1,000
0
0
400
200
1,600
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
U.A.E.
600
300
0
900
0
400
2,200
Yemen
0
0
100
0
200
100
400
1995-1998
Algeria
0
300
0
0
500
100
900
Bahrain
200
0
0
0
0
0
200
Egypt
4,000
500
0
200
200
100
5,000
Iran
0
600
700
0
400
800
2,500
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,400
0
0
100
0
300
2,800
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
2,700
800
0
3,000
100
0
6,600
Lebanon
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Libya
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Morocco
100
0
0
100
100
0
300
Oman
0
0
0
700
0
100
800
Qatar
0
0
0
1,700
100
0
1,800
Saudi Arabia
16,400
0
0
18,500
3,100
0 38,000
Syria
0
100
0
0
100
100
300
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
600
300
0
3,100
600
0
4,600
Yemen
0
0
100
0
200
100
400
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100
million. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure.

CRS-64
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1991-1998:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Deliveries Value
Rank
Recipient
1991-1994
1
Saudi Arabia
29,800
2
Iran
5,200
3
Egypt
4,900
4
South Korea
3,200
5
Taiwan
3,000
6
Israel
2,800
7
Qatar
2,700
8
Kuwait
2,500
9
China
2,500
10
U.A.E.
2,200
Deliveries Value
Rank
Recipient
1995-1998
1
Saudi Arabia
38,000
2
Taiwan
17,000
3
Kuwait
6,600
4
Egypt
5,000
5
U.A.E.
4,600
6
South Korea
3,800
7
China
3,200
8
Israel
2,800
9
Iran
2,500
10
Pakistan
2,400
Deliveries Value
Rank
Recipient
1991-1998
1
Saudi Arabia
67,800
2
Taiwan
20,000
3
Egypt
9,900
4
Kuwait
9,100
5
Iran
7,700
6
South Korea
7,000
7
U.A.E.
6,800
8
China
5,700
9
Israel
5,600
10
Qatar
4,500
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are
the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-65
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 1998:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
1998
1
Saudi Arabia
8,700
2
Taiwan
5,000
3
Singapore
1,600
4
South Korea
1,400
5
Israel
1,300
6
Pakistan
1,200
7
U.A.E.
1,100
8
Qatar
1,000
9
Egypt
900
10
Kuwait
800
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data
totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-66
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations,
1991-1998
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 specific items
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 1991-1998 by the United States, Russia,
China, the four major West European suppliers as a group, all other European
suppliers as a group, and all other suppliers as a group (tables 3-7).
A cautionary note is warranted regarding 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 capability of the weaponry delivered. The
history of recent conventional conflicts suggests quality and/or sophistication of
weapons can offset quantitative advantage. Another important factor, not indicated
here, is the reliability of follow-on support by an arms supplier, including spares and
replacement parts. The fact that the United States, for example, has not delivered the
largest numbers of weapons in a category to a region does not necessarily mean that
the weaponry it has transferred cannot compensate for larger quantities of less capable
weapons systems delivered by Russia, the major West Europeans or other suppliers.
U.S. arms deals historically have included significant amounts of follow-on support,
in addition to the basic finished items of weaponry provided.
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—may, in the last analysis, be a more
important factor in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional warfare
than the size of its weapons inventory.
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1995-1998
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the United States
was the leading supplier to developing nations of several major classes of
conventional weaponry from 1995-1998. Russia transferred substantial
quantities of many weapons classes, delivering more than the United States in
some regions.
! The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in weapons
deliveries from 1995-1998, making notable deliveries of certain categories of
armaments to every region of the developing world—most particularly to the
Near East and to Latin America. In Africa, European suppliers and all other
non-European suppliers were principal competitors for Russia in arms
deliveries.

