Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1994-2001

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1994-2001

Order Code RL31529
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1994-2001
August 6, 2002
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,
1994-2001
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 1994-2001, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 68.3% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 65.8% of all such agreements globally from 1998-2001, and 60.5% of
these agreements in 2001.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2001 was
nearly $16 billion. This was the lowest total, in real terms, for the entire period from
1994-2001. In 2001, the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $14.4
billion, the lowest total in deliveries values for the entire period from 1994-2001 (in
constant 2001 dollars).
Recently, from 1998-2001, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first each of the
last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 1998-2001, the United
States made $35.7 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, in
constant 2001 dollars, 40.8% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading
supplier during this period, made over $19.8 billion in arms transfer agreements, or
22.6.%. France, the third leading supplier from 1998-2001, made $6.3 billion or
7.2% of all such agreements with developing nations during these years.
In 2001, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations with nearly $7 billion or 43.6% of these agreements. Russia was
second with $5.7 billion or 29.6% of such agreements. China ranked third with $600
million or 3.8% of such agreements. In 2001, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $6 billion, or 41.7% of all such
deliveries. Russia ranked second at $3.4 billion or 23.6% of such deliveries. The
United Kingdom ranked third at $3.3 billion or 22.9% of such deliveries.
During the 1998-2001 period, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first
among developing nations in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $10.8
billion in such agreements. India ranked second at $7.2 billion. China ranked third
with $6.7 billion. In 2001, Israel ranked first in the value of arms transfer
agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $2.5
billion in such agreements. China ranked second with $2.1 billion in such
agreements. Egypt ranked third with $2 billion.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary of Data Trends, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1994-2001: Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1993-2000:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1994-2001:Suppliers and Recipients . 37
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1998-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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, 1994-2001 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1994-2001 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 45
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2001:
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, 1994-2001:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) 48
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements by Leading Recipients(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . 49
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1994-2001 . . . . 54
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1994-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1994-2001
Lending Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 56
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2001:
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, 1994-2001:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2001:
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, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 74
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 75
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 79
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 80

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1994-2001
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 1994 through 2001. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1993-2000,” published by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) on August 16, 2001 (CRS Report RL31083).
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, 1994-2001, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent
orders for future delivery) to developing nations have comprised 68.3% of the value
of all international arms transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with
developing countries constituted 65.8% of all agreements globally from 1998-2001.
In 2001, arms transfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 60.5% of
the value of all such agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to
developing nations, from 1998-2001, constituted 68.7% of all international arms
deliveries. In 2001, arms deliveries to developing nations constituted 67.6% 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 1994-2001 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 2001 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 2001
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 (1994-1997 and 1998-2001),
they must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms
suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using four-year
aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
As used in this report, the developing nations category includes all countries
except the United States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New
Zealand. A listing of countries located in the regions defined for the purpose of this
analysis–Asia, Near East, Latin America, and Africa–is provided at the end of the
report.

ARMS TRANSFER VALUES
The values of arms transfers (or deliveries) in this report refer to
the total values of arms sales (or deliveries as the case may be) of
weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, military assistance and training programs, and all
associated services.

CRS-3
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2001 was nearly $26.4 billion. This is a substantial decrease
in arms agreements values over 2000, and is the first time since 1997 that total arms
agreements decreased from the previous year (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2001, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $12.1 billion (45.8% of all such agreements), down from
$18.9 billion in 2000. Russia ranked second with $5.8 billion in agreements (22%
of these agreements globally), down notably from $8.4 billion in 2000. France
ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide falling notably from $4.3 billion
in 2000 to $2.9 billion in 2001. The United States, Russia and France, collectively
made agreements in 2001 valued at nearly $20.8 billion, 78.8% of all international
arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).
For the period 1998-2001, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $133.1 billion) was slightly higher than the worldwide value
during 1994-1997 ($128.2 billion), an increase of 3.7%. During the period 1994-
1997, developing world nations accounted for 70.8% of the value of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide. During 1998-2001, developing world nations
accounted for 65.8% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2001,
developing nations accounted for 60.5% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2001, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms
deliveries, making $9.7 billion in such deliveries or 45.6%. 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 2001, making $4 billion in such deliveries. Russia
ranked third in 2001, making $3.6 billion in such deliveries. These top three
suppliers of arms in 2001 collectively delivered $17.3 billion, 81.2% 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 2001 was $21.3 billion. This
is a substantial decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year
($32.6 billion), and by far the lowest total of the last eight years. The total value of
such arms deliveries worldwide in 1998-2001 ($134.9 billion) was a notable decrease
in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1994-1997 ($165.8
billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).
Developing nations from 1998-2001 accounted for 68.7% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1994-1997, developing nations
accounted for 70% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2001,
developing nations collectively accounted for 67.6% of the value of all international
arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, (9A and 9B).

CRS-4
Most recently, many developing nations have curtailed their expenditures on
weaponry primarily due to their limited financial resources. This has only served to
intensify competition among major arms suppliers for available arms contracts.
Given the tenuous state of the global economy, even some prospective arms
purchasers with significant financial resources have been cautious in making major
new weapons purchases. To meet their military requirements, in current
circumstances, a number of developing nations have placed a greater emphasis on
upgrading existing weapons systems while deferring purchases of new and costlier
ones. These countries have also, in several instances, chosen to focus on the
absorption of major items previously obtained.
Developed nations have continued to seek to protect important elements of their
own national military industrial bases. As a consequence, these nations have limited
their own arms purchases from one another, with the exception of cases where they
are involved in the joint production or development of specific weapons systems.
The changing dynamics of the international arms marketplace has led several arms
supplying nations to restructure and consolidate their defense industries due to
competitive pressures. Several traditional arms supplying nations have found it
necessary to join in multinational mergers or joint production ventures to maintain
the viability of important elements of their national defense industrial sectors. Still
other arms suppliers have chosen to focus on specialized niche markets where they
have a competitive advantage in the sale of a specific category of weaponry.
Many weapons exporting nations have continued to focus their sales efforts on
nations and regions where they have distinct competitive advantages due to
longstanding political and military relationships with the prospective buyers. Within
Europe, the potential exists for a series of new arms sales to nations that were
formerly part of the Warsaw Pact and are now members of NATO, or have
membership in prospect. This new market for arms is currently limited by the
prospective buyers’ lack of significant financial resources. However, competition has
been strong between U.S. and European companies, as these prospective customers
have the potential to partially offset sales declines elsewhere.
Notable new arms sales may occur with specific countries in the Near East,
Asia, and Latin America in the next few years. A significant factor will be the health
of the international economy. Various nations in the developed world wish to replace
older military equipment. Yet the developing world as a whole has barely recovered
from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990's and the notable fluctuations in the
price of crude oil in the last few years. Traditionally high profile weapons purchasers
in Asia and the Near East were greatly affected by these events and consequently
have been very cautious in seeking new arms agreements. Economic as well as
military considerations have factored heavily in their decisions, and this seems likely
to be the case for the immediate future.
Despite the fact that some Latin American, and to a lesser extent, African states
have expressed interest in modernizing older items in their military inventories, the
state of their domestic economies continues to constrain their weapons purchases.
Developing nations, in many instances, continue to be dependent on financing credits
and favorable payment schedules from suppliers in order to be able to make major
arms purchases. This circumstance seems likely to continue to limit major weapons

CRS-5
orders by the less affluent nations in the developing world, while enhancing the
attractiveness to sellers of arms agreements with those countries that have sufficient
resources to purchase weaponry without recourse to seller-supplied credit.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2001 was
$16 billion. This was the lowest annual total, in real terms, during the 8-year period
from 1994-2001. The total value of new arms transfer agreements with developing
nations had increased for the last two years (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2001,
the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($14.4 billion) was a substantial
decrease from the value of 2000 deliveries ($22.1 billion), and the lowest total by far
of the last eight years (charts 7 and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 1998-2001, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first each of the
last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 1998-2001, the United
States made nearly $35.7 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations,
40.8% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period,
made over $19.8 billion in arms transfer agreements or 22.6%. France, the third
leading supplier, from 1998-2001 made $6.3 billion or 7.2% of all such agreements
with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1994-1997) the
United States ranked first with $24 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations or 26.5%; Russia made over $20.2 billion in arms transfer
agreements during this period or 22.3%. France made over $18.6 billion in
agreements or 20.5% (table 1A).
During the period from 1994-2001, 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 1994-
2001. The exception was 1997 when the U.S. ranked a close third to Russia. France
has been a strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations, ranking first in 1994 and 1997, and second in 1998, while Russia has ranked
first in 1995, and second in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Despite France’s
larger traditional client base for armaments, Russia’s more recent successes in
securing new arms orders suggests that Russia may continue to rank higher in the
value of new arms agreements than France, at least for the near term. Russia has had
more significant limitations in its prospective arms client base than other major
suppliers. Most of Russia’s largest value arms transfer agreements in recent years
have been with two countries, China and India. However, the Russian government
has noted that it intends to adopt more flexible credit and payment arrangements for
its prospective customers in the developing world to secure more orders for its
weaponry. It remains to be seen whether Russia’s new approach to arms marketing
will achieve its intended results.
Arms suppliers like the United Kingdom and Germany, from time to time, may
conclude significant orders with developing countries, based on either long-term
supply relationships or their having specialized weapons systems they will readily
provide. Yet, the United States still appears best positioned to lead in new arms
agreements with developing nations. New and very costly weapons purchases from

CRS-6
individual developing countries seem likely to be limited in the near term, given the
tenuousness of the international economy. The overall level of the arms trade with
developing nations may actually decline in the near term despite some costly
purchases likely to be made by more wealthy developing countries.
Other suppliers in the tier below the United States, Russia and France, 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,
however, capable of making an occasional arms deal of a significant nature. Yet
most of their annual arms transfer agreements values totals during 1994-2001 are
comparatively low, and based upon smaller transactions of generally less
sophisticated equipment. Few of these countries are likely to be major suppliers of
advanced weaponry on a sustained basis ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).
United States.
In 2001, the total value–in real terms–of United States arms transfer agreements
with developing nations fell significantly to $7 billion from $13 billion in 2000.
Nevertheless, the U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 43.6% in 2001,
compared to a 46.3% share in 2000, a nominal decline (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure
1)(tables 1A and 1B).
The value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2001 was
primarily attributable 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 and other purchasers
worldwide. U.S. agreements with its clients in 2001 include not only some highly
visible sales of major weapons systems, but also a continuation of the upgrading of
existing ones. The U.S. totals also reflect agreements for a wide variety of spare
parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and support services. Among major weapons
systems sold by the United States to Israel in 2001 were 52 new production F-16D
combat fighter aircraft, associated equipment and services for over $1.8 billion, as
well as 6 AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopters. Egypt made an agreement in excess
of $500 million for an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank co-production deal. Another
notable United States agreement in 2001 was a $379 million contract with Singapore
for 12 AH-64D Apache helicopters. The United States also concluded agreements
for the sale of various missile systems to clients in both the Near East and Asia.
These sales included: 111 ATACM missiles and launch systems for South Korea; 50
AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles for Singapore and 48 AIM-120C AMRAAM
missiles for Israel; 150 HARM AGM-88C missiles for the United Arab Emirates; and
71 Harpoon missiles for Taiwan.
In addition to these U.S. agreements for the sale of new weapons systems, it
must be emphasized that the sale of munitions, upgrades to existing systems, spare
parts, training and support services to developing nations worldwide account for a
very substantial portion of total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements. This fact
reflects the large number of countries in the developing, and developed, world that
have acquired and continue to utilize a wide range of American weapons systems,
and have a continuing requirement to support, modify, as well as replace, these
systems.

