Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1993-2000

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1993-2000

Order Code RL31083
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations,
1993-2000
August 16, 2001
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
1993-2000
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 1993-2000, the value of arms transfer
agreements with developing nations comprised 67.7% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 67.6% of all such agreements globally from 1997-2000, and 69% of these
agreements in 2000.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was
over $25.4 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1994. In 2000, the
value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $19.4 billion, a notable decrease
in deliveries values from 1999 ($26.2 billion in constant 2000 dollars).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States, Russia, and France have
dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking
first each of the last three years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 1997-
2000, the United States made $31.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2000 dollars, 37.2% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made nearly $16.8 billion in arms
transfer agreements, or 19.8%. France, the third leading supplier, made over $9.7
billion or 11.5% of all such agreements with developing nations during these years.
In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $12.6 billion or 49.7% of these agreements. Russia was second
with $7.4 billion or 29.1% of such agreements. France ranked third with $2.1 billion
or 8.3% of such agreements. The total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2000 notably increased, in real terms, from $8.7 billion in 1999
to $12.6 billion in 2000 (in constant 2000 dollars). In 2000, the United States ranked
first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $8.7 billion, or 44.8% of
all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4.4 billion or 22.7% of
such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $2.4 billion or 12.4% of such deliveries.
During the 1997-2000 period, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first
among developing nations in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $14
billion in such agreements. India ranked second at $7.6 billion. Egypt ranked third
with $6.9 billion. In 2000, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in the
value of arms transfer agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers,
concluding $7.4 billion in such agreements. India ranked second with $4.8 billion in
such agreements. South Korea ranked third with $2.3 billion.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary of Data Trends, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1993-2000: Leading
Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2000: Leading
Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1993-2000: Suppliers And
Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1993-2000:
Suppliers and Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1997-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1993-2000 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1993-2000 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 45
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 46
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) 48
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . 49
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Lending Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 56
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 57
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
1993-2000: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . 74
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 75

Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 79
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 80

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1993-2000
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 1993 through 2000. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1992-1999,” published by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) on August 18, 2000 (CRS Report RL30640).
The data in the report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms
transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.
Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response
to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Despite global changes
since the Cold War’s end, the developing world continues to be the primary focus of
foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of
this report, 1993-2000, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent
orders for future delivery) to developing nations have comprised 67.7% of the value
of all international arms transfer agreements. In 2000, arms transfer agreements, with
developing countries rose from 1999 totals, comprising 69% of the value of all such
agreements globally. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 67.6% of all agreements globally from 1997-2000. Deliveries of
conventional arms to developing nations, from 1997-2000, constituted 70.2% of all
international arms deliveries. In 2000, arms deliveries to developing nations
constituted 66% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report completely supercede all data published in previous
editions. Since these new data for 1993-2000 reflect potentially significant updates
to and revisions in the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in
this most recent edition should be used. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the
calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box notes on page 2). U.S.
commercially licensed arms exports are incorporated in the main delivery data tables,
and noted separately (see box note on page 15). Excluded are arms transfers by any
supplier to subnational groups.

CRS-2
CALENDAR YEAR DATA USED
All arms transfer and arms delivery data in this report are for the calendar year
or calendar year period given. This applies to both U.S. and foreign data alike.
United States government departments and agencies publish data on U.S. arms
transfers and deliveries but generally use the United States fiscal year as the
computational time period for these data. (A U.S. fiscal year covers the period from
October 1 through September 30). As a consequence, there are likely to be distinct
differences noted in those published totals using a fiscal year basis and those provided
in this report which use a calendar year basis for its figures. Details regarding data
used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9.
CONSTANT 2000 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 2000
dollars. Although this helps to eliminate the distorting effects of U.S. inflation to permit
a more accurate comparison of various dollar levels over time, the effects of fluctuating
exchange rates are not neutralized. The deflators used for the constant dollar
calculations in this report are those provided by the U.S. Department of Defense and
are set out at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8, and 9. Unless otherwise noted in the
report, all dollar values are stated in constant terms. Because all regional data
tables are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (1993-1996 and 1997-2000),
they must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms
suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using four-year
aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
The developing nations category, as used in this report, includes all countries
except the United States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New
Zealand. A listing of countries located in the regions defined for the purpose of this
analysis–Asia, Near East, Latin America, and Africa–is provided at the end of the
report.

CRS-3
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2000 was nearly $36.9 billion. This is a clear increase in arms
agreements values over 1999, and is the third year in a row that total arms agreements
increased over the previous year. This total, however, is substantially lower in
constant dollars than that of 1993, during the period of post-Persian Gulf war
rearmament. (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2000, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $18.6 billion (50.4% of all such agreements), up from
nearly $12.9 billion in 1999. Russia ranked second with $7.7 billion in agreements
(20.9% of these agreements globally), up notably from $4.1 billion in 1999. France
ranked third, as its arms transfer agreements worldwide rose significantly from $936
million in 1999 to $4.1 billion in 2000. The United States, Russia and France,
collectively made agreements in 2000 valued at nearly $30.4 billion, 82.4% of all
international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A,
8B, and 8D).
For the period 1997-2000, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $125.1 billion) has been notably less than the worldwide value
during 1993-1996 (about $142.4 billion), a decline of 12.1%. During the period
1993-1996, developing world nations accounted for 67.7% of the value of all arms
transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1997-2000, developing world nations
accounted for 67.6% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2000,
developing nations accounted for 69% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2000, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms
deliveries, making nearly $14.2 billion in such deliveries or 48.3%. 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. The United Kingdom ranked second in worldwide
arms deliveries in 2000, making $5.1 billion in such deliveries. Russia ranked third
in 2000, making $3.5 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in
2000 collectively delivered nearly $22.8 billion, 77.5% of all arms delivered
worldwide by all suppliers in that year. (Figure 2)(tables 9A, 9B and 9D).
The value of all international arms deliveries in 2000 was nearly $29.4 billion.
This is a substantial decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous
year (nearly $38 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years. The total value
of such arms deliveries worldwide in 1997-2000 ($151.1 billion) was a nominal
decrease in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1993-1996
($152.8 billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).

CRS-4
Developing nations from 1997-2000 accounted for 70.2% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1993-1996, developing nations
accounted for 65.8% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. Most recently, in
2000, developing nations collectively accounted for 66% of the value of all
international arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, (9A and 9B).
Intense competition continues among major weapons suppliers. However, the
limited resources of most developing nations to expend on weapons, and the need of
many selling nations to secure cash for their weapons, places constraints on significant
expansion of the arms trade. Developed nations are likely to continue to seek to
protect important elements of their own national military industrial bases.
Consequently, these nations are likely to limit their arms purchases from one another,
except in instances where they are engaged in joint production of specific weapons.
Those nations that can effectively restructure and consolidate their defense industries
seem most likely to be the key players in the international arms marketplace in the
next few years. Some traditional arms supplying nations may find it necessary to
participate in more joint production ventures or to join in multinational mergers, such
as some German and French defense firms did through formation of EADS (European
Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company) in 1999, to maintain the competitiveness
and viability of their national defense industrial sectors. Other arms supplying nations
may choose to focus on specialized niche markets in their arms exporting efforts,
concentrating on sales of weapons they believe they can readily produce and sell
consistently.
A number of weapons exporters continue to focus their efforts on maintaining
and expanding arms sales to nations and regions where they have competitive
advantages due to prior political/military ties with the prospective buyers. New arms
sales opportunities may yet develop with some European nations in the near term due
to the expansion of NATO. This has yet to occur to any significant degree, due to
the limited financial resources of the new NATO members. As a consequence, these
nations have focused in the short run on upgrades of existing weapons systems in
ways that require fewer major expenditures by their governments.
It is possible that additional notable arms sales may result in the Near East, Asia,
and Latin America as individual nations seek to replace older military equipment. A
significant factor in the development of arms sales prospects in these regions
especially will be the state of the international economy. A large portion of the
developing world has not recovered fully from recent international financial problems.
The 1997-1998 fall in the price of crude oil, now reversed, created great financial
difficulties for some Persian Gulf states. Saudi Arabia found itself in significant
financial straits, in light of the various obligations it undertook during and after the
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, its domestic spending programs, and the magnitude of
the costs associated with its weapons procurement program. Despite the significant
increase in the price of crude oil since 1999, that fact, by itself, has not resulted in
substantial new and expensive weapons procurement programs by most major oil
producing nations in the developing world. Indeed, the notable decline in major arms
purchases by Saudi Arabia, traditionally the single largest arms purchaser in the early
to mid-1990s, is a graphic example of the caution oil-rich nations are displaying at
present. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), for its part, has made significant
purchases of advanced military hardware most recently, particularly combat aircraft.

CRS-5
The U.A.E. has lacked the debt problems confronted by the Saudis in the mid-1990s.
As a consequence, the U.A.E. has gained significant bargaining power as it seeks new
weapons, and has become a prime marketing target for major arms suppliers.
The Asian financial crisis that struck in 1997 resulted in a significant reduction
in planned weapons purchases by several states in that region, and had the added
effect of reducing the income of other developing countries dependent on trade with
Asian countries. The economic situation in Asia in the last year appears to have
stabilized. This improved financial environment has resulted in some important new
arms purchases in Asia, but it has not led to full restoration of major arms
procurement plans underway in key Asian nations at the time they fell into financial
difficulties. Despite the fact that some Latin American states have expressed interest
in modernizing older items in their military inventories, domestic budget constraints
continue to slow implementation of these programs. The paucity of financing credits
and insufficient national funds have also led many developing nations generally to
curtail or defer purchases of additional weaponry. In view of the current uncertainties
in the international economic environment, it seems likely that most major weapons
purchases will be made by more affluent developing countries. The remainder of the
arms trade seems likely to be based on significant upgrades of existing weapons
systems and equipment, where possible, and on the support and maintenance of these
weapons and related equipment.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was
$25.4 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1994. The total value
of new arms transfer agreements with developing nations has increased for the last
two years (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2000, the value of all arms deliveries to
developing nations ($19.4 billion) was a substantial decrease from the value of 1999
deliveries values ($26.2 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years (charts 7
and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States, Russia, and France have
dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking
first each of the last three years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 1997-
2000, the United States made nearly $31.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, 37.2% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier
during this period, made nearly $16.8 billion in arms transfer agreements or 19.8%.
France, the third leading supplier, made over $9.7 billion or 11.5% of all such
agreements with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1993-
1996) the United States ranked first with nearly $35.8 billion in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations or 37.1%; France made over $17.9 billion in
agreements or 18.6%. Russia made nearly $16.3 billion in arms transfer agreements
during this period or 16.9% (table 1A)(figure 1).
During the period from 1993-2000, 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 nearly every year from 1993-2000.
The exception was 1997 when the U.S. ranked a close third to Russia. France has
been a consistent competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing

CRS-6
nations, ranking first in 1994 and 1997, and second in 1993, 1995, and 1998, while
Russia has ranked first in 1995, and second in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000. Despite
Russia’s recent successes in securing new arms orders, as competition over the
international arms market intensifies, France seems more likely to rank higher in arms
deals with developing nations than Russia. As a supplier nation, Russia has more
significant limitations in its prospective arms client base than other major suppliers.
A close review of Russia’s largest value arms agreements in recent years shows they
have been with two principal clients, India and China, and not with a notably
expanding number of nations elsewhere in the developing world.
Arms suppliers like the United Kingdom and Germany, from time to time, may
conclude significant orders with developing countries, based on either long-term
supplying relationships or their having specialized weapons systems they will readily
provide. However, as the 21st century begins, the United States seems best positioned
to lead in new arms agreements with developing nations. New and very costly
weapons purchases from individual developing countries seem likely to be sporadic
in the near term. The overall level of the arms trade with developing nations is likely
to remain generally static for the foreseeable future, despite some notable purchases
made in the last two years. Annual sales totals with developing countries appear likely
to be notably below those of the Persian Gulf war period.
Other suppliers in the tier below the United States, France, and Russia, such as
China, other European, and non-European suppliers, have been participants in the
arms trade with developing nations at a much lower level. These suppliers are,
nonetheless, capable of making an occasional arms deal of a significant nature. Yet
most of their annual arms transfer agreements values totals during 1993-2000 are
comparatively low, and based upon smaller transactions. Few of these countries are
likely to be major suppliers of advanced weaponry on a sustained basis. With some
exceptions, most of them are more likely to make sales of less sophisticated and less
expensive military equipment ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).
United States.
In 2000, the total value, in real terms, of United States arms transfer agreements
with developing nations rose to $12.6 billion from about $8.7 billion in 1999. The
U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 49.7% in 2000, a significant
increase from 36.6% in 1999 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and 1B).
The value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations was very
high in 2000. This is primarily due to major purchases by key U.S. clients in the Near
East, and to a much lesser extent in Asia. These arms agreement totals also reflect a
continuation of well established defense support arrangements with these purchasers.
U.S. agreements with these buyers in 2000 include not only the highly visible sales of
major weapons systems, but also the upgrading of existing ones, and agreements for
a wide variety of spare parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and support services.
Among major weapons systems sold by the United States in 2000 were 80 new
production F-16 block 60 combat fighter aircraft to the United Arab Emirates through
a licensed commercial agreement with a value of $6.432 billion. This agreement with
the U.A.E. is the one of the largest combat aircraft sales ever made by the United
States, and accounts for a substantial portion of the overall total of U.S. arms transfer

