Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002

Order Code RL32084
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1995-2002
September 22, 2003
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,
1995-2002
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 1995-2002, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 66.2% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 64.6% of all such agreements globally from 1999-2002, and 60.6% of
these agreements in 2002.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2002 was
nearly $17.7 billion. This was an increase over 2001, but still the second lowest
total, in real terms, for the entire period from 1995-2002. In 2001, the value of all
arms deliveries to developing nations was nearly $17 billion, the lowest total in
deliveries values for the entire period from 1995-2002 (in constant 2002 dollars).
Recently, from 1999-2002, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first and Russia
second each of the last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From
1999-2002, the United States made $37.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2002 dollars, 41.9% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made $23 billion in arms transfer
agreements, or 25.5.%. France, the third leading supplier from 1999-2002, made
$4.8 billion or 5.3% of all such agreements with developing nations during these
years.
In 2002, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations with nearly $8.6 billion or 48.6% of these agreements. Russia
was second with $5 billion or 28.3% of such agreements. France ranked third with
$1 billion or 5.3% of such agreements. In 2002, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $7 billion, or 41% of all such
deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $3.3 billion or 19.5% of such
deliveries. Russia ranked third at $2.9 billion or 17.1% of such deliveries.
During the 1999-2002 period, China ranked first among developing nations in
the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $11.3 billion in such agreements.
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second at $9 billion. India ranked third
at $8 billion. In 2002, China ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements
among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $3.6 billion in such
agreements. South Korea ranked second with $1.9 billion in such agreements. India
ranked third with $1.4 billion.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary of Data Trends, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1995-2002: Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1995-2002:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1995-2002:
Suppliers and Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1999-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1995-2002 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1995-2002 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 41
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value
by Region, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier
to Regions, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 46
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 47
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) 49
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements by Leading Recipients(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . 50
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1995-2002 . . . . 55
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier
to Regions, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 57

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 58
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2002:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 73
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
by Supplier, 1995-2002 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . 74
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 75
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 76
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 80
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 81

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1995-2002
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 1995 through 2002. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1994-2001,” published by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) on August 6, 2002 (CRS Report RL31529).
The data in the report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms
transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.
Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response
to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Nonetheless, the
developing world continues to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by
conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 1995-2002,
conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery)
to developing nations have comprised 66.2% of the value of all international arms
transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 64.6% of all agreements globally from 1999-2002. In 2002, arms transfer
agreements with developing countries accounted for 60.6% of the value of all such
agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from
1999-2002, constituted 68.3% of all international arms deliveries. In 2002, arms
deliveries to developing nations constituted 66.7% of the value of all such arms
deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report supercede all data published in previous editions.
Since these new data for 1995-2002 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 2002 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 2002
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 (1995-1998 and 1999-2002),
they must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms
suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using four-year
aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
As used in this report, the developing nations category includes all countries
except the United States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New
Zealand. A listing of countries located in the regions defined for the purpose of this
analysis — Asia, Near East, Latin America, and Africa — is provided at the end of the
report.

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

CRS-3
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2002 was nearly $29.2 billion. This is a decrease in arms
agreements values over 2001, and is the second consecutive year that total arms
agreements have declined (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2002, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $13.3 billion (45.5% of all such agreements), up from
$12.1 billion in 2001. Russia ranked second with $5.7 billion in agreements (19.5%
of these agreements globally), a nominal increase over 2001. Ukraine ranked third,
its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $1.6 billion in 2002. The United
States and Russia collectively made agreements in 2002 valued at nearly $19 billion,
65% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure
1)(tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).
For the period 1999-2002, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $139.8 billion) was notably higher than the worldwide value
during 1995-1998 ($123.3 billion), an increase of 13.4%. During the period 1995-
1998, developing world nations accounted for 68% of the value of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide. During 1999-2002, developing world nations
accounted for 64.6% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2002,
developing nations accounted for 60.6% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2002, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making $10.2 billion in such deliveries or 40.3%. This is the eighth year
in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries, reflecting, in
particular, implementation of arms transfer agreements made during and in the
aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. The United Kingdom ranked second in
worldwide arms deliveries in 2002, making $4.7 billion in such deliveries. Russia
ranked third in 2002, making $3.1 billion in such deliveries. These top three
suppliers of arms in 2002 collectively delivered over $18 billion, 70.9% 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 2002 was $25.4 billion. This
is a decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year (nearly $27
billion), and by far the lowest total for the eight years covered by this report. The
total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 1999-2002 ($130.9 billion) was a
substantial decrease in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from
1995-1998 ($179.4 billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).
Developing nations from 1999-2002 accounted for 68.3% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1995-1998, developing nations
accounted for 73% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2002,
developing nations collectively accounted for 66.7% 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 result, 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. 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 number 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, making seller financing
and/or offset arrangements key considerations in securing contracts with these
nations. Competition has been strong between U.S. and European companies in
pursuit of these orders, as they have the potential to partially compensate for sales
losses 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 cautious in seeking new arms agreements. Economic as well as military
considerations have factored heavily in their arms purchasing decisions, a
circumstance likely to continue for some time.
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, especially less affluent ones, continue to be most dependent on

CRS-5
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 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 2002 was
$17.7 billion, a notable increase over the $16.2 billion total in 2001. However, this
was the second lowest annual total, in real terms, during the 8-year period from 1995-
2002. (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2002, the value of all arms deliveries to
developing nations (nearly $17 billion) was a notable decrease from the value of
2001 deliveries ($18.2 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years (charts 7
and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 1999-2002, 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 1999-2002, the United
States made nearly $37.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations,
41.8% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period,
made over $23 billion in arms transfer agreements or 25.5%. France, the third
leading supplier, from 1999-2002 made $4.8 billion or 5.3% of all such agreements
with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1995-1998) the
United States ranked first with $23.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations or 28%; Russia made $19.1 billion in arms transfer agreements
during this period or 22.7%. France made over $12 billion in agreements or 14.4%
(table 1A).
During the period from 1995-1998, 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 1995-
2002, and first every year since 1998. France has been a strong competitor for the
lead in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, ranking first in 1997 and
second in 1998, while Russia has ranked first in 1995, and second in 1996, 1999,
2000, 2001 and 2002. 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. Yet 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 weapons.
Periodically, arms suppliers such as the United Kingdom and Germany 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 continues to appear best positioned to secure new

CRS-6
arms agreements with developing nations. New and very costly weapons purchases
from individual developing countries seem likely to be limited in the near term, given
the tenuous state of the international economy. Thus, the overall level of the arms
trade with developing nations is likely to remain static or possibly decline in the near
term despite some costly purchases made by more wealthy developing countries.
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. But most of their
annual arms transfer agreements values totals during 1995-2002 are relatively low,
and are based upon smaller transactions of generally less sophisticated equipment.
Few of these countries seem capable of becoming major suppliers of advanced
weaponry on a consistent basis ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).
United States.
In 2002, the total value — in real terms — of United States arms transfer
agreements with developing nations rose notably to $8.6 billion from $6.7 billion in
2001. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 48.6% in 2002, up from
a 41% share in 2001 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and 1B).
The value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2002 was
primarily attributable to major purchases by key U.S. clients in the Near East and in
Asia. These arms agreement totals also reflect a continuation of well established
defense support arrangements with these and other purchasers worldwide. U.S.
agreements with its clients in 2002 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 agreements
the United States concluded in 2002 were: with Kuwait for the sale of 16 AH-64
Apache helicopters, and related equipment and support for over $870 million; with
Chile for 10 F-16 C/D combat fighter aircraft, associated equipment and support
services for over $500 million; with South Korea for 3 Aegis combat systems for its
KDX-3 destroyers for over $960 million; and, with Oman for 12 F-16 C/D fighter
aircraft, munitions, and support for over $700 million. The United States also
concluded agreements for the sale of various missile systems to clients in both the
Near East and Asia. Among these were agreements concluded with: Saudi Arabia
for 160 AIM 120C AMRAAM missiles; the United Arab Emirates for 100 AIM-
120C AMRAAM missiles; Oman for 50 AMRAAM and 20 Harpoon missiles; Israel
and Egypt for Hellfire missiles; and Israel for TOW-2A missiles. South Korea
concluded agreements for MK41 Vertical launch systems, SLAM land attack
missiles, AGM-84L Harpoon missiles, and AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles.
It must be emphasized that, apart from weapons themselves, 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

CRS-7
range of American weapons systems, and have a continuing requirement to support,
modify, as well as replace, these systems.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2002 was $5 billion, a decline from $5.4 billion in 2001, but it still placed second
in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all developing
world arms transfer agreements decreased, falling from 33.3% in 2001 to 28.3% in
2002 (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 1999-2002 period, Russia ranked second
among all suppliers to developing countries, making $23 billion in agreements.
Russia’s arms sales totals reflect its continuing efforts to overcome the effects of the
significant 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 once received generous grant military assistance and deep
discounts on arms purchases from the former Soviet Union. 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 often found it necessary to agree to licensed
production of its weapons systems to secure 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 the immediate future.
Russia’s efforts to make lucrative new sales of conventional weapons to a wider
customer base 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 Western 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
Russian defense industries can be reliable suppliers of the spare parts and support
services necessary for the maintenance of weapons systems they sell abroad.
Furthermore, Russia has not embarked on wide-ranging military research and
development programs to bring on-line new, and more advanced, major weapons
systems. This places it at great disadvantage in arms markets traditionally dominated
by Western weapons suppliers, who continue to expend significant financial and
human resources on developing new generations of military combat equipment, and
on enhancements to existing weapons systems as well.

