Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003

Order Code RL32547
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1996-2003
August 26, 2004
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,
1996-2003
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 1996-2003, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of
these agreements in 2003.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was
over $13.7 billion. This was a substantial decrease over 2002, and the lowest total,
in real terms, for the entire period from 1996-2003. In 2003, the value of all arms
deliveries to developing nations was nearly $17 billion, the lowest total in deliveries
values for the entire period from 1996-2003 (in constant 2003 dollars).
Recently, from 2000-2003, 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
2000-2003, the United States made $35.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2003 dollars, 46.8% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made over $21 billion in arms transfer
agreements, or 27.5%.
In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations with over $6.2 billion or 45.4% of these agreements. Russia was
second with $3.9 billion or 23.4% of such agreements. In 2003, the United States
ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $6.3 billion, or
37.1% of all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4 billion or
23.5% of such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $3.3 billion or 19.4% of such
deliveries.
During the 2000-2003 period, China ranked first among developing nations
purchasers in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $9.3 billion in such
agreements. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second at $8.1 billion. Egypt
ranked third at $6.8 billion. In 2003, Egypt ranked first in the value of arms transfer
agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $1.8
billion in such agreements. China ranked second with $1.6 billion in such
agreements. Malaysia ranked third with $1.5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Summary of Data Trends, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1996-2003:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1996-2003: Suppliers and Recipients . . . . 39
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 64
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values, 1996-2003 . . . . 72
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 72
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . 85
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . 87
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,

1996-2003 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1996-2003 (in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1996-2003 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,
1996-2003 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 48
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 49
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . 52
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1996-2003 . . . . 57
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 59
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 78
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 79
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 83
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 84

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1996-2003
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 1996 through 2003. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1995-2002,” published by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) on September 22, 2003 (CRS Report RL32084).
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, 1996-2003,
conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery)
to developing nations have comprised 63.9% of the value of all international arms
transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 60.4% of all agreements globally from 2000-2003. In 2003, arms transfer
agreements with developing countries accounted for 53.6% of the value of all such
agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from
2000-2003, constituted 53.1% of all international arms deliveries. In 2003, arms
deliveries to developing nations constituted 59.1% of the value of all such arms
deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report supersede all data published in previous editions.
Since these new data for 1996-2003 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 on
data used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9.
CONSTANT 2003 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 2003
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 (1996-1999 and
2000-2003), 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 2003 was over $25.6 billion. This is a significant decrease in
arms agreements values over 2002, and is the third consecutive year that total arms
agreements have declined (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2003, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at over $14.5 billion (56.7% of all such agreements), up from
$13.6 billion in 2002. Russia ranked second with $4.3 billion in agreements (16.8%
of these agreements globally), down from nearly $6 billion in 2002. Germany ranked
third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $1.4 billion in 2003. The
United States and Russia collectively made agreements in 2003 valued at over $18.8
billion, 73.5% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers
(figure 1)(tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).
For the period 2000-2003, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $126.9 billion) was lower than the worldwide value during 1996-
1999 ($133.7 billion), a decrease of 5.1%. During the period 1996-1999, developing
world nations accounted for 67.3% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing world nations accounted for 60.4% of all
arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2003, developing nations accounted for
53.6% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making over $13.6 billion in such deliveries or 47.5%. 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 years
immediately following the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. The United Kingdom
ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2003, making $4.7 billion in such
deliveries. Russia ranked third in 2003, making $3.4 billion in such deliveries.
These top three suppliers of arms in 2003 collectively delivered over $21.7 billion,
75.7% 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 2003 was $28.7 billion. This
is a significant decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year
(a fall of over $13.1 billion), and by far the lowest total for the eight years covered
by this report. The total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2000-2003
($148.2 billion) was a substantial decrease in the value of arms deliveries by all
suppliers worldwide from 1996-1999 ($196.3 billion, a fall of $48.1 billion). (figure
2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).
Developing nations from 2000-2003 accounted for 53.1% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1996-1999, developing nations
accounted for 66.9% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2003,

CRS-4
developing nations collectively accounted for 59.1% of the value of all international
arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, 9A and 9B).
The downturn in weapons orders worldwide since 2000 has been notable.
Global arms agreement values have fallen from $41 billion in 2000 to $25.6 billion
in 2003. Were it not for a few large military aircraft orders in 2003, the total for that
year would have been substantially lower. It has been the practice of developed
nations in recent years to seek to protect important elements of their national military
industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other developed nations. Instead
they have placed greater emphasis on joint production of various weapons systems
as a more effective way to preserve a domestic weapons production capability, while
sharing costs of new weapons development. Some traditional weapons producers
have been forced to consolidate sectors of their domestic defense industry in the face
of intense foreign competition, while other supplying nations have chosen to
manufacture items for niche arms markets where their specialized production
capabilities provide them with important advantages in the evolving international
arms marketplace.
The intensely competitive arms market of today has also led supplying states to
emphasize sales efforts directed toward regions and nations where individual
suppliers have had competitive advantages resulting from well established military
support relationships with the prospective customers. In recent years, the potential
has developed in Europe for arms sales to nations that have recently become
members of NATO. Although there are inherent limitations on these potential sales
due to the smaller defense budgets of several of these nations, creative seller
financing options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-production, and counter-
trade, to offset costs to purchasers, has resulted in some noteworthy contracts being
signed. Most noteworthy in 2003 was a $3.5 billion sales agreement between the
United States and Poland for the purchase of 48 F-16 C/D Block 52M fighter aircraft.
Elsewhere within NATO, Germany in 2003 concluded a $1.7 billion agreement with
Greece for 170 Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks. It seems likely that competition will
continue between the United States and other European countries or consortia over
the prospective arms contracts within the European region in the years ahead. Such
sales have the potential to compensate for lost contracts due to reduced demand for
weapons from traditional clients in the developing world.
In recent years, numerous developing nations have reduced their weapons
purchases primarily due to their lack of sufficient funds to pay for such weaponry.
Even those prospective arms purchasers in the developing world with significant
financial assets have exercised restraint and caution before embarking upon new and
costly weapons procurement endeavors. The unsettled state of the global economy
has influenced a number of developing nations to emphasize the upgrading of
existing weapons systems in their inventories, rather than the purchase of newer ones.
Given the substantial arms purchases made in the mid-1990s by a number of nations
in the developing world, there has been a notable reduction in new arms agreements
by these countries, since several of them are engaged in absorbing and integrating
previously purchased weapons systems into their military force structures.
At present, there appears to be fewer large weapons purchases being made by
developing nations in the Near East, while a relatively larger increase in purchases

CRS-5
are being made by developing nations in Asia. Nonetheless, these apparent trends
are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of either the international or
regional economies. The health of the domestic economies in various nations in the
developing world continue to be a very significant factor in their arms purchasing
decisions.
Although some nations in Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, in
Africa, have shown interest in updating important sectors of their military force
structures, many states in these regions also continue to be constrained by their
limited financial resources. Limited seller-supplied credit and financing seems likely
to continue to be a factor that inhibits the conclusion of major weapons deals in these
regions of the developing world.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was
$13.7 billion, a notable decrease over the $17.4 billion total in 2002. This was the
lowest annual total, in real terms, during the 8-year period from 1996-2003. (chart
1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2003, the value of all arms deliveries to developing
nations ($17 billion) was a clear decrease from the value of 2002 deliveries nearly
($18.7 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years (charts 7 and 8)(figure
2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 2000-2003, 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 2000-2003, the United
States made over $35.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations,
46.8% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period,
made nearly $21.1billion in arms transfer agreements or 27.5%. France, the third
leading supplier, from 2000-2003 made $3.8 billion or 5% of all such agreements
with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1996-1999) the
United States ranked first with $27.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations or 30.6%; Russia made $15.6 billion in arms transfer agreements
during this period or 17.3%. France made $10.7 billion in agreements or 11.9%
(table 1A).
During the period from 1996-1999, most arms transfers to developing nations
were made by two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has
ranked first among these suppliers every year from 1998 through 2003. Russia has
been a strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations, ranking second every year from 1999 through 2003. Despite the larger
traditional client base for armaments held by other Major West European suppliers,
Russia’s recent successes in securing new arms orders suggests that despite the
traditional marketing advantage held by Major West European competitors, Russia
is likely to continue to rank higher in the value of new arms agreements than other
key European arms suppliers, for the near term. Since Russia’s largest value arms
transfer agreements in recent years have been with two countries, China and India,
continued Russian success in the arms trade with developed nations will depend on
its ability to expand its client base. In this regard, Russia has made some strides in
Southeast Asia. The Russian government has also stated that it has adopted more

CRS-6
flexible payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the developing world,
and is attempting to enhance the quality of its follow-on support services to make
Russian products more attractive and competitive.
Traditional arms suppliers such as France, the United Kingdom and Germany
occasionally conclude large orders with developing countries, based on either long-
term supply relationships or their having specialized weapons systems they can
readily provide. Nevertheless, the United States continues to appear best equipped
to secure new arms agreements with developing nations that are able to afford major
new arms purchases. The purchase of new and highly expensive weapons by many
developing countries, however, seems likely to be limited in the near term, given the
tenuous state of the international economy, and the lack of sufficient funding for such
undertakings. The overall level of the arms trade with developing nations, which has
been generally declining in the years since 2001, is likely either to remain static or
continue to decline in the near term, even though a few wealthier developing nations
have been able to make some significant purchases more recently.
Other suppliers in the tier below the United States and Russia, such as China,
other European, and non-European suppliers, have participated in the arms trade with
developing nations at a much lower level. Yet these suppliers are capable of making
an occasional arms deal of significance. Most of their annual arms transfer
agreements values totals during 1996-2003 have been relatively low, and are based
upon generally smaller transactions of less sophisticated military equipment. It is
unlikely that many of these countries will be capable of rising to the status of a major
supplier of advanced weaponry on a consistent basis ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and
2G).
United States.
In 2003, the total value — in real terms — of United States arms transfer
agreements with developing nations fell notably to $6.2 billion from nearly $8.9
billion in 2002. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 45.4% in
2003, down from a 51% share in 2002 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and
1B).
In 2003, the value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations
was primarily attributable to 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 2003 include not only some sales of major weapons
systems, but also a continuation of the upgrading of some previously provided. 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 2003 were: with Egypt for a co-production program
involving 125 M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank kits for $790 million; with Saudi
Arabia for a number of light infantry vehicles (LAWS) for $316 million; with South
Korea for 3 MK41 Vertical Launch Systems for $191 million; with Taiwan for a
number of Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs) for $150 million; with Israel for 1
AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter; with Oman for 2 Reconnaissance Systems;
and with Pakistan for 6 C-130E aircraft. The United States also concluded