CRS-7
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2001 was $5.7 billion, a notable decline from $8.3 billion in 2000, but it
still placed second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of
all developing world arms transfer agreements increased, rising from 29.6% in 2000
to 35.7% in 2001 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).

Russia’s arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations have been
notable for the last four years. During the 1998-2001 period, Russia ranked second
among all suppliers to developing countries, making $19.8 billion in agreements. Its
arms agreement values have ranged from a high of $8.3 billion in 2000 to a low of
$2.3 billion in 1998 (in constant 2001 dollars). Russia’s arms sales totals reflect its
continuing efforts to overcome the effects 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 immediately
resume those financing and sales practices. Russia has consistently sought to sell
weapons as a means of obtaining hard currency. While some former arms clients in
the developing world have continued to express interest in obtaining Russian
weaponry, they have been restricted in doing so by a lack of funds to pay for the
armaments they seek. Recently, Russian leaders have begun an effort to facilitate
procurement of Russian weapons by providing more flexible and creative financing
and payment options. Russia, has also frequently found it 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, and seem likely to do so for at least the near term.
The efforts of Russia to make lucrative new sales of conventional weapons
continue to confront significant difficulties. This is due in large measure because
most potential cash-paying arms 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. Russia’s difficult transition 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.
Nevertheless, 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. In late 2000, Russia served
public notice that it again intended to pursue major arms sales with Iran, despite
objections from the United States. Iran in the early 1990s was a primary purchaser
of Russian armaments, receiving such items as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24 fighter-
bombers, T-72 tanks, and Kilo class attack submarines. Within the last year there

CRS-8
have been a series of on-going discussions between Iran and Russia that could result
in major conventional arms orders from Iran totaling in the billions of dollars. It
should also be noted that Russia would clearly pursue new major weapons deals with
Iraq, once one of its largest customers, 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. Elements
of a long range plan for procurement as well as co-production of a number of
advanced Russian weapons systems were agreed to with India in 1999, 2000 and
2001. These agreements are likely to result in significant aircraft, missile, and naval
craft agreements with and deliveries to the Indian government in the years to come.
In early 2001, Russia concluded an agreement with India for the procurement and
licensed production of 310 T-90 main battle tanks for about $700 million. Russia’s
arms supplying relationship with China began to mature in the early to mid-1990s.
Since 1996 Russia has sold China at least 72 Su-27 fighter aircraft. 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, and four Kilo class
attack submarines, with further sales of such naval systems in prospect. 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 2001, Russia sold China about 40 Su-30 MKK fighter aircraft for
over $1.5 billion, and a number of S-300 PMU-2 SAM (SA-10)systems for $400
million. A variety of other contracts were reached with China for upgrades, spare
parts, and support services associated with existing weapons systems previously sold
by Russia. In light of these major weapons deals, it seems likely that India and China
will figure significantly in Russia’s arms export program for some years to come.
Russia has also continued to make smaller arms agreements inside and outside
of Asia. In 2001, Russia sold South Korea about $600 million in helicopters and
other military equipment to help retire existing Russian debts. Russia has also sold
Mig-29 fighters to Burma and Yemen in 2001.
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 1994 through 2001, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements
with developing nations has averaged over $1 billion 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 2001, China’s
arms transfer agreements total was $600 million, ranking it third among all suppliers
to developing nations. In 2001, a major part of China’s arms agreements total was
based on the sale of F-7 fighter aircraft to Pakistan. China has also made various
smaller valued agreements in 2001 with sub-Saharan African nations. China, more
recently, has become a major purchaser of arms, primarily from Russia (tables 1A,
1G and 1H)(chart 3).

CRS-9
From the late 1980s onward, 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.
More sophisticated weaponry is available from other suppliers such as Russia, or
major Western weapons exporters. A noteworthy exception is missiles. 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. Continuing reports of this nature raise important
questions about China’s stated commitment to the restrictions on missile transfers set
out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its pledge not to
assist others build missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. Since it has a
continuing need for hard currency, and has some military products (especially
missiles) that some developing countries would like to acquire, China can present an
important obstacle to efforts to stem proliferation of advanced missile systems to
some areas of the developing world where political and military tensions are
significant, and where some nations are seeking to develop asymmetric military
capabilities.
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a decline in their collective share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations between 2000 and 2001. This group’s share fell
from 11.5% in 2000 to 3.1% in 2001. The collective value of this group’s arms
transfer agreements with developing nations in 2001 was $500 million compared
with a total of over $3.2 billion in 2000. Of these four, France was the leading
supplier with $400 million in agreements in 2001, a substantial decline from $2.2
billion in 2000. An important portion of the French agreement total in 2001 was
attributable to a contract with Saudi Arabia to make upgrades to its French-supplied
Shahine SAM missile system. Germany registered a significant decline in arms
agreements from over $1 billion in 2000 to essentially nil in 2001. Both the United
Kingdom and Italy have failed to conclude notable arms transfer agreements with the
developing world in 2000 and 2001 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major West European suppliers, collectively, held about a 22.6% share
of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1994-
2001. During the period soon after the Persian Gulf war, the major West European
suppliers generally maintained a notable share of arms transfer agreements. More
recently this share has declined. For the 1998-2001 period, they collectively held
15.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($13.7 billion).
Individual suppliers within the major West European group have had notable years
for arms agreements, especially France in 1994, 1995, and 1997 ($9.6 billion, $2.9
billion, and $4.8 billion respectively). The United Kingdom also had a large
agreement year in 1996 ($3.1 billion), and at least $1 billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Germany concluded arms agreements totaling at least $1 billion in 1998, 1999, and
2000, with its highest total at $1.7 billion in 1999. For each of these three nations,
large agreement totals in one year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large

CRS-10
arms contracts with one or more major purchasers in that particular year (table 1A
and 1B).
The major West European suppliers have traditionally had their competitive
position in weapons exports enhanced by 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 demand for U.S.
weapons in the global arms marketplace, from a large established client base, has
created a more difficult environment for individual West European suppliers to
secure large new contracts with developing nations on a sustained basis.
Consequently, some of these suppliers have begun to phase out production of certain
types of weapons systems, and have increasingly sought to join joint production
ventures with other key European weapons suppliers or even client countries in an
effort to sustain major sectors of their individual defense industrial bases. Projects
such as the Eurofighter is but one major example. Other European suppliers have
also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense production ventures with the
United States such as the Joint Strike fighter, to both meet their own requirements for
advanced combat aircraft, and to share in profits that result from future sales of the
American plane.
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. Egypt and
Israel continued their modernization and increased their weapons purchases from the
United States. The Gulf states’ arms purchase demands were not only a response to
Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but a reflection of concerns regarding perceived
threats from a potentially hostile Iran. In Asia, efforts in several countries focused
on upgrading and modernizing defense forces have led to important new
conventional weapons sales in that region. In the 1990s, Russia became 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
1994-2001 continue to 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 1994-1997, it accounted for 47.9% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($37.3 billion in current dollars). During 1998-
2001, the region accounted for 46.5% of all such agreements ($38.2 billion in current
dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).

CRS-11
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1994-2001 period with 53.5% of their total value ($40.4 billion in current
dollars). France was second during these years with 21.1% ($15.9 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 1998-2001, the United States accounted for 70.7% of arms
agreements with this region ($27 billion in current dollars), while Russia accounted
for 8.6% of the region’s agreements ($3.3 billion in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables
1C and 1E).
Asia.
Asia has generally been the second largest developing world arms market. In
the earlier period (1994-1997), Asia accounted for 42.2% of the total value of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($32.9 billion in current dollars).
During 1998-2001, the region accounted for 38.6% of all such agreements ($31.6
billion in current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1994-1997), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 42.6%. The United States ranked second with
18.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 20.4% of this region’s
agreements in 1994-1997. In the later period (1998-2001), Russia ranked first in
Asian agreements with 44.2%, primarily due to major combat aircraft sales to India
and China. The United States ranked second with 18.5%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 18.6% of this region’s agreements in 1998-2001. (Chart
6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
The United Arab Emirates was the leading developing world arms purchaser
from 1994-2001, making arms transfer agreements totaling $16 billion during these
years (in current dollars). In the 1994-1997 period, Saudi Arabia ranked first in arms
transfer agreements at $12.4 billion (in current dollars). From 1998-2001, however,
the total value of Saudi Arabia’s arms transfer agreements dropped dramatically to
$1.7 billion (in current dollars). 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 oil over an extended period in
the 1990s. The total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
from 1994-2001 was $161.9 billion in current dollars. The United Arab Emirates
(UAE) alone was responsible for 9.9% of all developing world arms transfer
agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period, 1998-2001, the
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($10.8 billion in current dollars). India ranked second during
these years ($7.2 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E. from 1998-2001 accounted
for 13% of the value of all developing world arms transfer agreements ($10.8 billion
out of $83.4 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 1994-1997 and 1998-2001 periods accounted for the
largest portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1994-1997, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 64.8% of all developing world arms

CRS-12
transfer agreements. During 1998-2001, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 52.5% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $11.6 billion in 2001 or 72.7% 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).
Israel ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2001, concluding $2.5 billion in such agreements. China
ranked second in agreements in 2001 at $2.1 billion. Egypt ranked third with $2
billion in agreements. Six of these top ten recipients were in the Near East region
(table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 2001, receiving $4.8 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia
alone received 33.3% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations
in 2001. China ranked second in arms deliveries in 2001 with $2.2 billion. Taiwan
ranked third with $1.2 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $14.4 billion, or 81.2% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2001.
Six of these top ten recipients were in Asia; the other four were in the Near East
(tables 2 and 2J).
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the United
States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery
of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the other
European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable
of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing
nations (tables 3-7) (pages 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 1998-2001 from table 5 (page 66):
United States.
! 182 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 254 APCs and armored cars
! 81 supersonic combat aircraft
! 42 helicopters
! 278 surface-to-air missiles
! 57 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 240 tanks and self-propelled guns

CRS-13
! 410 APCs and armored cars
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 40 helicopters
! 30 anti-ship missiles
China.
! 1 guided missile boat
! 170 surface-to-air- missiles
! 100 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
! 280 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 70 APCs and armored cars
! 1 minor surface combatant
! 10 guided missile boats
! 3 submarines
! 10 supersonic combat aircraft
! 30 helicopters
! 160 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
! 270 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 240 APCs and armored cars
! 1 major surface combatant
! 3 minor surface combatants
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 20 helicopters
! 280 surface-to-air missiles
All Other Suppliers.
! 30 APCs and armored cars
! 8 minor surface combatants
! 30 surface-to-surface missiles
! 10 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 1998-2001, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, minor
surface combatants, 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 aircraft, helicopters, and tanks
and self-propelled guns–are especially costly and are an important portion of the
dollar values of arms deliveries by the United States, Russia, and European suppliers
to the Near East region during the 1998-2001 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

CRS-14
particular, from 1998-2001, China delivered to the Near East region 100 anti-ship
missiles, the major West European suppliers delivered 160, 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 10 guided missile boats and
one minor surface combatant. Other non-European suppliers delivered 30 surface-to-
surface missiles, a weapons category not delivered by any of the other major
weapons suppliers during this period.

CRS-15
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
The United States commercial deliveries data set out below in this report are included in
the main data tables for deliveries worldwide and for deliveries to developing nations
collectively. They are presented separately here to provide an indicator of their overall
magnitude in the U.S. aggregate deliveries totals to the world and to all developing nations. The
United States is the only major arms supplier that has two distinct systems for the export of
weapons: the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, and the licensed
commercial export system. It should be noted that data maintained on U.S. commercial sales
agreements and deliveries are incomplete, and 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 1994-2001, in
current dollars, according to the U.S. State Department, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Commercial Deliveries Commercial Deliveries
(Worldwide)
(to Developing Nations)
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
$478,000,000
$86,000,000
2001
$821,000,000
$348,000,000

CRS-16
Summary of Data Trends, 1994-2001
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 39-49) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1994-2001. 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 1994-2001, while Tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C
and 9D (pages 76-79) 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 2001 was
$16 billion. This was the lowest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations for the 8-year period from 1994-2001
(tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations fell
significantly from $13 billion in 2000 to $7 billion in 2001. Nevertheless, the
United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer agreements only
decreased from 46.3% in 2000 to 43.6% in 2001 (tables 1A and 1B)(chart
3).
! In 2001, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer agreements
with developing nations declined notably from the previous year, falling from
$8.3 billion in 2000 to $5.7 billion in 2001. Yet the Russian share of all such
agreements rose from 29.6% in 2000 to 35.7% in 2001 (charts 3 and
4)(tables 1A and 1B).

CRS-17
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1994-2001
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, 1994-2001
(billions of constant 2001 dollars)

CRS-21
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1994-2001 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1994-1997
Developing World
United States
45,015
53.30
Russia
22,438
90.20
France
21,614
86.20
United Kingdom
8,594
66.70
China
3,666
100.00
Germany
3,032
15.00
Italy
2,185
84.10
All Other European
12,001
75.80
All Others
9,623
73.70
TOTAL
128,168
70.80
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1998-2001
Developing World
United States
54,810
65.20
Russia
21,324
93.00
France
12,366
50.70
United Kingdom
4,595
47.00
China
5,091
91.40
Germany
11,444
38.30
Italy
2,247
37.70
All Other European
14,339
57.70
All Others
6,921
78.60
TOTAL
133,137
65.80
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2001
Developing World
United States
12,088
57.50
Russia
5,800
98.30
France
2,900
13.80
United Kingdom
400
0.00
China
600
100.00
Germany
1,000
0.00
Italy
200
50.00
All Other European
1,700
47.00
All Others
1,700
82.40
TOTAL
26,388
60.50

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 2000 and 2001.
This group’s share fell from 11.5% in 2000 to 3.1% in 2001. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in
2000 was $3.2 billion compared with a total of $500 million in 2001 (tables
1A and 1B)(charts 3 and 4).
! France registered a substantial decrease in its share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations, falling from 7.8% in 2000 to 2.5% in
2001. The value of its agreements with developing nations declined from $2.2
billion in 2000 to $400 million in 2001 (tables 1A and 1B).
! In 2001, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $7 billion. Russia ranked second at $5.7 billion, while
China ranked third at $600 million (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1994-2001
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1994-1997 and 1998-2001.
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 1994-1997 and 1998-
2001. 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 1994-1997, it accounted for 47.9% of the total value of
all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($37.3 billion in current
dollars). During 1998-2001, the region accounted for 46.5% of all such
agreements ($38.2 billion in current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
! The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1994-2001 period with 53.5% of their total value ($40.4 billion in
current dollars). France was second during these years with 21.1% ($15.9
billion in current dollars). Most recently, from 1998-2001, the United States
accounted for 70.7% of all arms transfer agreements with the Near East
region ($27 billion in current dollars). Russia accounted for 8.6% of
agreements with this region ($3 billion in current dollars) during the 1998-
2001 period (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 1994-1997, the United States concluded 64.6% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1998-2001,
the U.S. concluded 79.2% of its agreements with this region (table 1D).
! For the period 1994-1997, the four major West European suppliers
collectively made 62.3% of their developing world arms transfer agreements
with the Near East. In 1998-2001, the major West Europeans made 29.1% of
their arms agreements with the Near East (table 1D) .
! For the period 1994-1997, France concluded 81.1% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1998-2001, France made
51.7% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1994-1997, the United Kingdom concluded 28.6% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1998-2001,
the United Kingdom made 10% of its agreements with the Near East (table
1D).
! For the period 1994-1997, China concluded 40.6% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1998-2001, China made
16.3% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1994-1997, Russia concluded 15.3% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1998-2001, Russia made
17.4% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1994-1997), the United States ranked first in arms
transfer agreements with the Near East with 35.9%. France ranked second
with 34.6%. Russia ranked third with 7.2%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 38.6% of this region’s agreements in 1994-1997.
In the later period (1998-2001), the United States ranked first in Near East
agreements with 70.7%. Russia ranked second with 8.6%. France ranked
third with 7.9%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 9.7%
of this region’s agreements in 1998-2001 (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 1994-1997 period, Asia accounted for 42.2% of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations ($32.9 billion in current dollars). In the
more recent period, 1998-2001, it accounted for 38.6% of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($31.6 billion in current dollars)(tables 1C
and 1D).
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, Russia ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Asia with 42.6%. The United States ranked second with
18.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 20.4% of this
region’s agreements in 1994-1997. In the later period, 1998-2001, Russia
ranked first in Asian agreements with 44.2%, primarily due to major aircraft
and naval vessel sales to India and China. The United States ranked second
with 18.5% .The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 18.6% of
this region’s agreements in 1998-2001 (chart 6) (table 1E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, the United States ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Latin America with 21.4%. France ranked second with 8.4%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 26.8% of this region’s
agreements in 1994-1997. In the later period, 1998-2001, the United States
ranked first with 35.5%. Russia ranked second with 9.2%. All other non-
European suppliers collectively made $36.9% of the region’s agreements in
1998-2001. Latin America registered a significant decline in the total value
of its arms transfer agreements from 1994-1997 to 1998-2001, falling from
about $6 billion in the earlier period to $3.3 billion in the latter (tables 1C
and 1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, Russia ranked first in agreements with Africa
with 33.7% ($600 million in current dollars). China ranked second with
16.8%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 22.5% of the
region’s agreements in 1994-1997. The United States made 4.6%. In the later
period, 1998-2001, Germany ranked first in agreements with 17.8% ($1.6
billion). Russia ranked second with 15.6% ($1.4 billion). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, made 34.4% of this region’s agreements in
1998-2001. All other European suppliers collectively made 33.3% ($3
billion). The United States made 1.2%. Africa registered a substantial
increase in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1994-1997 to
1998-2001, rising from $1.8 billion in the earlier period to $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,
1994-2001: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1994-2001 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–1994-1997, 1998-2001 and 1994-2001.
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 1998-2001 ($34.1 billion), and first
for the entire period from 1994-2001 ($54.8 billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in the value
of arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 ($19.1 billion), and second from
1994-2001 ($36.6 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 ($5.9 billion), and third from 1994-
2001 ($21.9 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked seventh among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 ($2 billion),
and fifth from 1994-2001 ($7 billion).
! China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 ($4.4 billion), and fourth from
1994-2001 ($7.6 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2001 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 and Russia, the year’s top two arms suppliers–ranked by
the value of their arms transfer agreements–collectively made agreements in
2001 valued at $12.7 billion, 79.3% of all arms transfer agreements made with
developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2001, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, making $7 billion in such agreements, or 43.6% of them.
! Russia ranked second and China third in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2001, making $5.7 billion and $600 million in such
agreements respectively.

CRS-28
! Israel ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing nations in
2001, making $500 million in such agreements, while France ranked fifth with
$400 million.
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1994-2001:
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 1994-1997 and 1998-
2001. 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, 1998-2001, 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.) ($6.6 billion); Israel ($2.5 billion), Egypt ($1.7
billion), and Saudi Arabia ($600 million). The principal purchasers of
Russian arms were: the U.A.E. ($1 billion), Iran ($900 million), Yemen ($500
million) and Algeria ($400 million). The principal purchasers of arms from
China were Egypt ($400 million), and Algeria and Yemen ($100 million
each). The principal purchasers of arms from the four major West European
suppliers, as a group, were: the U.A.E. ($2.6 billion), Saudi Arabia and Syria
($300 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from all other
European suppliers collectively were Saudi Arabia ($800 million), Algeria
($400 million, and the U.A.E. ($300 million). The principal purchasers of
arms from all other suppliers combined were Libya and the U.A.E.($300
million each).
! For the period from 1998-2001, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) made
$10.8 billion in arms transfer agreements. The United States ($6.6 billion),
the major West Europeans, collectively, ($2.6 billion), and Russia ($1 billion)
were its largest suppliers. Saudi Arabia made $1.7 billion in arms transfer
agreements. Its principal suppliers were: the United States ($600 million), the
four major West European suppliers, as a group, ($300 million), and all other
European suppliers collectively, excluding the four major Europeans ($800
million). Egypt made $2.6 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major
supplier was the United States ($1.7 billion). Israel made $2.5 billion in arms
transfer agreements. Its principal supplier was the United States ($2.5 billion).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by China with Iran fell from $900
million to nil during the period from 1994-1997 to 1998-2001. The value of
Russia’s arms transfer agreements with Iran rose from $200 in the earlier
period to $900 million from 1998-2001, reflecting the reestablishment of their
arms supply relationship.
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with Saudi Arabia
fell significantly from the 1994-1997 period to the 1998-2001 period,
declining from $4 billion in the earlier period to $600 million in the later
period. Saudi Arabia still made 35.3% of its arms transfer agreements with

CRS-29
the United States during 1998-2001. Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements
with Saudi Arabia by the major West European suppliers also decreased
significantly from 1994-1997 to 1998-2001, falling from $6.5 billion to $300
million.
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
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 1994-2001 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–1994-1997,
1998-2001 and 1994-2001. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) has been the leading developing world
purchaser of arms from 1994-2001, making agreements totaling $16 billion
during these years. The total value of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations from 1994-2001 was $161.9 billion in current dollars.
The U.A.E. alone was responsible for over 9.9% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements during these years. In the most recent period–1998-
2001–the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in arms transfer
agreements by developing nations ($10.8 billion in current dollars). India
ranked second ($7.2 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E. accounted for
about 13% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during this
period ($10.8 billion out of nearly $83.4 billion in current dollars)(tables 1,
1H, 1I and 1J).
! During 1994-1997, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 64.8% of
all developing world arms transfer agreements. During 1998-2001, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 52.5% of all such agreements (tables 1
and 1I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2001. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2001. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Israel ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2001, concluding $2.5 billion in such agreements.
China ranked second with $2.1 billion. Egypt ranked third with $2 billion.
! Six of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in
2001 were in the Near East. Four were in Asia..
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world recipients, as a
group, in 2001 totaled $11.6 billion or 72.7% of all such agreements with the

CRS-30
developing world, reflecting a continuing concentration of developing world
arms purchases among a few nations (tables 1 and 1J).
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values
Table 2 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items
actually transferred) to developing nations by major suppliers from 1994-2001. 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 2001 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($14.4 billion)
was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous year, ($22.1
billion in constant 2001 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table 2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2001 was 41.7%, up
from 39.3% in 2000. In 2001, the United States, for the eighth year in a row,
ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations (in constant
2001 dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of Persian Gulf War era
arms transfer agreements. The second leading supplier was Russia. Russia’s
share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2001 was 23.6%, up notably
from 14.1% in 2000. The United Kingdom’s share of all arms deliveries to
developing nations in 2001 was 22.9%, up from 22.1% in 2000. The share of
major West European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in 2001 was
24.3%, down notably from 32.5% in 2000 (tables 2A and 2B).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations
from 1998-2001 ($92.6 billion in constant 2001 dollars) was substantially
lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations
from 1994-1997 ($116 billion in constant 2001 dollars)(table 2A).
! During the years 1994-2001, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised
69.4% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2001, the percentage of arms
deliveries to developing nations was 67.6% of all arms deliveries worldwide
(tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-31
Chart 7
Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1994-2001
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-32
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1994-2001
(in billions of constant 2001 dollars)
1 .

CRS-33
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1994-2001 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1994-1997
United States
69,859
62.20
Russia
12,675
74.30
France
16,757
83.50
United Kingdom
27,396
88.70
China
3,675
97.00
Germany
7,868
45.80
Italy
1,032
88.80
All Other European
17,050
66.80
All Others
9,447
57.40
TOTAL
165,759
70.00
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1998-2001
United States
61,099
64.30
Russia
12,836
86.90
France
14,673
80.70
United Kingdom
19,305
85.40
China
2,310
81.80
Germany
5,226
26.40
Italy
1,378
69.40
All Other European
10,599
63.10
All Others
7,478
39.50
TOTAL
134,904
68.70
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Deliveries Value
Developing World
2001
United States
9,702
61.90
Russia
3,600
94.40
France
1,000
20.00
United Kingdom
4,000
82.50
China
500
80.00
Germany
100
0.00
Italy
0
0.00
All Other European
1,100
54.50
All Others
1,300
38.50
TOTAL
21,302
67.60

CRS-34
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1994-2001
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1994-1997 and 1998-2001. 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 1994-1997 and 1998-2001. 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 1994-1997, it accounted for 59.8% of the total value of
all developing nations deliveries ($60.2 billion in current dollars). During
1998-2001 the region accounted for 56% of all such deliveries ($48.8 billion
in current dollars) (tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1994-1997, the United States made 64.9% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1998-2001, the United
States made 61% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near East
region (table 2D).
! For the period 1994-1997, the United Kingdom made 85.4% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1998-2001, the United
Kingdom made 84.7% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near
East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1997-2001, 55.7% of France’s arms deliveries to the
developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent period,
1998-2001, 49.6% of France’s developing world deliveries were to nations of
the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1994-1997, Russia made 30.8% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region. In 1998-2001, Russia made 17.6% of such
deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to the Near East with 40.9% (nearly $24.6 billion in current
dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 30.1% ($18.1 billion in
current dollars). France ranked third with 11.5% ($6.9 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 42% of this
region’s delivery values in 1994-1997. In the later period (1998-2001), the
United States ranked first in Near East delivery values with 46.3% ($22.6
billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 27.3%
2Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must
be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-35
($13.3 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 11.3% ($5.5 billion
in current dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 41%
of this region’s delivery values in 1998-2001 (tables 2C and 2E).
Asia.
! The Asia region has generally ranked second in the value of arms deliveries
from most suppliers in both time periods. In the earlier period, 1994-1997,
32.4% of all arms deliveries to developing nations were to those in Asia
($32.6 billion in current dollars). In the later period, 1998-2001, Asia
accounted for 36.6% of such arms deliveries ($31.9 billion in current dollars).
For the period 1998-2001, Italy made 80% of its developing world deliveries
to Asia. Russia made 70.4% of its developing world arms deliveries to Asia.
China made 52.6% of its developing world deliveries to Asia, while France
made 48.7%. (tables 2C and 2D).
! In the period from 1994-1997, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to Asia with 33.7% ($11 billion in current dollars). Russia
ranked second with 16.9% ($5.5 billion in current dollars). France ranked
third with 15.4% ($5 billion in current dollars). The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 32.9% of this region’s delivery values in 1994-
1997. In the period from 1998-2001, the United States ranked first in Asian
delivery values with 39.5% ($12.6 billion in current dollars). Russia ranked
second with 23.8% ($7.6 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with
16.9% ($5.4 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers,
as a group, held 27% of this region’s delivery values in 1998-2001 (tables 2C
and 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, 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 43.5% ($2.2 billion in current dollars). The
United Kingdom ranked second with 7.8% ($400 million in current dollars).
The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 17.5% of this region’s
delivery values in 1994-1997. In the later period, 1998-2001, the United
States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with 59.2% ($1.7 billion
in current dollars). Russia, France and Germany tied for second with 6.8%
each. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 13.6% of this
region’s delivery values in 1998-2001. During 1998-2001, the value of all
arms deliveries to Latin America was $2.9 billion, a substantial decline from
the $5.1 billion deliveries total for 1994-1997 (tables 2C and 2E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1994-1997, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa was
$2.7 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to Africa with
22.1% ($600 million in current dollars). China ranked second with 11.1%
($300 million in current dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a
group, held 14.7% of this region’s delivery values in 1994-1997. The United

CRS-36
States held 4.3%. In the later period, 1998-2001, Russia ranked first in
African delivery values with 31.5% ($1.1 billion in current dollars). China
ranked second with 14.3% ($500 million in current dollars). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, held 2.9%. The United States held 2.6%. The
other European suppliers collectively held 28.6% ($1 billion in current
dollars). During this later period, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa
increased from $2.7 billion to nearly $3.5 billion (in current dollars) (Tables
2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1994-
2001 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–1994-1997, 1998-2001 and 1994-2001. 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 1998-2001 ($37.2 billion), and first for the
entire period from 1994-2001 ($74.9 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations
in the value of arms deliveries from 1998-2001 ($15.7 billion), and second
for the entire period from 1994-2001 ($37 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms deliveries from 1998-2001 ($11 billion), and third for the entire period
from 1994-2001 ($23.3 billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2001 the values of arms deliveries to developing
nations of the top ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the facts reflected in
this table are the following:
! The United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, the year’s top three arms
suppliers–ranked by the value of their arms deliveries–collectively made
deliveries in 2001 valued at $12.7 billion, 88.2% of all arms deliveries made
to developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2001, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations, making $6 billion in such agreements, or 41.7% of them.
! Russia ranked second and the United Kingdom third in deliveries to
developing nations in 2001, making $3.4 billion and $3.3 billion in such
deliveries respectively.

CRS-37
! China ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in 2001, making
$400 million in such deliveries, while Israel ranked fifth with $200 million
in deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1994-2001:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1994-1997 and 1998-2001. 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, 1998-2001, the principal arms recipients of the
United States in the Near East region, based on the value of their arms
deliveries were Saudi Arabia ($12.8 billion), Israel ($3.8 billion), Egypt ($3.1
billion), and Kuwait ($1.5 billion). The principal arms recipients of Russia
were Iran ($500 million), Algeria ($400 million), Syria and the U.A.E. ($300
million each). The principal arms recipient of China was Kuwait ($200). The
principal arms recipients of the four major West European suppliers, as a
group, were Saudi Arabia ($14.6 billion), the U.A.E. ($2 billion), Qatar ($1.2
billion), and Israel ($900 million). The principal arms recipient of all other
European suppliers collectively was Saudi Arabia ($1.8 billion). The principal
arms recipient of all other suppliers, as a group, was Jordan ($200 million).
! For the period 1998-2001, Saudi Arabia received $29.3 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($12.8 billion), and
the four major West Europeans, as a group ($14.6 billion). Israel received
$4.8 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United States
($3.8 billion). Egypt received $3.5 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal
supplier was the United States ($3.1 billion). The U.A.E. received $3.4 billion
in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West
Europeans, as a group ($2 billion). Kuwait received $2.4 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($1.5 billion), and the
four major West Europeans collectively, ($600 million). Iran received $900
billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was Russia ($500 million).
! The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined from
$13.9 billion in 1994-1997 to $12.8 billion in 1998-2001, as implementation
of orders placed during the Persian Gulf war era continued to be concluded.
! The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined from the 1994-1997
period to the 1998-2001 period. Russian arms deliveries fell from $700
million to $500 million.
! Chinese arms deliveries to Iran dropped dramatically from 1994-1997 to
1998-2001, falling from $900 million in 1994-1997 to $100 million in 1998-
2001.

CRS-38
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1994-2001:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms
in the developing world from 1994-2001 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–1994-1997, 1998-2001 and
1994-2001. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world recipients of
arms from 1994-2001, receiving deliveries valued at $65 billion and $20.7
billion, respectively, during these years. The total value of all arms deliveries
to developing nations from 1994-2001 was $189.8 billion in current dollars
(see table 2). Thus, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 34.2% and
10.9%, respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these
years–together 45.1% of the total. In the most recent period–1998-
2001–Saudi Arabia and Taiwan ranked first and second in the value of arms
received by developing nations ($29.3 billion and $10.1 billion, respectively,
in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan accounted for 44.9%
of all developing world arms deliveries ($39.4 billion out of nearly $87.7
billion–the value of all deliveries to developing nations in 1998-2001 (in
current dollars).
! For the 1998-2001 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $29.3 billion in arms
deliveries (in current dollars), or 33.4% of all deliveries to developing nations
during this period.
! During 1994-1997, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 76.9% of
all developing world arms deliveries. During 1998-2001, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 74.6% of all such deliveries (tables 2
and 2I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2001. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2001. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2001 among
developing nations, receiving $4.8 billion in such deliveries, or 33.3%. China
ranked second with $2.2 billion. Taiwan ranked third with $1.2 billion (tables
2 and 2J).
! Arms deliveries in 2001 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $11.7 billion, or 81.2% of all developing nations
deliveries. Six of the top ten arms recipients in the developing world in 2001
were in the Asia region; four were in the Near East (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-39
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
6,663
4,158
6,691
3,212
6,403
8,239
12,499
6,956
54,821
Russia
3,500
6,600
4,100
3,300
2,100
3,300
8,000
5,700
36,600
France
8,100
2,500
1,100
4,300
2,500
900
2,100
400
21,900
United Kingdom
700
600
2,700
1,000
1,000
1,000
0
0
7,000
China
800
200
900
1,300
700
2,500
600
600
7,600
Germany
0
200
100
100
1,500
1,600
1,000
0
4,500
Italy
100
700
300
500
0
700
0
100
2,400
All Other European
1,600
1,700
3,000
1,600
1,400
4,400
1,200
800
15,700
All Others
500
1,600
2,000
2,100
1,200
1,000
1,600
1,400
11,400
TOTAL
21,963
18,258
20,891
17,412
16,803
23,639
26,999
15,956
161,921
*Dollar inflation
Index:(2001=1.00)
0.8401
0.8572
0.8756
0.8947
0.9158
0.9376
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. The United States total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the
United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-40
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
7,931
4,851
7,642
3,590
6,992
8,787
12,997
6,956
59,746
Russia
4,166
7,699
4,683
3,688
2,293
3,520
8,319
5,700
40,068
France
9,642
2,916
1,256
4,806
2,730
960
2,184
400
24,894
United Kingdom
833
700
3,084
1,118
1,092
1,067
0
0
7,894
China
952
233
1,028
1,453
764
2,666
624
600
8,320
Germany
0
233
114
112
1,638
1,706
1,040
0
4,843
Italy
119
817
343
559
0
747
0
100
2,685
All Other European
1,905
1,983
3,426
1,788
1,529
4,693
1,248
800
17,372
All Others
595
1,867
2,284
2,347
1,310
1,067
1,664
1,400
12,534
TOTAL
26,143
21,299
23,860
19,461
18,348
25,213
28,076
15,956
178,356

CRS-41
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
United States
30.34%
22.77%
32.03%
18.45%
38.11%
34.85%
46.29%
43.59%
Russia
15.94%
36.15%
19.63%
18.95%
12.50%
13.96%
29.63%
35.72%
France
36.88%
13.69%
5.27%
24.70%
14.88%
3.81%
7.78%
2.51%
United Kingdom
3.19%
3.29%
12.92%
5.74%
5.95%
4.23%
0.00%
0.00%
China
3.64%
1.10%
4.31%
7.47%
4.17%
10.58%
2.22%
3.76%
Germany
0.00%
1.10%
0.48%
0.57%
8.93%
6.77%
3.70%
0.00%
Italy
0.46%
3.83%
1.44%
2.87%
0.00%
2.96%
0.00%
0.63%
All Other European
7.28%
9.31%
14.36%
9.19%
8.33%
18.61%
4.44%
5.01%
All Others
2.28%
8.76%
9.57%
12.06%
7.14%
4.23%
5.93%
8.77%
[Major West European*
40.53%
21.91%
20.11%
33.88%
29.76%
17.77%
11.48%
3.14%
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, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97 1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
5,979
5,848
13,387
26,991
1,276
1,155
82
104
Russia
14,000
14,000
2,700
3,300
300
300
600
1,400
France
2,400
2,300
12,900
3,000
500
0
100
500
United Kingdom
2,900
1,100
1,400
200
400
0
200
700
China
1,500
2,700
1,300
700
100
0
300
900
Germany
200
2,400
0
100
300
0
0
1,600
Italy
1,200
100
100
400
400
0
100
300
All Other European
2,100
1,400
3,200
2,300
2,000
600
200
3,000
All Others
2,600
1,800
2,300
1,200
700
1,200
200
500
[Major West
6,700
5,900
14,400
3,700
1,600
0
400
3,100
European*
TOTAL
32,879
31,648
37,287
38,191
5,976
3,255
1,782
9,004
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1998-2001 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, 1994-2001
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
28.85%
17.15%
64.60%
79.16%
6.16%
3.39%
0.40%
0.31%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
79.55%
73.68%
15.34%
17.37%
1.70%
1.58%
3.41%
7.37%
100.00%
100.00%
France
15.09%
39.66%
81.13%
51.72%
3.14%
0.00%
0.63%
8.62%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
59.18%
55.00%
28.57%
10.00%
8.16%
0.00%
4.08%
35.00%
100.00%
100.00%
China
46.88%
62.79%
40.63%
16.28%
3.13%
0.00%
9.38%
20.93%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
40.00%
58.54%
0.00%
2.44%
60.00%
0.00%
0.00%
39.02%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
66.67%
12.50%
5.56%
50.00%
22.22%
0.00%
5.56%
37.50%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
28.00%
19.18%
42.67%
31.51%
26.67%
8.22%
2.67%
41.10%
100.00%
100.00%
European
All Others
44.83%
38.30%
39.66%
25.53%
12.07%
25.53%
3.45%
10.64%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
29.00%
46.46%
62.34%
29.13%
6.93%
0.00%
1.73%
24.41%
100.00%
100.00% ]
European*
TOTAL
42.19%
38.55%
47.85%
46.52%
7.67%
3.96%
2.29%
10.97%
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, 1994-2001
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
18.18%
18.48%
35.90%
70.67%
21.35%
35.48%
4.60%
1.16%
Russia
42.58%
44.24%
7.24%
8.64%
5.02%
9.22%
33.67%
15.55%
France
7.30%
7.27%
34.60%
7.86%
8.37%
0.00%
5.61%
5.55%
United Kingdom
8.82%
3.48%
3.75%
0.52%
6.69%
0.00%
11.22%
7.77%
China
4.56%
8.53%
3.49%
1.83%
1.67%
0.00%
16.84%
10.00%
Germany
0.61%
7.58%
0.00%
0.26%
5.02%
0.00%
0.00%
17.77%
Italy
3.65%
0.32%
0.27%
1.05%
6.69%
0.00%
5.61%
3.33%
All Other
6.39%
4.42%
8.58%
6.02%
33.47%
18.43%
11.22%
33.32%
European
All Others
7.91%
5.69%
6.17%
3.14%
11.71%
36.87%
11.22%
5.55%
[Major West
20.38%
18.64%
38.62%
9.69%
26.77%
0.00%
22.45%
34.43 ]
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,
1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1994-1997
1
United States
20,724
2
Russia
17,500
3
France
16,000
4
United Kingdom
5,000
5
China
3,200
6
South Africa
2,400
7
Ukraine
1,700
8
Italy
1,600
9
Israel
1,100
10
Netherlands
1,100
11
Belarus
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1998-2001
1
United States
34,097*
2
Russia
19,100
3
France
5,900
4
China
4,400
5
Germany
4,100
6
Sweden
2,200
7
United Kingdom
2,000
8
Israel
1,800
9
Ukraine
1,300
10
Belarus
1,000
11
Italy
800
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1994-2001
1
United States
54,821*
2
Russia
36,600
3
France
21,900
4
China
7,600
5
United Kingdom
7,000
6
Germany
4,500
7
Ukraine
3,000
8
South Africa
2,900
9
Israel
2,900
10
Sweden
2,600
11
Italy
2,400
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 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 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001
1
United States
6,956
2
Russia
5,700
3
China
600
4
Israel
500
5
France
400
6
Brazil
300
7
Egypt
200
8
Spain
200
9
South Korea
100
10
Romania
100
11
Ukraine
100
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-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
1994-1997
Algeria
0
600
100
0
500
100
1,300
Bahrain
200
0
0
0
0
0
200
Egypt
4,000
400
0
100
200
100
4,800
Iran
0
200
900
100
400
100
1,600
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
4,300
0
0
100
0
300
4,700
Jordan
300
0
0
0
0
100
400
Kuwait
500
800
200
700
100
0
2,300
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Morocco
0
0
0
300
100
100
500
Oman
0
0
0
400
100
100
600
Qatar
0
0
0
2,200
0
0
2,200
Saudi Arabia
4,000
0
0
6,500
500
1,400
12,400
Syria
0
200
0
0
100
0
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
200
500
0
3,800
700
0
5,200
Yemen
0
0
100
200
400
0
700
1998-2001
Algeria
0
400
100
0
400
100
1,000
Bahrain
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Egypt
1,700
300
400
100
100
0
2,600
Iran
0
900
0
0
100
200
1,200
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Israel
2,500
0
0
0
0
0
2,500
Jordan
100
0
0
100
0
100
300
Kuwait
300
100
0
0
0
200
600
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
300
500
Morocco
0
0
0
0
200
0
200
Oman
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
600
0
0
300
800
0
1,700
Syria
0
100
0
300
100
0
500
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.**
6,600
1,000
0
2,600
300
300
10,800
Yemen
0
500
100
0
100
0
700
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 1998-2001 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, 1994-2001:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1994-1997
1
Saudi Arabia
12,400
2
China
7,200
3
India
5,200
4
U.A.E.
5,200
5
Egypt
4,800
6
Israel
4,700
7
South Korea
3,600
8
Pakistan
3,100
9
Indonesia
2,400
10
Kuwait
2,300
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1998-2001
1
U.A.E.
10,800*
2
India
7,200
3
China
6,700
4
South Africa
5,100
5
Egypt
2,600
6
Pakistan
2,500
7
Israel
2,400
8
Malaysia
2,300
9
Singapore
2,200
10
South Korea
2,000
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1994-2001
1
U.A.E.
16,000*
2
Saudi Arabia
14,100
3
China
13,900
4
India
12,400
5
Egypt
7,400
6
Israel
7,200
7
South Korea
5,600
8
Pakistan
5,600
9
South Africa
5,300
10
Malaysia
4,000
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 States in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-49
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2001:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2001
1
Israel
2,500
2
China
2,100
3
Egypt
2,000
4
Saudi Arabia
900
5
South Korea
800
6
U.A.E.
700
7
India
700
8
Iran
700
9
Singapore
700
10
Kuwait
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-50
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
7,083
10,402
9,639
10,645
10,451
12,343
8,359
6,006
74,928
Russia
1,500
3,000
2,500
2,200
1,900
2,400
3,000
3,400
19,900
France
700
2,300
3,200
6,100
6,400
2,900
1,500
200
23,300
United Kingdom
4,700
4,900
5,800
5,900
3,300
4,400
4,700
3,300
37,000
China
600
800
700
1,000
500
300
600
400
4,900
Germany
900
1,100
700
400
200
700
400
0
4,400
Italy
200
100
100
400
200
400
300
0
1,700
All Other European
2,200
2,300
2,300
3,100
2,000
2,000
1,700
600
16,200
All Others
1,100
1,100
1,300
1,200
800
800
700
500
7,500
TOTAL
18,983
26,002
26,239
30,945
25,751
26,243
21,259
14,406
189,828
Dollar inflation index:
(2001=1.00)*
0.8401
0.8572
0.8756
0.8947
0.9158
0.9376
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 and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign
data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-51
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
8,431
12,135
11,008
11,898
11,412
13,164
8,692
6,006
82,746
Russia
1,786
1,750
3,426
2,459
2,075
2,560
3,119
3,400
20,575
France
833
2,683
3,655
6,818
6,988
3,093
1,560
200
25,830
United Kingdom
5,595
5,483
6,624
6,594
3,603
4,693
4,887
3,300
40,779
China
714
933
799
1,118
546
320
624
400
5,454
Germany
1,071
1,283
799
447
218
747
416
0
4,981
Italy
238
117
114
447
218
427
312
0
1,873
All Other European
2,619
2,683
2,627
3,465
2,184
2,133
1,768
600
18,079
All Others
1,309
1,283
1,485
1,341
874
853
728
500
8,373
TOTAL
22,596
28,350
30,537
34,587
28,118
27,990
22,106
14,406
208,690

CRS-52
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
United States
37.31%
40.00%
36.74%
34.40%
40.58%
47.03%
39.32%
41.69%
Russia
7.90%
11.54%
9.53%
7.11%
7.38%
9.15%
14.11%
23.60%
France
3.69%
8.85%
12.20%
19.71%
24.85%
11.05%
7.06%
1.39%
United Kingdom
24.76%
18.84%
22.10%
19.07%
12.82%
16.77%
22.11%
22.91%
China
3.16%
3.08%
2.67%
3.23%
1.94%
1.14%
2.82%
2.78%
Germany
4.74%
4.23%
2.67%
1.29%
0.78%
2.67%
1.88%
0.00%
Italy
1.05%
0.38%
0.38%
1.29%
0.78%
1.52%
1.41%
0.00%
All Other European
11.59%
8.85%
8.77%
10.02%
7.77%
7.62%
8.00%
4.16%
All Others
5.79%
4.23%
4.95%
3.88%
3.11%
3.05%
3.29%
3.47%
[Major West European*
34.24%
32.30%
37.35%
41.36%
39.23%
32.01%
32.46%
24.30%
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, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
10,964
12,613
24,617
22,596
2,230
1,743
116
92
Russia
5,500
7,600
2,800
1,900
200
200
600
1,100
France
5,000
5,400
6,900
5,500
300
200
200
0
United Kingdom
2,600
2,300
18,100
13,300
400
0
100
100
China
1,600
1,000
1,100
400
100
0
300
500
Germany
2,600
100
200
1,000
200
200
0
0
Italy
500
800
100
200
0
0
100
0
All Other European
2,300
1,000
5,600
3,400
1,100
400
300
1,000
All Others
1,500
1,100
800
500
600
200
1,000
700
[Major West European*
10,700
8,600
25,300
20,000
900
400
400
100]
TOTAL
32,564
31,913
60,217
48,796
5,130
2,943
2,716
3,492
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, 1994-2001
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
28.91%
34.05%
64.91%
61.00%
5.88%
4.71%
0.31%
0.25%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
60.44%
70.37%
30.77%
17.59%
2.20%
1.85%
6.59%
10.19%
100.00%
100.00%
France
40.32%
48.65%
55.65%
49.55%
2.42%
1.80%
1.61%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
12.26%
14.65%
85.38%
84.71%
1.89%
0.00%
0.47%
0.64%
100.00%
100.00%
China
51.61%
52.63%
35.48%
21.05%
3.23%
0.00%
9.68%
26.32%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
86.67%
7.69%
6.67%
76.92%
6.67%
15.38%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
71.43%
80.00%
14.29%
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
14.29%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
24.73%
17.24%
60.22%
58.62%
11.83%
6.90%
3.23%
17.24%
100.00%
100.00%
All Others
38.46%
44.00%
20.51%
20.00%
15.38%
8.00%
25.64%
28.00%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West European*
28.69%
29.55%
67.83%
68.73%
2.41%
1.37%
1.07%
0.34%
100.00%
100.00% ]
TOTAL
32.36%
36.62%
59.84%
55.99%
5.10%
3.38%
2.70%
4.01%
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, 1994-2001
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
1994-97
1998-01
United States
33.66%
39.52%
40.88%
46.31%
43.47%
59.23%
4.27%
2.63%
Russia
16.89%
23.81%
4.65%
3.89%
3.90%
6.80%
22.09%
31.50%
France
15.35%
16.92%
11.46%
11.27%
5.85%
6.80%
7.36%
0.00%
United Kingdom
7.98%
7.21%
30.06%
27.26%
7.80%
0.00%
3.68%
2.86%
China
4.91%
3.13%
1.83%
0.82%
1.95%
0.00%
11.05%
14.32%
Germany
7.98%
0.31%
0.33%
2.05%
3.90%
6.80%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
1.54%
2.51%
0.17%
0.41%
0.00%
0.00%
3.68%
0.00%
All Other European
7.06%
3.13%
9.30%
6.97%
21.44%
13.59%
11.05%
28.64%
All Others
4.61%
3.45%
1.33%
1.02%
11.70%
6.80%
36.82%
20.05%
[Major West European*
32.86%
26.95%
42.01%
40.99%
17.54%
13.59%
14.73%
2.86 %]
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, 1994-2001
Lending Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1994-1997
1
United States
37,769
2
United Kingdom
21,300
3
France
12,300
4
Russia
9,200
5
Germany
3,100
6
China
3,100
7
Sweden
2,400
8
Israel
1,600
9
South Africa
1,000
10
Canada
1,000
11
Netherlands
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1998-2001
1
United States
37,159
2
United Kingdom
15,700
3
France
11,000
4
Russia
10,700
5
China
1,800
6
Sweden
1,700
7
Ukraine
1,400
8
Germany
1,300
9
Italy
900
10
Israel
900
11
Belarus
800
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1994-2001
1
United States
74,928
2
United Kingdom
37,000
3
France
23,300
4
Russia
19,900
5
China
4,900
6
Germany
4,400
7
Sweden
4,100
8
Israel
2,500
9
Ukraine
2,400
10
Italy
1,700
11
Belarus
1,700
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.

CRS-57
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2001
1
United States
6,006
2
Russia
3,400
3
United Kingdom
3,300
4
China
400
5
Israel
200
6
France
200
7
Ukraine
200
8
Belgium
100
9
South Korea
100
10
Slovakia
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
1994-1997
Algeria
0
400
0
0
4,200
100
9,500
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
4,700
400
0
100
300
100
5,600
Iran
0
700
900
100
300
100
2,100
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
1,700
0
0
200
0
200
2,100
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
2,700
800
0
1,300
100
0
4,900
Lebanon
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
Libya
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Morocco
200
0
0
200
100
0
500
Oman
0
0
0
1,000
100
100
1,200
Qatar
0
0
0
700
0
0
700
Saudi Arabia
13,900
0
100
18,900
3,700
0
36,500
Syria
0
0
0
0
100
200
300
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
600
300
0
2,900
300
200
4,300
Yemen
0
0
200
0
300
100
600
1998-2001
Algeria
0
400
100
0
400
0
900
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
3,100
200
0
100
0
100
3,500
Iran
0
500
100
100
200
0
900
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
3,800
0
0
900
0
100
4,800
Jordan
300
0
0
0
0
200
500
Kuwait
1,500
0
200
600
0
100
2,400
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Morocco
100
0
0
0
200
100
400
Oman
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Qatar
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
1,200
Saudi Arabia
12,800
0
0
14,600
1,800
100
29,300
Syria
0
300
0
100
100
0
500
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
600
300
0
2,000
500
0
3,400
Yemen
0
0
0
100
100
100
300
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, 1994-2001:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1994-1997
1
Saudi Arabia
36,500
2
Taiwan
10,600
3
Egypt 5,600
4
South Korea
4,900
5
Kuwait
4,900
6
U.A.E.
4,300
7
China 2,900
8
Iran
2,100
9
Israel
2,100
10
Malaysia
2,100
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1998-2001
1
Saudi Arabia
29,300
2
Taiwan
10,100
3
China
5,100
4
Israel
4,800
5
South Korea
4,700
6
Egypt
3,500
7
U.A.E.
3,400
8
Kuwait 2,400
9
Malaysia
2,100
10
India
2,000
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1994-2001
1
Saudi Arabia
65,000
2
Taiwan
20,700
3
South Korea
9,600
4
Egypt
9,100
5
China
8,000
6
U.A.E.
7,700
7
Kuwait
7,300
8
Israel
6,900
9
Malaysia
4,200
10
Indonesia
3,100
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 2001:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2001
1
Saudi Arabia
4,800
2
China
2,200
3
Taiwan
1,200
4
South Korea
900
5
Egypt
700
6
Israel
600
7
India
500
8
Kuwait
400
9
Pakistan
200
10
Sri Lanka
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-61
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1994-2001
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 1994-2001 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 within these
specific tables. Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not
provide precise indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The
history of recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication of
weapons can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide an
indication of the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the
weapons delivered to them. Superior training–coupled with good equipment, tactical
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, 1998-2001
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the United States
was the leading supplier of several major classes of conventional weaponry
from 1998-2001. 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 1998-2001 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-