CRS-7
agreements with the developing world in 2000. Other United States sales to the Near
East region in 2000 included agreements to upgrade Egypt’s AH-64 Apache
helicopters for $400 million, to provide Egypt with 6 SPS-48E 3D land-based radar
systems, as well as with Avenger and Stinger missiles. Israel also ordered the
reconfiguration of 24 of its AH-64 Apache helicopters for $270 million, and signed
an agreement for the purchase of 35 Blackhawk helicopters, together with a number
of helicopter engines for nearly $340 million.
In Asia, the United States sold South Korea 29 Multiple Launch Rocket
Systems (MLRS) for over $260 million; component kits for South Korea’s F-16 C/D
fighter aircraft for over $190 million, and contracted for a number of air and sea-based
missiles. Thailand ordered 18 earlier generation F-16 A/B fighters, and Taiwan
ordered AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. These illustrative cases are an
important component of the overall U.S. agreements totals for calendar year 2000.
It must be emphasized, however, that the sale of munitions, upgrades to existing
systems, spare parts, training and support services to developing nations worldwide
account for a very substantial portion of total U.S. arms agreements. This is a
reflection of the large number of countries in the developing, and developed, world
that have acquired and utilize a wide range of American weapons systems, and have
a continuing requirement to have these systems supported.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations rose significantly from $3.2 billion in 1999 to $7.4 billion in 2000, placing it
second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all
developing world arms transfer agreements increased as well, rising from 13.6% in
1999 to 29.1% in 2000 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Russia’s arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations have increased
for the last two years, and during the 1997-2000 period, Russia ranked second among
all suppliers to developing countries, making $16.8 billion in agreements. Its arms
agreement values ranged from a high of $7.4 billion in 2000 to a low of $1.4 billion
in 1993 (in constant 2000 dollars). Russia’s arms sales totals reflect the continuing
effect of the economic and political problems stemming from the breakup of the
former Soviet Union. Many of Russia’s traditional arms clients are less wealthy
developing nations that were once provided generous grant military assistance and
deep discounts on arms purchases. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in
December 1991, Russia did not resume those financing and sales practices. Russia
now actively seeks to sell weapons as a means of obtaining hard currency. While
some former arms clients in the developing world continue to express interest in
obtaining additional Russian weaponry, they have been restricted in doing so by a lack
of funds to pay for the armaments they seek. Russia, has found it increasingly
necessary to agree to licensed production of major weapons systems as a condition
of sales with its two principal clients in recent years, India and China. Such
agreements with these nations have accounted for a large portion of Russia’s arms
transfer agreement totals since the mid-1990s.
Russia’s efforts to make lucrative new sales of conventional weapons continue
to confront significant difficulties, especially since most potential cash-paying arms

CRS-8
purchasers have been longstanding customers of the United States or major West
European suppliers. These prospective arms buyers have proven reluctant to replace
their weapons inventories with unfamiliar non-Western armaments when newer
versions of existing equipment are readily available from their traditional suppliers,
even in an era of intense competition. The difficult transition Russia has attempted to
make from the state supported and controlled industrial system of the former Soviet
Union has also led some potential arms customers to question whether the Russian
defense industries can be reliable suppliers of the spare parts and support services
necessary for the maintenance of weapons systems they sell abroad.
Yet because Russia has had a wide variety of weaponry to sell, from the most
basic to the highly sophisticated, and despite the internal problems evident in the
Russian defense industrial sector, various developing countries still view Russia as a
potential source of their military equipment. Russia, therefore, has made strong
efforts to gain arms agreements with developing nations that can pay cash for their
purchases, and Russian sales since 1995 indicate that Russia has had varying degrees
of success in doing so. After 1995, Russia has made smaller arms deals with Kuwait
and the United Arab Emirates for armored fighting vehicles and with Malaysia for
MiG-29 fighter aircraft. In 2000, Russia concluded a $500 million agreement with the
U.A.E. for the Pantsir S-1 air defense missile system. Iran, primarily due to its own
economic difficulties (as well as U.S. pressure on Russia), was not a major purchaser
of arms from the Russians after 1995. Iran had been a primary purchaser of Russian
armaments in the early 1990s, receiving such items as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24
fighter-bombers, T-72 tanks, and Kilo class attack submarines. In late 2000, Russia
served public notice that it again intended to pursue major arms sales with Iran,
despite objections from the United States. Iraq was once a major purchaser of
advanced weaponry from Russia, but has not been a source of orders since the Persian
Gulf war. Russia clearly would pursue new major weapons deals with Iraq if current
U.N. sanctions on Iraq that ban Iraqi arms purchases are lifted.
Russia’s principal arms clients since 1994 have been India and China. Among
Russia’s notable arms deals during recent years has been the sale of 40 new Su-30MK
fighter aircraft to India. Elements of a longer range plan for procurement as well as
co-production of a number of advanced Russian weapons systems were agreed to
with India in 1999 and 2000. These agreements are likely to result in significant
aircraft, missile, and naval craft agreements and deliveries to the Indian government
in the years to come. In late 2000, Russia concluded a licensed production agreement
with India valued in excess of $3 billion for 140 Su-30MKI combat aircraft. It also
concluded an agreement for the sale to India of 310 T-90 main battle tanks for about
$700 million, and an agreement to retrofit and deliver the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft
carrier for over $650 million. Russia’s arms supplying relationship with China began
to mature in 1994. By 1996 Russia had sold China at least 72 Su-27 fighter aircraft
as well as four Kilo class attack submarines. Subsequently, a licensed production
agreement was finalized between Russia and China, permitting the Chinese to co-
produce at least 200 Su-27 aircraft. Russia also sold China two Sovremenny-class
destroyers, with associated missile systems. In 1999, the Chinese purchased between
40-60 Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft for an estimated $2 billion, and deals for future
procurement of other weapons systems were agreed to in principle. In late 2000,
Russia concluded an agreement with China to purchase at least four upgraded Russian
Mainstay airborne early warning aircraft, designated the A-50E, for about $1 billion.

CRS-9
Given this recent history, it seems likely that India and China will continue to figure
significantly in Russia’s arms export program for some years to come.
China.
China emerged as an important arms supplier to certain developing nations in the
1980s, primarily due to arms agreements made with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq
war. From 1993 through 2000, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations has averaged about $970 million annually. During the period of
this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
reached its peak in 1999 at $2.7 billion. Its sales figures that year resulted generally
from several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the Near East, rather
than one or two especially large sales of major weapons systems. In 2000, China’s
arms transfer agreements total was $400 million. Pakistan continues as a key Chinese
client. China, more recently, has become a major purchaser of arms, primarily from
Russia (tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
Since the late 1980s, few clients with financial resources have sought to purchase
Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and sophisticated than
weaponry available from Western suppliers and Russia. China did supply Silkworm
anti-ship missiles to Iran, as well as other less advanced conventional weapons. Yet
China does not appear likely to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the
international arms market in the foreseeable future, since more sophisticated
weaponry is available from other suppliers such as Russia, or major Western weapons
exporters. Reports persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-
surface missiles to Pakistan, a long-standing client. Iran and North Korea have also
reportedly received Chinese missile technology. These reports raise important
questions about China’s stated commitment to the restrictions on missile transfers set
out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its pledge not to
assist others build missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. With a need for hard
currency, and some military products (especially missiles) that some developing
countries would like to acquire, China can present an important obstacle to efforts to
stem proliferation of advanced missile systems to some areas of the developing world
where political and military tensions are significant.
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a decline in their collective share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations between 1999 and 2000. This group’s share fell
from 15.4% in 1999 to 12.2% in 2000. The collective value of this group’s arms
transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was $3.1 billion compared with
a total of over $3.6 billion in 1999. Of these four, France was the leading supplier
with $2.1 billion in agreements in 2000, a notable increase from $312 million in 1999.
The French agreement total in 2000 was primarily attributable to the sale to Singapore
of six Lafayette class frigates ( as well as an associated missiles package) for about
$1.5 billion. France also sold India 10 Mirage 2000H fighter aircraft for about $300
million. Germany registered a significant decline in arms agreements from about $2.1
billion in 1999 to $1 billion in 2000. Germany’s total in 2000 was principally due to
a sale to South Korea of three Type 214 diesel-electric submarines. Both the United

CRS-10
Kingdom and Italy also registered a notable decline in their respective arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1999 to 2000, both falling from over $620
million in 1999 to essentially nil in 2000. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major West European suppliers, collectively, held about a 25.8% share
of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1993-
2000. Since the end of the Persian Gulf war, the major West European suppliers have
generally maintained a notable share of arms transfer agreements. For the 1997-2000
period, they collectively held 21.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations ( $18.2 billion). Individual suppliers within the major West European group
have had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 1993, 1994, and
1997 ($4.6 billion, $9.4 billion, and $4.7 billion respectively). The United Kingdom
also had large agreement years in 1993 and 1996 ($2.7 billion and $3 billion
respectively). Germany’s 1999 agreement total of $2.1 billion was its highest over the
last eight years, although it has concluded arms agreements totaling at least $1 billion
for the last three years. For each of these three nations, large agreement totals in one
year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large arms contracts with one or
more major purchasers in that particular year (table 1A and 1B).
The major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in
weapons exports enhanced by traditionally strong government marketing support for
foreign arms sales. Since they can produce both advanced and basic air, ground, and
naval weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers have competed
successfully for arms sales contracts with developing nations against both the United
States, which has tended to sell to several of the same clients, and with Russia, which
has sold to nations not traditional customers of the U.S. The continuing demand for
U.S. weapons in the global arms marketplace has created a more difficult environment
for individual West European suppliers to secure large new contracts with developing
nations on a sustained basis. Consequently, some of these suppliers in future years
may chose not to compete for some sales of certain types of weapons systems, even
reducing or eliminating some categories of items they have been producing. Instead,
they may seek to join increasing numbers of joint production ventures with other key
European weapons suppliers or even purchasing countries in an effort to sustain major
sectors of their individual defense industrial bases. The recent trend toward mergers
of various European defense firms has encouraged more joint ventures of this kind.
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
The Persian Gulf War from August 1990-February 1991 played a major role in
further stimulating already high levels of arms transfer agreements with nations in the
Near East region. The war created new demands by key purchasers such as Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons systems. These
demands were not only a response to Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but a
reflection of concerns regarding perceived threats from a potentially hostile Iran. In
Asia, efforts in several countries focused on upgrading and modernizing defense
forces have led to important new conventional weapons sales in that region. Russia
also, in the 1990s, developed a significant role as the principal supplier of advanced
conventional weaponry to China, while maintaining its position as principal supplier
to India. The data on regional arms transfer agreements from 1993-2000 continue to

CRS-11
reflect the primacy of developing nations in the Near East and Asia regions as
customers for conventional armaments.
Near East.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1993-1996, it accounted for 54.6% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($46 billion in current dollars). During 1997-2000,
the region accounted for 47.2% of all such agreements ($38.4 billion in current
dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East during
the 1993-2000 period with 55.2% of their total value ($46.5 billion in current dollars).
France was second during these years with 22.8% ($19.2 billion in current dollars).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States accounted for 60.9% of arms
agreements with this region ($23.4 billion in current dollars), while France accounted
for 16.2% of the region’s agreements ($6.2 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 (1993-1996), Asia accounted for 36.1% of the total value of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations ($30.3 billion in current dollars). During
1997-2000, the region accounted for 37.6% of all such agreements ($30.5 billion in
current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1993-1996), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 35.3%. The United States ranked second with
21.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.7% of this region’s
agreements in 1993-1996. In the later period (1997-2000), Russia ranked first in
Asian agreements with 40.7%, primarily due to major combat aircraft sales to India
and China. The United States ranked second with 19%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 23% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000. (Chart
6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing world arms
purchaser from 1993-2000, making arms transfer agreements totaling $24.5 billion
during these years (in current dollars). In the 1993-1996 period, the value of its arms
transfer agreements was high ($18.8 billion in current dollars), ranking first for that
period. From 1997-2000, however, the total value of Saudi Arabia’s arms transfer
agreements dropped significantly to $5.7 billion (in current dollars), ranking it fourth
for that period. This decline resulted from Saudi debt obligations stemming from the
Persian Gulf era, coupled with a significant fall in Saudi revenues caused by the
notable decline in the market price of its oil. The total value of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1993-2000 was $165.2 billion in current