CRS-67
! Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though Russia,
the United States, and the four major West European suppliers tend to
dominate in the delivery of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also
evident that the other European suppliers, and non-European suppliers,
including China, are fully capable of providing specific classes of conventional
armaments, such as missiles, tanks, armored vehicles, aircraft and artillery
pieces, to developing nations should they choose to do so.
Noteworthy deliveries of specific categories of weapons to regions of the developing
world by specific suppliers from 1995-1998 include the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 4 minor surface combatants, 4 submarines, 80 supersonic
combat aircraft, 60 helicopters, 580 surface-to-air missiles and 70 anti-ship missiles.
The United States delivered 385 tanks and self-propelled guns, 239 supersonic
combat aircraft, 51 helicopters, 181 surface-to-air missiles and 103 anti-ship missiles.
China delivered 150 tanks and self-propelled guns, 160 APCs and armored cars, 150
artillery pieces, 4 major surface combatants, 13 minor surface combatants, 6 guided
missile boats, 80 supersonic combat aircraft, 210 surface-to-air missiles and 30 anti-
ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers collectively delivered 230
APCs and armored cars, 23 major surface combatants, 7 minor surface combatants,
4 submarines, 70 supersonic combat aircraft, 1,130 surface-to-air missiles and 10 anti-
ship missiles. All other European suppliers as a group delivered 300 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 1 major surface combatant, 8 minor surface combatants, 30
supersonic combat aircraft, 40 helicopters, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. All other
non-European suppliers collectively delivered 14 minor surface combatants, 2
submarines, 30 supersonic aircraft, 100 surface-to-air missiles, and 10 surface-to-
surface missiles.
Near East.
Russia delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 610 APCs and armored
cars, 1 submarine, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 90 helicopters and 140 surface-to-
air missiles. The United States delivered 817 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2,727
APCs and armored cars, 69 artillery pieces, 13 minor surface combatants, 126
supersonic combat aircraft, 90 helicopters, 1,284 surface-to-air missiles and 287 anti-
ship missiles. China delivered 8 guided missile boats, 10 supersonic combat aircraft
and 120 anti-ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers collectively
delivered 220 tanks and self-propelled guns, 340 APCs and armored cars, 2 major
surface combatants, 14 minor surface combatants, 8 guided missile boats, 30
supersonic combat aircraft, 350 surface-to-air missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles. All
other European suppliers as a group delivered 200 tanks and self-propelled guns,
880 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 15 minor surface
combatants, and 10 supersonic combat aircraft. All other suppliers collectively
delivered 3 minor surface combatants and 30 surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-68
Latin America.
Russia delivered 70 helicopters and 750 surface-to-air missiles. The United
States delivered 57 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 24 minor
surface combatants, 39 subsonic combat aircraft and 46 helicopters. China delivered
120 surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European suppliers collectively
delivered, 60 tanks and self-propelled guns, 140 APCs and armored cars, 7 major
surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 20 helicopters, 60 surface-to-air missiles
and 20 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 60
tanks and self-propelled guns, 270 APCs and armored cars, 2 minor surface
combatants, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, 10 helicopters and 1,200 surface-to-air
missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 20 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 7 minor surface combatants, 2 guided missile boats, 10 helicopters,
30 surface-to-air missiles, and 10 anti-ship missiles.
Africa.
Russia delivered 10 supersonic combat aircraft and 40 helicopters. China
delivered 130 tanks and self-propelled guns and 3 minor surface combatants and 10
supersonic combat aircraft. The four major West European suppliers collectively
delivered 160 APCs and armored cars, 2 minor surface combatants, and 10
helicopters. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 440 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 3 minor surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 30
helicopters and 1,080 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as
a group delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled guns, 60 artillery pieces, 5 minor surface
combatants, 1 guided missile boat and 10 helicopters.