CRS-62
to-air, and anti-ship, to developing nations, should their systems prove
attractive to prospective purchasers.
Noteworthy deliveries of specific categories of weapons to regions of the developing
world by specific suppliers from 1998-2001 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 250 APCs and armored cars, 3 major surface combatants, 2
minor surface combatants, 4 submarines, 140 supersonic combat aircraft, 170
helicopters, 940 surface-to-air missiles, and 150 anti-ship missiles. The United
States delivered 280 tanks and self-propelled guns, 193 artillery pieces, 6 major
surface combatants, 230 supersonic combat aircraft, 75 helicopters, 1,228 surface-to-
air missiles, and 235 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 90 tanks and self-propelled
guns, 140 artillery pieces, 360 APCs and armored cars, 16 minor surface combatants,
40 supersonic combat aircraft, 330 surface-to-air missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles.
The four major West European suppliers as a group delivered 3 major surface
combatants, 7 minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 60 supersonic combat
aircraft, 1,630 surface-to-air missiles, and 60 anti-ship missiles. All other European
suppliers collectively delivered 230 tanks and self-propelled guns, 90 APCs and
armored cars, 8 minor surface combatants, 1 submarine, and 10 supersonic combat
aircraft, and 100 surface-to-surface missiles. All other non-European suppliers
collectively delivered 500 artillery pieces, 170 APCs and armored cars, 4 major
surface combatants, 31 minor surface combatants, and 70 supersonic combat aircraft.

Near East.
Russia delivered 240 tanks and self-propelled guns, 410 APCs and armored
cars, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 40 helicopters, and 30 anti-ship missiles. The
United States delivered 182 tanks and self-propelled guns, 254 APCs and armored
cars, 81 supersonic combat aircraft, 42 helicopters, 278 surface-to-air missiles, and
57 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 1 guided missile boat, 170 surface-to-air
missiles, and 100 anti-ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers
collectively delivered 280 tanks and self-propelled guns, 70 APCs and armored cars,
1 minor surface combatant, 10 guided missile boats, 3 submarines, 10 supersonic
combat aircraft, 30 helicopters, and 160 anti-ship missiles. All other European
suppliers as a group delivered 270 tanks and self-propelled guns, 240 APCs and
armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 3 minor surface combatants, 30 supersonic
combat aircraft, 20 helicopters, and 280 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers
collectively delivered 8 minor surface combatants, and 30 surface-to-surface missiles.

CRS-63
Latin America.
Russia delivered 20 helicopters. The United States delivered 29 artillery
pieces, 15 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 36 helicopters, and
9 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 4 minor surface combatants. The four major
West European suppliers collectively delivered 80 tanks and self-propelled guns,
120 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface
combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 1 submarine, 10 helicopters, 90 surface-to-air
missiles, and 30 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively
delivered 320 tanks and self-propelled guns, 40 APCs and armored cars, 8 major
surface combatants, 85 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters, and 460 surface-to-
air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 50 artillery
pieces, and 20 subsonic combat aircraft.
Africa.
Russia delivered 20 tanks and self-propelled guns, 190 artillery pieces,170
APCs and armored cars, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, and 70 helicopters. The
United States delivered 2 minor surface combatants. China delivered 200 tanks and
self-propelled guns, 5 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, and
10 helicopters. The four major West European suppliers collectively delivered 14
minor surface combatants. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 780
tanks and self-propelled guns, 460 artillery pieces, 300 APCs and armored cars, 4
minor surface combatants, 50 supersonic combat aircraft,60 helicopters, and 340
surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 110
tanks and self-propelled guns, 390 artillery pieces, 470 APCs and armored cars, 18
minor surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 10 helicopters, and 160
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
1994-1997
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,657
200
170
310
550
60
Guns
Artillery
195
450
100
150
260
610
APCs and Armored Cars
3,043
1,200
90
900
2,700
100
Major Surface Combatants
3
2
4
47
2
1
Minor Surface Combatants
55
12
11
39
33
42
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
21
4
0
5
Submarines
0
5
0
8
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
201
100
80
30
70
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
69
10
0
50
30
20
Other Aircraft
37
60
70
50
240
80
Helicopters
207
280
0
60
90
50
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,674
2,020
560
1,230
2,440
330
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
491
70
240
40
0
10
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled
462
300
290
360
1,600
140
Guns
Artillery
228
220
190
20
560
940
APCs and Armored Cars
317
830
400
220
670
670
Major Surface Combatants
8
3
0
5
9
4
Minor Surface Combatants
2
2
25
24
100
57
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
14
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
6
1
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
311
210
60
70
90
80
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
10
0
40
10
20
Other Aircraft
47
70
70
30
90
70
Helicopters
153
300
10
50
110
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,506
960
510
1,720
1,180
190
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
301
180
120
250
0
10
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
1994-1997
Tanks and Self-Propelled
325
30
170
0
210
40
Guns
Artillery
32
380
70
50
40
460
APCs and Armored Cars
55
40
90
290
130
70
Major Surface Combatants
1
2
4
38
1
1
Minor Surface Combatants
12
12
6
13
0
23
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
6
0
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
8
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
85
90
70
20
0
60
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
30
10
0
50
10
10
Other Aircraft
20
20
50
40
100
30
Helicopters
72
70
0
20
30
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
221
1,130
240
1,130
90
50
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
192
70
90
0
0
0
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled
280
40
90
0
230
20
Guns
Artillery
193
10
140
0
50
500
APCs and Armored Cars
48
250
360
30
90
170
Major Surface Combatants
6
3
0
3
0
4
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
16
7
8
31
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
2
1
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
230
140
40
60
10
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
40
0
0
Other Aircraft
4
50
30
10
0
30
Helicopters
75
170
0
10
10
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,228
940
330
1,630
100
20
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
235
150
20
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
1994-1997
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,332
130
0
280
220
0
Guns
Artillery
124
40
30
10
140
60
APCs and Armored Cars
2,926
700
0
390
1,950
0
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
13
0
3
19
18
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
15
2
0
0
Submarines
0
3
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
116
10
10
10
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
3
20
10
0
50
40
Helicopters
72
90
0
20
30
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,358
140
130
0
0
20
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
287
0
150
20
0
0
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled
182
240
0
280
270
10
Guns
Artillery
6
20
30
0
0
0
APCs and Armored Cars
254
410
40
70
240
30
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
3
8
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
10
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
3
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
81
30
0
10
30
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
21
10
10
0
30
0
Helicopters
42
40
0
30
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
278
20
170
0
280
10
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
57
30
100
160
0
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-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
1994-1997
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
0
20
40
10
Guns
Artillery
38
0
0
80
10
30
APCs and Armored Cars
57
30
0
20
530
10
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
7
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
28
0
0
6
12
7
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
2
0
4
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
40
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
39
0
0
0
20
0
Other Aircraft
6
20
0
0
20
0
Helicopters
63
70
0
0
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
95
750
190
60
1,390
260
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
12
0
0
20
0
10
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
0
80
320
0
Guns
Artillery
29
0
0
20
50
50
APCs and Armored Cars
15
0
0
120
40
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
2
8
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
4
2
85
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
4
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
0
0
20
Other Aircraft
14
10
0
20
40
30
Helicopters
36
20
0
10
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
10
90
460
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
9
0
0
30
0
0
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All data for calendar years given. Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.

CRS-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
1994-1997
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
40
0
10
80
10
Guns
Artillery
1
30
0
10
70
60
APCs and Armored Cars
5
430
0
200
90
20
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
2
1
3
9
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
1
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
8
0
10
10
70
10
Helicopters
0
50
0
20
20
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
40
960
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
20
200
0
780
110
Guns
Artillery
0
190
20
0
460
390
APCs and Armored Cars
0
170
0
0
300
470
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
5
14
4
18
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
40
20
0
50
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
10
0
Other Aircraft
8
0
30
0
20
10
Helicopters
0
70
10
0
60
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
340
160
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,
1994-2001
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 1994-2001 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 1994-1997,
1998-2001, and 2001. 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, 1994-2001
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 2001 U.S. dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1998-2001, and first for the entire period form 1994-2001 (figure 1) (table
8C).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1998-2001, and second from 1994-2001.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer agreements
from 1998-2001, and third from 1994-2001.
! In 2001, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was $26.4 billion. This is the
lowest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements for any year since 1997.
! In 2001, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the world, making
$12.1 billion in such agreements, or 45.8% of all arms transfer agreements. Russia ranked
second with $5.8 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 22% of all arms transfer agreements.
France ranked third with $2.9 billion or 11.1%. United States agreements’ decreased
significantly notably from $18.9 billion in 2000 to $12.1 billion in 2001, although the U.S.
share of agreements only fell from 47.3% to 45.8%. Russia’s arms transfer agreements also
fell significantly from $8.4 billion in 2000 to $5.8 billion in 2001 (table 8A)(table 8B)(table
8D).
! The United States, Russia and France, the top three arms suppliers to the world in
2001–respectively–ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements–collectively made
agreements in 2001 valued at nearly $20.8 billion, 78.8% of all arms transfer agreements
made with the world by all suppliers.
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 1998-2001 ($133.1 billion)
was slightly higher than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers worldwide
from 1994-1997 ($128.2 billion), an increase of 3.9% (figure 1).