CRS-12
dollars. Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for 14.8% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period, 1997-2000,
the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($14 billion in current dollars). India ranked second during these
years ($7.6 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E. from 1997-2000 accounted for
17.2% of the value of all developing world arms transfer agreements ($14 billion out
of $81.2 billion in current dollars) (tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).
The values of the arms transfer agreements of the top ten developing world
recipient nations in both the 1993-1996 and, 1997-2000 periods accounted for the
major portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1993-1996, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 70.3% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements. During 1997-2000, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 72.8% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $22.9 billion in 2000 or 90% of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations in that year. This reflects the
continued concentration of major arms purchases by developing nations within a few
countries (tables 1, 1I and 1J).
The United Arab Emirates ranked first among all developing world recipients in
the value of arms transfer agreements in 2000, concluding $7.4 billion in such
agreements. India ranked second in agreements in 2000 at $4.8 billion. South Korea
ranked third with $2.3 billion in agreements. Six of these top ten recipients were in
Asia (table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 2000, receiving $7.3 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia alone
received 37.7% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2000.
China ranked second in arms deliveries in 2000 with $1.6 billion. Egypt ranked third
with $1.3 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $15.6 billion, or 80.5% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2000.
Six of these top ten recipients were in the Near East (tables 2 and 2J).
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the United
States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery
of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the other
European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable
of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing
nations (tables 3-7) (pages 64-68).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, the largest purchasing region in the
developing world, reflect the substantial quantities and types delivered by both major
and lesser suppliers. The following is an illustrative summary of weapons deliveries
to this region for the period 1997-2000 from table 5 (page 66):

CRS-13
United States.
! 93 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 1,019 APCs and armored cars
! 129 supersonic combat aircraft
! 56 helicopters
! 589 surface-to-air missiles
! 57 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 350 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 600 APCs and armored cars
! 1 submarine
! 20 supersonic combat aircraft
! 50 helicopters
China.
! 1 guided missile boat
! 300 surface-to-air- missiles
! 100 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
! 250 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 260 APCs and armored cars
! 1 major surface combatant
! 12 minor surface combatants
! 12 guided missile boats
! 3 submarines
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 30 helicopters
! 160 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
! 110 artillery
! 2 major surface combatants
! 3 minor surface combatants
! 40 supersonic combat aircraft
All Other Suppliers.
! 530 APCs and armored cars
! 3 minor surface combatants
! 100 anti-ship missiles
! 30 surface-to-surface missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 1997-2000, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, minor
surface combatants, artillery pieces, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air
defense and anti-ship missiles. The United States made significant deliveries of
supersonic combat aircraft to the region. Russia, the United States, and European
suppliers in general were the principal suppliers of tanks and self-propelled guns, and
APCs and armored cars. Three of these weapons categories–supersonic combat

CRS-14
aircraft, helicopters, and tanks and self-propelled guns–are especially costly and are
an important portion of the dollar values of arms deliveries of the United States,
Russia, and European suppliers to the Near East region during the 1997-2000 period.
The cost of naval combatants is also generally high, and suppliers of such
systems during this period had their delivery value totals notably increased due to
these transfers. Some of the less expensive weapons systems delivered to the Near
East are deadly and can create important security threats within the region. In
particular, from 1997-2000, China delivered to the Near East region 100 anti-ship
missiles, while the United States delivered 57. China also delivered one guided missile
boat to the Near East, while the major West European suppliers collectively delivered
12 guided missile boats and one major surface combatant. Other non-European
suppliers delivered 100 anti-ship missiles, and 30 surface-to-surface missiles.

CRS-15
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
The United States commercial deliveries data set out below in this report are included in
the main data tables for deliveries worldwide and for deliveries to developing nations
collectively. They are presented separately here to provide an indicator of their overall magnitude
in the U.S. aggregate deliveries totals to the world and to all developing nations. The United
States is the only major arms supplier that has two distinct systems for the export of weapons:
the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, and the licensed
commercial export system. It should be noted that data maintained on U.S. commercial sales
agreements and deliveries are incomplete, and not collected or revised on an on-going basis,
making them significantly less precise than those for the U.S. FMS program–which accounts for
the overwhelming portion of U.S. conventional arms transfer agreements and deliveries involving
weapons systems. There are no official compilations of commercial agreement data comparable
to that for the FMS program maintained on an annual basis. Once an exporter receives from the
State Department a commercial license authorization to sell–valid for four years–there is no
current requirement that the exporter provide to the State Department, on a systematic and on-
going basis, comprehensive details regarding any sales contract that results from the license
approval, including if any such contract is reduced in scope or cancelled. Nor is the exporter
required to report that no contract with the prospective buyer resulted. Annual commercial
deliveries data are obtained from shipper’s export documents and completed licenses returned
from ports of exit by the U.S. Customs Service to the Office of Defense Trade Controls
(PM/DTC) of the State Department, which makes the final compilation of such data. This
process for obtaining commercial deliveries data is much less systematic and much less timely
than that taken by the Department of Defense for government-to-government FMS transactions.
Recently, efforts have been initiated by the U.S. government to improve the timeliness and quality
of U.S. commercial deliveries data. The values of U.S. commercial arms deliveries to all nations
and deliveries to developing nations for fiscal years 1993-2000, in current dollars, according to
the U.S. State Department, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Commercial Deliveries Commercial Deliveries
(Worldwide)
(to Developing Nations)
1993
$3,808,000,000
$701,000,000
1994
$3,339,000,000
$818,000,000
1995
$3,173,000,000
$850,000,000
1996
$1,563,000,000
$418,000,000
1997
$1,818,000,000
$503,000,000
1998
$2,045,000,000
$402,000,000
1999
$654,000,000
$125,000,000
2000
$476,000,000
$86,000,000

CRS-16
Summary of Data Trends, 1993-2000
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 39-49) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1993-2000. These data show the
most recent trends in arms contract activity by major suppliers. Delivery data, which
reflect implementation of sales decisions taken earlier, are shown in Tables 2 through
2J (pages 50-60. Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 71-75) provide data on
worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1993-2000, while Tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C and
9D (pages 76-80) provide data on worldwide arms deliveries during this period. To
use these data regarding agreements for purposes other than assessing general trends
in seller/buyer activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can be readily invalidated
by future events–precise values and comparisons, for example, may change due to
cancellations or modifications of major arms transfer agreements. These data sets
reflect the comparative order of magnitude of arms transactions by arm suppliers with
recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise noted.
What follows is a detailed summary of data trends from the tables in the report.
The summary statements also reference tables and/or charts pertinent to the point(s)
noted.
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values
Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they
are, by themselves, of somewhat limited use. They provide, however, the data from
which table 1A (constant dollars) and table 1B (supplier percentages) are derived.
Some of the more noteworthy facts reflected by these data are summarized below.
! The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was
$25.4 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations since 1994 (tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations rose from
$8.7 billion in 1999 to $12.6 billion in 2000. The United States’ share of all
developing world arms transfer agreements increased from 36.6% in 1999 to
49.7% in 2000 (tables 1A and 1B)(chart 3).
! In 2000, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer agreements
with developing nations increased notably from the previous year, rising from
$3.2 billion in 1999 to $7.4 billion in 2000. The Russian share of all such
agreements rose from 13.6% in 1999 to 29.1% in 2000 (charts 3 and
4)(tables 1A and 1B).

CRS-17
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1993-2000
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-18
Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-19
Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-20
Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 1993-2000
(billions of constant 2000 dollars)

CRS-21
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1993-2000 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1993-1996
Developing World
United States
60,932
58.70
Russia
21,089
77.20
France
21,736
82.60
United Kingdom
10,585
68.10
China
2,514
100.00
Germany
3,835
36.80
Italy
2,510
72.80
All Other European
11,587
73.40
All Others
7,588
65.80
TOTAL
142,356
67.70
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1997-2000
Developing World
United States
50,054
60.90
Russia
18,431
90.90
France
13,651
71.40
United Kingdom
4,749
58.40
China
5,686
92.50
Germany
11,225
42.60
Italy
2,215
42.90
All Other European
13,528
63.60
All Others
5,570
75.30
TOTAL
125,108
67.60
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2000
Developing World
United States
18,562
68.10
Russia
7,700
96.10
France
4,100
51.20
United Kingdom
600
0.00
China
400
100.00
Germany
1,100
90.90
Italy
100
0.00
All Other European
3,100
29.00
All Others
1,200
83.30
TOTAL
36,862
69.00

CRS-22
! The four major West European suppliers, as a group, (France, United
Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a decrease in their collective share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 1999 and 2000.
This group’s share fell from 15.4% in 1999 to 12.2% in 2000. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 1999
was $3.6 billion compared with a total of over $3.1 billion in 2000 (tables 1A
and 1B)(charts 3 and 4).
! France registered a notable increase in its share of all arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, rising from 1.3% in 1999 to 8.3% in 2000. The value
of its agreements with developing nations rose from $312 million in 1999 to
$2.1billion in 2000 (tables 1A and 1B).
! In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $12.6 billion. Russia ranked second at $7.4 billion, while
France ranked third at $2.1 billion (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1993-2000
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1993-1996 and 1997-2000.
These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars.1 Table 1D, derived from table
1C, gives the percentage distribution of each supplier’s agreement values within the
regions for the two time periods. Table 1E, also derived from table 1C, illustrates
what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms transfer
agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 1993-1996 and 1997-2000.
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 1993-1996, it accounted for 54.6% of the total value of
all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($46 billion in current dollars).
During 1996-1999, the region accounted for 47.2% of all such agreements
($38.4 billion in current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
! The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1993-2000 period with 55.2% of their total value ($46.5 billion in
current dollars). France was second during these years with 22.8% ($19.2
billion in current dollars). Most recently, from 1997-2000, the United States
accounted for 60.9% of all arms transfer agreements with the Near East
region ($23.4 billion in current dollars). France accounted for 16.2% of
agreements with this region ($6.2 billion in current dollars), representing most
of the arms transfer agreements by the major West European suppliers to this
region (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).
1Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must be
expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-23
! For the period 1993-1996, the United States concluded 74.8% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1997-2000,
the U.S. concluded 76.6% of its agreements with this region (table 1D).
! For the period 1993-1996, the four major West European suppliers collectively
made 64.1% of their developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near
East. In 1997-2000, the major West Europeans made 40.7% of their arms
agreements with the Near East (table 1D) .
! For the period 1993-1996, France concluded 83.9% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1997-2000, France made
68.1% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1993-1996, the United Kingdom concluded 39.7% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1997-2000,
the United Kingdom made 15.4% of its agreements with the Near East (table
1D).
! For the period 1993-1996, China concluded 27.3% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1997-2000, China made
28.6% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1993-1996, Russia concluded 17.5% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1997-2000, Russia made
16.1% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1993-1996), the United States ranked first in arms
transfer agreements with the Near East with 50.4%. France ranked second
with 28.3%. The United Kingdom and Russia tied for third with 5.4% each.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 34.6% of this region’s
agreements in 1993-1996. In the later period (1997-2000), the United States
ranked first in Near East agreements with 60.9%. France ranked second with
16.2%. Russia ranked third with 6.8%. The major West European suppliers,
as a group, made 18.3% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000 (table
1E)(chart 5).