CRS-69
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
European
European
Others
1991-1994
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
1429
1040
470
130
520
240
Artillery
257
650
880
7760
1290
270
APCs and Armored Cars
1334
1050
20
270
700
350
Major Surface Combatants
0
2
4
28
5
Minor Surface Combatants
34
14
16
68
23
47
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
9
4
0
2
Submarines
0
3
0
6
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
224
80
90
20
10
170
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
104
0
60
80
0
20
Other Aircraft
87
50
90
80
170
100
Helicopters
180
200
0
200
70
30
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1467
1030
310
2230
490
330
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
150
110
0
0
150
Anti-Ship Missiles
87
60
90
40
0
0
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
1202
320
280
290
1000
50
Artillery
178
40
180
160
150
180
APCs and Armored Cars
2843
680
160
870
1260
70
Major Surface Combatants
3
0
0
32
3
0
Minor Surface Combatants
48
4
16
23
28
29
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
14
12
0
3
Submarines
0
5
0
5
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
365
100
100
100
90
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
43
0
0
60
30
30
Other Aircraft
24
40
60
70
160
60
Helicopters
187
260
40
100
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1465
1470
330
1740
2330
160
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
390
70
160
50
0
10
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, former U.S.S.R., Europe, Canada, Japan,
Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France,
United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a
variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-70
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific
Weapons Category
U.S. Russia China
Major
All Other
All
West
European
Others
1991-1994
European
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
86
400
470
0
70
150
Artillery
25
400
350
40
430
20
APCs and Armored Cars
46
560
20
90
0
140
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
4
25
0
5
Minor Surface Combatants
12
10
8
11
1
28
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
2
0
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
5
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
29
40
70
0
0
40
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
50
0
0
50
0
0
Other Aircraft
36
40
60
50
60
10
Helicopters
32
140
0
70
40
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
427
790
140
1300
300
20
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
150
30
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
87
40
40
0
0
0
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
385
30
150
0
300
0
Artillery
89
10
150
60
40
30
APCs and Armored Cars
54
70
160
230
80
50
Major Surface Combatants
1
0
4
23
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
8
4
13
7
8
14
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
6
0
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
4
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
239
80
80
70
30
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
4
0
0
30
10
0
Other Aircraft
20
10
40
10
30
50
Helicopters
51
60
0
0
40
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
181
580
210
1330
50
100
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
103
70
30
10
0
0
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for
calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure.
Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on
a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-71
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia China
Major
All Other
All
West
European
Others
1991-1994
European
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
1343
450
0
20
440
40
Artillery
213
70
200
7690
750
130
APCs and Armored Cars
1285
320
0
40
230
50
Major Surface Combatants
0
1
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
15
1
5
51
0
4
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
7
4
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
195
30
0
20
10
120
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
60
20
0
10
Other Aircraft
17
10
0
20
50
40
Helicopters
86
20
0
0
10
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1040
180
70
890
0
40
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
80
0
0
150
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
20
50
30
0
0

1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
817
290
0
220
200
0
Artillery
69
30
30
10
40
20
APCs and Armored Cars
2727
610
0
340
880
0
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
13
0
0
14
15
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
8
8
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
126
10
10
30
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
30
0
0
Other Aircraft
2
10
10
50
60
10
Helicopters
90
90
0
10
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1284
140
0
350
0
30
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
287
0
120
20
0
0
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United
Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a
variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-72
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia China
Major
All Other
All
West
European
Others
1991-1994
European
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
120
0
40
0
0
Artillery
19
130
50
20
0
70
APCs and Armored Cars
0
130
0
70
260
40
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
3
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
6
2
0
6
14
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
0
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
54
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
19
0
10
0
40
40
Helicopters
62
20
0
80
10
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
60
70
0
190
270
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
10
0
0
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
60
60
20
Artillery
16
0
0
80
20
60
APCs and Armored Cars
57
0
0
140
270
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
7
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
24
0
0
0
2
7
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
4
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
40
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
39
0
0
0
20
20
Other Aircraft
0
20
0
0
10
0
Helicopters
46
70
0
20
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
750
120
60
1200
30
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
20
0
10
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United
Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based
on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these
two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-73
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers to Africa
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia China Major West
All Other
All
European
European
Others
1991-1994
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
70
0
70
10
50
Artillery
0
50
280
10
110
50
APCs and Armored Cars
3
40
0
70
210
120
Major Surface Combatants
0
1
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
1
1
3
0
8
15
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
20
0
0
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
10
0
0
Other Aircraft
15
0
20
10
20
10
Helicopters
0
20
0
50
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
30
40
0
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0