CRS-7
agreements for the sale of various missile systems to nations in both the Near East
and in Asia. Among these agreements concluded were: with Egypt for 414 AIM-9M
Sidewinder missiles as well as Harpoon Block II missiles; with Israel for AGM-114
Hellfire missiles; and with Taiwan for 144 Standard SM2 III missiles.
Apart from weapons themselves, it must be emphasized that, the sale of
munitions, upgrades to existing systems, spare parts, training and support services to
developing nations worldwide account for a very substantial portion of the total value
of U.S. arms transfer agreements. This fact reflects the large number of countries in
the developing, and developed, world that have acquired and continue to utilize a
wide range of American weapons systems, and have a continuing requirement to
support, to modify, as well as to replace, these systems.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2003 was $3.9 billion, a notable decline from $5.3 billion in 2002, but it still
placed a strong second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share
of all developing world arms transfer agreements decreased, falling from 30.7% in
2002 to 23.4% in 2003 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Russian arms transfer agreements totals with developing nations have been
notable during the last four years. During the 2000-2003 period, Russia ranked
second among all suppliers to developing countries, making $21 billion in
agreements. Russia’s status as the second leading supplier of arms to developing
nations stems from an increasingly successful effort to overcome the significant
economic and political problems associated with the dissolution of the former Soviet
Union. The traditional arms clients of the former Soviet Union were generally less
wealthy developing countries prized as much for their political support in the Cold
War, as for their desire for Soviet weaponry. Many of these traditional Soviet client
states received substantial military aid grants and significant discounts on their arms
purchases. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991 these practices
were greatly curtailed. The Russia that emerged in 1991 consistently placed a
premium on obtaining hard currency for the weapons it sold. Faced with stiff
competition from Western arms suppliers in the 1990s, Russian gradually adapted its
selling practices in an effort to regain and sustain an important share of the
developing world arms market.
In recent years, Russian leaders have made efforts to provide more flexible and
creative financing and payment options for prospective arms clients. It has also
agreed to engage in counter-trade, offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make
significant licensed production agreements in order to sell its weapons. The
willingness to license production has been a central element in several cases
involving Russia’s principal arms clients, China and India. Russia’s efforts to
expand its arms customer base have been met with mixed results. In the early 1990s,
Russia developed a supply relationship with Iran, providing that country with Mig-29
fighter aircraft, Su-24 fighter-bombers, T-72 Main Battle Tanks, and Kilo-class
attack submarines. Although new Russian sales to Iran were suspended for a period
from 1995-2000 in accordance with an agreement with the United States, Russia now
asserts its option to sell arms to Iran should it choose to do so. Although discussions

CRS-8
have been held between Russia and Iran on prospective future arms purchases, there
have not been, as of this date, major new Iranian procurements of advanced weapons
systems, comparable to the types and quantities obtained in the early 1990s. Russia’s
arms sales efforts, apart from those with China and India seem focused on Southeast
Asia, where it has had some success in securing arms agreements with Malaysia,
Vietnam and Indonesia. Similarly, Russian combat fighter aircraft sales have been
made in recent years to Algeria and Yemen. Elsewhere in the developing world
Russian military equipment still holds attractions because it ranges from the most
basic to the highly advanced, and can be less expensive than similar arms available
from other major suppliers.
Yet Russia continues to confront a significant obstacle in breaking into arms
markets traditionally dominated by Western suppliers, namely, its perceived inability
to provide consistent high-quality follow-on support, spare parts, and training for the
weapons systems it sells. There is an almost ingrained reluctance on the part of many
developing nations to purchase advanced armaments from a supplier like Russia that
is still engaged in reorganization and rationalization of its defense production base,
when more stable, well-known, and established sources of such weapons exist. And
though Russia may now be embarked on some programs of advanced military
research and development, the other major arms suppliers in the West are currently
in the process of producing weaponry much more advanced than those programs that
may, at some future point, be available from Russia.
Despite these difficulties, Russia continues to have major on-going arms transfer
programs involving China and India, which should provide it with sustained business
through this decade. Since the mid-1990s, Russia has sold major combat fighter
aircraft, and main battle tanks to India, and has provided other major weapons
systems though lease or licenced production. China, however, remains a lynchpin
of Russia’s arms export program, particularly in aircraft and naval systems. Since
1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft and agreed to licensed production
of them. It has also sold the Chinese quantities of Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft,
Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn anti-ship missiles, and Kilo-
class Project 636 submarines. Russia has also sold the Chinese a variety of other
weapons systems and missiles. Most recently, in 2003, Russia sold China an
additional 24 Su-30 MKK multi-role fighter aircraft for $1 billion.
Other notable arms sales by Russia in 2003 include: a sale of 18 Su30 MKM
multi-role fighter aircraft to Malaysia for $900 million; a sale of 10 Mi-171Sh utility
helicopters to Malaysia for $71 million; a sale of 4 Su-30 MK fighter aircraft to
Vietnam for $110 million; a sale of 10 Project 12418 Molniya-class missile attack
boats to Vietnam for $120 million; a sale of 2 batteries of S-300 PMU air defense
systems to Vietnam for $250 million; and a sale of 2 Su-30 multi-role fighter aircraft,
2 Su-27 fighter aircraft, and 2 Mil Mi-35 attack helicopters to Indonesia for about
$192 million.
China.
China was an important arms supplier to certain developing nations in the
1980s, primarily through arms agreements with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq war.
From 2000-2003, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing

CRS-9
nations has averaged about $580 million annually. During the period of this report,
the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations peaked in
1999 at $2.6 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 scale
purchasers in these regions continue. In 2003, China’s arms transfer agreements total
was $300 million, its lowest agreements total for the entire 1996-2003 period. For
most of the mid-1990s on, China’s principal focus has not been on selling arms but
on advancing 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).
In recent years, few clients for weapons with financial resources have sought
to purchase Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and
sophisticated than weaponry available from Western suppliers or Russia. China does
not appear likely to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the international
arms market in the foreseeable future. Its likely clients are states in Asia and Africa
seeking quantities of small arms and light weapons, rather than major combat
systems. At the same time, China is an important source of missiles in the
developing world arms market. China supplied Silkworm anti-ship missiles to Iran.
Credible reports persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-surface
missiles to Pakistan, a long-standing 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 political and military
tensions are significant, and where some nations are seeking to develop asymmetric
military capabilities.
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a decline in their collective share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations between 2002 and 2003. This group’s share fell
from 6.5% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2003. The collective value of this group’s arms
transfer agreements with developing nations in 2003 was $800 million compared
with a total of $1.1 million in 2002. Of these four nations, France was the leading
supplier with $500 million in agreements in 2003, an increase from $411 million in
2002. A notable portion of the French total in 2003 was attributable to a production
arrangement with the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) for light corvette vessels. Italy
increased its arms transfer agreements with the developing world from essentially nil
in 2002 to $300 million in 2003. Germany and the United Kingdom registered
effectively no new developing world arm orders in 2003. (charts 3 and 4)(tables
1A and 1B).

CRS-10
Collectively, the four major West European suppliers held a 17.7% share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations during the period from 1996-2003.
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 2000-2003 period, they collectively held 8.4% of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations ($6.5 billion). Individual suppliers within the
major West European group have had notable years for arms agreements, especially
France in 1997 and 1998 ($5.3 billion and $2.7 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 $1.7
billion in 1998, 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).
The Major West European suppliers have traditionally had their competitive
position in weapons exports strengthened through strong government marketing
support for their 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. Furthermore, with the decline in demand by key Near
East countries for major weapons purchases, the levels of new arms agreements by
Major West European suppliers have fallen off notably.
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. The Eurofighter project is one key 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 this
aircraft.
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
A major stimulus to reaching arms transfer agreements with Near East nations
was the Persian Gulf crisis of August 1990-February 1991. This crisis, culminating
in a war to expel Iraq from Kuwait, created new demands by key purchasers such as
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons systems. 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. It remains to be determined whether Gulf

CRS-11
states’ assessments of the future threat environment, in the post-Saddam Hussein era
in Iraq, will lead to declines in their arms purchases. However, in recent years, the
position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the Persian Gulf has notably
receded. In the period from 1996-1999, Saudi Arabia’s total arms agreements were
valued at $6 billion. For the period from 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia’s total arms
agreements had declined to $3.4 billion, a decline of over 43%. In Asia, efforts in
several developing nations have been focused on upgrading and modernizing defense
forces, and this has 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, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The data on
regional arms transfer agreements from 1996-2003 continue to reflect that Near East
and Asian nations are the primary sources of orders for conventional weaponry in
the developing world.
Near East.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1996-1999, it accounted for nearly 44% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($34.1 billion in current dollars), ranking it first
ahead of Asia which ranked second with 36.8% of these agreements. However,
during 2000-2003, the Near East region accounted for 37% of all such agreements
($24.6 billion in current dollars), placing it second to Asia in arms agreements with
the developing world. (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1996-2003 period with 59.5% of their total value ($34.9 billion in current
dollars). France was second during these years with 12.6% ($7.4 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 2000-2003, the United States accounted for 75.6% of arms
agreements with this region ($18.6 billion in current dollars), while Russia accounted
for 8.1% of the region’s agreements ($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 2000-2003, Asia ranked first, accounting for 50.8% of the total value of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations ($33.8 billion in current dollars). In the
earlier period, 1996-1999, the region accounted for 36.8% of all such agreements
($28.6 billion in current dollars), ranking second. (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1996-1999), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 35.4%($10.1 billion in current dollars). The
United States ranked second with 21.6% ($6.2 billion in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.5% of this region’s agreements in
1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in Asian agreements
with 48.8% ($16.5 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combat aircraft
sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with 20.6% ($7.1 billion

CRS-12
in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13% of this
region’s agreements in 2000-2003. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading developing world arms
purchaser from 1996-2003, making arms transfer agreements totaling $15.7 billion
during these years (in current dollars). In the 1996-1999 period, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $7.6 billion (in current
dollars). In 2000-2003, however, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements,
with a dramatic increase to $9.3 billion from $4.4 billion in the earlier period (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 1996-2003 was $150.6
billion in current dollars. Thus the United Arab Emirates alone was responsible for
10.4% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In
the most recent period, 2000-2003, China made $9.3 billion in arms transfer
agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted 12.8% of all arm transfer
agreements with developing nations during these years, which totaled $72.9 billion
during these years. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second in arms
transfer agreements during 2000-2003 with $8.1 billion (in current dollars), or 11.8%
of the value of all developing world arms transfer agreements. (tables 1, 1H, 1I and
1J).
The values of the arms transfer agreements of the top ten developing world
recipient nations in both the 1996-1999 and 2000-2003 periods accounted for the
largest portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1996-1999, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 62.6% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements. During 2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 71.7% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $9 billion in 2003 or 65.5% 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).
Egypt ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2003, concluding $1.8 billion in such agreements. China
ranked second in agreements in 2003 at $1.6 billion. Malaysia ranked third with $1.5
billion in agreements. Six of these top ten recipients were in the Asian region, four
were in the Near East (table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 2003, receiving $5.8 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia
alone received 34.1% of the total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations
in 2003. Egypt ranked second in arms deliveries in 2003 with $2.1 billion. India
ranked third with $2 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at nearly $17 billion, or 89.4% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in