CRS-8
Still 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. Recently there have been a series of on-going
discussions between Iran and Russia that could result in major conventional arms
orders from Iran. It should also be noted that Russia has had some success in
expanding its customer base in Asia to Malaysia, and to Indonesia for combat fighter
aircraft. Similar aircraft contracts have been made with Algeria and Yemen.
Despite these accomplishments, 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. One example of the results of these agreements
was a deal in early 2001 with India for the procurement and licensed production of
310 T-90 main battle tanks for about $700 million. But the centerpiece of Russia’s
arms exporting program has been its growing arms supplying relationship with
China, which 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.
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. Most notably, in 2002, Russia reached agreement with China for
the purchase of eight Kilo-class project 636 submarines for $1.6 billion. Further,
order options for two additional Sovremenny-class destroyers, and for additional
S300 PMU- 2 SAM systems, were exercised. 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. The significance of China in
Russia’s arms export program is very high, and seems likely to remain so for a
number of years.
China.
China became an important arms supplier to certain developing nations in the
1980s, primarily through arms agreements with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq war.
From 1995 through 2002, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations has averaged about $1 billion annually. During the period of this
report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations peaked
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. Similar arms deals with small

CRS-9
scale purchasers in these regions continue. In 2002, China’s arms transfer
agreements total was $300 million, its second lowest agreements total for the entire
1995-2002 period. A principal focus of China in recent years has been on a
significant military procurement program, aimed at modernizing its military forces,
with Russia serving as its principal supplier of advanced combat aircraft, surface
combatants, air defense systems, and submarines (tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
From its arms selling apex in 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. Nonetheless, 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. Credible reports of this nature raise
important questions about China’s stated commitment to the restrictions on missile
transfers set out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its
pledge not to assist others in building missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.
Given its continuing need for hard currency, and the fact that it has some military
products (especially missiles) that some developing countries would like to acquire,
China can present an important obstacle to efforts to stem proliferation of advanced
missile systems to some areas of the developing world where some nations are
seeking to develop asymmetric military capabilities, and where political and military
tensions are significant.
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a notable increase in their collective share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2001 and 2002. This
group’s share rose from 5.1% in 2001 to 11.9% in 2002. The collective value of this
group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2002 was $2.1 billion
compared with a total of $832 million in 2001. Of these four, France was the leading
supplier with $1 billion in agreements in 2002, a substantial increase from $520
million in 2001. A substantial portion of the French agreement total in 2002 was
attributable to a contract with India for six Scorpene-class submarines. Germany
registered arms agreements of essentially $100 million in both 2001 and 2002. Italy
increased its arms transfer agreements with the developing world from $200 million
in 2001 to $300 million in 2002 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major West European suppliers, collectively, held a 19.1% share of
all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1995-
2002. 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 1999-2002 period, they collectively held
12.5% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($11.3 billion).
Individual suppliers within the major West European group have had notable years

CRS-10
for arms agreements, especially France in 1995 and 1997 ($3 billion and $5 billion
respectively). The United Kingdom also had a large agreement year in 1996 ($3.2
billion), and at least $1 billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Germany concluded arms
agreements totaling at least $1 billion in 1998, 1999, and 2000, with its highest total
at $2.2 billion in 1999. For each of these three nations, large agreement totals in one
year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large arms contracts with one or
more major purchasers in that particular year (table 1A and 1B).
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 either the West Europeans or the U.S.
The demand for U.S. weapons in the global arms marketplace, from a large
established client base, has created a more difficult environment for individual West
European suppliers to secure large new contracts with developing nations on a
sustained basis. 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. A project 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 resulting from
future sales of the American fighter.
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. Whether Gulf states’ assessments of the future
threat environment, in the post-Saddam Hussein era, will lead to declines in arms
purchases is not clear at this time. However, in recent years, the position of Saudi
Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the Persian Gulf has begun to recede. In Asia,
efforts in several countries focused on upgrading and modernizing defense forces
have led to important new conventional weapons sales in that region. Since the mid-
1990s, Russia has become the principal supplier of advanced conventional weaponry
to China, while maintaining its position as principal arms supplier to India. Russia
has also made some progress in expanding its client base in Asia with aircraft orders
from Malaysia and Indonesia. The data on regional arms transfer agreements from
1995-2002 continue to reflect the primacy of developing nations in the Near East and
Asia regions as customers for conventional weaponry.

CRS-11
Near East.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. Yet in 1995-1998, it accounted for 43.2% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($30.8 billion in current dollars), ranking it second
behind Asia. However, during 1999-2002, the region accounted for 42.2% of all
such agreements ($35.9 billion in current dollars), placing it first among developing
world arms markets, albeit by a small margin (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1995-2002 period with 60.7% of their total value ($40.5 billion in current
dollars). France was second during these years with 13.6% ($9.1 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 1999-2002, the United States accounted for 75.8% of arms
agreements with this region ($27.2 billion in current dollars), while Russia accounted
for 6.1% of the region’s agreements ($2.2 billion in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables
1C and 1E).
Asia.
Asia has generally been the second largest developing world arms market. Yet
in the earlier period (1995-1998), Asia ranked first, accounting for 44.4% of the total
value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($31.6 billion in
current dollars). During 1999-2002, the region accounted for 41.5% of all such
agreements ($35.3 billion in current dollars), ranking second, narrowly (tables 1C
and 1D).
In the earlier period (1995-1998), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 41.4%. The United States ranked second with
17.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.1% of this region’s
agreements in 1995-1998. In the later period (1999-2002), Russia ranked first in
Asian agreements with 51.1%, primarily due to major combat aircraft sales to India
and China. The United States ranked second with 18.3%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 14.2% of this region’s agreements in 1999-2002. (Chart
6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
China was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1995-2002,
making arms transfer agreements totaling $17.8 billion during these years (in current
dollars). In the 1995-1998 period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked first in
arms transfer agreements at $7.3 billion (in current dollars). From 1999-2002,
however, the total value of China’s arms transfer agreements increased dramatically
to $11.3 billion (in current dollars). This increase reflects the military modernization
effort by China in the 1990s, based primarily on major arms agreements with Russia.
The total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1995-
2002 was $156.3 billion in current dollars. China alone was responsible for 11.4%
of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the
most recent period, 1999-2002, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($11.3 billion in current dollars). The United Arab Emirates

CRS-12
(U.A.E.) ranked second during these years ($9 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E.
from 1999-2002 accounted for 10.7% of the value of all developing world arms
transfer agreements ($9 billion out of $84 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 1995-1998 and 1999-2002 periods accounted for the
largest portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1995-1998, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 62.8% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements. During 1999-2002, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 74.5% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $13.4 billion in 2002 or 75.8% 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).
China ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2002, concluding $3.6 billion in such agreements. South
Korea ranked second in agreements in 2002 at $1.9 billion. India ranked third with
$1.4 billion in agreements. Five of these top ten recipients were in the Near East
region, four in Asia (table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 2002, receiving $5.2 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia
alone received 30.7% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations
in 2002. Egypt ranked second in arms deliveries in 2002 with $2.1 billion. Kuwait
ranked third with $1.3 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $14.6 billion, or 86.1% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2002.
Five of these top ten recipients were in the Near East; five were in Asia (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 65-69).
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 1999-2002 from table 5 (page 67):

CRS-13
United States.
! 157 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 49 APCs and armored cars
! 68 supersonic combat aircraft
! 332 surface-to-air missiles
! 120 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 60 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 220 APCs and armored cars
! 50 supersonic combat aircraft
! 30 helicopters
! 380 surface-to-air missiles
! 30 anti-ship missiles
China.
! 40 APCs and armored cars
! 1 guided missile boat
! 50 surface-to-air- missiles
! 110 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
! 330 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 30APCs and armored cars
! 2 major surface combatants
! 8 minor surface combatant
! 8 guided missile boats
! 3 submarines
! 40 helicopters
! 160 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
! 290 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 340 APCs and armored cars
! 1 major surface combatant
! 7 minor surface combatants
! 40 supersonic combat aircraft
! 280 surface-to-air missiles
All Other Suppliers.
! 8 minor surface combatants
! 60 surface-to-surface missiles
! 10 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 1999-2002, 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
and anti-ship missiles to the region. Russia, the United States, and European

CRS-14
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 1999-2002 period.
The cost of naval combatants is also generally high, and suppliers of such
systems during this period had their delivery value totals notably increased due to
these transfers. Some of the less expensive weapons systems delivered to the Near
East are deadly and can create important security threats within the region. In
particular, from 1999-2002, China delivered to the Near East region 110 anti-ship
missiles, the major West European suppliers delivered 160, while the United States
delivered 120. China also delivered one guided missile boat to the Near East, while
the major West European suppliers collectively delivered 8 guided missile boats and
two minor surface combatants. Other non-European suppliers delivered 60 surface-
to-surface missiles, a weapons category not delivered by any of the other major
weapons suppliers during this period.

CRS-15
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
The United States commercial deliveries data set out below in this report are included in
the main data tables for deliveries worldwide and for deliveries to developing nations
collectively. They are presented separately here to provide an indicator of their overall
magnitude in the U.S. aggregate deliveries totals to the world and to all developing nations. The
United States is the only major arms supplier that has two distinct systems for the export of
weapons: the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, and the licensed
commercial export system. It should be noted that data maintained on U.S. commercial sales
agreements and deliveries are incomplete, and are not collected or revised on an on-going basis,
making them significantly less precise than those for the U.S. FMS program — which accounts
for the overwhelming portion of U.S. conventional arms transfer agreements and deliveries
involving weapons systems. There are no official compilations of commercial agreement data
comparable to that for the FMS program maintained on an annual basis. Once an exporter
receives from the State Department a commercial license authorization to sell — valid for four
years — there is no current requirement that the exporter provide to the State Department, on
a systematic and on-going basis, comprehensive details regarding any sales contract that results
from the license approval, including if any such contract is reduced in scope or cancelled. Nor
is the exporter required to report that no contract with the prospective buyer resulted. Annual
commercial deliveries data are obtained from shipper’s export documents and completed
licenses returned from ports of exit by the U.S. Customs Service to the Office of Defense Trade
Controls (PM/DTC) of the State Department, which makes the final compilation of such data.
This process for obtaining commercial deliveries data is much less systematic and much less
timely than that taken by the Department of Defense for government-to-government FMS
transactions. Recently, efforts have been initiated by the U.S. government to improve the
timeliness and quality of U.S. commercial deliveries data. The values of U.S. commercial arms
deliveries to all nations and deliveries to developing nations for fiscal years 1995-2002, in
current dollars, according to the U.S. State Department, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Commercial Deliveries Commercial Deliveries
(Worldwide)
(to Developing Nations)
1995
$3,173,000,000
$1,805,000,000
1996
$1,563,000,000
$696,000,000
1997
$1,818,000,000
$1,141,000,000
1998
$2,045,000,000
$798,000,000
1999
$654,000,000
$323,000,000
2000
$478,000,000
$233,000,000
2001
$821,000,000
$588,000,000
2002
$341,000,000
$213,000,000