1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
130
10
440
30
Artillery
1
0
0
10
50
60
APCs and Armored Cars
5
0
0
160
30
20
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
3
0
3
2
3
5
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
1
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
10
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
2
0
10
10
60
0
Helicopters
0
40
0
10
30
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
1080
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: U.S. Government.
All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom,
Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based
on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these
two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-74
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries
Values, 1991-1998
The six tables below, tables 8, 8A and 8B and tables 9, 9A and 9B, provide
the total dollar values of arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide in
the same format and detail as do tables 1, 1A and 1B and tables 2, 2A and 2B for
arms transfer agreements with and arms deliveries to developing nations.
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1991-1998
Table 8 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements
worldwide. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are, by
themselves, of limited use. They provide, however, the data from which tables 8A
(constant dollars) and 8B (supplier percentages) are derived. Some of the more
notable facts reflected by these data are summarized below. Unless otherwise noted
dollar values are expressed in constant 1998 dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998, and first for the entire period from
1991-1998 (figure 1).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms
transfer agreements from 1995-1998, and third from 1991-1998.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms
transfer agreements from 1995-1998, and second from 1991-1998.
! The United Kingdom ranked fourth among all suppliers to the world in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998, and fourth from 1991-
1998.
! In 1998, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was nearly $23
billion. This is the second lowest total for arms transfer agreements in any year
since 1991, although an increase over the lowest total in 1997 of $21.4 billion.
! In 1998, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the
world, making about $7.1 billion in such agreements, or 30.8% of all arms
transfer agreements. Germany ranked second with $5.5 billion in arms transfer
agreements, or 23.9% of all such agreements. France ranked third with $3
billion or 13.1%. United States agreements increased notably from about $5.7
billion in 1997 to about $7.1 billion in 1998. France's arms transfer agreements
fell significantly from about $5 billion in 1997 to $3 billion in 1998.
! The United States, Germany and France, the top three arms suppliers to the
world in 1998 respectively—ranked by the value of their arms transfer
agreements—collectively made agreements in 1998 valued at nearly $15.6
billion, 67.8% of all arms transfer agreements made with the world by all
suppliers.

CRS-75
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 1995-1998
($100.3 billion) was notably less than the value of arms transfer agreements by
all suppliers worldwide from 1991-1994 ($130.6 billion), a decline of 23.2%
(figure 1).
! During the period from 1991-1994, developing world nations accounted for
71.7% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1995-1998,
developing world nations accounted for 66.4% of all arms transfer agreements
made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 1998, developing nations were recipients of 57.3% of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Arms Delivery Values, 1991-1998
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items
actually transferred) worldwide by major suppliers from 1991-1998. The utility of
these data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide the data from
which tables 9A (constant dollars) and 9B (supplier percentages) are derived. Some
of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized below. Unless
otherwise noted the dollar values noted are expressed in constant 1998 dollars.
! In 1998, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries
worldwide, making over $10.5 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year
in a row the United States has led in such deliveries, largely reflecting
implementation of arms agreements concluded during and immediately after
the Persian Gulf war (figure 2).
! France ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 1998, making $6.5
billion in such deliveries.
! The United Kingdom ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 1998,
making $5.3 billion each in such deliveries.
! In 1998, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, France
and the United Kingdom, collectively delivered over $22.3 billion, 74.9% of
all arms deliveries made worldwide by all suppliers.
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 1998 was 35.3%, down
from its 38.7% share in 1997. France's share in 1998 was 21.8%, its highest
percentage of deliveries in any year from 1991-1998. Russia’s share of all arms
deliveries to the world in 1998 was 6.7%, up from 6.2% in 1997 (table 9B).
! In 1998 the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was over $29.8 billion. This
is a significant decline in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous
year ( nearly $37.8 billion), measured in constant 1998 dollars (chart 10)
(table 9A).
! During the period from 1991-1994, developing world nations accounted for
69.4% of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 1995-1998,

CRS-76
developing world nations accounted for 76.7% of all arms deliveries
worldwide (Figure 2).
! In 1998, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 77.8% of all
arms deliveries received worldwide (Figure 2).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1995-
1998 ($131.2 billion) was a notable increase from the value of arms deliveries
by all suppliers worldwide from 1991-1994 (nearly $120.4 billion)(in constant
1998 dollars), an increase of 9% (figure 2)(table 9A).