CRS-13
2003. Six of these top ten recipients were in Asia; four were in the Near East (tables
2 and 2J).
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the United
States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery
of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the other
European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable
of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing
nations (tables 3-7) (pages 67-71).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, historically 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 2000-2003 from table 5 (page 67):
United States.
! 276 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 46 APCs and armored cars
! 2 major surface combatants
! 2 minor surface combatants
! 26 supersonic combat aircraft
! 14 helicopters
! 374 surface-to-air missiles
! 63 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 70 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 150 APCs and armored cars
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 50 helicopters
! 880 surface-to-air missiles
! 30 anti-ship missiles
China.
! 50 Artillery pieces
! 40 APCs and armored cars
! 1 guided missile boat
! 20 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
! 290 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 20 APCs and armored cars
! 4 major surface combatants
! 27 minor surface combatant
! 4 guided missile boats
! 1 submarine

CRS-14
! 30 helicopters
! 90 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
! 420 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 220 APCs and armored cars
! 1 major surface combatant
! 9 minor surface combatants
! 20 supersonic combat aircraft
! 380 surface-to-air missiles
All Other Suppliers.
! 10 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 120 APCs and armored cars
! 48 minor surface combatants
! 20 helicopters
! 20 surface-to-surface missiles
! 20 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 2000-2003, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, major
and minor surface combatants, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air defense
and anti-ship missiles. The United States and Russia made significant deliveries of
supersonic combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles to the region. Russia, the United
States, and European suppliers in general were principal suppliers of tanks and self-
propelled guns, APCs and armored cars, surface-to-air missiles, as well as
helicopters. Three of these weapons categories — supersonic combat aircraft,
helicopters, and tanks and self-propelled guns — are especially costly and are 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 2000-2003 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 2000-2003, China delivered to the Near East region 20 anti-ship
missiles, the major West European suppliers delivered 90, while the United States
delivered 63, and Russia 30. China also delivered one guided missile boat to the
Near East, while the major West European suppliers collectively delivered 4 guided
missile boats, and 27 minor surface combatants. Other non-European suppliers
delivered 48 minor surface combatants, as well as 20 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 1996-2003, in
current dollars, according to the U.S. State Department, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Commercial Deliveries Commercial Deliveries
(Worldwide)
(to Developing Nations)
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
2003
$2,727,000,000
$342,000,000

CRS-16
Summary of Data Trends, 1996-2003
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 42-52) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1996-2003. 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 53-63). Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 75-79) provide data
on worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1996-2003, while tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C
and 9D (pages 80-84) 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. Where graphic representations of some major points are made in individual
charts, their underlying data is taken from the pertinent tables of this report.
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 2003 was $13.7 billion. This was a substantial decrease over
2002, but still the lowest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations for the 8-year period from 1996-
2003 (tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations
fell notably from $8.9 billion in 2002 to $6.2 billion in 2003. The
United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer
agreements fell from 51% in 2002 to 45.4% in 2003 (tables 1A and
1B)(chart 3).
! In 2003, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer
agreements with developing nations declined notably from the
previous year, falling from $5.3 billion in 2002 to $3.9 billion in
2003. The Russian share of all such agreements declined from
30.7% in 2002 to 23.4% in 2003 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and
1B).

CRS-17
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1996-2003
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, 1996-2003
(billions of constant 2003 dollars)

CRS-21
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1996-1999
Developing World
United States
45,405
60.60
Russia
17,766 87.70
France
14,207 75.30
United Kingdom
10,909
62.20
China
6,790 86.50
Germany
11,583
36.20
Italy
2,301 55.30
All Other European
15,577
73.40
All Others
9,190
71.80
TOTAL
133,728
67.30
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2000-2003
Developing World
United States
59,995
59.70
Russia
22,504 93.60
France
10,213 37.50
United Kingdom
2,104
39.30
China
2,318
100.00
Germany
5,105
23.30
Italy
2,586
24.00
All Other European
15,116
39.40
All Others
6,933
71.50
TOTAL
126,874
60.40
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2003
Developing World
United States
14,543
42.90
Russia
4,300
90.70
France
1,000
50.00
United Kingdom
100
0.00
China
300
100.00
Germany
1,400
0.00
Italy
600
50.00
All Other European
2,300
73.90
All Others
1,100
72.70
TOTAL
25,643
53.60

CRS-22
! The four major West European suppliers, as a group (France, United
Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a decline in their collective
share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
between 2002 and 2003. This group’s share fell from 6.5% in 2002
to 5.8% in 2003. The collective value of this group’s arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in 2003 was $800 million
compared with a total of $1.1 billion in 2002 (tables 1A and
1B)(charts 3 and 4).
! France registered a slight increase in its share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations, rising from 2.4% in 2002 to
3.6% in 2003. The value of its agreements with developing nations
rose from $411 million in 2002 to $500 million in 2003 (tables 1A
and 1B).
! In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations at $6.2 billion. Russia ranked second at
$3.9 billion. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1996-2003
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003.
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 1996-1999 and 2000-
2003. Among the facts reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
! The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the
developing world. In 1996-1999, it accounted for nearly 44% of the
total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($34.1
billion in current dollars), ranking it first ahead of Asia which ranked
second with 36.8% of these agreements. However, during 2000-
2003, the Near East region accounted for nearly 37% of all such
agreements ($24.6 billion in current dollars), placing it second to
Asia in arms agreements with the developing world (tables 1C and
1D).
! The United States has dominated arms transfer agreements with the
Near East during the 1996-2003 period with 59.5% of their total
value ($34.9 billion in current dollars). France was second during
these years with 12.6% ($7.4 billion in current dollars). Recently,
1 Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must
be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-23
from 2000-2003, the United States accounted for 75.6% of arms
agreements with this region ($18.6 billion in current dollars), while
Russia accounted for 8.1% of the region’s agreements ($2 billion in
current dollars) (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).
! For the period 1996-1999, the United States concluded 68.5% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In
2000-2003, the U.S. concluded 67.2% of its agreements with this
region (table 1D).
! For the period 1996-1999, the four major West European suppliers
collectively made 44.4% of their developing world arms transfer
agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003, the major West
Europeans made 18% of their arms agreements with the Near East
(table 1D) .
! For the period 1996-1999, France concluded 73.1% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,
France made 16.7% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1996-1999, the United Kingdom concluded 24.6% of
its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.
In 2000-2003, the United Kingdom made 50% of its agreements
with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1996-1999, China concluded 34% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,
China made 23.8% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1996-1999, Russia concluded 15.7% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2000-2003,
Russia made 9.9% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1996-1999), the United States ranked first in
arms transfer agreements with the Near East with 47.9%. France
ranked second with 19.9%. Russia ranked third with 6.2%. The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 25.5% of this
region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003),
the United States ranked first in Near East agreements with 75.6%.
Russia ranked second with 8.1%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 4.5% of this region’s agreements in
2000-2003 (table 1E)(chart 5).
Asia.
! Asia has generally been the second largest arms market in the
developing world. Yet in 2000-2003, Asia ranked first, accounting
for 50.8% of the total value of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($33.8 billion in current dollars). In the earlier
period, 1996-1999, the region accounted for 36.8% of all such

CRS-24
agreements ($28.6 billion in current dollars), ranking second
(tables 1C and 1D).

CRS-25
Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-26
Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Asia
(supplier percentage of value)

CRS-27
! In the earlier period (1996-1999), Russia ranked first in the value of
arms transfer agreements with Asia with 35.4% ($10.1 billion in
current dollars). The United States ranked second with 21.6% ($6.2
billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 23.5% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In
the later period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in Asian
agreements with 48.8% ($16.5 billion in current dollars), primarily
due to major combat aircraft sales to India and China. The United
States ranked second with 20.6% ($7.1 billion in current dollars).
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 13% of this
region’s agreements in 2000-2003. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in
arms transfer agreements with Latin America with 22.3%. France
ranked second with 12.9%. The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 14.7% of this region’s agreements in 1996-1999. In
the later period, 2000-2003, the United States ranked first with
47.1%. Russia ranked second with 10.1%. All other non-major
European suppliers as a group, and all other non-European suppliers
collectively each made 17.6% of the region’s agreements in 2000-
2003. Latin America registered a significant decline in the total
value of its arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003,
falling from $5.4 billion in the earlier period to $4 billion in the
latter (tables 1C and 1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1996-1999, Germany ranked first in agreements
with Africa with 15.8% ($1.5 billion in current dollars). Russia,
China, and the United Kingdom tied for second with 9.5%. The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 35.8% of the
region’s agreements in 1996-1999. The United States made 1%. In
the later period, 2000-2003, Russia ranked first in agreements with
31.4% ($1.3 billion). China ranked second with 12.1% ($500
million). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made
16.9% of this region’s agreements in 2000-2003. All other European
suppliers collectively made 29% ($1.2 billion). The United States
made 3.3%. Africa registered a substantial decline in the total value
of its arms transfer agreements from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003,
falling from $9.5 billion in the earlier period to $4.1 billion in the
latter (in current dollars). The notable fall in the level of arms
agreements reflected, to an important degree, that South Africa’s
substantial new defense procurement program orders were placed
during the earlier time period (tables 1C and 1E).

CRS-28
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1996-2003: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1996-2003 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers
on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with the
developing world for each of three periods — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003.
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 2000-2003
($34.1 billion), and first for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($57.9
billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($20.1
billion), and second from 1996-2003 ($33.5 billion).
! France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($3.6 billion),
and third from 1996-2003 ($12.8 billion).
! China ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003 ($2.2 billion),
and fourth from 1996-2003 ($7.3 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked ninth among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 2000-2003
($800 million), and fifth from 1996-2003 ($6.6 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2003 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 2003 valued at $10.1 billion, 73.8% of all arms
transfer agreements made with developing nations by all suppliers
($13.7 billion).
! In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, making $6.2 billion in such agreements, or
45.4% of them.