CRS-16
Summary of Data Trends, 1995-2002
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 40-50) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1995-2002. 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 51-61). Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 72-76) provide data on
worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1995-2002, while Tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C
and 9D (pages 77-81) provide data on worldwide arms deliveries during this period.
To use these data regarding agreements for purposes other than assessing general
trends in seller/buyer activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can be readily
invalidated by future events — precise values and comparisons, for example, may
change due to cancellations or modifications of major arms transfer agreements.
These data sets reflect the comparative order of magnitude of arms transactions by
arms suppliers with recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless
otherwise noted.
What follows is a detailed summary of data trends from the tables in the report.
The summary statements also reference tables and/or charts pertinent to the point(s)
noted.
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values
Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they
are, by themselves, of somewhat limited use. They provide, however, the data from
which 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 2002 was
$17.7 billion. This was an increase over 2001, but still the second lowest
total, in real terms, for arms transfer agreements with developing nations for
the 8-year period from 1995-2002 (tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations rose
notably from $6.7 billion in 2001 to $8.6 billion in 2002. The United States’
share of all developing world arms transfer agreements increased from 41%
in 2001 to 48.6% in 2002 (tables 1A and 1B)(chart 3).
! In 2002, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer agreements
with developing nations declined slightly from the previous year, falling from
$5.4 billion in 2001 to $5 billion in 2002. The Russian share of all such
agreements declined from 33.3% in 2001 to 28.3% in 2002 (charts 3 and
4)(tables 1A and 1B).

CRS-17
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1995-2002
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, 1995-2002
(billions of constant 2002 dollars)

CRS-21
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1995-2002 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1995-1998
Developing World
United States
42,339
55.40
Russia
21,189
89.90
France
15,196
79.20
United Kingdom
10,198
61.00
China
3,835
94.10
Germany
7,075
30.70
Italy
2,591
59.90
All Other European
11,640
77.80
All Others
9,198
71.70
TOTAL
123,261
68.00
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1999-2002
Developing World
United States
57,986
65.10
Russia
25,287
91.00
France
11,164
42.90
United Kingdom
3,415
56.10
China
5,103
86.90
Germany
8,076
43.30
Italy
3,014
35.10
All Other European
18,088
45.80
All Others
7,646
72.70
TOTAL
139,779
64.60
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2002
Developing World
United States
13,272
64.70
Russia
5,700
87.70
France
1,100
90.90
United Kingdom
800
87.50
China
300
100.00
Germany
1,100
9.90
Italy
1,500
20.00
All Other European
3,800
28.90
All Others
1,600
37.50
TOTAL
29,172
60.60

CRS-22
! The four major West European suppliers, as a group (France, United
Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a significant increase in their collective
share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2001
and 2002. This group’s share rose from 5.1% in 2001 to 11.9% in 2002. The
collective value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2001 was $800 million compared with a total of $2.1 billion in
2002 (tables 1A and 1B)(charts 3 and 4).
! France registered an increase in its share of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, rising from 3.2% in 2001 to 5.7% in 2002. The value of
its agreements with developing nations rose from $500 million in 2001 to $1
billion in 2002 (tables 1A and 1B).
! In 2002, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $8.6 billion. Russia ranked second at $5 billion, while
France ranked third at $1 billion (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1995-2002
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1995-1998 and 1999-2002.
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 1995-1998 and 1999-
2002. 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. Yet in 1995-1998, it accounted for 43.2% of the total value
of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($30.8 billion in current
dollars), placing it second to Asia. However, during 1999-2002, the region
accounted for 42.2% of all such agreements ($35.9 billion in current dollars),
placing it first, albeit by a small margin (tables 1C and 1D).
! The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1995-2002 period with 60.7% of their total value ($40.5 billion in
current dollars). France was second during these years with 13.6% ($9.1
billion in current dollars). Most recently, from 1999-2002, the United States
accounted for 75.8% of all arms transfer agreements with the Near East
region ($27.2 billion in current dollars). Russia accounted for 6.1% of
agreements with this region ($2.2 billion in current dollars) during the 1999-
2002 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 1995-1998, the United States concluded 66.3% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1999-2002,
the U.S. concluded 76.3% of its agreements with this region (table 1D).
! For the period 1995-1998, the four major West European suppliers
collectively made 53.2% of their developing world arms transfer agreements
with the Near East. In 1999-2002, the major West Europeans made 18.3% of
their arms agreements with the Near East (table 1D) .
! For the period 1995-1998, France concluded 83.5% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1999-2002, France made
11.1% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1995-1998, the United Kingdom concluded 23.1% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1999-2002,
the United Kingdom made 33.3% of its agreements with the Near East (table
1D).
! For the period 1995-1998, China concluded 43.8% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1999-2002, China made
14.6% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1995-1998, Russia concluded 11.3% of its developing world
arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 1999-2002, Russia made
10.1% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1995-1998), the United States ranked first in arms
transfer agreements with the Near East with 43.2%. France ranked second
with 27.9%. Russia ranked third with 5.8%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 32.5% of this region’s agreements in 1995-1998.
In the later period (1999-2002), the United States ranked first in Near East
agreements with 75.8%. Russia ranked second with 6.1%. The major West
European suppliers, as a group, made 5.3% of this region’s agreements in
1999-2002 (table 1E)(chart 5).
Asia
! Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the developing
world. Yet in the 1995-1998 period, Asia ranked first, accounting for 44.4%
of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($31.6 billion in
current dollars). In the more recent period, 1999-2002, it accounted for 41.5%
of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($35.3 billion in current
dollars), ranking second narrowly (tables 1C and 1D).

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
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, Russia ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Asia with 41.4%. The United States ranked second with
17.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.1% of this
region’s agreements in 1995-1998. In the later period, 1999-2002, Russia
ranked first in Asian agreements with 51.1%, primarily due to major aircraft
and naval vessel sales to India and China. The United States ranked second
with 18.3% .The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 14.2% of
this region’s agreements in 1999-2002 (chart 6) (table 1E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, the United States ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with Latin America with 21.7%. France ranked second with 8.7%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 19.2% of this region’s
agreements in 1995-1998. In the later period, 1999-2002, the United States
ranked first with 51.1%. Russia and Italy tied for second with 5.4% each. All
other non-major European suppliers as a group, and all other non-European
suppliers collectively each made 16.3% of the region’s agreements in 1999-
2002. Latin America registered a significant decline in the total value of its
arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 to 1999-2002, falling from about
$5.7 billion in the earlier period to $3.7 billion in the latter (tables 1C and
1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, Russia ranked first in agreements with Africa
with 19.4% ($600 million in current dollars). China ranked second with
16.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13% of the
region’s agreements in 1995-1998. The United States made 2.9%. In the later
period, 1999-2002, Germany ranked first in agreements with 15.7% ($1.6
billion). Russia ranked second with 14.7% ($1.5 billion). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, made 31.3% of this region’s agreements in
1999-2002. All other European suppliers collectively made 33.3% ($3.8
billion). The United States made 1.1%. Africa registered a substantial
increase in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1995-1998 to
1999-2002, rising from $3.1 billion in the earlier period to $10.2 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).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1995-2002: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1995-2002 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

CRS-27
developing world for each of three periods — 1995-1998, 1999-2002 and 1995-2002.
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 1999-2002 ($35.7 billion), and first
for the entire period from 1995-2002 ($55.7 billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in the value
of arms transfer agreements from 1999-2002 ($21.8 billion), and second from
1995-2002 ($37.9 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1999-2002 ($4.5 billion), and third from 1995-
2002 ($14.8 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked seventh among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 1999-2002 ($1.8
billion), and fifth from 1995-2002 ($7.1 billion).
! China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms transfer agreements from 1999-2002 ($4.1 billion), and fourth from
1995-2002 ($7.2 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2002 the values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United States and Russia, the year’s top two arms suppliers — ranked by
the value of their arms transfer agreements — collectively made agreements
in 2002 valued at $13.6 billion, 76.8% of all arms transfer agreements made
with developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2002, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, making $8.6 billion in such agreements, or 48.6% of
them.
! Russia ranked second and France third in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2002, making $5 billion and $1 billion in such
agreements respectively.
! The United Kingdom ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2002, making $700 million in such agreements, while
Ukraine ranked fifth with $500 million.

CRS-28
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1995-2002:
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 1995-1998 and 1999-
2002. 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, 1999-2002, the principal purchasers of U.S. arms
in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements were: the United
Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ($7.1 billion); Israel ($7 billion), Egypt ($6.8 billion),
and Saudi Arabia ($2.8 billion). The principal purchasers of Russian arms
were: the U.A.E. ($1 billion), Egypt ($300 million), and Algeria ($200
million). The principal purchasers of arms from China were Egypt ($400
million), Iran 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. ($500 million), Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, and Iran ($300 million
each). The principal purchasers of arms from all other European suppliers
collectively were Saudi Arabia ($1 billion), the U.A.E. ($300 million) and Iraq
($200 million). The principal purchasers of arms from all other suppliers
combined were Libya ($600 million), and Iran ($400 million).
! For the period from 1999-2002, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) made $9
billion in arms transfer agreements. The United States ($7.1 billion), and
Russia ($1 billion) were its largest suppliers. Saudi Arabia made $4.1 billion
in arms transfer agreements. Its principal suppliers were: the United States
($2.8 billion), and all other European suppliers collectively, excluding the four
major Europeans ($1 billion). Egypt made $7.8 billion in arms transfer
agreements. Its major supplier was the United States ($6.8 billion). Israel
made $7 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal supplier was the
United States ($7 billion).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by China with Iran fell from $900
million to $100 million during the periods from 1995-1998 to 1999-2002
respectively. The value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with Iran fell
from $400 million in the earlier period to $100 million from 1999-2002.
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with Saudi Arabia
fell significantly from the 1995-1998 period to the 1999-2002 period,
declining from $4.9 billion in the earlier period to $2.8 million in the later
period. Saudi Arabia still made 68.3% of its arms transfer agreements with
the United States during 1999-2002. Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements
with Saudi Arabia by the major West European suppliers also decreased
significantly from 1995-1998 to 1999-2002, falling from $1.5 billion to $300
million.

CRS-29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
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 1995-2002 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 — 1995-
1998, 1999-2002 and 1995-2002. Among the facts reflected in this table are the
following:
! China has been the leading developing world purchaser of arms from 1995-
2002, making agreements totaling $17.8 billion during these years. The total
value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1995-2002
was $156.3 billion in current dollars. China alone was responsible for over
11.4% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these years.
In the most recent period — 1999-2002 — China ranked first in arms transfer
agreements by developing nations ($11.3 billion in current dollars). The
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second ($9 billion in current dollars).
China accounted for about 13.3% of all developing world arms transfer
agreements during this period ($11.3 billion out of nearly $85 billion in
current dollars)(tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).
! During 1995-1998, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 62.8% of
all developing world arms transfer agreements. During 1999-2002, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 74.5% of all such agreements (tables 1
and 1I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2002. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2002. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! China ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the value of
arms transfer agreements in 2002, concluding $3.6 billion in such agreements.
South Korea ranked second with $1.9 billion. India ranked third with $1.4
billion.
! Five of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer agreements in
2002 were in the Near East. Four were in Asia.
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world recipients, as a
group, in 2002 totaled $13.4 billion or 75.8% of all such agreements with the
developing world, reflecting a continuing concentration of developing world
arms purchases among a few nations (tables 1 and 1J).

CRS-30
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 1995-2002. 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 2002 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17 billion)
was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous year, ($18.2
billion in constant 2002 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table 2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2002 was 41%, up
from 35.4% in 2001. In 2002, the United States, for the eighth year in a row,
ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations (nearly $7
billion) (in constant 2002 dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of
Persian Gulf War era arms transfer agreements. The second leading supplier
in 2002 was the United Kingdom, at $3.3 billion. The United Kingdom’s
share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2002 was 19.5%, down from
21.4% in 2001. Russia, the third leading supplier in 2002, made $2.9 billion
in deliveries. Russia’s share of all arms deliveries to developing nations in
2002 was 17.1%, down from 21.9% in 2001. The share of major West
European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in 2002 was 27.1%,
essentially the same share as in 2001 (tables 2A and 2B).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations
from 1999-2002 ($89.5 billion in constant 2002 dollars) was substantially
lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing nations
from 1995-1998 ($131 billion in constant 2002 dollars)(table 2A).
! During the years 1995-2002, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised
71% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2002, the percentage of arms
deliveries to developing nations was 66.7% of all arms deliveries worldwide
(tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-31
Chart 7
Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1995-2002
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-32
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1994-2002
(in billions of constant 2002 dollars)

CRS-33
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1995-2002 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1995-1998
United States
75,176
67.70
Russia
13,899
89.70
France
24,413
86.00
United Kingdom
26,314
84.80
China
3,746
97.00
Germany
8,006
88.40
Italy
1,050
67.10
All Other European
17,108
54.30
All Others
9,730
73.00
TOTAL
179,422
73.00
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1999-2002
United States
53,976
67.20
Russia
15,243
86.60
France
11,027
73.10
United Kingdom
21,953
79.40
China
2,838
88.70
Germany
4,963
26.40
Italy
1,597
34.30
All Other European
10,230
59.80
All Others
9,106
44.10
TOTAL
130,933
68.30
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Deliveries Value
Developing World
2002
United States
10,241
68.00
Russia
3,100
93.60
France
1,800
72.20
United Kingdom
4,700
70.20
China
800
100.00
Germany
500
0.00
Italy
400
0.00
All Other European
1,800
44.40
All Others
2,100
42.90
TOTAL
25,441
66.70

CRS-34
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1995-2002
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1995-1998 and 1999-2002. 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 1995-1998 and 1999-2002. 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 1995-1998, it accounted for 58.5% of the total value of
all developing nations deliveries ($64.2 billion in current dollars). During
1999-2002 the region accounted for 57.9% of all such deliveries ($46.8 billion
in current dollars) (tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1995-1998, the United States made 65.9% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1999-2002, the United
States made 58.9% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near East
region (table 2D).
! For the period 1995-1998, the United Kingdom made 87.4% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 1999-2002, the United
Kingdom made 84.1% of its developing world arms deliveries to the Near
East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1995-1998, 48.4% of France’s arms deliveries to the
developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent period,
1999-2002, 78.7% of France’s developing world deliveries were to nations of
the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1995-1998, Russia made 29.3% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region. In 1999-2002, Russia made 15.5% of such
deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to the Near East with 42.2% (nearly $27.1 billion in current
dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 27% ($17.3 billion in
current dollars). France ranked third with 13.7% ($8.8 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 41% of this
region’s delivery values in 1995-1998. In the later period (1999-2002), the
United States ranked first in Near East delivery values with 42.5% ($19.9
billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 29.3%
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 12.6% ($5.9 billion
in current dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 44.3%
of this region’s delivery values in 1999-2002 (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, 1995-1998,
33.9% of all arms deliveries to developing nations were to those in Asia
($37.2 billion in current dollars). In the later period, 1999-2002, Asia
accounted for 37.9% of such arms deliveries ($30.6 billion in current dollars).
For the period 1999-2002, Russia made 81.9% of its developing world arms
deliveries to Asia. Italy made 80% of its developing world deliveries to Asia.
China made 61.9% of its developing world deliveries to Asia, while the
United States made 36.2% (tables 2C and 2D).
! In the period from 1995-1998, the United States ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to Asia with 31.8% ($11.8 billion in current dollars). France
ranked second with 24.2% ($9 billion in current dollars). Russia ranked third
with 16.4% ($6.1 billion in current dollars). The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 36.8% of this region’s delivery values in 1995-
1998. In the period from 1999-2002, the United States ranked first in Asian
delivery values with 39.9% ($12.2 billion in current dollars). Russia ranked
second with 31% ($9.5 billion in current dollars) (tables 2C and 2E).

! the United Kingdom ranked third in deliveries with 8.5% ($2.6 billion in
current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 15.4%
of this region’s delivery values in 1999-2002 (tables 2C and 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin
America was $5.6 billion. The United States ranked first in the value of arms
deliveries to Latin America with 36.9% ($2 billion in current dollars). The
United Kingdom and Russia tied for second with 7.2% ($400 million each in
current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 18%
of this region’s delivery values in 1995-1998. In the later period, 1999-2002,
the United States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with 61%
($1.6 billion in current dollars). Russia, France and Germany tied for second
with 3.9% each. The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 7.8%
of this region’s delivery values in 1999-2002. During 1999-2002, the value
of all arms deliveries to Latin America was $2.6 billion, a substantial decline
from the $5.6 billion deliveries total for 1995-1998 (tables 2C and 2E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1995-1998, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa was
over $2.7 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to Africa
with 18.3% ($500 million in current dollars). China ranked second with
14.6% ($400 million in current dollars).The major West European suppliers,

CRS-36
as a group, held 11% of this region’s delivery values in 1995-1998. The
United States held 5.1%. In the later period, 1999-2002, Russia ranked first
in African delivery values with 25.5% ($200 million in current dollars).
China ranked second with 12.7% ($100 million in current dollars). The
United States held 10.8%. The other non-major European suppliers
collectively held 25.5%, as did all other non-European suppliers collectively
($200 million each in current dollars). During this later period, the value of
all arms deliveries to Africa decreased dramatically from $2.7 billion in 1995-
1998 to about $800 million (in current dollars) (Tables 2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1995-
2002 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 — 1995-1998, 1999-2002 and 1995-2002. 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 1999-2002 (nearly $34 billion), and first for the
entire period from 1995-2002 ($77.4 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations
in the value of arms deliveries from 1999-2002 ($16.4 billion), and second
for the entire period from 1995-2002 ($36.3 billion).
! Russia ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the value of
arms deliveries from 1999-2002 ($12.5 billion), and fourth for the entire
period from 1995-2002 ($23.3 billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2002 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 2002 valued at $13.2 billion, 77.6% of all arms deliveries
made to developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2002, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations, making nearly $7 billion in such agreements, or 41% of
them.

CRS-37
! The United Kingdom ranked second and Russia third in deliveries to
developing nations in 2002, making $3.3 billion and $2.9 billion in such
deliveries respectively.
! France ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in 2002, making
$1.3 billion in such deliveries, while China ranked fifth with $800 million in
deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1995-2002:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1995-1998 and 1999-2002. 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, 1999-2002, the principal arms recipients of the
United States in the Near East region, based on the value of their arms
deliveries were Saudi Arabia ($9.5 billion), Egypt ($4.3 billion), Israel ($3.4
billion), and Kuwait ($1.4 billion). The principal arms recipients of Russia
were Iran and Algeria ($400 million each) and Yemen ($300 million). The
principal arms recipients of China were Algeria, Kuwait and Yemen ($200
million each). The principal arms recipients of the four major West European
suppliers, as a group, were Saudi Arabia ($15.8 billion), the U.A.E. ($2.7
billion), Israel ($900 million), and Kuwait ($600 million). The principal arms
recipient of all other European suppliers collectively was Saudi Arabia ($1.3
billion). The principal arms recipient of all other suppliers, as a group, was
Iran ($300 million).
! For the period 1999-2002, Saudi Arabia received $26.6 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($9.5 billion), and the
four major West Europeans, as a group ($15.8 billion). Egypt received $4.7
billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United States ($4.3
billion). Israel received $4.3 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier
was the United States ($3.4 billion). The U.A.E. received $3.6 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West Europeans, as a
group ($2.7 billion). Kuwait received $2.4 billion in arms deliveries. Its
principal suppliers were the United States ($1.4 billion), and the four major
West Europeans collectively, ($600 million). Iran received $700 million in
arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was Russia ($400 million).
! The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined from
$16.2 billion in 1995-1998 to $9.5 billion in 1999-2002, 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 1995-1998
period to the 1999-2002 period. Russian arms deliveries fell from $800
million to $400 million, half the level of the earlier period.

CRS-38
! Chinese arms deliveries to Iran dropped dramatically from 1995-1998 to
1999-2002, falling from $800 million in 1995-1998 to nil in 1999-2002.
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of
arms in the developing world from 1995-2002 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 — 1995-1998, 1999-2002 and
1995-2002. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world recipients of
arms from 1995-2002, receiving deliveries valued at $64.5 billion and $20.2
billion, respectively, during these years. The total value of all arms deliveries
to developing nations from 1995-2002 was $195.9 billion in current dollars
(see table 2). Thus, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 32.9% and
10.3%, respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these years —
together 43.2% of the total. In the most recent period — 1999-2002 — Saudi
Arabia and China ranked first and second in the value of arms received by
developing nations ($26.6 billion and $6.1 billion, respectively, in current
dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and China accounted for 38.9% of all
developing world arms deliveries ($32.7 billion out of nearly $84 billion —
the value of all deliveries to developing nations in 1999-2002 (in current
dollars).
! For the 1999-2002 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $26.6 billion in arms
deliveries (in current dollars), or 31.7% of all deliveries to developing nations
during this period.
! During 1995-1998, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 72.7% of
all developing world arms deliveries. During 1999-2002, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 75% of all such deliveries (tables 2 and
2I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2002. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2002. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2002 among
developing nations, receiving $5.2 billion in such deliveries, or 30.7% of all
deliveries to developing nations. Egypt ranked second with $2.1 billion.
Kuwait ranked third with $1.3 billion (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-39
! Arms deliveries in 2002 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $14.6 billion, or 86.1% of all developing nations
deliveries. Five of the top ten arms recipients in the developing world in 2002
were in the Near East region; four were in the Asia region (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-40
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
4,062
6,609
3,538
5,866
8,258
12,411
6,400
8,587
55,731
Russia
6,300
4,500
3,200
2,100
3,600
8,000
5,200
5,000
37,900
France
2,500
1,100
4,300
2,400
1,100
1,900
500
1,000
14,800
United Kingdom
600
2,700
1,000
1,000
1,100
0
0
700
7,100
China
200
900
1,300
700
2,400
600
800
300
7,200
Germany
200
100
100
1,500
2,000
1,000
100
100
5,100
Italy
700
300
300
0
400
100
200
300
2,300
All Other European
1,700
3,000
1,600
1,400
4,100
1,200
1,300
1,100
15,400
All Others
1,600
2,100
700
1,200
1,600
1,900
1,100
600
10,800
TOTAL
17,862
21,309
16,038
16,166
24,558
27,111
15,600
17,687
156,331
*Dollar inflation
Index:(2002=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 all categories of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military
assistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to
the nearest $100 million. The United States total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft.
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-41
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
4,920
7,830
4,107
6,638
9,134
13,380
6,655
8,587
61,251
Russia
7,631
5,331
3,714
2,376
3,982
8,624
5,407
5,000
42,065
France
3,028
1,303
4,991
2,716
1,217
2,048
520
1,000
16,823
United Kingdom
727
3,199
1,161
1,132
1,217
0
0
700
8,136
China
242
1,066
1,509
792
2,655
647
832
300
8,043
Germany
242
118
116
1,697
2,212
1,078
104
100
5,667
Italy
848
355
348
0
442
108
208
300
2,609
All Other European
2,059
3,554
1,857
1,584
4,535
1,294
1,352
1,100
17,335
All Others
1,938
2,488
813
1,358
1,770
2,048
1,144
600
12,159
TOTAL
21,635
25,244
18,616
18,293
27,164
29,227
16,222
17,687
174,088

CRS-42
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
22.74%
31.02%
22.06%
36.29%
33.63%
45.78%
41.03%
48.55%
Russia
35.27%
21.12%
19.95%
12.99%
14.66%
29.51%
33.33%
28.27%
France
14.00%
5.16%
26.81%
14.85%
4.48%
7.01%
3.21%
5.65%
United Kingdom
3.36%
12.67%
6.24%
6.19%
4.48%
0.00%
0.00%
3.96%
China
1.12%
4.22%
8.11%
4.33%
9.77%
2.21%
5.13%
1.70%
Germany
1.12%
0.47%
0.62%
9.28%
8.14%
3.69%
0.64%
0.57%
Italy
3.92%
1.41%
1.87%
0.00%
1.63%
0.37%
1.28%
1.70%
All Other European
9.52%
14.08%
9.98%
8.66%
16.70%
4.43%
8.33%
6.22%
All Others
8.96%
9.85%
4.36%
7.42%
6.52%
7.01%
7.05%
3.39%

[Major West European*
22.40%
19.71%
35.54%
30.32%
18.73%
11.07%
5.13%
11.88%
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-43
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
5,426
6,462
13,314
27,207
1,245
1,877
89
109
Russia
13,100
18,000
1,800
2,200
400
200
600
1,500
France
1,100
3,400
8,600
500
500
0
100
600
United Kingdom
3,800
500
1,200
600
0
0
200
700
China
1,200
2,600
1,400
600
100
100
500
800
Germany
1,600
1,000
100
400
200
100
0
1,600
Italy
800
100
100
400
400
200
100
300
All Other European
1,900
1,200
3,100
2,100
1,900
600
700
3,800
All Others
2,700
2,000
1,200
1,900
1,000
600
800
800
[Major West
7,300
5,000
10,000
1,900
1,100
300
400
3,200
European*
TOTAL
31,626
35,262
30,814
35,907
5,745
3,677
3,089
10,209
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1999-2002 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial
agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-44
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1995-2002
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
27.03%
18.12%
66.32%
76.31%
6.20%
5.26%
0.44%
0.31%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
82.39%
82.19%
11.32%
10.05%
2.52%
0.91%
3.77%
6.85%
100.00%
100.00%
France
10.68%
75.56%
83.50%
11.11%
4.85%
0.00%
0.97%
13.33%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
73.08%
27.78%
23.08%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
3.85%
38.89%
100.00%
100.00%
China
37.50%
63.41%
43.75%
14.63%
3.13%
2.44%
15.63%
19.51%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
84.21%
32.26%
5.26%
12.90%
10.53%
3.23%
0.00%
51.61%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
57.14%
10.00%
7.14%
40.00%
28.57%
20.00%
7.14%
30.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
25.00%
15.58%
40.79%
27.27%
25.00%
7.79%
9.21%
49.35%
100.00%
100.00%
European
All Others
47.37%
37.74%
21.05%
35.85%
17.54%
11.32%
14.04%
15.09%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
38.83%
48.08%
53.19%
18.27%
5.85%
2.88%
2.13%
30.77%
100.00%
100.00% ]
European*
TOTAL
44.37%
41.46%
43.23%
42.22%
8.06%
4.32%
4.33%
12.00%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-45
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1995-2002
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
17.16%
18.33%
43.21%
75.77%
21.67%
51.05%
2.88%
1.07%
Russia
41.42%
51.05%
5.84%
6.13%
6.96%
5.44%
19.42%
14.69%
France
3.48%
9.64%
27.91%
1.39%
8.70%
0.00%
3.24%
5.88%
United Kingdom
12.02%
1.42%
3.89%
1.67%
0.00%
0.00%
6.47%
6.86%
China
3.79%
7.37%
4.54%
1.67%
1.74%
2.72%
16.19%
7.84%
Germany
5.06%
2.84%
0.32%
1.11%
3.48%
2.72%
0.00%
15.67%
Italy
2.53%
0.28%
0.32%
1.11%
6.96%
5.44%
3.24%
2.94%
All Other
6.01%
3.40%
10.06%
5.85%
33.07%
16.32%
22.66%
37.22%
European
All Others
8.54%
5.67%
3.89%
5.29%
17.41%
16.32%
25.90%
7.84%
[Major West
23.08%
14.18%
32.45%
5.29%
19.15%
8.16%
12.95%
31.34% ]
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-46
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1995-1998
1
United States
20,075
2
Russia
16,100
3
France
10,300
4
United Kingdom
5,300
5
China
3,100
6
Germany
1,900
7
Ukraine
1,900
8
Belarus
1,700
9
Israel
1,600
10
Italy
1,300
11
South Africa
900
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1999-2002
1
United States*
35,656
2
Russia
21,800
3
France
4,500
4
China
4,100
5
Germany
3,200
6
Sweden
2,000
7
United Kingdom
1,800
8
Ukraine
1,400
9
Israel
1,000
10
North Korea
1,000
11
Italy
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1995-2002
1
United States*
55,731
2
Russia
37,900
3
France
14,800
4
China
7,200
5
United Kingdom
7,100
6
Germany
5,100
7
Ukraine
3,300
8
Israel
2,600
9
Sweden
2,600
10
Italy
2,300
11
Belarus
2,000
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The United States total includes a $6.432
billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16
aircraft.

CRS-47
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2002
1
United States
8,587
2
Russia
5,000
3
France
1,000
4
United Kingdom
700
5
Ukraine
500
6
Spain
300
7
China
300
8
Italy
300
9
Iran
200
10
U.A.E.
100
11
Germany
100
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-48
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
1995-1998
Algeria
0
400
200
0
800
100
1,500
Bahrain
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
Egypt
4,300
400
100
100
100
0
5,000
Iran
0
400
900
100
300
100
1,700
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,600
0
0
100
0
300
3,000
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
400
0
200
700
100
0
1,400
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Morocco
0
0
0
200
200
200
600
Oman
0
0
0
300
100
100
500
Qatar
0
0
0
900
0
0
900
Saudi Arabia
4,900
0
0
1,500
200
0
6,600
Syria
0
200
0
0
100
200
500
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
100
400
0
6,000
800
0
7,300
Yemen
0
0
0
200
300
100
600
1999-2002
Algeria
0
200
0
0
100
100
400
Bahrain
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
Egypt
6,800
300
400
100
100
100
7,800
Iran
0
100
100
300
100
400
1,000
Iraq
0
0
0
0
200
0
200
Israel
7,000
0
0
0
0
0
7,000
Jordan
400
0
0
300
0
100
800
Kuwait
1,600
100
0
0
0
200
1,900
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
600
800
Morocco
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Oman
800
0
0
300
100
100
1,300
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
2,800
0
0
300
1,000
0
4,100
Syria
0
100
0
100
0
100
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.**
7,100
1,000
0
500
300
100
9,000
Yemen
0
300
100
0
100
0
500
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West
European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. **The United
States total for 1999-2002 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab
Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-49
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1995-1998
1
U.A.E.
7,300
2
Saudi Arabia
6,600
3
China
6,500
4
India
6,100
5
Egypt
5,100
6
South Korea
3,700
7
Israel
3,000
8
Indonesia
2,400
9
Malaysia
2,300
10
Pakistan
1,800
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1999-2002
1
China
11,300
2
U.A.E.*
9,000
3
India
8,000
4
Egypt
7,800
5
Israel
7,000
6
South Africa
5,100
7
South Korea
5,000
8
Saudi Arabia
4,100
9
Singapore
3,100
10
Pakistan
2,900
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1995-2002
1
China
17,800
2
U.A.E.*
16,300
3
India
14,100
4
Egypt
12,900
5
Saudi Arabia
10,700
6
Israel
10,000
7
South Korea
8,700
8
South Africa
5,200
9
Malaysia
4,900
10
Pakistan
4,700
Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded
data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion
licensed commercial agreement with the United States in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-50
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2002:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2002
1
China
3,600
2
South Korea
1,900
3
India
1,400
4
Oman
1,300
5
Egypt
1,200
6
Kuwait
1,100
7
Saudi Arabia
900
8
Malaysia
800
9
Israel
700
10
Chile
500
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-51
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
11,419
9,918
11,210
10,846
12,482
8,418
6,129
6,961
77,383
Russia
3,000
2,600
2,200
2,000
2,500
3,300
3,800
2,900
22,300
France
2,300
3,200
6,100
6,500
3,500
1,900
800
1,300
25,600
United Kingdom
4,900
5,800
5,900
3,300
4,400
5,000
3,700
3,300
36,300
China
700
700
1,100
600
300
700
600
800
5,500
Germany
1,200
700
400
200
700
400
100
0
3,700
Italy
100
100
400
200
400
0
100
0
1,300
All Other European
2,300
2,300
3,100
2,100
2,100
1,900
900
800
15,500
All Others
1,100
1,300
1,200
900
800
900
1,200
900
8,300
TOTAL
27,019
26,618
31,610
26,646
27,182
22,518
17,329
16,961
195,883
Dollar inflation index:
(2002=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 all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts,
military construction, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices.
All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-52
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
13,831
11,750
13,012
12,273
13,806
9,075
6,423
6,961
87,132
Russia
3,634
3,554
3,018
2,263
2,765
3,558
3,982
2,900
25,674
France
2,786
3,791
7,081
7,355
3,871
2,048
838
1,300
29,071
United Kingdom
5,935
5,805
6,849
3,734
4,867
5,390
3,878
3,300
39,757
China
848
829
1,277
679
332
755
629
800
6,148
Germany
1,453
829
464
226
774
431
105
0
4,284
Italy
121
118
464
226
442
0
105
0
1,477
All Other European
2,786
2,725
3,598
2,376
2,323
2,048
943
800
17,600
All Others
1,332
1,540
1,393
1,018
885
970
1,258
900
9,297
TOTAL
32,726
30,941
37,156
30,150
30,065
24,275
18,161
16,961
220,440

CRS-53
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
42.26%
37.26%
35.46%
40.70%
45.92%
37.38%
35.37%
41.04%
Russia
11.10%
9.77%
6.96%
7.51%
9.20%
14.65%
21.93%
17.10%
France
8.51%
12.02%
19.30%
24.39%
12.88%
8.44%
4.62%
7.66%
United Kingdom
18.14%
21.79%
18.66%
12.38%
16.19%
22.20%
21.35%
19.46%
China
2.59%
2.63%
3.48%
2.25%
1.10%
3.11%
3.46%
4.72%
Germany
4.44%
2.63%
1.27%
0.75%
2.58%
1.78%
0.58%
0.00%
Italy
0.37%
0.38%
1.27%
0.75%
1.47%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
All Other European
8.51%
8.64%
9.81%
7.88%
7.73%
8.44%
5.19%
4.72%
All Others
4.07%
4.88%
3.80%
3.38%
2.94%
4.00%
6.92%
5.31%
[Major West European*
31.46%
36.82%
40.50%
38.27%
33.12%
32.42%
27.13%
27.12%
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-54
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
11,833
12,213
27,102
19,875
2,049
1,566
140
85
Russia
6,100
9,500
2,900
1,800
400
100
500
200
France
9,000
1,500
8,800
5,900
300
100
100
0
United Kingdom
2,000
2,600
17,300
13,700
400
0
100
0
China
1,600
1,300
900
700
100
0
400
100
Germany
2,100
200
100
1,000
300
100
0
0
Italy
600
400
100
100
0
0
100
0
All Other European
2,000
1,000
5,800
2,600
1,200
500
600
200
All Others
2,000
1,900
1,200
1,100
800
200
800
200
[Major West European*
13,700
4,700
26,300
20,700
1,000
200
300
0]
TOTAL
37,233
30,613
64,202
46,775
5,549
2,566
2,740
785
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-55
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1995-2002
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
28.77%
36.20%
65.90%
58.91%
4.98%
4.64%
0.34%
0.25%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
61.62%
81.90%
29.29%
15.52%
4.04%
0.86%
5.05%
1.72%
100.00%
100.00%
France
49.45%
20.00%
48.35%
78.67%
1.65%
1.33%
0.55%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
10.10%
15.95%
87.37%
84.05%
2.02%
0.00%
0.51%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
China
53.33%
61.90%
30.00%
33.33%
3.33%
0.00%
13.33%
4.76%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
84.00%
15.38%
4.00%
76.92%
12.00%
7.69%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
75.00%
80.00%
12.50%
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.50%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
20.83%
23.26%
60.42%
60.47%
12.50%
11.63%
6.25%
4.65%
100.00%
100.00%
All Others
41.67%
55.88%
25.00%
32.35%
16.67%
5.88%
16.67%
5.88%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West European*
33.17%
18.36%
63.68%
80.86%
2.42%
0.78%
0.73%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00% ]
TOTAL
33.93%
37.92%
58.51%
57.93%
5.06%
3.18%
2.50%
0.97%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-56
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1995-2002
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
1995-98
1999-02
United States
31.78%
39.89%
42.21%
42.49%
36.93%
61.03%
5.11%
10.83%
Russia
16.38%
31.03%
4.52%
3.85%
7.21%
3.90%
18.25%
25.48%
France
24.17%
4.90%
13.71%
12.61%
5.41%
3.90%
3.65%
0.00%
United Kingdom
5.37%
8.49%
26.95%
29.29%
7.21%
0.00%
3.65%
0.00%
China
4.30%
4.25%
1.40%
1.50%
1.80%
0.00%
14.60%
12.74%
Germany
5.64%
0.65%
0.16%
2.14%
5.41%
3.90%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
1.61%
1.31%
0.16%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
3.65%
0.00%
All Other European
5.37%
3.27%
9.03%
5.56%
21.63%
19.49%
21.90%
25.48%
All Others
5.37%
6.21%
1.87%
2.35%
14.42%
7.79%
29.20%
25.48%
[Major West European*
36.80%
15.35%
40.96%
44.25%
18.02%
7.79%
10.95%
0.00%]
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-57
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1995-1998
1
United States
43,393
2
United Kingdom
19,900
3
France
18,100
4
Russia
9,800
5
China
3,100
6
Sweden
2,600
7
Germany
2,500
8
Israel
1,600
9
Ukraine
1,500
10
Netherlands
1,100
11
South Africa
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1999-2002
1
United States
33,990
2
United Kingdom
16,400
3
Russia
12,500
4
France
7,500
5
China
2,400
6
Ukraine
1,300
7
Germany
1,200
8
Sweden
1,100
9
Israel
1,000
10
Belarus
800
11
North Korea
800
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1995-2002
1
United States
77,383
2
United Kingdom
36,300
3
France
25,600
4
Russia
22,300
5
China
5,500
6
Germany
3,700
7
Sweden
3,700
8
Ukraine
2,800
9
Israel
2,600
10
Belarus
1,800
11
Italy
1,300
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-58
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2002
1
United States
6,961
2
United Kingdom
3,300
3
Russia
2,900
4
France
1,300
5
China
800
6
Ukraine
300
7
Brazil
200
8
Israel
200
9
Spain
100
10
North Korea
100
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-59
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
1995-1998
Algeria
0
300
0
0
400
200
900
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
4,000
500
0
200
200
0
4,900
Iran
0
800
800
100
400
0
2,100
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
2,500
0
0
100
0
300
2,900
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
100
0
0
200
100
100
500
Oman
0
0
0
700
100
200
1,000
Qatar
0
0
0
1,700
0
0
1,700
Saudi Arabia
16,200
0
0
18,400
3,400
0
38,000
Syria
100
0
0
0
100
200
400
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
600
400
0
3,500
600
0
5,100
Yemen
0
0
100
100
300
0
500
1999-2002
Algeria
0
400
200
0
300
100
1,000
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
4,300
200
100
0
0
100
4,700
Iran
0
400
0
0
0
300
700
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Israel
3,400
0
0
900
0
0
4,300
Jordan
300
0
0
100
0
100
500
Kuwait
1,400
100
200
600
0
100
2,400
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
100
300
Morocco
0
0
0
100
200
0
300
Oman
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Qatar
0
0
0
200
0
0
200
Saudi Arabia
9,500
0
0
15,800
1,300
0
26,600
Syria
0
200
0
100
100
0
400
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
300
100
0
2,700
400
100
3,600
Yemen
0
300
200
100
100
100
800
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-60
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1995-2002:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1995-1998
1
Saudi Arabia
37,900
2
Taiwan
14,200
3
U.A.E 5,100
4
Kuwait
4,900
5
Egypt
4,800
6
South Korea
4,300
7
China 3,200
8
Israel
2,800
9
Iran
2,100
10
Indonesia
2,100
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1999-2002
1
Saudi Arabia
26,600
2
China
6,100
3
Taiwan
6,000
4
Egypt
4,700
5
South Korea
4,500
6
Israel
4,200
7
U.A.E.
3,600
8
India
2,700
9
Kuwait
2,400
10
Pakistan
2,200
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1995-2002
1
Saudi Arabia
64,500
2
Taiwan
20,200
3
Egypt
9,500
4
China
9,300
5
South Korea
8,800
6
U.A.E.
8,700
7
Kuwait
7,300
8
Israel
7,000
9
India
4,700
10
Pakistan
3,800
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order
is maintained.

CRS-61
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2002:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2002
1
Saudi Arabia
5,200
2
Egypt
2,100
3
Kuwait
1,300
4
China
1,200
5
Taiwan
1,100
6
U.A.E.
900
7
India
900
8
Israel
700
9
South Korea
600
10
Pakistan
600
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-62
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1995-2002
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 1995-2002 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).
Caution is warranted in using the quantitative data within these specific tables.
Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provide precise
indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The history of
recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication of weapons
can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide an indication
of the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the weapons
delivered to them. Superior training — coupled with good equipment, tactical and
operational proficiency, and sound logistics — may, in the last analysis, be a more
important factor in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional warfare
than the size of its weapons inventory.
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1999-2002
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the United States
was the leading supplier of several major classes of conventional weaponry
from 1999-2002. 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 1999-2002 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 of Russia, the
leading supplier.
! 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-63
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 1999-2002 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 190 tanks and self-propelled guns, 310 APCs and armored
cars, 3 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 180
supersonic combat aircraft, 230 helicopters, 1,180 surface-to-air missiles, and 190
anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 200 tanks and self-propelled guns,
173 artillery pieces, 6 major surface combatants, 149 supersonic combat aircraft,105
helicopters, 2,552 surface-to-air missiles, and 287 anti-ship missiles. China
delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled guns, 330 artillery pieces, 300 APCs and
armored cars, 2 minor surface combatants, 50 supersonic combat aircraft, 560
surface-to-air missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles. The four major West European
suppliers as a group delivered 4 major surface combatants, 3 minor surface
combatants, 2 submarines, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 1,110 surface-to-air
missiles, and 60 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively
delivered 170 tanks and self-propelled guns, 40 APCs and armored cars, 1 major
surface combatant, 12 minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 10 supersonic
combat aircraft, and 140 surface-to-surface missiles. All other non-European
suppliers collectively delivered 140 artillery pieces, 170 APCs and armored cars, 3
major surface combatants, 26 minor surface combatants, and 70 supersonic combat
aircraft.
Near East.
Russia delivered 60 tanks and self-propelled guns, 220 APCs and armored cars,
50 supersonic combat aircraft, 30 helicopters, 380 surface-to-air missiles, and 30
anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 157 tanks and self-propelled guns,
49 APCs and armored cars, 68 supersonic combat aircraft, 4 helicopters, 332 surface-
to-air missiles, and 120 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 1 guided missile boat,
50 surface-to-air missiles, and 110 anti-ship missiles. The four major West
European suppliers collectively delivered 330 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2
major surface combatants, 8 minor surface combatants, 8 guided missile boats, 3
submarines, 40 helicopters, and 160 anti-ship missiles. All other European
suppliers as a group delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 340 APCs and
armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 7 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic
combat aircraft, and 280 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers collectively
delivered 8 minor surface combatants, 60 surface-to-surface missiles, and 10 anti-
ship missiles.

CRS-64
Latin America.
Russia delivered 30 helicopters, and 30 anti-ship missiles. The United States
delivered 25 artillery pieces, 15 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants,
4 supersonic combat aircraft, 36 helicopters, and 12 anti-ship missiles. China
delivered 4 minor surface combatants, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. The four
major West European suppliers collectively delivered 40 tanks and self-propelled
guns, 40 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface combatants, 3 minor surface
combatants, 10 helicopters, and 90 surface-to-air missiles. All other European
suppliers collectively delivered 320 tanks and self-propelled guns, 40 APCs and
armored cars, 8 major surface combatants, 46 minor surface combatants, 50
helicopters, and 40 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as
a group delivered 20 artillery pieces.
Africa.
Russia delivered 40 tanks and self-propelled guns, 160 artillery pieces, 130
APCs and armored cars, 2 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft,
60 helicopters and 40 surface-to-air missiles. The United States delivered 8 other
aircraft. China delivered 70 tanks and self-propelled guns, 13 minor surface
combatants, and 10 helicopters. The four major West European suppliers
collectively delivered 13 minor surface combatants. All other European suppliers
collectively delivered 390 tanks and self-propelled guns, 520 artillery pieces, 500
APCs and armored cars, 10 minor surface combatants, 50 supersonic combat aircraft,
60 helicopters, and 120 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers
as a group delivered 70 tanks and self-propelled guns, 420 artillery pieces, 400 APCs
and armored cars, 18 minor surface combatants, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 60
helicopters, and 770 surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-65
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
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,202
320
280
310
840
80
Guns
Artillery
129
310
130
140
240
970
APCs and Armored Cars
2,753
960
160
990
1,940
260
Major Surface Combatants
3
2
4
43
3
2
Minor Surface Combatants
48
6
23
39
52
61
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
14
10
0
3
Submarines
0
6
0
7
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
289
150
100
90
60
50
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
43
10
0
60
30
30
Other Aircraft
30
40
50
80
170
100
Helicopters
197
270
0
70
70
60
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,579
2,230
740
1,790
2,880
380
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
428
70
210
60
0
10
1999-2002
Tanks and Self-Propelled
200
290
100
370
1,170
100
Guns
Artillery
263
190
380
20
680
580
APCs and Armored Cars
88
660
340
100
920
590
Major Surface Combatants
8
3
0
8
10
3
Minor Surface Combatants
2
4
19
27
75
52
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
8
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
5
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
221
250
50
30
100
100
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
17
10
0
60
10
0
Other Aircraft
48
40
70
110
110
80
Helicopters
145
350
10
60
120
80
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,884
1,600
660
1,200
580
6,190
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
60
Anti-Ship Missiles
419
250
130
220
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-66
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
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled
385
30
150
0
320
0
Guns
Artillery
43
220
100
40
40
900
APCs and Armored Cars
54
70
160
260
120
50
Major Surface Combatants
1
2
4
33
1
2
Minor Surface Combatants
8
6
20
14
6
43
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
6
0
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
6
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
163
110
80
60
0
50
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
4
10
0
30
10
0
Other Aircraft
20
10
30
10
40
40
Helicopters
61
70
0
10
30
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
221
1,340
370
1,380
60
100
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
141
70
90
0
0
0
1999-2002
Tanks and Self-Propelled
200
190
30
0
170
20
Guns
Artillery
173
10
330
0
90
140
APCs and Armored Cars
24
310
300
20
40
170
Major Surface Combatants
6
3
0
4
1
3
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
2
3
12
26
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
2
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
149
180
50
30
10
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
0
0
60
0
0
Other Aircraft
4
20
30
10
30
30
Helicopters
105
230
0
10
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,552
1,180
560
1,110
140
220
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
287
190
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-67
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
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled
817
290
0
240
140
0
Guns
Artillery
69
30
30
10
110
20
APCs and Armored Cars
2,637
760
0
420
1,490
40
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
3
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
13
0
0
19
18
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
8
4
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
126
10
10
30
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
30
0
0
Other Aircraft
2
10
10
0
30
40
Helicopters
90
90
0
20
0
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,284
140
250
350
0
30
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
287
0
120
20
0
0
1999-2002
Tanks and Self-Propelled
157
60
0
330
290
10
Guns
Artillery
65
20
30
0
0
0
APCs and Armored Cars
49
220
40
30
340
20
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
0
8
7
8
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
8
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
3
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
68
50
0
0
40
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
22
10
20
80
50
0
Helicopters
4
30
0
40
0
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
332
380
50
0
280
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
60
Anti-Ship Missiles
120
30
110
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-68
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
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
0
60
70
20
Guns
Artillery
16
0
0
80
30
50
APCs and Armored Cars
57
30
0
150
270
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
7
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
24
0
0
4
25
7
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
6
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
40
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
39
0
0
0
20
20
Other Aircraft
6
20
0
0
30
10
Helicopters
46
70
0
30
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
74
750
120
60
1,620
250
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
40
0
10
1999-2002
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
0
40
320
0
Guns
Artillery
25
0
0
20
70
20
APCs and Armored Cars
15
0
0
40
40
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
2
8
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
4
3
46
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
4
0
0
0
0
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
14
10
0
20
10
30
Helicopters
36
30
0
10
50
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
50
90
40
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
12
30
0
0
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-69
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
1995-1998
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
0
130
10
310
60
Guns
Artillery
1
60
0
10
60
0
APCs and Armored Cars
5
100
0
160
60
170
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
3
0
3
2
3
8
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
1
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
30
10
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
2
0
10
70
70
10
Helicopters
0
40
0
10
30
30
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
1999-2002
Tanks and Self-Propelled
0
40
70
0
390
70
Guns
Artillery
0
160
20
0
520
420
APCs and Armored Cars
0
130
0
10
500
400
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
13
13
10
18
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
20
0
0
50
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
10
0
Other Aircraft
8
0
20
0
20
20
Helicopters
0
60
10
0
60
60
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
40
0
0
120
770
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-70
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1995-2002
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 1995-2002 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 and arms deliveries worldwide during calendar years 1995-1998,
1999-2002, and 2002. These tables are set out in the same format and detail as tables 1F and 1G for
arms transfer agreements with, and tables 2F and 2G for arms deliveries to developing nations,
respectively.
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1995-2002
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 2002 U.S. dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1999-2002, and first for the entire period from 1995-2002 (figure 1) (table
8C).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 1999-2002, and second from 1995-2002.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer agreements
from 1999-2002, and third from 1995-2002.
! In 2001, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was $29.2 billion. This is the
lowest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements, in real terms, for any year since 1997.
! In 2002, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the world, making
$13.3 billion in such agreements, or 45.5% of all arms transfer agreements. Russia ranked
second with $5.7 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 19.5% of all arms transfer
agreements. Ukraine ranked third with $1.6 billion. United States agreements’ increased
from $12.1 billion in 2001 to $13.3 billion in 2002. The U.S. share of agreements rose from
40.2% to 45.5%. Russia’s arms transfer agreements also rose nominally, posting about $5.7
billion in worldwide agreements in both 2001 and 2002 (table 8A)(table 8B)(table 8D).
! The United States and Russia, the top two arms suppliers to the world in 2002 — respectively
(ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements) collectively made agreements in
2002 valued at nearly $19 billion, 65% of all arms transfer agreements made with the world
by all suppliers.
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 1999-2002 ($139.8 billion)
was notably higher than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers worldwide
from 1995-1998 ($123.3 billion), an increase of 13.4% (figure 1).

CRS-71
! During the period from 1995-1998, developing world nations accounted for 68% of all arms
transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1999-2002, developing world nations
accounted for 64.6% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 2002, developing nations were recipients of 60.6% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1995-2002
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1995-2002. 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 2002 U.S. dollars.
! In 2002, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide, making
$10.3 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 slight increase from 2001 when
its delivery values totaled nearly $10 billion (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).
! The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2002, making $4.7
billion in such deliveries.
! Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2002, making $3.1 billion in such
deliveries.
! In 2002, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Russia, collectively delivered over $18 billion, 70.9% of all arms deliveries made
worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2002 was 40.3%, up from its 37% share
in 2001. The United Kingdom’s share in 2002 was 18.5%, up from 17.5% in 2001. Russia’s
share of world arms deliveries in 2002 was 12.2%, down from 16.3% in 2001 (table 9B).
! In 2002, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was $25.4 billion, a decline in the total
value of deliveries from 2001 (nearly $27 billion in constant 2002 dollars), and the lowest
deliveries total by far during the entire period from 1995-2002 (chart 7) (table 9A).
! During the period from 1995-1998, developing world nations accounted for 73% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide. During 1999-2002, developing world nations accounted for
68.3% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).
! In 2002, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 66.7% of all arms deliveries
received worldwide (figure 2).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1999-2002 ($130.9
billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
worldwide from 1995-1998 ($179.4 billion in constant dollars), a decline of 27% (figure
2)(table 9A).

CRS-72
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
8,600
10,705
7,237
9,579
12,146
17,792
11,545
13,272
90,876
Russia
7,200
4,900
3,400
2,400
4,600
8,200
5,400
5,700
41,800
France
2,700
2,500
4,700
3,100
1,600
4,000
3,800
1,100
23,500
United Kingdom
800
4,900
1,000
2,000
1,400
600
400
800
11,900
China
200
900
1,300
900
3,000
600
800
300
8,000
Germany
400
200
600
5,000
4,000
1,200
1,200
1,100
13,700
Italy
900
400
300
600
700
200
500
1,500
5,100
All Other European
2,200
3,900
1,900
1,900
5,900
3,700
3,600
3,800
26,900
All Others
2,100
3,400
800
1,500
1,900
2,200
1,500
1,600
15,000
TOTAL
25,100
31,805
21,237
26,979
35,246
38,492
28,745
29,172
236,776
Dollar inflation index:
(2002=1.00)*
0.8256
0.8441
0.8615
0.8837
0.9041
0.9276
0.9542
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 all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare
parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon
estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. 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-73
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
10,417
12,682
8,400
10,840
13,434
19,181
12,099
13,272
100,325
Russia
8,721
5,805
3,947
2,716
5,088
8,840
5,659
5,700
46,476
France
3,270
2,962
5,456
3,508
1,770
4,312
3,982
1,100
26,360
United Kingdom
969
5,805
1,161
2,263
1,549
647
419
800
13,613
China
242
1,066
1,509
1,018
3,318
647
838
300
8,938
Germany
484
237
696
5,658
4,424
1,294
1,258
1,100
15,151
Italy
1,090
474
348
679
774
216
524
1,500
5,605
All Other European
2,665
4,620
2,205
2,150
6,526
3,989
3,773
3,800
29,728
All Others
2,544
4,028
929
1,697
2,102
2,372
1,572
1,600
16,844
TOTAL
30,402
37,679
24,651
30,529
38,985
41,498
30,124
29,172
263,040

CRS-74
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
34.26%
33.66%
34.08%
35.51%
34.46%
46.22%
40.16%
45.50%
Russia
28.69%
15.14%
16.01%
8.90%
13.05%
21.30%
18.79%
19.54%
France
10.76%
7.86%
22.13%
11.49%
4.54%
10.39%
13.22%
3.77%
United Kingdom
3.19%
15.41%
4.71%
7.41%
3.97%
1.56%
1.39%
2.74%
China
0.80%
2.83%
6.12%
3.34%
8.51%
1.56%
2.78%
1.03%
Germany
1.59%
0.63%
2.83%
18.53%
11.35%
3.12%
4.17%
3.77%
Italy
3.59%
1.26%
1.41%
2.22%
1.99%
0.52%
1.74%
5.14%
All Other European
8.76%
12.26%
8.95%
7.04%
16.74%
9.61%
12.52%
13.03%
All Others
8.37%
10.69%
3.77%
5.56%
5.39%
5.72%
5.22%
5.48%
[Major West European*
19.13%
25.16%
31.08%
39.65%
21.85%
15.59%
20.52%
15.42%
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-75
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1995-
2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1995-1998
1
United States
36,121
2
Russia
17,900
3
France
13,000
4
United Kingdom
8,700
5
Germany
6,200
6
China
3,300
7
Israel
3,300
8
Italy
2,200
9
Ukraine
1,900
10
Belarus
1,700
11
South Africa
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1999-2002
1
United States*
54,755
2
Russia
23,900
3
France
10,500
4
Germany
7,500
5
China
4,700
6
Sweden
4,100
7
Ukraine
3,400
8
United Kingdom
3,200
9
Italy
2,900
10
Spain
2,400
11
Israel
2,400
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1995-2002
1
United States*
90,876
2
Russia
41,800
3
France
23,500
4
Germany
13,700
5
United Kingdom
11,900
6
China
8,000
7
Israel
5,700
8
Ukraine
5,300
9
Sweden
5,100
10
Italy
5,100
11
Spain
3,200
Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained. *The U.S. total
includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in
2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-76
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with
the World in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2002
1
United States
13,272
2
Russia
5,700
3
Ukraine
1,600
4
Italy
1,500
5
Germany
1,100
6
France
1,100
7
Finland
1,000
8
Israel
1,000
9
United Kingdom
800
10
Spain
300
11
China
300
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-77
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995-2002
United States
16,002
14,884
16,406
16,876
17,971
12,867
9,530
10,241
114,732
Russia
3,700
3,300
2,600
2,200
3,100
4,000
4,200
3,100
26,200
France
3,100
3,900
6,700
7,300
4,200
2,500
1,800
1,800
31,300
United Kingdom
5,300
6,500
6,800
3,800
5,000
6,500
4,500
4,700
43,100
China
700
700
1,100
700
400
800
700
800
5,900
Germany
2,200
1,900
1,200
1,500
2,200
1,300
600
500
11,400
Italy
200
100
400
200
600
300
200
400
2,400
All Other European
3,500
3,400
4,400
3,300
2,900
2,900
2,000
1,800
24,200
All Others
2,000
2,000
2,500
1,800
2,300
2,000
2,200
2,100
16,900
TOTAL
36,702
36,684
42,106
37,676
38,671
33,167
25,730
25,441
276,177
Dollar inflation index:
(2002=1.00)*
0.8256
0.8441
0.8615
0.8837
0.9041
0.9276
0.9542
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 all categories of
weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services.
Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.

CRS-78
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1995-2002
(in millions of constant 2002 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1995- 2002
United States
19,382
17,633
19,044
19,097
19,877
13,871
9,987
10,241
129,133
Russia
4,482
3,909
3,018
2,490
3,429
4,312
4,402
3,100
29,141
France
3,755
4,620
7,777
8,261
4,646
2,695
1,886
1,800
35,440
United Kingdom
6,420
7,701
7,893
4,300
5,530
7,007
4,716
4,700
48,267
China
848
829
1,277
792
442
862
734
800
6,585
Germany
2,665
2,251
1,393
1,697
2,433
1,401
629
500
12,970
Italy
242
118
464
226
664
323
210
400
2,648
All Other European
4,239
4,028
5,107
3,734
3,208
3,126
2,096
1,800
27,339
All Others
2,422
2,369
2,902
2,037
2,544
2,156
2,306
2,100
18,836
TOTAL
44,455
43,459
48,875
42,634
42,773
35,756
26,965
25,441
310,358

CRS-79
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1995-2002
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
43.60%
40.57%
38.96%
44.79%
46.47%
38.79%
37.04%
40.25%
Russia
10.08%
9.00%
6.17%
5.84%
8.02%
12.06%
16.32%
12.19%
France
8.45%
10.63%
15.91%
19.38%
10.86%
7.54%
7.00%
7.08%
United Kingdom
14.44%
17.72%
16.15%
10.09%
12.93%
19.60%
17.49%
18.47%
China
1.91%
1.91%
2.61%
1.86%
1.03%
2.41%
2.72%
3.14%
Germany
5.99%
5.18%
2.85%
3.98%
5.69%
3.92%
2.33%
1.97%
Italy
0.54%
0.27%
0.95%
0.53%
1.55%
0.90%
0.78%
1.57%
All Other European
9.54%
9.27%
10.45%
8.76%
7.50%
8.74%
7.77%
7.08%
All Others
5.45%
5.45%
5.94%
4.78%
5.95%
6.03%
8.55%
8.25%
[Major West European*
29.43%
33.80%
35.86%
33.97%
31.03%
31.96%
27.59%
29.09 ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-80
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1995-2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1995-1998
1
United States
64,168
2
United Kingdom
22,400
3
France
2,100
4
Russia
11,800
5
Germany
6,800
6
Sweden
4,200
7
China
3,200
8
Israel
2,200
9
Ukraine
1,500
10
Netherlands
1,400
11
Spain
1,300
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1999-2002
1
United States
50,609
2
United Kingdom
22,300
3
France
14,400
4
Russia
10,300
5
Germany
4,600
6
China
2,700
7
Ukraine
2,400
8
Israel
2,000
9
Sweden
1,600
10
Italy
1,500
11
Belarus
900
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1995-2002
1
United States
114,777
2
United Kingdom
44,700
3
France
31,300
4
Russia
26,200
5
Germany
11,400
6
China
5,900
7
Sweden
5,800
8
Israel
4,200
9
Ukraine
3,900
10
Italy
2,400
11
Belarus
1,900
Source: U.S. Government. Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where
rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-81
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2002:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2002
1
United States
10,241
2
United Kingdom
4,700
3
Russia
3,100
4
France
1,800
5
China
800
6
Ukraine
600
7
Germany
500
8
Italy
400
9
Israel
300
10
Brazil
200
11
Spain
200
Source: U.S. Government.
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

CRS-82
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1995-2002
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-83
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-84
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