CRS-77
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
10,150
8,753
19,363
10,967
6,771
8,117
5,586
7,081
76,788
Russia*
7,100
1,800
2,400
3,900
7,600
5,100
3,300
1,700
32,900
France
3,500
9,000
5,000
8,400
2,600
2,800
4,900
3,000
39,200
United Kingdom
400
1,800
2,800
700
800
4,700
1,000
1,200
13,400
China
600
500
500
700
200
1,000
1,600
700
5,800
Germany
1,500
1,300
1,300
1,200
500
100
600
5,500
12,000
Italy
300
500
400
200
1,100
400
300
1,000
4,200
All Other European
2,000
2,200
900
2,600
2,900
3,700
2,200
1,600
18,100
All Others
700
1,200
1,100
700
1,900
2,900
1,500
1,200
11,200
TOTAL
26,250
27,053
33,763
29,367
24,371
28,817
20,986
22,981
213,588
Dollar inflation index
(1998=1.00)**
0.8604
0.8768
0.9021
0.9227
0.9407
0.9604
0.9801
1
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All data are for the calendar year given except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military
Education and Training) data which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare
parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon
estimated selling prices . U.S. commercial sales contract values are excluded. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100
million. *Prior to 1992 reflects data for the former Soviet Union.**Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-78
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1991-1998
(in millions of constant 1998 dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
11,797
9,983
21,464
11,886
7,198
8,452
5,699
7,081
83,560
Russia
8,252
2,053
2,660
4,227
8,079
5,310
3,367
1,700
35,648
France
4,068
10,265
5,543
9,104
2,764
2,915
4,999
3,000
42,658
United Kingdom
465
2,053
3,104
759
850
4,894
1,020
1,200
14,345
China
697
570
554
759
213
1,041
1,632
700
6,167
Germany
1,743
1,483
1,441
1,301
532
104
612
5,500
12,715
Italy
349
570
443
217
1,169
416
306
1,000
4,471
All Other European
2,325
2,509
998
2,818
3,083
3,853
2,245
1,600
19,429
All Others
814
1,369
1,219
759
2,020
3,020
1,530
1,200
11,930
TOTAL
30,509
30,854
37,427
31,827
25,907
30,005
21,412
22,981
230,923

CRS-79
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
United States
38.67%
32.36%
57.35%
37.34%
27.78%
28.17%
26.62%
30.81%
Russia
27.05%
6.65%
7.11%
13.28%
31.18%
17.70%
15.72%
7.40%
France
13.33%
33.27%
14.81%
28.60%
10.67%
9.72%
23.35%
13.05%
United Kingdom
1.52%
6.65%
8.29%
2.38%
3.28%
16.31%
4.77%
5.22%
China
2.29%
1.85%
1.48%
2.38%
0.82%
3.47%
7.62%
3.05%
Germany
5.71%
4.81%
3.85%
4.09%
2.05%
0.35%
2,86%
23.93%
Italy
1.14%
1.85%
1.18%
0.68%
4.51%
1.39%
1.43%
4.35%
All Other European
7.62%
8.13%
2.67%
8.85%
11.90%
12.84%
10.48%
6.96%
All Others
2.67%
4.44%
3.26%
2.38%
7.80%
10.06%
7.15%
5.22%
[ Major West European*
21.71%
46.58%
28.14%
35.75%
20.52%
27.76%
32.40%
46.56% ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-80
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-1998
United States
7,077
8,075
9,183
7,672
9,762
8,897
14,311
10,531
75,508
Russia*
6,200
2,500
3,200
1,700
3,500
3,000
2,300
2,000
24,400
France
2,100
2,100
1,500
2,600
3,800
3,500
5,900
6,500
28,000
United Kingdom
4,900
6,100
4,600
5,200
5,300
6,200
6,500
5,300
44,100
China
1,400
1,000
1,200
700
700
600
1,000
600
7,200
Germany
2,400
1,200
1,700
1,600
1,700
1,900
700
1,600
12,800
Italy
300
500
400
200
200
100
700
100
2,500
All Other European
2,200
3,900
2,400
3,500
3,600
3,700
4,000
1,800
25,100
All Others
1,800
1,700
1,900
2,300
2,000
2,000
1,600
1,400
14,700
TOTAL
28,377
27,075
26,083
25,472
30,562
29,897
37,011
29,831
234,308
Dollar inflation
index (1998=1.00)
0.8604
0.8768
0.9021
0.9227
0.9407
0.9604
0.9801
1
Source: U.S. Government.

Note: All data are for the calendar year given. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated
services, military assistance and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. U.S.
commercial sales delivery values are excluded. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.*Prior to 1992 reflects data for the
former Soviet Union.**Based on Department of Defense Deflator.

CRS-81
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(in millions of constant 1998 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1991-1998
United States
8,225
9,210 10,180
8,315
10,377
9,264
14,602 10,531
80,703
Russia
7,206
2,851
3,547
1,842
3,721
3,124
2,347
2,000
26,638
France
2,441
2,395
1,663
2,818
4,040
3,644
6,020
6,500
29,520
United Kingdom
5,695
6,957
5,099
5,636
5,634
6,456
6,632
5,300
47,409
China
1,627
1,141
1,330
759
744
625
1,020
600
7,846
Germany
2,789
1,369
1,884
1,734
1,807
1,978
714
1,600
13,876
Italy
349
570
443
217
213
104
714
100
2,710
All Other European
2,557
4,448
2,660
3,793
3,827
3,853
4,081
1,800
27,019
All Others
2,092
1,939
2,106
2,493
2,126
2,082
1,632
1,400
15,871
TOTAL
32,981
30,880 28,914
27,606
32,489 31,130
37,762 29,831
251,593

CRS-82
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1991-1998
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
United States
24.94%
29.82%
35.21%
30.12%
31.94%
29.76%
38.67%
35.30%
Russia
21.85%
9.23%
12.27%
6.67%
11.45%
10.03%
6.21%
6.70%
France
7.40%
7.76%
5.75%
10.21%
12.43%
11.71%
15.94%
21.79%
United Kingdom
17.27%
22.53%
17.64%
20.41%
17.34%
20.74%
17.56%
17.77%
China
4.93%
3.69%
4.60%
2.75%
2.29%
2.01%
2.70%
2.01%
Germany
8.46%
4.43%
6.52%
6.28%
5.56%
6.36%
1.89%
5.36%
Italy
1.06%
1.85%
1.53%
0.79%
0.65%
0.33%
1.89%
0.34%
All Other European
7.75%
14.40%
9.20%
13.74%
11.78%
12.38%
10.81%
6.03%
All Others
6.34%
6.28%
7.28%
9.03%
6.54%
6.69%
4.32%
4.69%
[ Major West
34.18%
36.57%
31.44%
37.69%
35.99%
39.13%
37.29%
45.25% ]
European*
TOTAL
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-83
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories,
1991-1998
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—100 mm 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,
including those propeller driven, 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-to-surface missiles
without regard to range, such as scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles
and all anti-ship missiles.
Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the
Harpoon, Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.

CRS-84
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
Bulgaria
Fiji
Jordan
Belgium
French Polynesia
Kuwait
Canada
Gilbert Islands
Lebanon
Czechoslovakia/Czech
Hong Kong
Libya
Republic
India
Morocco
Cyprus
Indonesia
Oman
Denmark
Japan
Qatar
Estonia
Kampuchea (Cambodia)
Saudi Arabia
Finland
Kazakhstan
Syria
France
Kyrgyzistan
Tunisia
Georgia
Laos
United Arab Emirates
Germany
Macao
Yemen
Greece
Malaysia
Hungary
Mongolia
Iceland
Nauru
Ireland
Nepal
Italy
New Caledonia
Latvia
New Hebrides
Liechtenstein
New Zealand
Lithuania
Norfolk Islands
Luxembourg
North Korea
Malta
Pakistan
Moldova
Papua New Guinea
Netherlands
Philippines
Norway
Pitcairn
Poland
Singapore
Portugal
Solomon Islands
Romania
South Korea
Russia
Sri Lanka
Slovak Republic
Taiwan
Spain
Tajikistan
Sweden
Thailand
Switzerland
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Uzbekistan
Ukraine
Vietnam
United Kingdom
Western Samoa
Yugoslavia/(former)

CRS-85
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.)
AFRICA
LATIN AMERICA

Angola
Togo
Antigua
Turks & Caicos
Benin
Uganda
Argentina
Venezuela
Botswana
Zaire
Bahamas
Burkina Faso
Zambia
Barbados
Burundi
Zimbabwe
Belize
Cameroon
Bermuda
Cape Verde
Bolivia
Central African
Brazil
Republic
British Virgin
Chad
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