CRS-29
! Russia ranked second and the Netherlands third in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in 2003, making $3.9 billion
and $700 million in such agreements respectively.
! France ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2003, making $500 million in such agreements, while
Poland ranked fifth with $400 million.
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1996-2003:
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 1996-1999 and 2000-
2003. 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, 2000-2003, 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); Egypt ($6.2
billion), Israel ($5.1 billion), and Saudi Arabia ($2.7 billion). The
principal purchasers of Russian arms were: Algeria, the U.A.E, and
Yemen($400 million each), Egypt ($300 million), and Iran and Syria
($200 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from China
were Egypt and Kuwait ($200 million each), and Iran and Yemen
($100 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from the four
major West European suppliers, as a group, were: Saudi
Arabia($500 million); Oman, and the U.A.E. ($300 million each).
The principal purchasers of arms from all other European suppliers
collectively were the U.A.E. ($300 million); Saudi Arabia ($200
million). The principal purchasers of arms from all other suppliers
combined were Libya ($300 million), and Kuwait and Jordan ($200
million each).
! For the period from 2000-2003, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)
made $8.1 billion in arms transfer agreements. The United States
($7.1 billion), and Russia ($400 million) were its largest suppliers.
Egypt made $6.8 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its major
supplier was the United States ($6.2 billion). Israel made $5.2
billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal supplier was the
United States ($5.1 billion). Saudi Arabia made $3.4 billion in arms
transfer agreements. Its principal suppliers were: the United States
($2.7 billion), and the four major West European suppliers
collectively ($500 million).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by China with Iran fell
from $800 million to $100 million during the periods from 1996-
1999 to 2000-2003 respectively. The value of Russia’s arms transfer

CRS-30
agreements with Iran fell from $400 million in the earlier period to
$200 million from 2000-2003.
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with
Saudi Arabia fell notably from the 1996-1999 period to the 2000-
2003 period, declining from $4.6 billion in the earlier period to $2.7
million in the later period. Saudi Arabia still made 79.4% of all its
arms transfer agreements with the United States during 2000-2003.
Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements with the United Arab Emirates
(U.A.E.) by the major West European suppliers decreased
significantly from 1996-1999 to 2000-2003, falling from $6.1 billion
to $300 million.
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
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 1996-2003 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 — 1996-
1999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003. Among the facts reflected in this table are the
following:
! The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading developing
world arms purchaser from 1996-2003, making arms transfer
agreements totaling $15.7 billion during these years (in current
dollars). In the 1996-1999 period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $7.6 billion (in current
dollars). In 2000-2003, however, China ranked first in arms transfer
agreements, with a dramatic increase to $9.3 billion from $4.4
billion in the earlier period (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
1996-2003 was $150.6 billion in current dollars. Thus the United
Arab Emirates alone was responsible for 10.4% of all developing
world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most
recent period, 2000-2003, China made $9.3 billion in arms transfer
agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted 12.8% of all
arm transfer agreements with developing nations during these years,
which totaled $72.9 billion during these years. The United Arab
Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked second in arms transfer agreements during
2000-2003 with $8.1 billion (in current dollars), or 11.1% of the
value of all developing world arms transfer agreements (tables 1,
1H, 1I and 1J).
! During 1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
62.6% of all developing world arms transfer agreements. During

CRS-31
2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 71.7%
of all such agreements (tables 1 and 1I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2003. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2003. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Egypt ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the
value of arms transfer agreements in 2003, concluding $1.8 billion
in such agreements. China ranked second with $1.6 billion.
Malaysia ranked third with $1.5 billion.
! Six of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2003 were in Asia. Four were in the Near East .
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world
recipients, as a group, in 2003 totaled $13.7 billion or 65.5% 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).
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 1996-2003. 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 2003 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17
billion) was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous
year, ($18.7 billion in constant 2003 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table
2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2003 was
37.1%, slightly down from 37.8% in 2002. In 2003, the United
States, for the eighth year in a row, ranked first in the value of arms
deliveries to developing nations ($6.3 billion) (in constant 2003
dollars), reflecting continuing implementation of post Persian Gulf
War era arms transfer agreements. The second leading supplier in
2003 was the United Kingdom, at $4 billion. The United Kingdom’s
share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2003 was 23.5%, up
from 18.7% in 2002. Russia, the third leading supplier in 2003,
made $3.3 billion in deliveries. Russia’s share of all arms deliveries

CRS-32
to developing nations in 2003 was 19.4%, up from 17.1% in 2002.
The share of major West European suppliers deliveries to
developing nations in 2003 was 32.4%, up from 27% in 2002 (tables
2A and 2B).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing
nations from 2000-2003 ($78.7 billion in constant 2003 dollars) was
dramatically lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
to developing nations from 1996-1999 ($131.4 billion in constant
2003 dollars)(table 2A).
! During the years 1996-2003, arms deliveries to developing nations
comprised 61% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2003, the
percentage of arms deliveries to developing nations was 59.1% of all
arms deliveries worldwide (tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

CRS-33
Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1996-2003
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared

CRS-34
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1996-2003
(in billions of constant 2003 dollars)

CRS-35
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1996-2003 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1996-1999
United States
91,133
56.30
Russia
12,987
86.60
France
26,161
87.60
United Kingdom
26,543
85.10
China
3,381
93.30
Germany
7,865
29.50
Italy
1,601
86.10
All Other European
16,390
69.50
All Others
10,203
49.10
TOTAL
196,264
66.90
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
2000-2003
United States
76,083
38.00
Russia
15,693
91.90
France
7,984
65.90
United Kingdom
21,136
78.20
China
2,824
96.20
Germany
4,177
29.70
Italy
1,363
15.30
All Other European
9,934
50.90
All Others
8,989
48.80
TOTAL
148,183
53.10
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Deliveries Value
Developing World
2003
United States
13,648
46.20
Russia
3,400
97.00
France
1,200
43.80
United Kingdom
4,700
85.10
China
500
100.00
Germany
1,200
58.30
Italy
100
0.00
All Other European
2,400
29.20
All Others
1,600
43.80
TOTAL
28,748
59.10

CRS-36
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1996-2003
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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 1996-1999, it accounted for
57.2% of the total value of all developing nations deliveries ($63.9
billion in current dollars). During 2000-2003 the region accounted
for 50.7% of all such deliveries ($41.4 billion in current dollars)
(tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1996-1999, the United States made 63.6% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2000-
2003, the United States made 47.4% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1996-1999, the United Kingdom made 81% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2000-
2003, the United Kingdom made 91.3% of its developing world
arms deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1996-1999, 46.2% of France’s arms deliveries to the
developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent
period, 2000-2003, 93.9% of France’s developing world deliveries
were to nations of the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1996-1999, Russia made 29.4% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2000-2003, Russia
made 9.5% of such deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to the Near East with 42.7% ($27.3 billion
in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 25.4%
($16.2 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 14.4%
($9.2 billion in current dollars). The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 41% of this region’s delivery values in
1996-1999. In the later period (2000-2003), the United States
2 Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must
be expressed in current dollar terms.

CRS-37
ranked first in Near East delivery values with 39.6% ($16.4 billion
in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 34.8%
($14.4 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 11.1%
($4.6 billion in current dollars).The major West European suppliers,
as a group, held 46.9% of this region’s delivery values in 2000-2003
(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, 1996-1999, 35.8% of all arms deliveries to developing
nations were to those in Asia ($39.9 billion in current dollars). In
the later period, 2000-2003, Asia accounted for 42.6% of such arms
deliveries ($35.4 billion in current dollars). For the period 2000-
2003, Russia made 84.7% of its developing world arms deliveries to
Asia. Germany made 53.9% of its developing world deliveries to
Asia. China made 52% of its developing world deliveries to Asia,
while the United States made 47.3% (tables 2C and 2D).
! In the period from 1996-1999, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to Asia with 34.9% ($13.9 billion in current
dollars). France ranked second with 26% ($10.4 billion in current
dollars). Russia ranked third with 13.5% ($5.4 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 38.8%
of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999 ($15.5 billion). In the
period from 2000-2003, the United States ranked first in Asian
delivery values with 47.1% ($16.4 billion in current dollars). Russia
ranked second with 33.4% ($11.6 billion in current dollars) (tables
2C and 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the value of all arms deliveries to
Latin America was $4.3 billion. The United States ranked first in
the value of arms deliveries to Latin America with 36.9% ($1.7
billion in current dollars). The United Kingdom and Russia tied for
second with 7.2% ($100 million each in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, held 18.7% of this region’s
delivery values in 1996-1999. In the later period, 2000-2003, the
United States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with
65.8% ($1.7 billion in current dollars). Russia and France tied for
second with 3.8% each. The major West European suppliers, as a
group, held 3.8% of this region’s delivery values in 2000-2003.
During 2000-2003, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin America
was $2.6 billion, a substantial decline from the $4.3 billion
deliveries total for 1996-1999 (tables 2C and 2E).

CRS-38
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1996-1999, the value of all arms deliveries to
Africa was over $3.5 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to Africa with 22.7% ($800 million in current
dollars). China ranked second with 14.2% ($500 million in current
dollars).The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 11.3%
of this region’s delivery values in 1996-1999. The United States
held 3.6%. In the later period, 2000-2003, Russia ranked first in
African delivery values with 24.2% ($700 million in current dollars).
China ranked second with 13.8% ($400 million in current dollars).
The United States held 3.3%. The other non-major European
suppliers collectively held 27.6% ($800 million in current dollars).
All other non-European suppliers collectively held 20.7% ($600
million in current dollars). During this later period, the value of all
arms deliveries to Africa decreased notably from $3.5 billion in
1996-1999 to $2.9 billion (in current dollars) (Tables 2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1996-
2003 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 — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and 1996-2003. 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 2000-2003 ($27.6
billion), and first for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($72 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked second among all suppliers to
developing nations in the value of arms deliveries from 2000-2003
($15.8 billion), and second for the entire period from 1996-2003
($35.8 billion).
! Russia ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms deliveries from 2000-2003 ($13.8 billion), and fourth
for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($23.1 billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2003 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