CRS-70
! During the period from 1994-1997, developing world nations accounted for 70.8% of all arms
transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1998-2001, developing world nations
accounted for 65.8% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 2001, developing nations were recipients of 60.5% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1994-2001
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1994-2001. 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 2001 U.S. dollars.
! In 2001, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide, making
$9.7 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. The U.S. total is a substantial decline from 2000
when its delivery values totaled over $13.5 billion (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).
! The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2001, making $4 billion
in such deliveries.
! Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2001, making $3.6 billion in such
deliveries.
! In 2001, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Russia, collectively delivered nearly $17.3 billion, 81.2% of all arms deliveries made
worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2001 was 45.6%, up slightly from its
41.6% share in 2000. The United Kingdom’s share in 2001 was 18.8% up from 17.9% in
2000. Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in 2001 was 16.9%, up from 11.5% in 2000
(table 9B).
! In 2001, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was over $21.3 billion, a significant
decline in the total value of deliveries in 2000 ($32.6 billion in constant 2001 dollars), and
the lowest deliveries total by far during the entire period from 1994-2001 (chart 7) (table
9A).
! During the period from 1994-1997, developing world nations accounted for 70% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide. During 1998-2001, developing world nations accounted for
68.7% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).
! In 2001, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 67.6% of all arms deliveries
received worldwide (figure 2).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1998-2001 ($134.9
billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
worldwide from 1994-1997 ($165.8 billion in constant dollars), a decline of 18.6% (figure
2)(table 9A).

CRS-71
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
12,409
8,808
10,686
6,947
10,193
11,872
18,205
12,088
91,208
Russia
3,800
7,500
4,600
3,500
2,400
4,200
8,100
5,800
39,900
France
8,700
2,700
2,500
4,700
3,300
1,500
4,100
2,900
30,400
United Kingdom
700
800
5,000
1,000
2,000
1,300
600
400
11,800
China
800
200
900
1,300
1,100
2,500
600
600
8,000
Germany
1,400
400
200
600
5,000
3,600
1,100
1,000
13,300
Italy
100
900
400
500
900
900
100
200
4,000
All Other European
2,400
2,200
3,900
1,900
1,900
6,200
3,800
1,700
24,000
All Others
700
2,100
3,300
2,300
1,800
1,200
1,900
1,700
15,000
TOTAL
31,009
25,608
31,486
22,747
28,593
33,272
38,505
26,388
237,608
Dollar inflation index:
(2001=1.00)*
0.8401
0.8572
0.8756
0.8947
0.9158
0.9376
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), excess
defense articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated
selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The U.S. total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United
Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-72
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
14,771
10,275
12,204
7,765
11,130
12,662
18,930
12,088
99,825
Russia
4,523
8,749
5,254
3,912
2,621
4,480
8,423
5,800
43,762
France
10,356
3,150
2,855
5,253
3,603
1,600
4,263
2,900
33,980
United Kingdom
833
933
5,710
1,118
2,184
1,387
624
400
13,189
China
952
233
1,028
1,453
1,201
2,666
624
600
8,757
Germany
1,666
467
228
671
5,460
3,840
1,144
1,000
14,476
Italy
119
1,050
457
559
983
960
104
200
4,432
All Other European
2,857
2,566
4,454
2,124
2,075
6,613
3,951
1,700
26,340
All Others
833
2,450
3,769
2,571
1,965
1,280
1,976
1,700
16,544
TOTAL
36,910
29,873
35,959
25,426
31,222
35,488
40,039
26,388
261,305

CRS-73
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
United States
40.02%
34.40%
33.94%
30.54%
35.65%
35.68%
47.28%
45.81%
Russia
12.25%
29.29%
14.61%
15.39%
8.39%
12.62%
21.04%
21.98%
France
28.06%
10.54%
7.94%
20.66%
11.54%
4.51%
10.65%
10.99%
United Kingdom
2.26%
3.12%
15.88%
4.40%
6.99%
3.91%
1.56%
1.52%
China
2.58%
0.78%
2.86%
5.72%
3.85%
7.51%
1.56%
2.27%
Germany
4.51%
1.56%
0.64%
2.64%
17.49%
10.82%
2.86%
3.79%
Italy
0.32%
3.51%
1.27%
2.20%
3.15%
2.70%
0.26%
0.76%
All Other European
7.74%
8.59%
12.39%
8.35%
6.64%
18.63%
9.87%
6.44%
All Others
2.26%
8.20%
10.48%
10.11%
6.30%
3.61%
4.93%
6.44%
[Major West European*
35.15%
18.73%
25.73%
29.90%
39.17%
21.94%
15.33%
17.06%]
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, 1994-
2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1994-1997
1
United States
38,850
2
Russia
19,400
3
France
18,600
4
United Kingdom
7,500
5
China
3,200
6
Germany
2,600
7
Israel
2,500
8
South Africa
2,500
9
Italy
1,900
10
Ukraine
1,700
11
Netherlands
1,500
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1998-2001
1
United States
52,358*
2
Russia
20,500
3
France
11,800
4
Germany
10,700
5
China
4,800
6
United Kingdom
4,300
7
Sweden
3,600
8
Israel
2,800
9
Spain
2,200
10
Italy
2,100
11
Ukraine
1,900
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1994-2001
1
United States
91,208*
2
Russia
39,900
3
France
30,400
4
Germany
13,300
5
United Kingdom
11,800
6
China
8,000
7
Israel
5,300
8
Sweden
4,600
9
Italy
4,000
10
Ukraine
3,600
11
South Africa
3,000
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 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001
1
United States
12,088
2
Russia
5,800
3
France
2,900
4
Germany
1,000
5
Israel
700
6
China
600
7
United Kingdom
400
8
Spain
400
9
Sweden
400
10
Brazil
300
11
South Korea
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-76
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994-2001
United States
13,328
15,933
14,833
16,522
16,886
18,209
13,019
9,702
118,432
Russia
1,800
3,500
3,200
2,500
2,100
3,000
3,600
3,600
23,300
France
1,200
3,000
3,800
6,700
7,100
3,600
2,000
1,000
28,400
United Kingdom
5,200
5,300
6,500
6,800
3,800
5,000
5,600
4,000
42,200
China
600
800
700
1,100
600
400
700
500
5,400
Germany
1,700
2,000
1,900
1,200
1,500
2,100
1,200
100
11,700
Italy
200
200
100
400
200
600
500
0
2,200
All Other European
3,500
3,500
3,400
4,400
3,200
2,900
2,800
1,100
24,800
All Others
1,900
2,000
1,900
2,400
1,700
2,200
1,900
1,300
15,300
TOTAL
29,428
36,233
36,333
42,022
37,086
38,009
31,319
21,302
271,732
Dollar inflation index:
(2001=1.00)*
0.8401
0.8572
0.8756
0.8947
0.9158
0.9376
0.9617
1
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess
defense articles, and commercially licensed deliveries, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of weapons and
ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services . Statistics for
foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-77
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1994-2001
(in millions of constant 2001 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1994- 2001
United States
15,865
18,587
16,940
18,467
18,439
19,421
13,537
9,702
130,958
Russia
2,143
4,083
3,655
2,794
2,293
3,200
3,743
3,600
25,511
France
1,428
3,500
4,340
7,489
7,753
3,840
2,080
1,000
31,430
United Kingdom
6,190
6,183
7,423
7,600
4,149
5,333
5,823
4,000
46,701
China
714
933
799
1,229
655
427
728
500
5,985
Germany
2,024
2,333
2,170
1,341
1,638
2,240
1,248
100
13,094
Italy
238
233
114
447
218
640
520
0
2,410
All Other European
4,166
4,083
3,883
4,918
3,494
3,093
2,912
1,100
27,649
All Others
2,262
2,333
2,170
2,682
1,856
2,346
1,976
1,300
16,925
TOTAL
35,030
42,268
41,494
46,967
40,495
40,540
32,567
21,302
300,663

CRS-78
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1994-2001
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
United States
45.29%
43.97%
40.83%
39.32%
45.53%
47.91%
41.57%
45.55%
Russia
6.12%
9.66%
8.81%
5.95%
5.66%
7.89%
11.49%
16.90%
France
4.08%
8.28%
10.46%
15.94%
19.14%
9.47%
6.39%
4.69%
United Kingdom
17.67%
14.63%
17.89%
16.18%
10.25%
13.15%
17.88%
18.78%
China
2.04%
2.21%
1.93%
2.62%
1.62%
1.05%
2.24%
2.35%
Germany
5.78%
5.52%
5.23%
2.86%
4.04%
5.53%
3.83%
0.47%
Italy
0.68%
0.55%
0.28%
0.95%
0.54%
1.58%
1.60%
0.00%
All Other European
11.89%
9.66%
9.36%
10.47%
8.63%
7.63%
8.94%
5.16%
All Others
6.46%
5.52%
5.23%
5.71%
4.58%
5.79%
6.07%
6.10%
[Major West European*
28.20%
28.98%
33.85%
35.93%
33.98%
29.73%
29.69%
23.94 ]
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, 1994-2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1994-1997
1
United States
60,616
2
United Kingdom
23,800
3
France
14,700
4
Russia
11,000
5
Germany
6,800
6
Sweden
3,900
7
China
3,200
8
Israel
2,300
9
Canada
1,600
10
Spain
1,500
11
Netherlands
1,300
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1998-2001
1
United States
57,816
2
United Kingdom
18,400
3
France
13,700
4
Russia
12,300
5
Germany
4,900
6
Sweden
2,500
7
China
2,200
8
Ukraine
1,900
9
Israel
1,800
10
Italy
1,300
11
Belarus
900
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1994-2001
1
United States
118,432
2
United Kingdom
42,200
3
France
28,400
4
Russia
23,300
5
Germany
11,700
6
Sweden
6,400
7
China
5,400
8
Israel
4,100
9
Ukraine
2,900
10
Italy
2,200
11
Canada
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.

CRS-80
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2001:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2001
1
United States
9,702
2
United Kingdom
4,000
3
Russia
3,600
4
France
1,000
5
China
500
6
Israel
300
7
Ukraine
200
8
Slovakia
100
9
Belgium
100
10
Greece
100
11
South 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.

CRS-81
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1994-2001
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