CRS-24
Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-25
Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Asia
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-26
Asia.
! Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the developing
world. In the 1993-1996 period, Asia accounted for 36.1% of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations ($30.3 billion in current dollars). In the
more recent period, 1997-2000, it accounted for 37.6% of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($30.5 billion in current dollars)(tables 1C
and 1D).
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, Russia ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Asia with 35.3%. The United States ranked second with
21.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.7% of this
region’s agreements in 1993-1996. In the later period, 1997-2000, Russia
ranked first in Asian agreements with 40.7%, primarily due to major aircraft
and naval vessel sales to India and China. The United States ranked second
with 19% .The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23% of this
region’s agreements in 1997-2000 (chart 6) (table 1E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, the United States ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Latin America with 24.9%. Russia, the United Kingdom and
Italy tied for second with 7.7% each. The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 25% of this region’s agreements in 1993-1996. In the later
period, 1997-2000, the United States ranked first with 36.3%. France ranked
second with 8.7%. Russia was third with 5.8%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 11.6% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000.
Latin America registered a notable decline in the total value of its arms transfer
agreements from 1993-1996 to 1997-2000, falling from about $5.2 billion in
the earlier period to $3.5 billion in the latter (tables 1C and 1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, Russian ranked first in agreements with
Africa with 26.1% ($700 million in current dollars). France and China tied for
second with 7.5% each. The major West European suppliers, as a group,
made 14.9% of the region’s agreements in 1993-1996. The United States
made 3%. In the later period, 1997-2000, Germany ranked first in agreements
with 22.5% ($2 billion). China ranked second with 12.4% ($1.1 billion). The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 31.5% of this region’s
agreements in 1997-2000. All other European suppliers collectively made 36%
($3.2 billion). The United States made 1.1%. Africa registered a significant
increase in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1993-1996 to
1997-2000, rising from $2.7 billion in the earlier period to $8.9 billion in the
latter (in current dollars). The notable rise in the level of arms agreements
reflected, to an important degree, South Africa’s new defense procurement
program (tables 1C and 1E).

CRS-27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1993-2000: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1993-2000 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–1993-1996, 1997-2000 and 1993-2000.
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 1997-2000 ($30.5 billion), and first for
the entire period from 1993-2000 ($61.5 billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in the value
of arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 ($16.2 billion), and second from
1993-2000 ($30.5 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 ($9.2 billion), and third from 1993-
2000 ($24.7 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked sixth among all suppliers to developing nations
in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 ($2.6 billion), but
fourth from 1993-2000 ($8.9 billion).
! China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 ($5 billion), and fifth from 1993-
2000 ($7.2 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2000 the arms transfer agreements values with
developing nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United States, Russia and France, the year’s top three arms
suppliers–ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements–collectively
made agreements in 2000 valued at $22.1 billion, 87% of all arms transfer
agreements made with developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2000, the United States was the clear leader in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, making $12.6 billion in such agreements, or 47.7%
of them.
! Russia ranked second and France third in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2000, making $7.4 billion and $2.1 billion in such
agreements respectively.

CRS-28
! Germany ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2000, making $1billion in such agreements, while Israel ranked fifth with
$600 million.
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1993-2000:
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 1993-1996 and 1997-
2000. 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, 1997-2000, the principal purchasers of U.S. arms
in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements were: the United
Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ($6.8 billion); Egypt ($5.7 billion), Israel ($5.2
billion), and Saudi Arabia ($4.3 billion). The principal purchasers of Russian
arms were: the U.A.E. ($800 million), Algeria ($700 million), Iran, Syria, and
Jordan ($300 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from China were
Iran ($600 million), and Egypt ($400 million). The principal purchasers of
arms from the four major West European suppliers, as a group, were: the
U.A.E. ($6 billion), Oman and Syria ($300 million each). The principal
purchasers of arms from all other European suppliers collectively were Saudi
Arabia ($1.1 billion), Algeria ($500 million, and Yemen ($300 million). The
principal purchaser of arms from all other suppliers combined was Saudi
Arabia ($300 million).
! For the period from 1997-2000, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) made $14
billion in arms transfer agreements. The United States ($6.8 billion), and the
major West Europeans, collectively, ($6 billion) were its largest suppliers.
Saudi Arabia made $5.7 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal
suppliers were: the United States ($4.3 billion), the four major West European
suppliers, as a group, ($400 million), and all other European suppliers
collectively, excluding the four major Europeans ($1.1 billion). Egypt made
$6.3 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major supplier was the United
States ($5.7 billion). Israel made $5.2 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its
principal supplier was the United States ($5.2 billion).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by China to Iran rose from $400
million to $600 million during the period from 1993-1996 to 1997-2000. The
value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements to Iran rose from $200 million to
$300 million from the earlier period to the later period.
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with Saudi Arabia
fell significantly from the 1993-1996 period to the 1997-2000 period, declining
from $11.8 billion in the earlier period to $4.3 billion in the later period. Saudi
Arabia still made 75.4% of its arms transfer agreements with the United States
during 1997-2000. Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements with Saudi Arabia

CRS-29
by the major West European suppliers also decreased significantly from 1993-
1996 to 1997-2000, falling from $6.5 billion to essentially nil.
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
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 1993-2000 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–1993-1996,
1997-2000 and 1993-2000. 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 1993-2000, making agreements totaling $24.5 billion
during these years. The total value of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations from 1993-2000 was $165.2 billion in current dollars.
Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for over 14.8% of all developing world
arms transfer agreements during these years. In the most recent period–1997-
2000–the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in arms transfer
agreements by developing nations ($14 billion in current dollars). India
ranked second ($7.6 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E. accounted for
17.2% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during this period.
($14 billion out of nearly $81.2 billion in current dollars)(tables 1, 1H, 1I and
1J).
! During 1993-1996, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 70.3% of
all developing world arms transfer agreements. During 1997-2000, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 72.8% of all such agreements (tables 1
and 1I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2000. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2000. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first among all developing nations
recipients in the value of arms transfer agreements in 2000, concluding $7.4
billion in such agreements. India ranked second with $4.8 billion. South
Korea ranked third with $2.3 billion.
! Six of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in
2000 were in Asia. Four were in the Near East.
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world recipients, as a
group, in 2000 totaled $22.9 billion or 90% of all such agreements with the

CRS-30
developing world, reflecting a continuing concentration of developing world
arms purchases within a few nations (tables 1 and 1J).
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values
Table 2 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually
transferred) to developing nations by major suppliers from 1993-2000. The utility of
these particular data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide
the data from which tables 2A (constant dollars) and table 2B (supplier percentages)
are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized
below.
! In 2000 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($19.4 billion)
was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous year, ($26.2
billion in constant 2000 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table 2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2000 was 44.8%,
down from 49.6% in 1999. In 2000, the United States, for the eighth year in
a row, ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations (in
constant 2000 dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of Persian Gulf
War era arms transfer agreements. The United Kingdom’s share of all arms
deliveries to developing nations in 2000 was 22.7%, up from 17.5% in 1999.
The share of major West European suppliers deliveries to developing nations
in 2000 was 31%, up slightly from 30.2% in 1999 (tables 2A and 2B).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations from
1997-2000 ($106.1 billion in constant 2000 dollars) was slightly higher than
the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations from 1993-
1996 ($100.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars)(table 2A).
! During the years 1993-2000, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised
68% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2000, the percentage of arms
deliveries to developing nations was 66% of all arms deliveries worldwide
(tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-31
Chart 7
Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1993-2000
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-32
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1993-2000
(in billions of constant 2000 dollars)

CRS-33
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1993-2000 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1993-1996
United States
68,006
60.50
Russia
13,406
66.70
France
10,455
69.30
United Kingdom
24,696
84.60
China
3,575
96.70
Germany
8,359
45.20
Italy
1,043
54.70
All Other European
14,405
64.20
All Others
8,832
58.40
TOTAL
152,777
65.80
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1997-2000
United States
68,040
65.50
Russia
11,887
78.30
France
18,797
87.70
United Kingdom
21,833
86.50
China
2,537
95.80
Germany
5,568
30.00
Italy
1,586
67.40
All Other European
12,991
68.40
All Others
7,884
36.10
TOTAL
151,123
70.20
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Deliveries Value
Developing World
2000
United States
14,187
61.20
Russia
3,500
68.60
France
1,500
73.30
United Kingdom
5,100
86.30
China
500
100.00
Germany
800
50.00
Italy
300
33.30
All Other European
2,000
65.00
All Others
1,500
33.30
TOTAL
29,387
66.00

CRS-34
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1993-2000
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1993-1996 and 1997-2000. These values are
expressed in current U.S. dollars.2 Table 2D, derived from table 2C, gives the
percentage distribution of each supplier’s deliveries values within the regions for the
two time periods. Table 2E, also derived from table 2C, illustrates what percentage
share of each developing world region’s total arms delivery values was held by
specific suppliers during the years 1993-1996 and 1997-2000. Among the facts
reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
! The Near East has generally led in the value of arms deliveries received by the
developing world. In 1993-1996, it accounted for 59.2% of the total value of
all developing nations deliveries ($48.6 billion in current dollars). During
1997-2000 the region accounted for 57.3% of all such deliveries ($57.7 billion
in current dollars) (tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1993-1996, the United States made 67.7% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1997-2000, the United
States made 62.3% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near East
region (table 2D).
! For the period 1993-1996, the United Kingdom made 75.2% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1997-2000, the United
Kingdom made 83.8% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near East
region (table 2D).
! For the period 1996-2000, 66.2% of France’s arms deliveries to the developing
world were to the Near East region. In the more recent period, 1997-2000,
41.6% of France’s developing world deliveries were to nations of the Near
East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1993-1996, Russia made 36.5% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region. In 1997-2000, Russia made 27.3% of such
deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to the Near East with 49.8% (nearly $24.2 billion in current
dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 18.7% ($9.1 billion in
current dollars). France ranked third with 8.8% ($4.3 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 28.6% of this
region’s delivery values in 1993-1996. In the later period (1997-2000), the
United States ranked first in Near East delivery values with 45.8% ($26.4
billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 26% ($15
2because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must be
expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-35
billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 11.1% ($6.4 billion in
current dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 39.2%
of this region’s delivery values in 1997-2000 (table 2E).
Asia.
! The Asia region has generally ranked second in the value of arms deliveries
from most suppliers in both time periods. In the earlier period, 1993-1996,
30.6% of all arms deliveries to developing nations were to those in Asia ($25.1
billion in current dollars). In the later period, 1997-2000, Asia accounted for
36% of such arms deliveries ($36.2 billion in current dollars). For the period
1997-2000, Italy made 72.7% of its developing world deliveries to Asia.
Russia made 60.2% of its developing world arms deliveries to Asia. France
made 57.1%, while China made 41.7% of their developing world deliveries to
Asia (tables 2C and 2D).
! In the period from 1993-1996, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to Asia with 35.9%. Russia ranked second with 17.9%. The
United Kingdom ranked third with 10.8%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 28.3% of this region’s delivery values in 1993-1996.
In the later period, 1997-2000, the United States ranked first in Asian delivery
values with 40.1%. France ranked second with 24.3%. Russia ranked third
with 14.6%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 34.8% of
this region’s delivery values in 1997-2000 (table 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin
America was $5.1 billion. The United States ranked first in the value of arms
deliveries to Latin America with 47.1% ($2.4 billion). Russia and France tied
for second with 5.9% ($300 million each). The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 13.7% of this region’s delivery values in 1993-1996.
In the later period, 1997-2000, the United States ranked first in Latin
American delivery values with 39.7% ($1.4 billion). Russia ranked second
with 8.6%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 17.2% of
this region’s delivery values in 1997-2000. During 1997-2000, the value of all
arms deliveries to Latin America was $3.5 billion, a notable decline from the
$5.1 billion deliveries total for 1993-1996 (tables 2C and 2E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1993-1996, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa was
$3.3 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to Africa with
18% ($600 million). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held
15% of this region’s delivery values in 1993-1996. France alone made 12%.
The United States made 4%. In the later period, 1997-2000, Russia ranked
first in African delivery values with 24.3% ($800 million). China ranked
second with 18.3% ($600 million). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, held 6.1%. The United States made 2.7%. The other European
suppliers collectively held 33.5% ($1.1 billion in current dollars). During this

CRS-36
later period, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa remained essentially the
same at roughly $3.3 billion (Tables 2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1993-
2000 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the
total current dollar values of their respective deliveries to the developing world for
each of three periods–1993-1996, 1997-2000 and 1993-2000. Among the facts
reflected in this table are the following:
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms deliveries from 1997-2000 ($42.5 billion), and first for the entire
period from 1993-2000 ($78.4 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations
in the value of arms deliveries from 1997-2000 ($18 billion), and second for
the entire period from 1993-2000 ($37.2 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms deliveries from 1993-2000 ($15.5 billion), and third for the entire period
from 1993-2000 ($21.9 billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2000 the values of arms deliveries to developing
nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the facts reflected
in this table are the following:
! The United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, the year’s top three arms
suppliers–ranked by the value of their arms deliveries–collectively made
deliveries in 2000 valued at $15.5 billion, 79.9% of all arms deliveries made to
developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2000, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations, making $8.7 billion in such agreements, or 44.8% of them.
! The United Kingdom ranked second and Russia third in deliveries to
developing nations in 2000, making $4.4 billion and $2.4 billion in such
deliveries respectively.
! France ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in 2000, making
$1.1 billion in such deliveries, while China ranked fifth with $500 million.