CRS-39
— collectively made deliveries in 2003 valued at $13.6 billion, 80%
of all arms deliveries made to developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries
to developing nations, making $6.3 billion in such agreements, or
37.1% of them.
! The United Kingdom ranked second and Russia third in deliveries
to developing nations in 2003, making $4 billion and $3.3 billion in
such deliveries respectively.
! France ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in
2003, making $800 million in such deliveries, while Germany
ranked fifth with $700 million in deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1996-2003:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1996-1999 and 2000-2003. 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, 2000-2003, the principal arms recipients
of the United States in the Near East region, based on the value of
their arms deliveries were Saudi Arabia ($6.3 billion), Egypt ($4.8
billion), Israel ($2.9 billion), and Kuwait ($1.1 billion). The
principal arms recipients of Russia were Algeria ($300 million , Iran,
Egypt and Yemen ($200 million each). The principal arms
recipients of China were Kuwait ($400 million), Egypt ($200
million), and Algeria, and Yemen ($100 million each). The
principal arms recipients of the four major West European suppliers,
as a group, were Saudi Arabia ($16.6 billion), the U.A.E. ($1.9
billion), Israel and Kuwait ($300 million each). The principal arms
recipient of all other European suppliers collectively was Saudi
Arabia ($1 billion). The principal arms recipient of all other
suppliers, as a group, was Iran ($400 million).
! For the period 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia received $23.9 billion in
arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($6.3
billion), and the four major West Europeans, as a group ($16.6
billion). Egypt received $5.4billion in arms deliveries. Its principal
supplier was the United States ($4.8 billion). Israel received $3.2
billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United
States ($2.9 billion). The U.A.E. received $2.6 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West
Europeans, as a group ($1.9 billion). Kuwait received $2.1 billion in
arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($1.1
billion). Iran received $600 million in arms deliveries. Its principal

CRS-40
suppliers were Russia ($200 million) and all other non-European
suppliers ($400 million).
! The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined
dramatically from $16.6 billion in 1996-1999 to $6.3 billion in
2000-2003, as implementation of major orders placed during the
Persian Gulf war era continued to be concluded.
! The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined dramatically
from the 1996-1999 period to the 2000-2003 period. Russian arms
deliveries fell from $900 million to $200 million.
! Chinese arms deliveries to Iran dropped substantially from 1996-
1999 to 2000-2003, falling from $700 million in 1996-1999 to nil in
2000-2003.
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of
arms in the developing world from 1996-2003 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 — 1996-1999, 2000-2003 and
1996-2003. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were the top two developing world
recipients of arms from 1996-2003, receiving deliveries valued at
$61.1 billion and $19.4 billion, respectively, during these years. The
total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations from 1996-
2003 was $188.7 billion in current dollars (see table 2). Thus,
Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 32.4% and 10.3%,
respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these eight
years — together 32.7% of the total. In the most recent period —
2000-2003 — Saudi Arabia and China ranked first and second in the
value of arms received by developing nations ($23.9 billion and $6.9
billion, respectively, in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and
China accounted for 41% of all developing world arms deliveries
($30.8 billion out of $75.2 billion — the value of all deliveries to
developing nations in 2000-2003 (in current dollars).
! For the 2000-2003 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $23.9 billion
in arms deliveries (in current dollars), or 31.8% of all deliveries to
developing nations during this period.
! During 1996-1999, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
74.5% of all developing world arms deliveries. During 2000-2003,
the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 75.6% of all such
deliveries (tables 2 and 2I).

CRS-41
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2003. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2003. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2003
among developing nations, receiving $5.8 billion in such deliveries,
or 34.1% of all deliveries to developing nations. Egypt ranked
second with $2.1 billion. India ranked third with $2 billion (tables
2 and 2J).
! Arms deliveries in 2003 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $15.2 billion, or 89.4% of all developing
nations deliveries. Six of the top ten arms recipients in the
developing world in 2003 were in the Asian region; four were in the
Near East region (tables 2 and 2J).

CRS-42
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
6,568
2,913
6,119
8,238
12,358
6,872
8,635
6,242
57,945
Russia
4,500
3,200
2,100
3,600
6,000
5,000
5,200
3,900
33,500
France
1,100
4,500
2,400
1,200
2,100
600
400
500
12,800
United Kingdom
2,700
1,000
1,000
1,100
0
200
600
0
6,600
China
1,000
1,300
500
2,300
600
1,000
300
300
7,300
Germany
100
100
1,500
2,000
900
100
100
0
4,800
Italy
300
300
0
500
100
200
0
300
1,700
All Other European
3,000
1,500
1,400
4,000
1,700
1,300
1,000
1,700
15,600
All Others
2,000
600
1,200
1,900
1,900
1,300
700
800
10,400
TOTAL
21,268
15,413
16,219
24,838
25,658
16,572
16,935
13,742
150,645
*Dollar inflation
Index:(2003=1.00)
0.8332
0.8507
0.874
0.8949
0.919
0.9458
0.9732
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-43
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
7,883
3,424
7,001
9,205
13,447
7,266
8,873
6,242
63,341
Russia
5,401
3,762
2,403
4,023
6,529
5,287
5,343
3,900
36,648
France
1,320
5,290
2,746
1,341
2,285
634
411
500
14,527
United Kingdom
3,241
1,176
1,144
1,229
0
211
617
0
7,618
China
1,200
1,528
572
2,570
653
1,057
308
300
8,188
Germany
120
118
1,716
2,235
979
106
103
0
5,377
Italy
360
353
0
559
109
211
0
300
1,892
All Other European
3,601
1,763
1,602
4,470
1,850
1,374
1,028
1,700
17,388
All Others
2,400
705
1,373
2,123
2,067
1,374
719
800
11,561
TOTAL
25,526
18,119
18,557
27,755
27,919
17,520
17,402
13,742
166,540

CRS-44
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
United States
30.88%
18.90%
37.73%
33.17%
48.16%
41.47%
50.99%
45.42%
Russia
21.16%
20.76%
12.95%
14.49%
23.38%
30.17%
30.71%
28.38%
France
5.17%
29.20%
14.80%
4.83%
8.18%
3.62%
2.36%
3.64%
United Kingdom
12.70%
6.49%
6.17%
4.43%
0.00%
1.21%
3.54%
0.00%
China
4.70%
8.43%
3.08%
9.26%
2.34%
6.03%
1.77%
2.18%
Germany
0.47%
0.65%
9.25%
8.05%
3.51%
0.60%
0.59%
0.00%
Italy
1.41%
1.95%
0.00%
2.01%
0.39%
1.21%
0.00%
2.18%
All Other European
14.11%
9.73%
8.63%
16.10%
6.63%
7.84%
5.90%
12.37%
All Others
9.40%
3.89%
7.40%
7.65%
7.41%
7.84%
4.13%
5.82%

[Major West European*
19.75%
38.28%
30.21%
19.33%
12.08%
6.64%
6.50%
5.82% ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-45
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
6,166
7,084
16,335
18,583
1,238
1,871
98
137
Russia
10,100
16,500
2,100
2,000
300
400
900
1,300
France
1,200
2,900
6,800
600
700
0
600
100
United Kingdom
3,400
400
1,400
400
0
0
900
0
China
2,300
1,100
1,700
500
100
0
900
500
Germany
1,600
1,000
400
0
0
100
1,500
0
Italy
500
100
100
100
100
200
400
200
All Other European
1,400
2,200
3,500
1,300
1,800
700
3,200
1,200
All Others
1,900
2,500
1,800
1,100
1,200
700
1,000
700
[Major West
6,700
4,400
8,700
1,100
800
300
3,400
300 ]
European*
TOTAL
28,566
33,784
34,135
24,583
5,438
3,971
9,498
4,137
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-46
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1996-2003
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
25.87%
25.60%
68.53%
67.15%
5.19%
6.76%
0.41%
0.50%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
75.37%
81.68%
15.67%
9.90%
2.24%
1.98%
6.72%
6.44%
100.00%
100.00%
France
12.90%
80.56%
73.12%
16.67%
7.53%
0.00%
6.45%
2.78%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
59.65%
50.00%
24.56%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
15.79%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
China
46.00%
52.38%
34.00%
23.81%
2.00%
0.00%
18.00%
23.81%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
45.71%
90.91%
11.43%
0.00%
0.00%
9.09%
42.86%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
45.45%
16.67%
9.09%
16.67%
9.09%
33.33%
36.36%
33.33%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
14.14%
40.74%
35.35%
24.07%
18.18%
12.96%
32.32%
22.22%
100.00%
100.00%
European
All Others
32.20%
50.00%
30.51%
22.00%
20.34%
14.00%
16.95%
14.00%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
34.18%
72.13%
44.39%
18.03%
4.08%
4.92%
17.35%
4.92%
100.00%
100.00% ]
European*
TOTAL
36.79%
50.82%
43.97%
36.98%
7.00%
5.97%
12.23%
6.22%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-47
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1996-2003
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
21.59%
20.59%
47.85%
75.59%
22.77%
47.12%
1.03%
3.31%
Russia
35.36%
48.84%
6.15%
8.14%
5.52%
10.07%
9.48%
31.42%
France
4.20%
8.58%
19.92%
2.44%
12.87%
0.00%
6.32%
2.42%
United Kingdom
11.90%
1.18%
4.10%
1.63%
0.00%
0.00%
9.48%
0.00%
China
8.05%
3.26%
4.98%
2.03%
1.84%
0.00%
9.48%
12.09%
Germany
5.60%
2.96%
1.17%
0.00%
0.00%
2.52%
15.79%
0.00%
Italy
1.75%
0.30%
0.29%
0.41%
1.84%
5.04%
4.21%
4.83%
All Other
4.90%
6.51%
10.25%
5.29%
33.10%
17.63%
33.69%
29.01%
European
All Others
6.65%
7.40%
5.27%
4.47%
22.07%
17.63%
10.53%
16.92%
[Major West European*
23.45%
13.02%
25.49%
4.47%
14.71%
7.55%
35.80%
7.25% ]
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-48
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1996-1999
1
United States
23,838
2
Russia
13,400
3
France
9,200
4
United Kingdom
5,800
5
China
5,100
6
Germany
3,700
7
Sweden
2,400
8
Israel
1,700
9
Ukraine
1,600
10
Belarus
1,600
11
Italy
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2000-2003
1
United States*
34,107
2
Russia
20,100
3
France
3,600
4
China
2,200
5
Israel
1,500
6
Ukraine
1,500
7
Germany
1,100
8
Spain
800
9
United Kingdom
800
10
Netherlands
800
11
Italy
600
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1996-2003
1
United States*
57,945
2
Russia
33,500
3
France
12,800
4
China
7,300
5
United Kingdom
6,600
6
Germany
4,800
7
Israel
3,200
8
Ukraine
3,100
9
Sweden
2,500
10
Belarus
1,900
11
Italy
1,700
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 United States total includes a $6.432 billion licensed
commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-49
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2003
1
United States
6,242
2
Russia
3,900
3
Netherlands
700
4
France
500
5
Poland
400
6
Israel
400
7
Ukraine
300
8
China
300
9
Italy
300
10
Czech Republic
100
11
Spain
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-50
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
1996-1999
Algeria
0
500
200
0
800
0
1,500
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
5,800
400
400
100
100
0
6,800
Iran
0
400
800
100
100
300
1,700
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
4,300
0
0
100
0
300
4,700
Jordan
300
0
0
300
0
100
700
Kuwait
500
0
200
100
0
100
900
Lebanon
0
0
0
100
0
0
100
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
600
700
Morocco
0
0
0
200
200
200
600
Oman
0
0
0
300
0
0
300
Qatar
0
0
0
800
0
0
800
Saudi Arabia
4,600
0
0
500
900
0
6,000
Syria
0
300
0
100
100
0
500
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
200
400
0
6,100
800
100
7,600
Yemen
0
0
0
200
300
200
700
2000-2003
Algeria
0
400
0
0
100
0
500
Bahrain
400
0
0
0
0
0
400
Egypt
6,200
300
200
100
0
0
6,800
Iran
0
200
100
0
100
100
500
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Israel
5,100
0
0
0
100
0
5,200
Jordan
700
0
0
0
100
200
1,000
Kuwait
1,700
100
200
0
0
200
2,200
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
300
500
Morocco
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Oman
900
0
0
300
0
0
1,200
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
2,700
0
0
500
200
0
3,400
Syria
0
200
0
100
0
100
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.**
7,100
400
0
300
300
0
8,100
Yemen
0
400
100
0
100
0
600
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 2000-2003
includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

CRS-51
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1996-1999
1
U.A.E.
7,600
2
Egypt
6,800
3
Saudi Arabia
6,000
4
India
6,000
5
South Africa
5,200
6
Israel
4,700
7
China
4,400
8
South Korea
3,900
9
Pakistan
2,300
10
Malaysia
1,900
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 2000-2003
1
China
9,300
2
U.A.E.*
8,100
3
Egypt
6,800
4
India
6,600
5
Israel
5,200
6
South Korea
4,900
7
Saudi Arabia
3,400
8
Malaysia
3,000
9
Singapore
2,800
10
Kuwait
2,200
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1996-2003
1
U.A.E.*
15,700
2
China
13,700
3
Egypt
13,600
4
India
12,600
5
Israel
9,900
6
Saudi Arabia
9,400
7
South Korea
8,800
8
South Africa
5,300
9
Malaysia
5,000
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. *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-52
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2003:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2003
1
Egypt
1,800
2
China
1,600
3
Malaysia
1,500
4
Indonesia
900
5
Saudi Arabia
700
6
Israel
700
7
South Korea
600
8
India
400
9
Jordan
400
10
Taiwan
400
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-53
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
9,915
11,204
10,834
12,415
8,398
6,090
6,859
6,299
72,014
Russia
2,600
1,900
2,200
2,600
3,500
3,900
3,100
3,300
23,100
France
3,200
6,100
6,500
4,000
1,900
900
1,400
800
24,800
United Kingdom
5,800
6,400
3,300
4,500
4,700
3,700
3,400
4,000
35,800
China
700
1,100
600
300
700
600
800
500
5,300
Germany
700
400
200
700
400
100
0
700
3,200
Italy
100
400
200
500
0
100
100
0
1,400
All Other European
2,500
3,100
2,100
2,100
1,900
1,000
1,200
700
14,600
All Others
1,300
1,200
1,000
800
900
1,300
1,300
700
8,500
TOTAL
26,815
31,804
26,934
27,915
22,398
17,690
18,159
16,999
188,714
Dollar inflation index:
(2003=1.00)*
0.8332
0.8507
0.874
0.8949
0.919
0.9458
0.9732
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-54
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
11,900
13,170
12,396
13,873
9,138
6,439
7,048
6,299
80,263
Russia
3,120
3,056
2,174
2,905
3,808
4,123
3,185
3,300
25,671
France
3,841
7,171
7,437
4,470
2,067
952
1,439
800
28,177
United Kingdom
6,961
6,818
3,776
5,028
5,114
3,912
3,494
4,000
39,103
China
840
1,293
686
335
762
634
822
500
5,872
Germany
840
470
229
782
435
106
0
700
3,562
Italy
120
470
229
559
0
106
103
0
1,587
All Other European
3,000
3,644
2,403
2,347
2,067
1,057
1,233
700
16,451
All Others
1,560
1,411
1,144
894
979
1,374
1,336
700
9,398
TOTAL
32,182
37,503
30,474
31,193
26,370
18,703
18,660
16,999
210,084

CRS-55
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
United States
36.98%
35.23%
40.22%
44.47%
37.49%
34.43%
37.77%
37.06%
Russia
9.70%
5.97%
8.17%
9.31%
15.63%
22.05%
17.07%
19.41%
France
11.93%
19.18%
24.13%
14.33%
8.48%
5.09%
7.71%
4.71%
United Kingdom
21.63%
20.12%
12.25%
16.12%
20.98%
20.92%
18.72%
23.53%
China
2.61%
3.46%
2.23%
1.07%
3.13%
3.39%
4.41%
2.94%
Germany
2.61%
1.26%
0.74%
2.51%
1.79%
0.57%
0.00%
4.12%
Italy
0.37%
1.26%
0.74%
1.79%
0.00%
0.57%
0.55%
0.00%
All Other European
9.32%
9.75%
7.80%
7.52%
8.48%
5.65%
6.61%
4.12%
All Others
4.85%
3.77%
3.71%
2.87%
4.02%
7.35%
7.16%
4.12%
[Major West European*
36.55%
41.82%
37.87%
34.75%
31.25%
27.13%
26.98%
32.35%
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-56
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
13,944
16,360
27,300
16,400
1,584
1,732
126
95
Russia
5,400
11,600
2,700
1,300
300
100
800
700
France
10,400
200
9,200
4,600
200
100
100
0
United Kingdom
3,300
1,200
16,200
14,400
300
0
200
0
China
1,200
1,300
800
800
100
0
500
400
Germany
1,000
700
700
400
300
0
0
200
Italy
800
700
100
0
0
0
100
100
All Other European
1,900
1,100
5,600
2,100
1,000
400
1,000
800
All Others
2,000
2,200
1,300
1,400
500
300
700
600
[Major West European*
15,500
2,200
26,200
19,400
800
100
400
300]
TOTAL
39,944
35,360
63,900
41,400
4,284
2,632
3,526
2,895
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-57
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1996-2003
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
32.46%
47.30%
63.56%
47.42%
3.69%
5.01%
0.29%
0.27%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
58.70%
84.67%
29.35%
9.49%
3.26%
0.73%
8.70%
5.11%
100.00%
100.00%
France
52.26%
4.08%
46.23%
93.88%
1.01%
2.04%
0.50%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
16.50%
7.69%
81.00%
92.31%
1.50%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
China
46.15%
52.00%
30.77%
32.00%
3.85%
0.00%
19.23%
16.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
50.00%
53.85%
35.00%
30.77%
15.00%
0.00%
0.00%
15.38%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
80.00%
50.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
50.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
20.00%
25.00%
58.95%
47.73%
10.53%
9.09%
10.53%
18.18%
100.00%
100.00%
All Others
44.44%
48.89%
28.89%
31.11%
11.11%
6.67%
15.56%
13.33%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West European*
36.13%
10.00%
61.07%
88.18%
1.86%
0.45%
0.93%
1.36%
100.00%
100.00% ]
TOTAL
35.77%
42.55%
57.23%
50.68%
3.84%
3.22%
3.16%
3.54%
100.00%
100.00%
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-58
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1996-2003
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
1996-99
2000-03
United States
34.91%
47.07%
42.72%
39.61%
36.97%
65.81%
3.57%
3.28%
Russia
13.52%
33.37%
4.23%
3.14%
7.00%
3.80%
22.69%
24.18%
France
26.04%
0.58%
14.40%
11.11%
4.67%
3.80%
2.84%
0.00%
United Kingdom
8.26%
3.45%
25.35%
34.78%
7.00%
0.00%
5.67%
0.00%
China
3.00%
3.74%
1.25%
1.93%
2.33%
0.00%
14.18%
13.82%
Germany
2.50%
2.01%
1.10%
0.97%
7.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.91%
Italy
2.00%
0.29%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.84%
3.45%
All Other European
4.76%
3.16%
8.76%
5.07%
23.34%
15.20%
28.36%
27.63%
All Others
5.01%
6.33%
2.03%
3.38%
11.67%
11.40%
19.85%
20.73%
[Major West European*
38.80%
6.33%
41.00%
46.86%
18.67%
3.80%
11.34%
10.36%]
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-59
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1996-1999
1
United States
44,368
2
United Kingdom
20,000
3
France
19,800
4
Russia
9,300
5
China
2,700
6
Sweden
2,500
7
Germany
2,000
8
Ukraine
1,600
9
Israel
1,300
10
Belarus
1,200
11
Italy
1,200
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2000-2003
1
United States
27,646
2
United Kingdom
15,800
3
Russia
13,800
4
France
5,000
5
China
2,600
6
Israel
1,200
7
Ukraine
1,200
8
Germany
1,200
9
North Korea
600
10
Sweden
600
11
Belgium
500
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1996-2003
1
United States
72,014
2
United Kingdom
35,800
3
France
24,800
4
Russia
23,100
5
China
5,300
6
Germany
3,200
7
Sweden
3,100
8
Ukraine
2,800
9
Israel
2,500
10
Belarus
1,700
11
Italy
1,400
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-60
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2003
1
United States
6,299
2
United Kingdom
4,000
3
Russia
3,300
4
France
800
5
Germany
700
6
China
500
7
Israel
400
8
Ukraine
300
9
Belgium
100
10
South 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-61
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
1996-1999
Algeria
0
400
100
0
500
200
1,200
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
3,500
400
0
100
400
0
4,400
Iran
0
900
700
100
300
0
2,000
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
3,500
0
0
700
0
300
4,500
Jordan
200
0
0
0
0
100
300
Kuwait
2,500
400
0
1,400
100
0
4,400
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Morocco
100
0
0
200
100
200
600
Oman
0
0
0
400
100
100
600
Qatar
0
0
0
1,800
0
0
1,800
Saudi Arabia
16,600
0
0
17,600
3,000
0
37,200
Syria
0
300
0
100
0
100
500
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
100
0
200
U.A.E.
400
300
0
3,600
700
100
5,100
Yemen
0
0
0
100
200
100
400
2000-2003
Algeria
0
300
100
0
200
100
700
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
4,800
200
200
100
100
0
5,400
Iran
0
200
0
0
0
400
600
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Israel
2,900
0
0
300
0
0
3,200
Jordan
300
0
0
100
100
100
600
Kuwait
1,100
100
400
300
0
200
2,100
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
200
400
Morocco
100
0
0
100
100
0
300
Oman
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
6,300
0
0
16,600
1,000
0
23,900
Syria
0
100
0
0
0
100
200
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
300
100
0
1,900
200
100
2,600
Yemen
0
200
100
0
200
100
600
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-62
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1996-2003:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1996-1999
1
Saudi Arabia
37,200
2
Taiwan
15,300
3
South Korea
5,200
4
U.A.E.
5,100
5
Israel
4,500
6
Egypt
4,400
7
Kuwait
4,400
8
China 3,300
9
Pakistan
3,000
10
Malaysia
2,100
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2000-2003
1
Saudi Arabia
23,900
2
China
6,900
3
Egypt
5,400
4
India
4,300
5
Taiwan
4,100
6
Israel
3,200
7
South Korea
3,100
8
U.A.E.
2,600
9
Kuwait
2,100
10
Pakistan
1,300
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1996-2003
1
Saudi Arabia
61,100
2
Taiwan
19,400
3
China
10,200
4
Egypt
9,800
5
South Korea
8,300
6
Israel
7,700
7
U.A.E.
7,700
8
Kuwait
6,500
9
India
6,000
10
Pakistan
4,300
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-63
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2003:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2003
1
Saudi Arabia
5,800
2
Egypt
2,100
3
India
2,000
4
Israel
1,900
5
China
1,000
6
South Korea
700
7
Malaysia
600
8
Taiwan
500
9
Kuwait
300
10
Indonesia
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-64
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1996-2003
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 1996-2003 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, 2000-2003
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the
United States was a leading supplier of several major classes of
conventional weaponry from 2000-2003. Russia transferred
significant quantities of certain weapons classes, although generally
fewer 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 2000-2003 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, all European suppliers, China and all other non-
European suppliers were major sources of weapons delivered.
! 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,