CRS-37
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1993-2000:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1993-1996 and 1997-2000. These values
are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in table
2 and table 2C. Among the facts reflected by this table are the following:
! For the most recent period, 1997-2000, the principal arms recipients of the
United States in the Near East region, based on the value of their arms
deliveries were Saudi Arabia ($16.2 billion), Israel ($3.9 billion), Egypt ($3.6
billion), Kuwait ($1.5 billion). The principal arms recipients of Russia were
Iran ($800 million), Algeria ($500 million), and the U.A.E. ($400 million).
The principal arms recipient of China was Iran ($400). The principal arms
recipients of the four major West European suppliers, as a group, were Saudi
Arabia ($15.4 billion), the U.A.E. ($2.6 billion), Qatar ($1.7 billion), and
Kuwait ($1.2 billion). The principal arms recipient of all other European
suppliers collectively was Saudi Arabia ($2.4 billion). The principal arms
recipient of all other suppliers, as a group, was Israel ($200 million).
! For the period 1997-2000, Saudi Arabia received $34 billion in arms deliveries.
Its principal suppliers were the United States ($16.2 billion), and the four
major West Europeans, as a group ($15.4 billion). Israel received $5 billion
in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United States ($3.9 billion).
The U.A.E. received $4.2 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers
were the four major West Europeans, as a group, ($2.6 billion). Egypt received
$4 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United States ($3.6
billion). Kuwait received $3 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers
were the United States ($1.5 billion), and the four major West Europeans,
collectively, ($1.2 billion). Iran received $1.7 billion in arms deliveries. Its
principal suppliers were Russia ($800 million) and China ($400 million).
! The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia increased notably
from $12.1 billion in 1993-1996 to $16.2 billion in 1997-2000, as various items
ordered during the Persian Gulf war era continued to be delivered.
! The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined from the 1993-1996
period to the 1997-2000 period. Russian arms deliveries fell from $1.3 billion
to $800 million.
! Arms deliveries to Iran dropped notably from 1993-1996 to 1997-2000, falling
from $2.6 billion in 1993-1996 to $1.7 billion in 1997-2000. Russia and China
collectively delivered 70.6% of Iran’s arms during the 1997-2000 period ($1.2
billion).

CRS-38
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms in
the developing world from 1993-2000 by all suppliers collectively. The table ranks
recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective deliveries
from all suppliers for each of three periods–1993-1996, 1997-2000 and 1993-2000.
Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world recipients of
arms from 1993-2000, receiving deliveries valued at $65.9 billion and $21
billion, respectively, during these years. The total value of all arms deliveries
to developing nations from 1993-2000 was $190.2 billion in current dollars
(see table 2). Thus, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 34.6% and
11%, respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these
years–together 45.6% of the total. In the most recent period–1997-
2000–Saudi Arabia and Taiwan ranked first and second in the value of arms
received by developing nations($34 billion and $15.4 billion, respectively, in
current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan accounted for 49% of all
developing world arms deliveries ($49.4 billion out of nearly $100.9 billion–the
value of all deliveries to developing nations in 1997-2000 (in current dollars).
! For the 1997-2000 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $34 billion in arms
deliveries (in current dollars), or 33.7% of all deliveries to developing nations
during this period.
! During 1993-1996, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 75.7% of
all developing world arms deliveries. During 1997-2000, the top ten recipients
collectively accounted for 77.1% of all such deliveries (tables 2 and 2I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2000. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2000. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2000 among
developing nations, receiving $7.3 billion in such deliveries, or 37.7%. China
ranked second with $1.6 billion. Egypt ranked third with $1.3 billion (tables
2 and 2J).
! Arms deliveries in 2000 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $15.6 billion, or 80.5% of all developing nations
deliveries. Six of the top ten arms recipients in the developing world in 2000
were in the Near East region; four were in Asia (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-39
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
13,319
6,687
4,189
6,770
3,253
6,276
8,319
12,638
61,451
Russia
1,200
3,700
5,300
4,100
3,400
2,300
3,100
7,400
30,500
France
3,900
8,100
2,400
1,100
4,300
2,500
300
2,100
24,700
United Kingdom
2,300
700
600
2,700
1,000
1,000
600
0
8,900
China
500
600
200
900
1,300
700
2,600
400
7,200
Germany
1,000
0
200
0
100
1,500
2,000
1,000
5,800
Italy
300
200
800
300
300
0
600
0
2,500
All Other European
500
1,700
2,400
2,900
1,700
1,300
4,300
900
15,700
All Others
600
500
1,600
1,700
1,100
1,000
900
1,000
8,400
TOTAL
23,619
22,187
17,689
20,470
16,453
16,576
22,719
25,438
165,151
*Dollar inflation
Index:(2000=1.00)
0.845
0.8638
0.8814
0.9004
0.9201
0.9409
0.9617
1
Source: U.S. Government. Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for
the calendar year given except for U. S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Excess Defense
Article data which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated
services, military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All
foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. The United States total in 2000 includes a $6.432
billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-40
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
15,762
7,741
4,753
7,519
3,535
6,670
8,650
12,638
67,268
Russia
1,420
4,283
6,013
4,554
3,695
2,444
3,223
7,400
33,032
France
4,615
9,377
2,723
1,222
4,673
2,657
312
2,100
27,679
United Kingdom
2,722
810
681
2,999
1,087
1,063
624
0
9,986
China
592
695
227
1,000
1,413
744
2,704
400
7,775
Germany
1,183
0
227
0
109
1,594
2,080
1,000
6,193
Italy
355
232
908
333
326
0
624
0
2,778
All Other European
592
1,968
2,723
3,221
1,848
1,382
4,471
900
17,105
All Others
710
579
1,815
1,888
1,196
1,063
936
1,000
9,187
TOTAL
27,951
25,685
20,070
22,736
17,882
17,617
23,624
25,438
181,003

CRS-41
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
United States
56.39%
30.14%
23.68%
33.07%
19.77%
37.86%
36.62%
49.68%
Russia
5.08%
16.68%
29.96%
20.03%
20.66%
13.88%
13.64%
29.09%
France
16.51%
36.51%
13.57%
5.37%
26.14%
15.08%
1.32%
8.26%
United Kingdom
9.74%
3.16%
3.39%
13.19%
6.08%
6.03%
2.64%
0.00%
China
2.12%
2.70%
1.13%
4.40%
7.90%
4.22%
11.44%
1.57%
Germany
4.23%
0.00%
1.13%
0.00%
0.61%
9.05%
8.80%
3.93%
Italy
1.27%
0.90%
4.52%
1.47%
1.82%
0.00%
2.64%
0.00%
All Other European
2.12%
7.66%
13.57%
14.17%
10.33%
7.84%
18.93%
3.54%
All Others
2.54%
2.25%
9.05%
8.30%
6.69%
6.03%
3.96%
3.93%
[Major West
31.75%
40.56%
22.61%
20.03%
34.64%
30.16%
15.41%
12.19% ]
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-42
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
6,439
5,784
23,150
23,353
1,295
1,253
80
96
Russia
10,700
12,400
2,500
2,600
400
200
700
1,000
France
2,000
2,600
13,000
6,200
300
300
200
0
United Kingdom
3,300
1,700
2,500
400
400
0
100
500
China
1,300
2,400
600
1,400
100
0
200
1,100
Germany
1,000
2,400
100
100
200
0
0
2,000
Italy
900
300
300
300
400
100
100
300
All Other European
2,700
1,100
2,900
2,800
1,300
1,200
600
3,200
All Others
2,000
1,800
900
1,200
800
400
700
700
[Major West
7,200
7,000
15,900
7,000
1,300
400
400
2,800 ]
European*
TOTAL
30,339
30,484
45,950
38,353
5,195
3,453
2,680
8,896
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1997-2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement
with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-43
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1993-2000
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
20.80%
18.97%
74.76%
76.60%
4.18%
4.11%
0.26%
0.31%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
74.83%
76.54%
17.48%
16.05%
2.80%
1.23%
4.90%
6.17%
100.00%
100.00%
France
12.90%
28.57%
83.87%
68.13%
1.94%
3.30%
1.29%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
52.38%
65.38%
39.68%
15.38%
6.35%
0.00%
1.59%
19.23%
100.00%
100.00%
China
59.09%
48.98%
27.27%
28.57%
4.55%
0.00%
9.09%
22.45%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
76.92%
53.33%
7.69%
2.22%
15.38%
0.00%
0.00%
44.44%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
52.94%
30.00%
17.65%
30.00%
23.53%
10.00%
5.88%
30.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
36.00%
13.25%
38.67%
33.73%
17.33%
14.46%
8.00%
38.55%
100.00%
100.00%
European
All Others
45.45%
43.90%
20.45%
29.27%
18.18%
9.76%
15.91%
17.07%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
29.03%
40.70%
64.11%
40.70%
5.24%
2.33%
1.61%
16.28%
100.00%
100.00% ]
European*
TOTAL
36.05%
37.55%
54.60%
47.24%
6.17%
4.25%
3.18%
10.96%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-44
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1993-2000
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
21.22%
18.97%
50.38%
60.89%
24.93%
36.29%
2.99%
1.08%
Russia
35.27%
40.68%
5.44%
6.78%
7.70%
5.79%
26.12%
11.24%
France
6.59%
8.53%
28.29%
16.17%
5.77%
8.69%
7.46%
0.00%
United Kingdom
10.88%
5.58%
5.44%
1.04%
7.70%
0.00%
3.73%
5.62%
China
4.28%
7.87%
1.31%
3.65%
1.92%
0.00%
7.46%
12.37%
Germany
3.30%
7.87%
0.22%
0.26%
3.85%
0.00%
0.00%
22.48%
Italy
2.97%
0.98%
0.65%
0.78%
7.70%
2.90%
3.73%
3.37%
All Other
8.90%
3.61%
6.31%
7.30%
25.02%
34.75%
22.39%
35.97%
European
All Others
6.59%
5.90%
1.96%
3.13%
15.40%
11.58%
26.12%
7.87%
[Major West
23.73%
22.96%
34.60%
18.25%
25.02%
11.58%
14.93%
31.47% ]
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-45
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1993-1996
1
United States
30,965
2
France
15,500
3
Russia
14,300
4
United Kingdom
6,300
5
China
2,200
6
Italy
1,600
7
Ukraine
1,400
8
Germany
1,200
9
Israel
1,100
10
Netherlands
1,100
11
South Africa
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
United States
30,486*
2
Russia
16,200
3
France
9,200
4
China
5,000
5
Germany
4,600
6
United Kingdom
2,600
7
Sweden
2,300
8
Israel
1,500
9
Belgium
1,000
10
Belarus
1,000
11
Italy
900
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1993-2000
1
United States
61,451*
2
Russia
30,500
3
France
24,700
4
United Kingdom
8,900
5
China
7,200
6
Germany
5,800
7
Israel
2,600
8
Italy
2,500
9
Sweden
2,400
10
Ukraine
2,300
11
Belarus
1,900
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. *The United States total includes a $6.432 billion
licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-46
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2000
1
United States
12,638
2
Russia
7,400
3
France
2,100
4
Germany
1,000
5
Israel
600
6
China
400
7
Turkey
300
8
Belarus
100
9
Brunei
100
10
Cyprus
100
11
North Korea
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. The United States total
includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in
2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-47
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
Total
Country
European*
European
Others
1993-1996
Algeria
0
400
0
0
400
0
800
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
3,700
700
0
100
200
0
4,700
Iran
0
200
400
100
400
100
1,200
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
3,900
0
100
100
0
200
4,300
Jordan
300
0
0
0
0
100
400
Kuwait
2,500
800
0
1,900
100
0
5,300
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Morocco
100
0
0
500
0
100
700
Oman
0
0
0
500
100
100
700
Qatar
0
0
0
2,200
0
0
2,200
Saudi Arabia
11,800
0
0
6,500
500
0
18,800
Syria
0
100
0
0
100
100
300
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
200
300
0
3,900
600
0
5,000
Yemen
0
0
200
200
300
0
700
1997-2000
Algeria
0
700
200
0
500
100
1,500
Bahrain
700
0
0
0
0
0
700
Egypt
5,700
0
400
100
100
0
6,300
Iran
0
300
600
100
100
200
1,300
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Israel
5,200
0
0
0
0
0
5,200
Jordan
200
300
0
100
0
100
700
Kuwait
500
0
200
0
0
0
700
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
200
300
Morocco
0
0
0
100
200
0
300
Oman
0
0
0
300
100
0
400
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
4,300
0
0
0
1,100
300
5,700
Syria
0
300
0
300
100
0
700
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.**
6,800
800
0
6,000
200
200
14,000
Yemen
0
0
0
0
300
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. **The United States total
for 1997-2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000
for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-48
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1993-1996
1
Saudi Arabia
18,800
2
China
7,100
3
Kuwait
5,300
4
U.A.E.
5,000
5
Egypt
4,700
6
Israel
4,300
7
India
3,900
8
South Korea
3,400
9
Pakistan
3,300
10
Indonesia
3,200
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
U.A.E.
14,000*
2
India
7,600
3
Egypt
6,900
4
Saudi Arabia
5,700
5
China
5,500
6
Israel
5,200
7
South Korea
4,700
8
South Africa
4,500
9
Singapore
2,800
10
Malaysia
2,200
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1993-2000
1
Saudi Arabia
24,500
2
U.A.E.
19,000*
3
China
12,600
4
Egypt
11,600
5
India
11,500
6
Israel
9,500
7
South Korea
8,100
8
Kuwait
6,000
9
Pakistan
5,300
10
South Korea
4,700
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. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed
commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-49
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2000
1
U.A.E.
7,400*
2
India
4,800
3
South Korea
2,300
4
China
2,100
5
Egypt
1,800
6
Israel
1,600
7
Singapore
1,600
8
Saudi Arabia
500
9
North Korea
400
10
Malaysia
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. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United
Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-50
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
8,648
7,094
10,486
9,730
10,814
10,461
12,491
8,686
78,410
Russia
2,100
1,400
2,700
2,200
2,200
2,000
2,300
2,400
17,300
France
800
700
2,000
2,900
5,800
6,100
2,500
1,100
21,900
United Kingdom
3,800
4,700
4,900
5,800
5,900
3,300
4,400
4,400
37,200
China
1,100
600
700
600
1,000
500
300
500
5,300
Germany
600
900
1,100
700
400
200
600
400
4,900
Italy
0
200
200
100
600
200
100
100
1,500
All Other European
1,300
2,200
2,300
2,300
3,200
2,000
1,900
1,300
16,500
All Others
1,100
1,100
1,200
1,100
900
700
600
500
7,200
TOTAL
19,448
18,894
25,586
25,430
30,814
25,461
25,191
19,386
190,210
Dollar inflation index:
(2000=1.00)*
0.845
0.8638
0.8814
0.9004
0.9201
0.9409
0.9617
1
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Developing nations category excludes the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given,
except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), Excess Defense Articles, and commercially licensed
deliveries, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military
assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the
nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-51
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
10,234
8,213
11,897
10,806
11,753
11,118
12,988
8,686
85,695
Russia
2,485
2,431
1,588
2,443
2,391
2,126
2,392
2,400
18,256
France
947
810
2,269
3,221
6,304
6,483
2,600
1,100
23,734
United Kingdom
4,497
4,399
5,559
6,442
6,412
3,507
4,575
4,400
39,791
China
1,302
695
794
666
1,087
531
312
500
5,887
Germany
710
1,042
1,248
777
435
213
624
400
5,449
Italy
0
232
227
111
652
213
104
100
1,639
All Other European
1,538
2,547
2,609
2,554
3,478
2,126
1,976
1,300
18,128
All Others
1,302
1,273
1,361
1,222
978
744
624
500
8,004
TOTAL
23,015
21,642
27,552
28,242
33,490
27,061
26,195
19,386
206,583

CRS-52
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
United States
44.47%
37.55%
40.98%
38.26%
35.09%
41.09%
49.59%
44.81%
Russia
10.80%
7.41%
10.55%
8.65%
7.14%
7.86%
9.13%
12.38%
France
4.11%
3.70%
7.82%
11.40%
18.82%
23.96%
9.92%
5.67%
United Kingdom
19.54%
24.88%
19.15%
22.81%
19.15%
12.96%
17.47%
22.70%
China
5.66%
3.18%
2.74%
2.36%
3.25%
1.96%
1.19%
2.58%
Germany
3.09%
4.76%
4.30%
2.75%
1.30%
0.79%
2.38%
2.06%
Italy
0.00%
1.06%
0.78%
0.39%
1.95%
0.79%
0.40%
0.52%
All Other European
6.68%
11.64%
8.99%
9.04%
10.38%
7.86%
7.54%
6.71%
All Others
5.66%
5.82%
4.69%
4.33%
2.92%
2.75%
2.38%
2.58%
[Major West European*
26.74%
34.40%
32.05%
37.36%
41.22%
38.49%
30.17%
30.95% ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-53
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1993-96
1997-00
1993-97
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
9,008
14,510
24,242
26,412
2,402
1,383
133
87
Russia
4,500
5,300
3,100
2,400
300
300
600
800
France
1,500
8,800
4,300
6,400
300
200
400
0
United Kingdom
2,700
2,600
9,100
15,000
200
200
100
100
China
1,500
1,000
1,200
800
100
0
200
600
Germany
2,600
400
400
1,000
200
200
0
0
Italy
300
800
100
200
0
0
0
100
All Other European
1,700
1,600
5,200
4,800
800
900
600
1,100
All Others
1,300
1,200
1,000
700
800
300
1,300
500
[Major West European*
7,100
12,600
13,900
22,600
700
600
500
200]
TOTAL
25,108
36,210
48,642
57,712
5,102
3,483
3,333
3,287
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-54
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1993-2000
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
25.17%
34.23%
67.74%
62.30%
6.71%
3.26%
0.37%
0.21%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
52.94%
60.23%
36.47%
27.27%
3.53%
3.41%
7.06%
9.09%
100.00%
100.00%
France
23.08%
57.14%
66.15%
41.56%
4.62%
1.30%
6.15%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
22.31%
14.53%
75.21%
83.80%
1.65%
1.12%
0.83%
0.56%
100.00%
100.00%
China
50.00%
41.67%
40.00%
33.33%
3.33%
0.00%
6.67%
25.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
81.25%
25.00%
12.50%
62.50%
6.25%
12.50%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
75.00%
72.73%
25.00%
18.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.09%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
20.48%
19.05%
62.65%
57.14%
9.64%
10.71%
7.23%
13.10%
100.00%
100.00%
All Others
29.55%
44.44%
22.73%
25.93%
18.18%
11.11%
29.55%
18.52%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West European*
31.98%
35.00%
62.61%
62.78%
3.15%
1.67%
2.25%
0.56%
100.00%
100.00% ]
TOTAL
30.55%
35.96%
59.19%
57.32%
6.21%
3.46%
4.06%
3.26%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-55
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1993-2000
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
1993-96
1997-00
United States
35.88%
40.07%
49.84%
45.77%
47.08%
39.71%
3.99%
2.65%
Russia
17.92%
14.64%
6.37%
4.16%
5.88%
8.61%
18.00%
24.34%
France
5.97%
24.30%
8.84%
11.09%
5.88%
5.74%
12.00%
0.00%
United Kingdom
10.75%
7.18%
18.71%
25.99%
3.92%
5.74%
3.00%
3.04%
China
5.97%
2.76%
2.47%
1.39%
1.96%
0.00%
6.00%
18.25%
Germany
10.36%
1.10%
0.82%
1.73%
3.92%
5.74%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
1.19%
2.21%
0.21%
0.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.04%
All Other European
6.77%
4.42%
10.69%
8.32%
15.68%
25.84%
18.00%
33.47%
All Others
5.18%
3.31%
2.06%
1.21%
15.68%
8.61%
39.00%
15.21%
[Major West European*
28.28%
34.80%
28.58%
39.16%
13.72%
17.23%
15.00%
6.08% ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-56
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000
Lending Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1993-1996
1
United States
35,958
2
United Kingdom
19,200
3
Russia
8,400
4
France
6,400
5
Germany
3,300
6
China
3,000
7
Sweden
2,300
8
Israel
1,900
9
Canada
1,000
10
South Africa
900
11
Netherlands
700
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
United States
42,452
2
United Kingdom
18,000
3
France
15,500
4
Russia
8,900
5
Sweden
2,400
6
China
2,300
7
Germany
1,600
8
Ukraine
1,500
9
Belarus
1,100
10
Italy
1,000
11
Israel
700
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1993-2000
1
United States
78,410
2
United Kingdom
37,200
3
France
21,900
4
Russia
17,300
5
China
5,300
6
Germany
4,900
7
Sweden
4,700
8
Israel
2,600
9
Ukraine
2,000
10
Belarus
1,500
11
Italy
1,500
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-57
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2000
1
United States
8,686
2
United Kingdom
4,400
3
Russia
2,400
4
France
1,100
5
China
500
6
Sweden
500
7
Germany
400
8
Belarus
200
9
North Korea
200
10
Ukraine
200
11
Brunei
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-58
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Recipient
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
Total
Country
European*
European
Others
1993-1996
Algeria
0
300
0
0
200
0
500
Bahrain
200
0
0
0
0
0
200
Egypt
6,000
200
0
100
400
0
6,700
Iran
0
1,300
900
100
100
200
2,600
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,100
0
100
300
0
100
2,600
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
3,100
800
0
700
0
0
4,600
Lebanon
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Libya
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Morocco
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Oman
0
0
0
1,000
100
100
1,200
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
12,100
0
100
16,100
3,600
0
31,900
Syria
0
100
0
0
200
100
400
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
600
300
0
2,400
0
400
3,700
Yemen
0
0
100
0
300
0
400
1997-2000
Algeria
0
500
100
0
600
0
1,200
Bahrain
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
Egypt
3,600
300
0
100
0
0
4,000
Iran
0
800
400
100
300
100
1,700
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
3,900
0
0
900
0
200
5,000
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
1,500
0
200
1,200
100
0
3,000
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Morocco
100
0
0
100
200
100
500
Oman
0
0
0
200
0
0
200
Qatar
0
0
0
1,700
0
0
1,700
Saudi Arabia
16,200
0
0
15,400
2,400
0
34,000
Syria
0
300
0
100
0
0
400
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
U.A.E.
300
400
0
2,600
800
100
4,200
Yemen
0
0
0
100
100
0
200
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European
includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.