CRS-65
such as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery pieces,
and the various missile categories, surface-to-surface, surface-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 2000-2003 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 310 tanks and self-propelled guns, 310 APCs and armored
cars, 5 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface combatants, 1 submarine, 200
supersonic combat aircraft, 220 helicopters, 1,250 surface-to-air missiles, and 190
anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 88 tanks and self-propelled guns,
108 artillery pieces, 8 major surface combatants, 16 supersonic combat aircraft, 81
helicopters, 2,557 surface-to-air missiles, and 232 anti-ship missiles. China
delivered 40 tanks and self-propelled guns, 370 artillery pieces, 310 APCs and
armored cars, 2 minor surface combatants, 60 supersonic combat aircraft, and 490
surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European suppliers as a group
delivered 2 major surface combatants, 4 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters,
and 80 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 120
tanks and self-propelled guns, 120 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface
combatant, 22 minor surface combatants, 2 submarines, 10 supersonic combat
aircraft, 10 helicopters, and 60 surface-to-surface missiles. All other non-European
suppliers collectively delivered 130 artillery pieces, 80 APCs and armored cars, 3
major surface combatants, 20 minor surface combatants, and 30 supersonic combat
aircraft.
Near East.
Russia delivered 70 tanks and self-propelled guns, 150 APCs and armored cars,
30 supersonic combat aircraft, 50 helicopters, 880 surface-to-air missiles, and 30
anti-ship missiles. The United States delivered 276 tanks and self-propelled guns,
46 APCs and armored cars, 26 supersonic combat aircraft, 14 helicopters, 374
surface-to-air missiles, and 63 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 40 APCs and
armored cars, 1 guided missile boat, and 20 anti-ship missiles. The four major West
European suppliers collectively delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 4
major surface combatants, 27 minor surface combatants, 4 guided missile boats, 1
submarines, 30 helicopters, and 90 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers
as a group delivered 420 tanks and self-propelled guns, 220 APCs and armored cars,
1 major surface combatant, 9 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat
aircraft, and 380 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers collectively delivered
120 APCs and armored cars, 48 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters, 20
surface-to-surface missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles.

CRS-66
Latin America.
Russia delivered 10 helicopters, and 60 surface-to-air missiles. The United
States delivered 24 artillery pieces, 2 major surface combatants, 4 supersonic combat
aircraft, 25 helicopters, and 13 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 10 minor surface
combatants, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European
suppliers collectively delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2 major surface
combatants, 1 minor surface combatants, and 50 surface-to-air missiles. All other
European suppliers collectively delivered 120 tanks and self-propelled guns, 30
helicopters, and 40 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as
a group delivered 20 artillery pieces, 40 surface-to-air missiles, and 30 anti-ship
missiles.
Africa.
Russia delivered 10 tanks and self-propelled guns, 20 artillery pieces, 9 minor
surface combatants, and 10 helicopters. The United States delivered 8 other aircraft.
China delivered 60 tanks and self-propelled guns, 10 APCs and armored cars, 9
minor surface combatants, and 10 helicopters. The four major West European
suppliers collectively delivered 1 major surface combatant, 6 minor surface
combatants, and 10 helicopters. All other European suppliers collectively delivered
150 tanks and self-propelled guns, 440 artillery pieces, 440 APCs and armored cars,
6 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, 40 helicopters, and 90
surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 60
tanks and self-propelled guns, 380 artillery pieces, 330 APCs and armored cars, 15
minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat aircraft, and 60 helicopters, and 20
surface-to-air missiles.

CRS-67
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
1996-1999
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,202
340
240
340
1,250
120
Guns
Artillery
199
200
180
110
370
970
APCs and Armored Cars
1,705
720
120
790
2,170
390
Major Surface Combatants
3
1
1
17
11
2
Minor Surface Combatants
33
5
24
42
92
67
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
9
14
0
3
Submarines
0
5
0
9
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
386
140
80
110
70
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
10
0
70
30
30
Other Aircraft
51
30
60
80
150
120
Helicopters
169
240
0
70
120
40
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,021
1,480
770
1,750
2,460
850
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
30
Anti-Ship Missiles
266
100
250
170
0
10
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
200
390
100
320
810
90
Guns
Artillery
203
30
440
90
590
540
APCs and Armored Cars
67
460
360
50
780
530
Major Surface Combatants
12
5
0
9
2
3
Minor Surface Combatants
2
11
21
38
37
83
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
4
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
1
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
46
230
60
0
70
50
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
0
0
30
10
0
Other Aircraft
43
50
90
110
110
110
Helicopters
120
290
10
60
80
90
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,953
2,190
540
50
570
540
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
20
Anti-Ship Missiles
308
220
20
170
0
50
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-68
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
1996-1999
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
476
30
100
0
340
0
Artillery
148
60
50
40
40
840
APCs and Armored Cars
58
70
120
180
70
90
Major Surface Combatants
1
1
1
12
1
2
Minor Surface Combatants
8
5
17
13
6
49
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
4
0
0
0
Submarines
0
3
0
6
0
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
284
80
60
80
0
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
60
10
0
Other Aircraft
15
0
40
10
20
40
Helicopters
56
90
0
10
20
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
148
1,340
350
1,650
100
80
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
10
Anti-Ship Missiles
201
100
90
60
0
0
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
88
310
40
0
120
20
Artillery
108
10
370
10
90
130
APCs and Armored Cars
20
310
310
20
120
80
Major Surface Combatants
8
5
0
2
1
3
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
2
4
22
20
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
0
2
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
16
200
60
0
10
30
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
0
0
30
0
0
Other Aircraft
8
20
30
0
40
50
Helicopters
81
220
0
20
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,557
1,250
490
0
60
480
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
232
190
0
80
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-69
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
1996-1999
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
393
290
0
280
140
0
Artillery
34
40
30
10
110
20
APCs and Armored Cars
1,576
510
0
370
1,820
40
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
4
0
0
18
8
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
5
8
0
0
Submarines
0
2
0
2
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
102
20
10
30
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
10
0
0
Other Aircraft
17
10
10
30
40
40
Helicopters
62
50
0
20
30
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
799
140
300
30
0
20
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
20
Anti-Ship Missiles
57
0
160
70
0
0
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
276
70
0
290
420
10
Artillery
71
0
50
70
30
10
APCs and Armored Cars
46
150
40
20
220
120
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
4
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
0
27
9
48
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
4
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
26
30
0
0
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
26
0
30
90
40
30
Helicopters
14
50
0
30
0
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
374
880
0
0
380
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
20
Anti-Ship Missiles
63
30
20
90
0
20
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-70
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
1996-1999
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
50
280
20
Artillery
17
0
0
50
70
30
APCs and Armored Cars
71
30
0
160
50
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
3
8
0
Minor Surface Combatants
18
0
0
3
71
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
6
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
1
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
20
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
0
20
20
Other Aircraft
19
20
0
30
40
20
Helicopters
51
70
0
30
20
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
74
0
120
70
1,110
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
8
0
0
40
0
10
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
30
120
0
Artillery
24
0
0
10
30
20
APCs and Armored Cars
1
0
0
0
0
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
10
1
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
1
0
0
20
20
20
Helicopters
25
10
0
0
30
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
22
60
50
50
40
40
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
13
0
0
0
0
30
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-71
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
1996-1999
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
20
140
10
490
100
Artillery
0
100
0
10
150
80
APCs and Armored Cars
0
110
0
80
230
260
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
3
0
7
8
7
12
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
1
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
40
10
0
30
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
0
0
10
10
50
20
Helicopters
0
30
0
10
50
30
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
1,250
750
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
10
60
0
150
60
Artillery
0
20
20
0
440
380
APCs and Armored Cars
0
0
10
10
440
330
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
9
9
6
6
15
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
40
20
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Other Aircraft
8
30
30
0
10
10
Helicopters
0
10
10
10
40
60
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
90
20
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-72
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1996-2003
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 1996-2003 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 1996-1999,
2000-2003, and 2003. 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, 1996-2003
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 2003 U.S. dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms
transfer agreements from 2000-2003, and first for the entire period from 1996-2003
(figure 1) (table 8C).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2000-2003, and second from 1996-2003.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2000-2003, and third from 1996-2003.
! In 2003, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was $25.6 billion.
This is the lowest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements, in real terms, for
any year since 1997.
! In 2003, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the
world, making $14.5 billion in such agreements, or 56.7% of all arms transfer
agreements. Russia ranked second with $4.3 billion in arms transfer agreements,
or 16.8% of all arms transfer agreements. Germany ranked third with $1.4 billion.
United States arms transfer agreements increased from $13.6 billion in 2002 to
$14.5 billion in 2003. The U.S. share of agreements rose from 46.8% to 56.7%.
Russia’s worldwide arms transfer agreements fell about $6 billion in 2002 to $4.3
billion in 2003 (table 8A)(table 8B)(table 8D).
! The United States and Russia, the top two arms suppliers to the world in 2003 —
respectively (ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements) collectively
made agreements in 2003 valued at over $18.8 billion, 73.5% of all arms transfer
agreements made with the world by all suppliers.
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 2000-2003 ($126.9
billion) was lower than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers
worldwide from 1996-1999 ($133.7 billion), a decline of 5.1% (figure 1).

CRS-73
! During the period from 1996-1999, developing world nations accounted for 67.3%
of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing
world nations accounted for 60.4% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 2003, developing nations were recipients of 53.6% of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1996-2003
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1996-2003. 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 2003 U.S. dollars.
! In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide,
making $13.6 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that United
States has led in such deliveries, reflecting continuing implementation of arms
agreements concluded during and immediately after the Persian Gulf war. The U.S.
total, however, is a significant decline from 2002 when its delivery values totaled
over $24.5 billion (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).
! The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2003, making
$4.7 billion in such deliveries.
! Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2003, making $3.4 billion in
such deliveries.
! In 2003, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Russia, collectively delivered over $21.7 billion, 75.7% of all arms
deliveries made worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2003 was 47.5%, down notably
from its 58.6% share in 2002. The United Kingdom’s share in 2003 was 16.4%, up
from 11.8% in 2002. Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in 2003 was 11.8%,
up from 8.1% in 2002 (table 9B).
! In 2003, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was $28.7 billion, a substantial
decline in the total value of deliveries from 2002 ($41.9 billion in constant 2003
dollars), and the lowest deliveries total by far during the entire period from 1996-
2003 (chart 7) (table 9A).
! During the period from 1996-1999, developing world nations accounted for 66.9%
of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 2000-2003, developing world
nations accounted for 53.1% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).
! In 2003, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 59.1% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide (figure 2).
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 2000-2003
($148.2 billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all

CRS-74
suppliers worldwide from 1996-1999 ($196.3 billion in constant 2003 dollars), a
decline of 12.5% (figure 2)(table 9A).

CRS-75
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
10,527
7,187
9,652
11,884
17,799
11,786
13,258
14,543
96,636
Russia
4,900
3,400
2,500
4,500
6,200
5,200
5,800
4,300
36,800
France
2,500
4,900
3,100
1,700
4,300
3,900
400
1,000
21,800
United Kingdom
4,900
1,000
2,000
1,400
600
500
800
100
11,300
China
1,000
1,300
700
2,900
600
1,000
300
300
8,100
Germany
200
600
5,000
4,400
1,200
1,200
1,100
1,400
15,100
Italy
400
300
600
700
200
700
1,000
600
4,500
All Other European
4,000
1,900
1,900
5,700
4,600
3,500
4,000
2,300
27,900
All Others
3,400
700
1,500
2,300
2,200
1,600
1,700
1,100
14,500
TOTAL
31,827
21,287
26,952
35,484
37,699
29,386
28,358
25,643
236,636
Dollar inflation index:
(2003=1.00)*
0.8332
0.8507
0.874
0.8949
0.919
0.9458
0.9732
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-76
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
12,634
8,448
11,043
13,280
19,368
12,461
13,623
14,543
105,400
Russia
5,881
3,997
2,860
5,028
6,746
5,498
5,960
4,300
40,270
France
3,000
5,760
3,547
1,900
4,679
4,123
411
1,000
24,420
United Kingdom
5,881
1,176
2,288
1,564
653
529
822
100
13,013
China
1,220
1,528
801
3,241
653
1,057
308
300
9,088
Germany
240
705
5,721
4,917
1,306
1,269
1,130
1,400
16,688
Italy
480
353
686
782
218
740
1,028
600
4,887
All Other European
4,801
2,233
2,174
6,369
5,005
3,701
4,110
2,300
30,693
All Others
4,081
823
1,716
2,570
2,394
1,692
1,747
1,100
16,123
TOTAL
38,198
25,023
30,836
39,651
41,022
31,070
29,139
25,643
260,582

CRS-77
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
United States
33.08%
33.76%
35.81%
33.49%
47.21%
40.11%
46.75%
56.71%
Russia
15.40%
15.97%
9.28%
12.68%
16.45%
17.70%
20.45%
16.77%
France
7.85%
23.02%
11.50%
4.79%
11.41%
13.27%
1.41%
3.90%
United Kingdom
15.40%
4.70%
7.42%
3.95%
1.59%
1.70%
2.82%
0.39%
China
3.14%
6.11%
2.60%
8.17%
1.59%
3.40%
1.06%
1.17%
Germany
0.63%
2.82%
18.55%
12.40%
3.18%
4.08%
3.88%
5.46%
Italy
1.26%
1.41%
2.23%
1.97%
0.53%
2.38%
3.53%
2.34%
All Other European
12.57%
8.93%
7.05%
16.06%
12.20%
11.91%
14.11%
8.97%
All Others
10.68%
3.29%
5.57%
6.48%
5.84%
5.44%
5.99%
4.29%
[Major West European*
25.14%
31.94%
39.70%
23.11%
16.71%
21.44%
11.64%
12.09%
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-78
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1996-
2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1996-1999
1
United States
39,250
2
Russia
15,300
3
France
12,200
4
Germany
10,200
5
United Kingdom
9,300
6
China
5,900
7
Sweden
3,600
8
Israel
3,300
9
Italy
2,000
10
Ukraine
2,000
11
Belarus
1,600

Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2000-2003
1
United States*
57,386
2
Russia
21,500
3
France
9,600
4
Germany
4,900
5
Ukraine
3,600
6
Israel
3,200
7
Spain
2,600
8
Italy
2,500
9
China
2,200
10
United Kingdom
2,000
11
Sweden
1,400
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1996-2003
1
United States*
96,636
2
Russia
36,800
3
France
21,800
4
Germany
15,100
5
United Kingdom
11,300
6
China
8,100
7
Israel
6,500
8
Ukraine
5,600
9
Sweden
5,000
10
Italy
4,500
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-79
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with
the World in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2003
1
United States
14,543
2
Russia
4,300
3
Germany
1,400
4
France
1,000
5
Netherlands
800
6
Israel
800
7
Italy
600
8
Poland
400
9
Ukraine
400
10
Switzerland
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-80
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996-2003
United States
15,122
16,614
29,061
18,081
13,127
22,342
23,872
13,648
151,867
Russia
3,300
2,300
2,400
3,200
4,100
4,200
3,300
3,400
26,200
France
3,900
6,700
7,300
4,700
2,500
1,900
2,000
1,200
30,200
United Kingdom
6,500
7,300
3,900
5,100
6,200
4,500
4,800
4,700
43,000
China
700
1,100
700
400
700
700
800
500
5,600
Germany
1,900
1,200
1,500
2,200
1,300
700
800
1,200
10,800
Italy
100
400
200
700
300
400
500
100
2,700
All Other European
3,500
4,400
3,300
2,900
2,900
2,100
2,100
2,400
23,600
All Others
2,100
2,500
1,900
2,300
2,100
2,300
2,600
1,600
17,400
TOTAL
37,122
42,514
50,261
39,581
33,227
39,142
40,772
28,748
311,367
Dollar inflation index:
(2003=1.00)*
0.8332
0.8507
0.874
0.8949
0.919
0.9458
0.9732
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-81
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1996-2003
(in millions of constant 2003 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1996- 2003
United States
18,148
19,530
33,251
20,204
14,284
23,622
24,529
13,648
167,217
Russia
3,961
2,704
2,746
3,576
4,461
4,441
3,391
3,400
28,680
France
4,681
7,876
8,352
5,252
2,720
2,009
2,055
1,200
34,145
United Kingdom
7,801
8,581
4,462
5,699
6,746
4,758
4,932
4,700
47,679
China
840
1,293
801
447
762
740
822
500
6,205
Germany
2,280
1,411
1,716
2,458
1,415
740
822
1,200
12,042
Italy
120
470
229
782
326
423
514
100
2,964
All Other European
4,201
5,172
3,776
3,241
3,156
2,220
2,158
2,400
26,324
All Others
2,520
2,939
2,174
2,570
2,285
2,432
2,672
1,600
19,192
TOTAL
44,553
49,976
57,507
44,229
36,155
41,385
41,895
28,748
344,448

CRS-82
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1996-2003
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
United States
40.74%
39.08%
57.82%
45.68%
39.51%
57.08%
58.55%
47.47%
Russia
8.89%
5.41%
4.78%
8.08%
12.34%
10.73%
8.09%
11.83%
France
10.51%
15.76%
14.52%
11.87%
7.52%
4.85%
4.91%
4.17%
United Kingdom
17.51%
17.17%
7.76%
12.88%
18.66%
11.50%
11.77%
16.35%
China
1.89%
2.59%
1.39%
1.01%
2.11%
1.79%
1.96%
1.74%
Germany
5.12%
2.82%
2.98%
5.56%
3.91%
1.79%
1.96%
4.17%
Italy
0.27%
0.94%
0.40%
1.77%
0.90%
1.02%
1.23%
0.35%
All Other European
9.43%
10.35%
6.57%
7.33%
8.73%
5.37%
5.15%
8.35%
All Others
5.66%
5.88%
3.78%
5.81%
6.32%
5.88%
6.38%
5.57%
[Major West European*
33.40%
36.69%
25.67%
32.09%
31.00%
19.16%
19.87%
25.05 ]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

CRS-83
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1996-2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1996-1999
1
United States
78,878
2
United Kingdom
22,800
3
France
22,600
4
Russia
11,200
5
Germany
6,800
6
Sweden
3,900
7
China
2,900
8
Israel
2,000
9
Ukraine
1,800
10
Italy
1,400
11
Netherlands
1,300
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2000-2003
1
United States
72,989
2
United Kingdom
20,200
3
Russia
15,000
4
France
7,600
5
Germany
4,000
6
Ukraine
3,400
7
China
2,700
8
Israel
2,100
9
Italy
1,300
10
Sweden
1,000
11
North Korea
600
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1996-2003
1
United States
151,867
2
United Kingdom
43,000
3
France
30,200
4
Russia
26,200
5
Germany
10,800
6
China
5,600
7
Ukraine
5,200
8
Sweden
4,900
9
Israel
4,100
10
Italy
2,700
11
Belarus
1,800
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-84
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2003:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2003
1
United States
13,648
2
United Kingdom
4,700
3
Russia
3,400
4
Ukraine
1,500
5
France
1,200
6
Germany
1,200
7
China
500
8
Israel
400
9
Italy
100
10
Belgium
100
11
Norway
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-85
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1996-2003
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-86
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(Serbia/Mont.)

CRS-87
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