CRS-59
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1993-1996
1
Saudi Arabia
31,900
2
Egypt
6,700
3
Taiwan
5,600
4
South Korea
5,000
5
Kuwait
4,600
6
U.A.E.
3,700
7
China
2,900
8
Iran
2,600
9
Israel
2,600
10
Malaysia
2,000
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
Saudi Arabia
34,000
2
Taiwan
15,400
3
Israel
5,000
4
South Korea
4,700
5
U.A.E.
4,200
6
Egypt
4,000
7
China
3,300
8
Kuwait
3,000
9
India
2,100
10
Malaysia
2,100
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1993-2000
1
Saudi Arabia
65,900
2
Taiwan
21,000
3
Egypt
10,700
4
South Korea
9,700
5
U.A.E.
7,900
6
Kuwait
7,600
7
Israel
7,600
8
China
6,200
9
Iran
4,200
10
Malaysia
4,100
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-60
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2000
1
Saudi Arabia
7,300
2
China
1,600
3
Egypt
1,300
4
Taiwan
1,200
5
Israel
1,000
6
Kuwait
1,000
7
South Korea
700
8
Indonesia
700
9
U.A.E.
500
10
Algeria
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-61
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1993-2000
Other useful data for assessing arms transfers are those that indicate who has
actually delivered specific numbers of specific classes of military items to a region.
These data are relatively “hard” in that they reflect actual transfers of military
equipment. They have the limitation of not giving detailed information regarding
either the sophistication or the specific name of the equipment delivered. However,
these data show relative trends in the delivery of important classes of military
equipment and indicate who the leading suppliers are from region to region over time.
Data in the following tables set out actual deliveries of fourteen categories of
weaponry to developing nations from 1993-2000 by the United States, Russia, China,
the four major West European suppliers as a group, all other European suppliers as
a group, and all other suppliers as a group (tables 3-7).
A note of caution is warranted regarding the quantitative data with these specific
tables. Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provide
precise indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The history
of recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication of weapons
can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide an indication of
the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the weapons
delivered to them. Superior training–coupled with good equipment, tactical
proficiency, and sound logistics–may, in the last analysis, be a more important factor
in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional warfare than the size of its
weapons inventory.
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1997-2000
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the United States
was the leading supplier of several major classes of conventional weaponry
from 1997-2000. Russia transferred significant quantities of certain weapons
classes, although generally less than the United States or other supplier groups
in most regions, during these years.
! The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in weapons
deliveries from 1997-2000 making notable deliveries of certain categories of
armaments to every region of the developing world–most particularly to the
Near East, Asia, and to Latin America. In Africa, European suppliers, China
and all other non-European suppliers were principal competitors for Russia in
arms deliveries.
! Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the
United States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers tend to
dominate the delivery of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also
evident that the other European suppliers, and non-European suppliers,
including China, are fully capable of providing specific classes of conventional
armaments, such as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery pieces,
and the various missile categories, surface-to-surface, surface-to-air, and anti-

CRS-62
ship, to developing nations, should their systems prove attractive to
prospective purchasers.
Noteworthy deliveries of specific categories of weapons to regions of the developing
world by specific suppliers from 1997-2000 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 1 major surface combatant, 5 minor surface combatants, 4
submarines, 80 supersonic combat aircraft, 70 helicopters 1,120 surface-to-air
missiles, and 90 anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 369 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 7 major surface combatants, 279 supersonic combat aircraft, 62
helicopters, 522 surface-to-air missiles, and 181 anti-ship missiles. China delivered
100 tanks and self-propelled guns, 120 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface
combatant,14 minor surface combatants, 2 guided missile boats, 50 supersonic
combat aircraft, 370 surface-to-air missiles, and 40 anti-ship missiles. The four major
West European suppliers as a group delivered 120 APCs and armored cars, 6 major
surface combatants, 11 minor surface combatants, 3 submarines, 80 supersonic
combat aircraft, 1,640 surface-to-air missiles, and 60 anti-ship missiles. All other
European suppliers collectively delivered 320 tanks and self-propelled guns, 110
APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 4 minor surface combatants, 1
submarine, and 40 supersonic combat aircraft. All other non-European suppliers
collectively delivered 110 artillery pieces, 1 major surface combatant, 34 minor
surface combatants, 2 submarines, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, and 50 surface-to-
air missiles.
Near East.
Russia delivered 350 tanks and self-propelled guns, 600 APCs and armored cars,
1 submarine, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, and 50 helicopters. The United States
delivered 93 tanks and self-propelled guns, 1,019 APCs and armored cars, 1 minor
surface combatant,129 supersonic combat aircraft, 56 helicopters, 589 surface-to-air
missiles, and 57 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 1 guided missile boat, 300
surface-to-air missiles, and 100 anti-ship missiles. The four major West European
suppliers collectively delivered 250 tanks and self-propelled guns, 260 APCs and
armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 12 minor surface combatants, 12 guided
missile boats, 3 submarines, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 30 helicopters, and 160
anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers as a group delivered 110 artillery
pieces, 2 major surface combatants, 3 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic
combat aircraft, and 10 helicopters. All other suppliers collectively delivered 530
APCs and armored cars, 3 minor surface combatants, 30 surface-to-surface missiles,
and 100 anti-ship missiles.

CRS-63
Latin America.
Russia delivered 30 APCs and armored cars, and 60 helicopters. The United
States delivered 14 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 52
helicopters, and 9 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 120 surface-to-air missiles. The
four major West European suppliers collectively delivered 80 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 140 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 2 minor
surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 1 submarine, 20 helicopters, 110 surface-
to-air missiles, and 30 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively
delivered 330 tanks and self-propelled guns, 40 APCs and armored cars, 8 major
surface combatants, 87 minor surface combatants,10 supersonic combat aircraft, 20
helicopters, and 780 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as
a group delivered 20 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2 guided missile boats, and 10
anti-ship missiles.
Africa.
Russia delivered 50 tanks and self-propelled guns, 80 APCs and armored cars,
180 artillery pieces, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, and 20 helicopters. The United
States delivered 2 minor surface combatants. China delivered 140 tanks and self-
propelled guns, 5 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, and 10
helicopters. The four major West European suppliers collectively delivered 8
minor surface combatants. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 610
tanks and self-propelled guns, 390 artillery pieces, 330 APCs and armored cars, 6
minor surface combatants, 30 supersonic combat aircraft,70 helicopters, and 370
surface-to-surface missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered
100 tanks and self-propelled guns, 100 artillery pieces, 470 APCs and armored cars,
5 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, 20 helicopters, and 150
surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-64
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
1993-1996
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,935
240
260
130
510
30
Guns
Artillery
269
490
170
140
650
200
APCs and Armored Cars
2,444
1,400
40
710
760
2,120
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
3
49
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
57
13
14
49
35
70
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
19
0
0
3
Submarines
0
3
0
9
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
175
70
120
0
70
40
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
69
0
0
110
0
0
Other Aircraft
44
30
70
90
280
140
Helicopters
210
230
0
100
120
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,697
1,670
270
2,040
1,980
130
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
40
Anti-Ship Missiles
515
30
200
70
0
170
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
462
430
240
330
1,260
130
Guns
Artillery
180
200
120
50
540
240
APCs and Armored Cars
1,061
780
120
520
480
1,050
Major Surface Combatants
9
1
1
8
11
1
Minor Surface Combatants
3
5
19
33
100
42
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
3
16
0
2
Submarines
0
5
0
7
1
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
408
140
70
110
120
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
60
30
30
Other Aircraft
58
30
50
50
100
190
Helicopters
170
200
10
60
100
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,111
1,120
790
1,750
1,150
200
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
247
90
140
250
50
110
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
All data are for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are
estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-65
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
European
European
Others
1993-1996
Tanks and Self-Propelled
204
10
260
0
140
10
Guns
Artillery
27
380
80
60
170
30
APCs and Armored Cars
65
40
40
230
100
100
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
3
41
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
12
11
9
11
1
40
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
4
0
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
8
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
36
60
90
0
20
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
30
0
0
70
0
0
Other Aircraft
16
0
60
40
90
90
Helicopters
64
80
0
20
50
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
484
690
150
1,620
50
50
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
216
10
30
0
0
0
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
369
30
100
0
320
0
Guns
Artillery
160
0
70
0
10
110
APCs and Armored Cars
28
70
120
120
110
50
Major Surface Combatants
7
1
1
6
1
1
Minor Surface Combatants
0
5
14
11
4
34
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
2
0
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
3
1
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
279
80
50
80
40
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
50
10
0
Other Aircraft
12
0
20
10
10
120
Helicopters
62
70
0
10
0
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
522
1,120
370
1,640
0
50
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
181
90
40
60
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-66
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
European
European
Others
1993-1996
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,731
120
0
100
280
0
Guns
Artillery
201
40
30
0
430
80
APCs and Armored Cars
2,317
740
0
200
0
1,970
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
14
0
3
31
15
4
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
15
0
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
139
0
30
0
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
40
0
0
Other Aircraft
4
20
0
40
100
20
Helicopters
101
70
0
20
30
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,108
160
50
350
0
30
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
287
20
170
50
0
170
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
93
350
0
250
0
10
Guns
Artillery
6
20
30
10
110
0
APCs and Armored Cars
1,019
600
0
260
0
530
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
1
0
0
12
3
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
12
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
3
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
129
20
0
30
40
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
10
0
0
Other Aircraft
21
10
10
20
40
0
Helicopters
56
50
0
30
10
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
589
0
300
0
0
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
57
0
100
160
0
100
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are
estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-67
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America
Weapons Category
U.S.
Russia
China
Major West
All Other
All
European
European
Others
1993-1996
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
40
0
20
10
0
Guns
Artillery
40
40
40
60
0
30
APCs and Armored Cars
57
120
0
50
530
30
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
7
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
28
2
0
6
10
7
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
30
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
39
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
16
10
0
0
20
10
Helicopters
45
30
0
30
20
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
105
820
70
30
1,030
50
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
12
0
0
20
0
0
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
0
80
330
20
Guns
Artillery
14
0
0
40
30
30
APCs and Armored Cars
14
30
0
140
40
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
1
8
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
87
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
4
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
0
20
20
Other Aircraft
17
20
0
10
40
30
Helicopters
52
60
0
20
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
120
110
780
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
9
0
0
30
50
10
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are
estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-68
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
1993-1996
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
70
0
10
80
20
Guns
Artillery
1
30
20
20
50
60
APCs and Armored Cars
5
500
0
230
130
20
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
3
0
2
1
9
19
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
1
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
8
0
10
10
70
20
Helicopters
0
50
0
30
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
40
900
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
50
140
0
610
100
Guns
Artillery
0
180
20
0
390
100
APCs and Armored Cars
0
80
0
0
330
470
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
5
8
6
5
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
40
20
0
30
20
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
8
0
20
10
10
40
Helicopters
0
20
10
0
70
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
370
150
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
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-69
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1993-2000
Ten tables follow. Tables 8, 8A, and 8B and tables 9, 9A and 9B, provide the total dollar
values for arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide for the years 1993-2000 in the
same format and detail as do tables 1,1A and 1B and tables 2,2A and 2B for arms transfer
agreements with and arms deliveries to developing nations. Tables 8C, 8D, 9C and 9D provide a list
of the top eleven arms suppliers to the world based on the total values (in current dollars) of their
arms transfer agreements with and arms deliveries worldwide during calendar years 1993-1996, 1997-
2000, and 2000. These tables are set out in the same format and detail as tables 1F and 1G and tables
2F and 2G for arms transfer agreements with and arms deliveries to developing nations respectively.
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1993-2000
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 2000 U.S. dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1997-2000, and first for the entire period form 1993-2000 (figure 1) (table
8C).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1997-2000, and second from 1993-2000.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer agreements
from 1997-2000, and third from 1993-2000.
! In 2000, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was about $36.9 billion. This
is the highest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements for any year since 1993.
! In 2000, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the world, making
$18.6 billion in such agreements, or 50.4% of all arms transfer agreements. Russia ranked
second with $7.7 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 20.9% of all arms transfer agreements.
France ranked third with $4.1 billion or 11.1%. United States agreements increased notably
from $12.9 billion in 1999 to $18.6 billion in 2000. The U.S. increase was substantially
assisted by the sale of 80 F-16 fighter aircraft to the U.A.E. for $6.432 billion. France’s arms
transfer agreements rose significantly from $936 million in 1999 to $4.1 billion in 2000 (table
8A)(table 8D).
! The United States, Russia and France, the top three arms suppliers to the world in
2000–respectively–ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements–collectively made
agreements in 2000 valued at nearly $30.4 billion, 82.4% of all arms transfer agreements made
with the world by all suppliers.
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 1997-2000 ($125.1 billion)
was notably less than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers worldwide from
1993-1996 ($142.4 billion), a decline of 12.1% (figure 1).

CRS-70
! During the period from 1993-1996, developing world nations accounted for 67.7% of all arms
transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1997-2000, developing world nations accounted
for 67.6% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 2000, developing nations were recipients of 69% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1993-2000
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1993-2000. The utility of these data is that they reflect transfers
that have occurred. They provide the data from which tables 9A(constant dollars) and 9B (supplier
percentages) are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized
below. Unless otherwise noted the dollar values are expressed in constant 2000 U.S. dollars.
! In 2000, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide, making
nearly $14.2 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that United States has
led in such deliveries, reflecting implementation of arms agreements concluded during and
immediately after the Persian Gulf war (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).
! The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2000, making $5.1 billion
in such deliveries.
! Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2000, making $3.5 billion in such
deliveries.
! In 2000, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Russia, collectively delivered nearly $22.8 billion, 77.5% of all arms deliveries made
worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2000 was 48.3%, down slightly from its
49.1% share in 1999. The United Kingdom’s share in 2000 was 17.4% up from 14% in 1999.
Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in 2000 was 11.9%, up from 8.5% in 1999 (table 9B).
! In 2000, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was nearly $29.4 billion, a significant
decline in the total value of deliveries in 1999 ($38 billion in constant 2000 dollars), and the
lowest deliveries total during the entire period from 1993-2000 (chart 7) (table 9A).
! During the period from 1993-1996, developing world nations accounted for 65.8% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide. During 1997-2000, developing world nations accounted for
70.2% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2). (table 9A).
! In 2000, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 66% of all arms deliveries
received worldwide (figure 2) (table 9A).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1997-2000 ($151.1
billion) was a slight decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from
1993-1996 ($152.8 billion in constant dollars) (figure 2)(table 9A).

CRS-71
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
20,558
12,505
8,777
10,956
7,324
10,030
12,379
18,562
101,091
Russia
2,400
4,000
7,500
4,600
3,600
2,600
3,900
7,700
36,300
France
5,000
8,700
2,600
2,500
4,700
3,300
900
4,100
31,800
United Kingdom
2,800
700
800
5,000
1,000
2,000
900
600
13,800
China
500
600
200
900
1,300
1,100
2,600
400
7,600
Germany
1,300
1,400
400
200
600
5,000
4,000
1,100
14,000
Italy
400
200
1,200
400
300
900
800
100
4,300
All Other European
1,000
2,500
2,900
3,800
2,000
1,700
6,200
3,100
23,200
All Others
800
800
2,100
3,000
1,500
1,600
1,000
1,200
12,000
TOTAL
34,758
31,405
26,477
31,356
22,324
28,230
32,679
36,862
244,091
Dollar inflation index:
(2000=1.00)*
0.845
0.8638
0.8814
0.9004
0.9201
0.9409
0.9617
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), and Excess
Defense Articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services,
military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded
to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. The U.S. total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the
United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-72
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
24,329
14,477
9,958
12,168
7,960
10,660
12,872
18,562
110,986
Russia
2,840
4,631
8,509
5,109
3,913
2,763
4,055
7,700
39,520
France
5,917
10,072
2,950
2,777
5,108
3,507
936
4,100
35,367
United Kingdom
3,314
810
908
5,553
1,087
2,126
936
600
15,334
China
592
695
227
1,000
1,413
1,169
2,704
400
8,200
Germany
1,538
1,621
454
222
652
5,314
4,159
1,100
15,060
Italy
473
232
1,361
444
326
957
832
100
4,725
All Other European
1,183
2,894
3,290
4,220
2,174
1,807
6,447
3,100
25,115
All Others
947
926
2,383
3,332
1,630
1,700
1,040
1,200
13,158
TOTAL
41,133
36,358
30,040
34,825
24,262
30,003
33,981
36,862
267,464

CRS-73
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
United States
59.15%
39.82%
33.15%
34.94%
32.81%
35.53%
37.88%
50.36%
Russia
6.90%
12.74%
28.33%
14.67%
16.13%
9.21%
11.93%
20.89%
France
14.39%
27.70%
9.82%
7.97%
21.05%
11.69%
2.75%
11.12%
United Kingdom
8.06%
2.23%
3.02%
15.95%
4.48%
7.08%
2.75%
1.63%
China
1.44%
1.91%
0.76%
2.87%
5.82%
3.90%
7.96%
1.09%
Germany
3.74%
4.46%
1.51%
0.64%
2.69%
17.71%
12.24%
2.98%
Italy
1.15%
0.64%
4.53%
1.28%
1.34%
3.19%
2.45%
0.27%
All Other European
2.88%
7.96%
10.95%
12.12%
8.96%
6.02%
18.97%
8.41%
All Others
2.30%
2.55%
7.93%
9.57%
6.72%
5.67%
3.06%
3.26%
[Major West European*
27.33%
35.03%
18.88%
25.83%
29.56%
39.67%
20.20%
16.01% ]
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-74
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1993-
2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1993-1996
1
United States
52,796
2
France
18,800
3
Russia
18,500
4
United Kingdom
9,300
5
Germany
3,300
6
Israel
2,400
7
China
2,200
8
Italy
2,200
9
Ukraine
1,500
10
Netherlands
1,400
11
South Africa
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
United States
48,295*
2
Russia
17,800
3
France
13,000
4
Germany
10,700
5
China
5,400
6
United Kingdom
4,500
7
Sweden
3,400
8
Israel
2,700
9
Italy
2,100
10
Spain
2,100
11
Ukraine
1,300
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1993-2000
1
United States
101,091*
2
Russia
36,300
3
France
31,800
4
Germany
14,000
5
United Kingdom
13,800
6
China
7,600
7
Israel
5,100
8
Italy
4,300
9
Sweden
4,100
10
Ukraine
2,800
11
Spain
2,600
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. *The U.S. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed
commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-75
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with
the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2000
1
United States
*18,562
2
Russia
7,700
3
France
4,100
4
Spain
1,500
5
Germany
1,100
6
Israel
600
7
United Kingdom
600
8
China
400
9
Turkey
300
10
Sweden
200
11
Ukraine
200
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.
*The U.S. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement
with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-76
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993-2000
United States
15,172
13,345
15,991
14,820
16,274
16,482
17,935
14,187
124,206
Russia
3,400
1,700
3,500
3,100
2,600
2,200
3,100
3,500
23,100
France
1,500
1,300
2,800
3,600
6,300
6,800
3,100
1,500
26,900
United Kingdom
4,600
5,200
5,300
6,500
6,800
3,800
5,100
5,100
42,400
China
1,200
600
700
600
1,000
600
300
500
5,500
Germany
1,700
1,700
2,000
1,900
1,200
1,400
1,900
800
12,600
Italy
400
200
200
100
700
200
300
300
2,400
All Other European
2,300
3,400
3,500
3,400
4,400
3,200
2,700
2,000
24,900
All Others
1,900
2,000
2,000
1,800
2,300
1,600
2,100
1,500
15,200
TOTAL
32,172
29,445
35,991
35,820
41,574
36,282
36,535
29,387
277,206
Dollar inflation index:
(2000=1.00)*
0.845
0.8638
0.8814
0.9004
0.9201
0.9409
0.9617
1
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are for the calendar year given. All data are for the calendar year given except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military
Education and Training), Excess Defense Articles, and commercially licensed deliveries, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the
values of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries
are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. * Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-77
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1993- 2000
United States
17,955
15,449
18,143
16,459
17,687
17,517
18,649
14,187
136,046
Russia
4,024
1,968
3,971
3,443
2,826
2,338
3,223
3,500
25,292
France
1,775
1,505
3,177
3,998
6,847
7,227
3,223
1,500
29,252
United Kingdom
5,444
6,020
6,013
7,219
7,391
4,039
5,303
5,100
46,529
China
1,420
695
794
666
1,087
638
312
500
6,112
Germany
2,012
1,968
2,269
2,110
1,304
1,488
1,976
800
13,927
Italy
473
232
227
111
761
213
312
300
2,629
All Other European
2,722
3,936
3,971
3,776
4,782
3,401
2,808
2,000
27,396
All Others
2,249
2,315
2,269
1,999
2,500
1,700
2,184
1,500
16,716
TOTAL
38,074
34,088
40,834
39,781
45,185
38,561
37,990
29,387
303,900

CRS-78
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
United States
47.16%
45.32%
44.43%
41.37%
39.14%
45.43%
49.09%
48.28%
Russia
10.57%
5.77%
9.72%
8.65%
6.25%
6.06%
8.49%
11.91%
France
4.66%
4.42%
7.78%
10.05%
15.15%
18.74%
8.49%
5.10%
United Kingdom
14.30%
17.66%
14.73%
18.15%
16.36%
10.47%
13.96%
17.35%
China
3.73%
2.04%
1.94%
1.68%
2.41%
1.65%
0.82%
1.70%
Germany
5.28%
5.77%
5.56%
5.30%
2.89%
3.86%
5.20%
2.72%
Italy
1.24%
0.68%
0.56%
0.28%
1.68%
0.55%
0.82%
1.02%
All Other European
7.15%
11.55%
9.72%
9.49%
10.58%
8.82%
7.39%
6.81%
All Others
5.91%
6.79%
5.56%
5.03%
5.53%
4.41%
5.75%
5.10%
[Major West European*
25.49%
28.53%
28.62%
33.78%
36.08%
33.63%
28.47%
26.20% ]
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-79
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1993-1996
1
United States
59,328
2
United Kingdom
21,600
3
Russia
11,700
4
France
9,200
5
Germany
7,300
6
Sweden
3,600
7
China
3,100
8
Israel
2,400
9
Canada
1,600
10
Netherlands
1,100
11
Spain
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
United States
64,878
2
United Kingdom
20,800
3
France
17,700
4
Russia
11,400
5
Germany
5,300
6
Sweden
3,400
7
China
2,400
8
Ukraine
1,900
9
Israel
1,600
10
Italy
1,500
11
Belarus
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1993-2000
1
United States
124,206
2
United Kingdom
42,400
3
France
26,900
4
Russia
23,100
5
Germany
12,600
6
Sweden
7,000
7
China
5,500
8
Israel
4,000
9
Ukraine
2,500
10
Italy
2,400
11
Canada
2,300
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-80
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2000
1
United States
14,187
2
United Kingdom
5,100
3
Russia
3,500
4
France
1,500
5
Germany
800
6
Sweden
600
7
China
500
8
Ukraine
400
9
Italy
300
10
Israel
300
11
Belarus
200
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-81
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1993-2000
Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavy tanks;
self-propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns.
Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and
recoilless rifles–100 mm and over; FROG launchers–100mm and over.
Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includes personnel
carriers, armored and amphibious; armored infantry fighting vehicles; armored reconnaissance
and command vehicles.
Major Surface Combatants: This category includes aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers,
frigates.
Minor Surface Combatants: This category includes minesweepers, subchasers, motor
torpedo boats, patrol craft, motor gunboats.
Submarines: This category includes all submarines, including midget submarines.
Guided Missile Patrol Boats: This category includes all boats in this class.
Supersonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft designed
to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.
Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft designed
to function operationally at speeds below Mach 1.
Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, including trainers,
transports, reconnaissance aircraft, and communications/utility aircraft.
Helicopters: This category includes all helicopters, including combat and transport.
Surface-to-air Missiles: This category includes all ground-based air defense missiles.
Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missiles without
regard to range, such as Scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles. It also excludes
all anti-ship missiles, which are counted in a separate listing.
Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the Harpoon,
Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.

CRS-82
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts
ASIA
NEAR EAST
EUROPE
Afghanistan
Algeria
Albania
Australia
Bahrain
Armenia
Bangladesh
Egypt
Austria
Brunei
Iran
Azerbaijan
Burma (Myanmar)
Iraq
Belarus
China
Israel
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Fiji
Jordan
Bulgaria
India
Kuwait
Belgium
Indonesia
Lebanon
Canada
Japan
Libya
Croatia
Kampuchea
Morocco
Czechoslovakia/
(Cambodia)
Oman
Czech Republic
Kazakhstan
Qatar
Cyprus
Kyrgyzstan
Saudi Arabia
Denmark
Laos
Syria
Estonia
Malaysia
Tunisia
Finland
Nepal
United Arab Emirates
France
New Zealand
Yemen
FYR/Macedonia
North Korea
Georgia
Pakistan
Germany
Papua New Guinea
Greece
Philippines
Hungary
Pitcairn
Iceland
Singapore
Ireland
South Korea
Italy
Sri Lanka
Latvia
Taiwan
Liechtenstein
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Thailand
Luxembourg
Turkmenistan
Malta
Uzbekistan
Moldova
Vietnam
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Y u g o s l a v i a / F e d e r a l
Republic

CRS-83
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts
(Cont.)
AFRICA
LATIN AMERICA
Angola
Antigua
Benin
Argentina
Botswana
Bahamas
Burkina Faso
Barbados
Burundi
Belize
Cameroon
Bermuda
Cape Verde
Bolivia
Central African Republic
Brazil
Chad
British Virgin Islands
Congo
Cayman Islands
Côte d’Ivoire
Chile
Djibouti
Colombia
Equatorial Guinea
Costa Rica
Ethiopia
Cuba
Gabon
Dominica
Gambia
Dominican Republic
Ghana
Ecuador
Guinea
El Salvador
Guinea-Bissau
French Guiana
Kenya
Grenada
Lesotho
Guadeloupe
Liberia
Guatemala
Madagascar
Guyana
Malawi
Haiti
Mali
Honduras
Mauritania
Jamaica
Mauritius
Martinique
Mozambique
Mexico
Namibia
Montserrat
Niger
Netherlands Antilles
Nigeria
Nicaragua
Réunion
Panama
Rwanda
Paraguay
Senegal
Peru
Seychelles
St. Kitts & Nevis
Sierra Leone
St. Lucia
Somalia
St. Pierre & Miquelon
South Africa
St. Vincent
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad
Tanzania
Turks & Caicos
Togo
Venezuela
Uganda
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe