Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004

Order Code RL33051
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1997-2004
August 29, 2005
-name redacted-
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
1997-2004
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 1997-2004, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 62.7% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 57.3% of all such agreements globally from 2001-2004, and 58.9% of
these agreements in 2004.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2004 was
nearly $21.8 billion. This was a substantial increase over 2003, and the highest total,
in real terms, since 2000. In 2004, the value of all arms deliveries to developing
nations was nearly $22.5 billion, the highest total in these deliveries values since
2000 (in constant 2004 dollars).
Recently, from 2001-2004, 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
2001-2004, the United States made $29.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2004 dollars, 39.9% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made $21.7 billion in arms transfer
agreements, or 29.1%.
In 2004, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations with nearly $6.9 billion or 31.6% of these agreements. Russia
was second with $5.9 billion or 27.1% of such agreements. In 2004, the United States
ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at nearly $9.6
billion, or 42.6% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $4.5 billion or 20%
of such deliveries. France ranked third at $4.2 billion or 18.7% of such deliveries.
During the 2001-2004 period, China ranked first among developing nations
purchasers in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $10.4 billion in such
agreements. India ranked second at $7.9 billion. Egypt ranked third at $6.5 billion.
In 2004, India ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all
developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $5.7 billion in such agreements.
Saudi Arabia ranked second with $2.9 billion in such agreements. China ranked third
with $2.2 billion.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major West European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
All Other European Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
All Other Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Summary of Data Trends, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1997-2004: Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1997-2004:
Suppliers And Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1997-2004:Suppliers and Recipients . . . . . 38
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 2001-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1997-2004 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1997-2004 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

---

Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
1997-2004: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 48
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations,
1997-2004: Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region,
1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1997-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

---

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2004:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1997-2004 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
1997-2004: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

---

Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1997-2004
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1997-2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

---

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1997-2004
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 1997 through 2004. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations, 1996-2003,” published by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) on August 26, 2004 (CRS Report RL32547).
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, 1997-2004,
conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery)
to developing nations have comprised 62.7% of the value of all international arms
transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 57.3% of all agreements globally from 2001-2004. In 2004, arms transfer
agreements with developing countries accounted for 58.9% of the value of all such
agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from
2001-2004, constituted 63.2% of all international arms deliveries. In 2004, arms
deliveries to developing nations constituted 64.6% 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 1997-2004 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 values 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. The definition of developing nations, as used
in this report, and the specific classes of items included in its values totals are found
in box notes on page 2.

---

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 2004 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 2004
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 (1997-2000 and
2001-2004), 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 2004 was nearly $37 billion. This is a significant increase in
arms agreements values over 2003, and is the first year that total arms agreements
have increased since 2000 (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2004, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $12.4 billion (33.5% of all such agreements), down
notably from $15.1 billion in 2003. Russia ranked second with $6.1 billion in
agreements (16.5% of these agreements globally), up notably from nearly $4.4 billion
in 2003. The United Kingdom ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide
standing at $5.5 billion in 2004, up significantly from $311 million in 2003. The
United States and Russia collectively made agreements in 2004 valued at nearly
$18.5 billion, about 50% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all
suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).
For the period 2001-2004, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements ($130.2 billion) was lower than the worldwide value during 1997-2000
($139.2 billion), a decrease of 6.5%. During the period 1997-2000, developing world
nations accounted for 67.7% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide. During 2001-2004, developing world nations accounted for 57.3% of all
arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2004, developing nations accounted for
58.9% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2004, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making nearly $18.6 billion in such deliveries or 53.4%. This is the
eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries, reflecting
the magnitude of U.S. post-Persian Gulf War arms transfer agreements which are
now being implemented. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in
2004, making $4.6 billion in such deliveries. France ranked third in 2004, making
$4.4 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in 2004 collectively
delivered over $27.5 billion, 79.3% 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 2004 was nearly $34.8 billion.
This is a nominal decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year
(a fall of $874 million). However, the total value of such arms deliveries worldwide
in 2001-2004 ($131.2 billion) was substantially lower in the value of arms deliveries
by all suppliers worldwide from 1997-2000 ($181.2 billion, a decline of over $50
billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).
Developing nations from 2001-2004 accounted for 63.2% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1997-2000, developing nations
accounted for 71.8% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2004,
developing nations collectively accounted for 64.6% of the value of all international
arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, 9A and 9B).

---

CRS-4
The decline in weapons orders worldwide since 2000 has been notable. Global
arms agreement values have fallen from $42.1 billion in 2000 to about $37 billion in
2004. Were it not for the conclusion of a few very large orders in 2004, the total for
that year likely would have been lower than the previous year. Some of the major
weapons orders placed in 2004 were deferred purchases that were finally concluded
after years of negotiations. It has increasingly become 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. They have
placed greater emphasis on joint production of various weapons systems with other
developed nations as a more effective way to preserve a domestic weapons
production capability, while sharing the costs of new weapons development, both for
their own militaries, as well as for export. Some leading 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.
Because the arms market in recent years has become so intensely competitive,
supplying states have come 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. The
potential has developed within Europe for arms sales to nations that have recently
become members of NATO, that are modernizing their basic force structures, and
that are replacing obsolete systems. There are inherent limitations on these intra-
European sales due to the smaller defense budgets of many of the prospective client
states. Yet creative seller financing options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-
production, and counter-trade, to offset costs to the purchasers, has resulted in some
contracts being signed. Competition seems likely between the United States and
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 resulting from reduced demand for weapons from other clients in the
developing world.
More recently, various 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 continue to exercise caution before embarking upon new and costly
weapons procurement programs. The spike in the price of oil, while a boon to the oil
producing nations, has caused economic difficulties for many consuming states. The
unsettled state of the world economy has influenced a number of developing nations
to upgrade existing weapons systems in their inventories, while limiting their
purchases of newer ones. There has also been a notable reduction in new arms
agreements by a number of nations in the developing world, due to the substantial
arms purchases these countries made in the 1990s. Several of them are curtailing
their purchases while they absorb and integrate previously acquired weapons systems
into their force structures.
Presently, there appear 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, lead principally by China and India.
While these apparent trends are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of
either the international or regional economies, the strength of individual economies
in various nations in the developing world continues to be a very significant factor
in the timing of their arms purchasing decisions.
Some nations in Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, in Africa, have
expressed interest in modernizing important sectors of their military forces, yet many
states in these regions also continue to be constrained by their limited financial
resources. The limited availability of seller-supplied credit and financing seems
likely to continue to be a factor that inhibits 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 2004 was
nearly $21.8 billion, a significant increase over the $15.1 billion total in 2003. This
was the highest annual total, in real terms, since 2000. (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A).
In 2004, the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ( about $22.5 billion)
was a clear increase from the value of 2003 deliveries (nearly $20.8 billion), and the
highest total since 2000 (charts 7 and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 2001-2004, 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 2001-2004, the United
States made $29.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations,
39.9% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period,
made $21.7billion in arms transfer agreements or 29.1%. The United Kingdom, the
third leading supplier, from 2001-2004 made about $4.2 billion or 5.6% of all such
agreements with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1997-
2000) the United States ranked first with $34.6 billion in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations or 36.8%; Russia made $17.3 billion in arms transfer
agreements during this period or 18.4%. France made $11.1 billion in agreements
or 11.8% (table 1A).
During the years from 1997-2004, 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 during this eight year period. Russia
has been a strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations, ranking second every year from 1999 through 2004. Despite the larger
traditional client base for armaments held by other Major West European suppliers,
Russia’s 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. However, Russia’s largest value arms transfer
agreements continue to be with two countries, China and India. Russian success in
the arms trade with developed nations in the future will depend on its ability to
expand its client base. To this end, Russia has sought to expand its prospects in
Southeast Asia. The Russian government has also stated that it has adopted more
flexible payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the developing world,

---

CRS-6
and is seeking to enhance the quality of its follow-on support services to make
Russian products more attractive and competitive.
European arms suppliers such as France, the United Kingdom and Germany
occasionally conclude notably 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. Prospects for purchases of new and highly expensive weapons
by many developing countries seem likely to be limited in the near term, given the
unsettled state of the international economy, and the paucity of funds for such
undertakings in the procurement budgets of several developing nations.
Consequently, the overall level of the arms trade with developing nations, which has
been generally declining in the years since 2000, despite the notable level of
agreements in 2004, is likely to remain relatively static or continue to decline in the
near term, even though a few wealthier developing nations may make some
significant arms purchases on occasion.
Arms 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. However, these suppliers are capable, on
occasion, of making an arms deal of significance. Most of their annual arms transfer
agreements values totals during 1997-2004 have been relatively low, and are based
upon generally smaller transactions of less sophisticated military equipment. It is
unlikely that most of these countries will be able to rise 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 2004, the total value — in real terms — of United States arms transfer
agreements with developing nations rose to nearly $6.9 billion from $6.5 billion in
2003. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 31.6% in 2004, down
from a 43.1% share in 2003 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and 1B).
In 2004, the value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations
was primarily attributable to a number of purchases by a wide variety of U.S. clients
in the Near East and in Asia, instead of a couple of very expensive contracts with one
or two countries. These arms agreement totals illustrate the U.S. advantage of having
well established defense support arrangements with weapons purchasers worldwide.
U.S. agreements with all of its clients in 2004 include not only sales of major
weapons systems, but also the upgrading of systems previously provided. The U.S.
totals also include agreements for a wide variety of spare parts, ammunition,
ordnance, training, and support services which, in the aggregate, have significant
value. Among major weapons systems agreements the United States concluded in
2004 with developing nations were: with Egypt for three Fast Missile Craft, and
associated weapons for $536 million; with Taiwan for two UHF long-range early
warning radars for $436 million; with Brazil for 10 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters
for $183 million; with Egypt for 100 High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled vehicles
for $105 million; with Egypt for the upgrading of four Chinook helicopters to the

---

CRS-7
CH47D configuration for $103 million; with Israel for 6 AH-64D Apache Longbow
helicopters for $67 million; with Oman for 1 AN/AAQ-24 (V) NEMESIS
Countermeasures system; and with Pakistan for 1 Cobra combat helicopter. The
United States also concluded agreements for the sale of various missile systems to
nations in both the Near East and in Asia.
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. A
large number of countries in both the developing and developed world have, over
decades, acquired and continue to utilize a wide range of American weapons systems,
and have a continuing requirement to support, modify, and replace them.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2004 was $5.9 billion, a notable increase from $4.3 billion in 2003, placing a
strong second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all
developing world arms transfer agreements decreased slightly, falling from 28.1%
in 2003 to 27.1% in 2004 (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 2001-2004 period, Russia ranked
second among all suppliers to developing countries, making $21.7 billion in
agreements (in constant 2004 dollars). 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 valued 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,
Russia gradually adapted its selling practices in an effort to regain and sustain an
important share of the developing world arms market.
Russian leaders have made important efforts, in recent years, 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. Despite discussions

---

CRS-8
held between Russia and Iran on prospective future arms purchases, there has not
been, as of this date, major new Iranian procurement from Russia 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, although recurring financial problems of some
clients in this region have hampered significant growth in Russian sales to them.
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.
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.
Aerospace systems continue to be Russia’s strong suit in arms sales, but in the
absence of major new research and development efforts in this and other military
equipment areas future Russian foreign arms sales may be more difficult to make.
Some military research and development programs do exist in Russia, but the other
major arms suppliers in the West are currently in the process of developing and
producing weaponry much more advanced than those in existing Russian programs.
Nonetheless, Russia continues to have very significant on-going arms transfer
programs involving China and India, which should provide it with sustained business
during this decade. On the basis of agreements concluded starting in 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. In 2004,
Russia concluded a major agreement with India for the transfer, following
modernization, of the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, together with 12 MiG-29K
fighters, four MiG-29KUB training jets, as well as six to eight Ka-28 Helix-A and
Ka-31 Helix-B helicopters for about $1.5 billion. China, however, continues to be a
central client for 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. In 2004, Russia sold China eight
battalions of S-300PMU-2 Air Defense Missile Systems for nearly $1 billion. It also
concluded a $900 million agreement with China for engines for the Chinese J-10
fighter aircraft.
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 2001-2004, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing

---

CRS-9
nations has averaged about $600 million annually, while fluctuating considerably
from year to year. During the period of this report, the value of China’s arms transfer
agreements with developing nations peaked in 1999 at $2.9 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 2004, China’s arms transfer agreements total was $600 million,
consistent with its average total in most recent years. 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 own military forces, with
Russia serving as its principal supplier of advanced combat aircraft, submarines,
surface combatants, and air defense systems(tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
Few clients for weapons with financial resources have sought to purchase
Chinese military equipment during the eight year period of this report, because much
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 — particularly 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 significant increase in their collective share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2003 and 2004. This
group’s share rose from 5.5% in 2003 to 22% in 2004. The collective value of this
group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2004 was $4.8 billion
compared with a total of $830 million in 2003. Of these four nations, the United
Kingdom was the leading supplier with $3.2 billion in agreements in 2004, a
substantial increase from essentially no agreements in 2003. An important portion
of the United Kingdom’s total in 2004 was attributable to a $1.8 billion agreement
with India for 66 Hawk advanced jet trainers, and a large agreement totaling in
excess of $1 billion with Saudi Arabia under the Al Yamamah military procurement
arrangement. France increased its agreements total to $1 billion in 2004from $519
million in 2003, aided by a contract to provide support for Saudi Arabia’s Crotale air
defense systems, and Shahine ground-to-air missiles for about $410 million. Italy

---

CRS-10
increased its arms transfer agreements with the developing world from $311 million
in 2003 to $600 million in 2004. Germany registered effectively no new developing
world arms orders in 2004. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major West European suppliers collectively held a 22% share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations during 2004. In the period after
the Persian Gulf war, the major West European suppliers generally maintained a
notable share of arms transfer agreements. But more recently this share has declined,
despite the large collective values total for the four nations in 2004. During the
2001-2004 period, they collectively held 11% of all arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($8.2 billion). Individual suppliers within the major West
European group have had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in
1998 and 2000 ($6.3 billion and $2.5 billion respectively). The United Kingdom
also had a large agreement year in 2004 ($3.2 billion), and at least $1.2 billion in
agreements in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Germany concluded arms agreements totaling
$1.7 billion in 1998, with its highest total at $2.3 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).
Traditionally, Major West European suppliers have 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.
As the result of these factors, some of these suppliers have begun to phase out
production of certain types of weapons systems, and have increasingly engaged in
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, even if a substantial portion of the weapons produced are for their own armed
forces. The Eurofighter project is one example; Eurocopter is another. Some
European suppliers have also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense
production ventures with the United States such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 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 new weapons procurements in the Near East region 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

---

CRS-11
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 seen whether Gulf states’
assessments of the future threat environment in the post-Saddam Hussein era in Iraq
will lead to long-term declines in their arms purchases.
In recent years, the position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the
Persian Gulf has notably leveled off. In the period from 1997-2000, Saudi Arabia’s
total arms agreements were valued at $4.9 billion. For the period from 2001-2004,
Saudi Arabia’s total arms agreements were $5.6 billion. 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 — selling fighters, submarines, destroyers, and missiles — while
maintaining its position as principal arms supplier to India. Russia has also made
progress in expanding its client base in Asia, receiving aircraft orders from Malaysia,
Vietnam, and Indonesia. India, has also expanded its weapons supplier base,
purchasing in 2004 from Israel, the Phalcon early warning defense system aircraft for
$1.1 billion. The data on regional arms transfer agreements from 1997-2004 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 historically been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1997-2000, it accounted for 49.2% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements (about $37 billion in current dollars), ranking it first
ahead of Asia which ranked second with 41.2% of these agreements. However,
during 2001-2004, the Asia region accounted for 49.2% of all such agreements
($34.9 billion in current dollars), placing it first in arms agreements with the
developing world. The Near East region ranked second with $28.5 billion in
agreements (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1997-2000 period with 61.1% of their total value ($22.6 billion in current
dollars). France was second during these years with 14.9% ($5.5 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 2001-2004, the United States accounted for 65.9% of arms
agreements with this region ($18.8 billion in current dollars), while Russia accounted
for 9.1% of the region’s agreements ($2.6 billion in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables
1C and 1E).
Asia.
Asia has historically been the second largest developing world arms market.
Yet in 2001-2004, Asia ranked first, accounting for 49.2% of the total value of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($34.9 billion in current dollars).

---

CRS-12
In the earlier period, 1997-2000, the region accounted for 41.2% of all such
agreements ($30.9 billion in current dollars), ranking second. (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1997-2000), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 36.9% ($11.4 billion in current dollars). The
United States ranked second with 19.5% ($6 billion in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 24.9% of this region’s agreements in
1997-2000. In the later period (2001-2004), Russia ranked first in Asian agreements
with 48.1% ($16.8 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combat aircraft,
and naval system sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with
21.3% ($7.4 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, made 9.7% of this region’s agreements in 2001-2004. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1997-2004,
making arms transfer agreements totaling $15.7 billion during these years (in current
dollars). In the 1997-2000 period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked first in
arms transfer agreements at $13.3 billion (in current dollars). In 2001-2004,
however, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements, with a dramatic increase to
$10.4 billion from $4.9 billion in the earlier 1997-2000 period (in current dollars).
This increase reflects the military modernization effort by China, beginning in the
mid-1990s, and based primarily on major arms agreements with Russia. The total
value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1997-2004 was
$152.2 billion in current dollars. Thus India alone was responsible for 10.3% of all
developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most
recent period, 2001-2004, China made $10.4 billion in arms transfer agreements (in
current dollars). This total constituted 14.6% of all arm transfer agreements with
developing nations during these four years ($71.3 billion in current dollars). India
ranked second in arms transfer agreements during 2001-2004 with $7.9 billion (in
current dollars), or 11.1% 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 1997-2000 and 2001-2004 periods accounted for the
largest portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1997-2000, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 71.3% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements. During 2001-2004, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 67.9% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $16.8 billion in 2004 or 77.1% 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).
India ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2004, concluding $5.7 billion in such agreements. Saudi
Arabia ranked second in agreements in 2004 at $2.9 billion. China ranked third with
$2.2 billion in agreements. Five of these top ten recipients were in the Asian region,
five were in the Near East (table 1J).

---

CRS-13
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading recipient of arms deliveries
among developing world recipients in 2004, receiving $3.6 billion in such deliveries.
Saudi Arabia ranked second in arms deliveries in 2004 with $3.2 billion. China
ranked third with $2.7 billion (table 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $17.7 billion, or 78.8% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2004.
Five of these top ten recipients were in Asia; four were in the Near East; one was in
Africa (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 66-70).
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 2001-2004 from table 5 (page 68):
United States.
! 401 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 36 APCs and armored cars
! 2 major surface combatants
! 4 minor surface combatants
! 31 supersonic combat aircraft
! 12 helicopters
! 347 surface-to-air missiles
! 122 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
! 10 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 190 APCs and armored cars
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 60 helicopters
! 1,000 surface-to-air missiles
China.
! 20 Artillery pieces
! 40 APCs and armored cars
! 5 minor surface combatants
! 70 anti-ship missiles

---

CRS-14
Major West European Suppliers.
! 300 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 70 artillery pieces
! 30 APCs and armored cars
! 5 major surface combatants
! 26 minor surface combatants
! 5 guided missile boats
! 30 supersonic combat aircraft
! 20 helicopters
All Other European Suppliers.
! 270 tanks and self-propelled guns
! 130 APCs and armored cars
! 1 major surface combatant
! 28 minor surface combatants
! 10 supersonic combat aircraft
! 540 surface-to-air missiles
All Other Suppliers.
! 270 APCs and armored cars
! 80 minor surface combatants
! 20 helicopters
! 40 surface-to-surface missiles
! 20 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 2001-2004, 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. The United States,
Russia, 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 2001-2004 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 still deadly and can create important security threats within the region. In
particular, from 2001-2004, the United States delivered 122 anti-ship missiles to the
Near East region while China delivered 70. The United States delivered two major
surface combatants and four minor surface combatants to the Near East, while the
major West European suppliers collectively delivered five guided missile boats, 5
major surface combatants, and 26 minor surface combatants. Other non-European
suppliers delivered 80 minor surface combatants, as well as 40 surface-to-surface
missiles, a weapons category not delivered by any of the other major weapons
suppliers during this period to any region.

---

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 1997-2004, in
current dollars, according to the U.S. State Department, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Commercial Deliveries Commercial Deliveries
(Worldwide)
(to Developing Nations)
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
2004
$7,618,000,000
$2,625,000,000

---

CRS-16
Summary of Data Trends, 1997-2004
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 41-51) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1997-2004. 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 52-62). Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 74-78) provide data
on worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1997-2004, while tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C
and 9D (pages 79-83) 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 are 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 2004 was $21.8 billion. This was a substantial increase over
2003, and the highest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations since 2000 (tables 1 and
1A)(chart 1).
! The total value of United States agreements with developing nations
rose slightly from $6.5 billion in 2003 to $6.9 billion in 2004. The
United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer
agreements fell significantly from 43.1% in 2003 to 31.6% in 2004
(tables 1A and 1B)(chart 3).
! In 2004, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer
agreements with developing nations increased notably from the
previous year, rising from $4.3 billion in 2003 to $5.9 billion in
2004. The Russian share of all such agreements declined from
28.1% in 2003 to 27.1% in 2004 (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and
1B).

---

CRS-17
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1997-2004
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2004 dollars
50
Developed World
45
Developing World
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: U.S. Government

---

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, 1997-2004
(billions of constant 2004 dollars)
United States
Russia
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Major West European
All Others
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-21
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1997-2004 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 1997-2000
Developing World
United States
53,588
76.50
Russia
19,200
90.60
France
15,633
71.20
United Kingdom
5,886
62.40
China
6,567
85.80
Germany
13,107
39.00
Italy
2,113
50.00
All Other European
15,659
60.40
All Others
7,428
82.80
TOTAL
139,181
67.70
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2001-2004
Developing World
United States
54,319
54.90
Russia
22,565
96.60
France
11,088
24.50
United Kingdom
7,105
58.60
China
2,434
100.00
Germany
5,277
41.00
Italy
2,749
41.10
All Other European
15,509
39.10
All Others
9,149
58.70
TOTAL
130,195
57.30
Worldwide Agreements
Percentage of Total with
Supplier
Value 2004
Developing World
United States
12,391
55.50
Russia
6,100
96.70
France
4,800
20.80
United Kingdom
5,500
58.20
China
600
100.00
Germany
200
0.00
Italy
600
100.00
All Other European
4,300
30.20
All Others
2,500
92.00
TOTAL
36,991
58.90
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-22
! The four major West European suppliers, as a group (France, United
Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a significant increase in their
collective share of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations between 2003 and 2004. This group’s share rose
dramatically from 5.5% in 2003 to 22% in 2004. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2004 was $4.8 billion compared with a total of $830
million in 2003 (tables 1A and 1B)(charts 3 and 4).
! The United Kingdom registered a substantial increase in its share of
all arms transfer agreements with developing nations, rising from
essentially nil in 2003 to 14.7% in 2004. The value of its
agreements with developing nations rose dramatically from
essentially nil in 2003 to $3.2 billion in 2004 (tables 1A and 1B).
! In 2004, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations at $6.9 billion. Russia ranked second at
$5.9 billion. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1997-2004
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1997-2000 and 2001-2004.
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 1997-2000 and 2001-
2004. Among the facts reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
! The Near East has historically been the largest arms market in the
developing world. In 1997-2000, it accounted for nearly 49.2% of
the total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements
(about $37 billion in current dollars), ranking it first ahead of Asia
which ranked second with 41.2% of these agreements. However,
during 2001-2004, the Asia region accounted for 49.2% of all such
agreements ($34.9 billion in current dollars), placing it first in arms
agreements with the developing world. The Near East region ranked
second with during 2001-2004 with $28.5 billion in agreements
(tables 1C and 1D).
! The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near
East during the 1997-2000 period with 61.1% of their total value
($22.6 billion in current dollars). France was second during these
1 Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they must
be expressed in current dollar terms.

---

CRS-23
years with 14.9% ($5.5 billion in current dollars). Recently, from
2001-2004, the United States accounted for 65.9% of arms
agreements with this region ($18.8 billion in current dollars), while
Russia accounted for 9.1% of the region’s agreements ($2.6 billion
in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).
! For the period 1997-2000, the United States concluded 75.5% of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In
2001-2004, the U.S. concluded 66.2% of its agreements with this
region (table 1D).
! For the period 1997-2000, the four major West European suppliers
collectively made 44% of their developing world arms transfer
agreements with the Near East. In 2001-2004, the major West
Europeans made 46.5% of their arms agreements with the Near East
(table 1D) .
! For the period 1997-2000, France concluded 61.8% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2001-2004,
France made 59.3% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1997-2000, the United Kingdom concluded 24% of
its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.
In 2001-2004, the United Kingdom made 45% of its agreements
with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1997-2000, China concluded 34.1% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2001-2004,
China made 34.8% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! For the period 1997-2000, Russia concluded 15% of its developing
world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2001-2004,
Russia made 12.7% of its agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
! In the earlier period (1997-2000), the United States ranked first in
arms transfer agreements with the Near East with 61.1%. France
ranked second with 14.9%. Russia ranked third with 5.9%. The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 17.8% of this
region’s agreements in 1997-2000. In the later period (2001-2004),
the United States again ranked first in Near East agreements with
65.9%. Russia ranked second with 9.1%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 14% of this region’s agreements in 2001-
2004 (table 1E)(chart 5).
Asia.
! Asia has historically been the second largest arms market in the
developing world. Yet in 2001-2004, Asia ranked first, with 49.2%
of the total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations ($34.9 billion in current dollars). In the earlier period, 1997-
2000, the region accounted for 41.2% of all such agreements ($30.9
billion in current dollars), ranking second (tables 1C and 1D).

---

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

---

CRS-25
Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in Asia
(supplier percentage of value)
(excludes Japan, Australia, and New Zealand)

---

CRS-26
! In the earlier period (1997-2000), Russia ranked first in the value of
arms transfer agreements with Asia with 36.9% ($11.4 billion in
current dollars). The United States ranked second with 19.5% ($6
billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 24.9% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000. In
the later period (2001-2004), Russia ranked first in Asian
agreements with 48.1% ($16.8 billion in current dollars), primarily
due to major combat aircraft and naval craft sales to India and China.
The United States ranked second with 21.3% ($7.4 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 9.7%
of this region’s agreements in 2001-2004. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1997-2000, the United States ranked first in
arms transfer agreements with Latin America with 36.7%. France
ranked second with 12.1%. The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 15.1% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000. In
the later period, 2001-2004, the United States ranked first with
42.5%. Russia ranked second with 10.7%. All other non-European
suppliers collectively made 25.6% of the region’s agreements in
2001-2004. Latin America registered a significant increase in the
total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 to 2001-
2004 rising from $3.3 billion in the earlier period to $4.7 billion in
the latter (tables 1C and 1E).
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1997-2000, Russia ranked first in agreements
with Africa with 23.2% ($900 million in current dollars). China was
second with 15.5%. The non-major European suppliers, as a group,
made 33.5% of the region’s agreements in 1997-2000. The United
States made 2%. In the later period, 2001-2004, Russia and
Germany tied for first in agreements with 20.3% each ($600 million
each). China ranked third with 6.8% ($200 million). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 27% of this region’s
agreements in 2001-2004 ($800 million). All other European
suppliers collectively made 23.6% ($700 million). The United
States made 5.4%. Africa registered a notable decline in the total
value of its arms transfer agreements from 1997-2000 to 2001-2004,
falling from $3.9 billion in the earlier period to about $3 billion in
the latter (in current dollars). This decline is attributable to the fact
that arms orders of South Africa, as part of its new defense
procurement program, were placed during the earlier time period
(tables 1C and 1E).

---

CRS-27
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1997-2004: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1997-2004 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 — 1997-2000, 2001-2004 and 1997-2004.
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 2001-2004
($28.4 billion), and first for the entire period from 1997-2004 ($58.3
billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms transfer agreements from 2001-2004 ($20.7
billion), and second from 1997-2004 ($35.6 billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked third among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 2001-2004
($4.1 billion), and fourth from 1997-2004 ($7.2 billion).
! France ranked fourth among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms transfer agreements from 2001-2004 ($2.6 billion),
and third from 1997-2004 ($12.1 billion).
! Israel ranked fifth among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 2001-2004 ($2.5 million),
and seventh from 1997-2004 ($4.2 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2004 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, Russia, and the United Kingdom, the year’s top
three arms suppliers — ranked by the value of their arms transfer
agreements — collectively made agreements in 2004 valued at
nearly $16 billion, 73.4% of all arms transfer agreements made with
developing nations by all suppliers ($21.8 billion).
! In 2004, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, making $6.9 billion in such agreements, or
31.6% of them.

---

CRS-28
! Russia ranked second and the United Kingdom third in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in 2004, making $5.9 billion
and $3.2 billion in such agreements respectively.
! Israel ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2004, making $1.2 billion in such agreements, while
France ranked fifth with $1 billion.
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1997-2004:
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 1997-2000 and 2001-
2004. 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, 2001-2004, the principal purchasers of
U.S. arms in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements
were: Egypt ($5.7 billion), Israel ($4.4 billion), and Saudi Arabia
($3.8 billion). The principal purchasers of Russian arms were:
Yemen($600 million), Iran ($400 million); Israel ($300 million);
Egypt, Morocco, and Syria ($200 million each). The principal
purchasers of arms from China were Egypt ($300 million); Iran and
Kuwait ($200 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from
the four major West European suppliers, as a group, were: Saudi
Arabia($1.7 billion); Oman ($1.2 billion), and the U.A.E. ($500
million). The principal purchasers of arms from all other European
suppliers collectively were the U.A.E. ($400 million); Egypt and
Iraq ($200 million each). The principal purchasers of arms from all
other suppliers combined were Libya ($300 million), and Kuwait
($200 million).
! For the period from 2001-2004, Egypt made $6.5 billion in arms
transfer agreements. The United States ($5.7 billion), was its largest
supplier. Saudi Arabia made $5.6 billion in arms transfer
agreements. Its major suppliers were the United States ($3.8
billion), and the four major West European suppliers ($1.7billion).
Israel made $4.8 billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal
supplier was the United States ($4.4 billion). Kuwait made $2.3
billion in arms transfer agreements. Its principal supplier was: the
United States ($1.8 billion).
! The total value of arms transfer agreements by China with Iran fell
from $600 million to $200 million during the periods from 1997-
2000 to 2001-2004 respectively. The value of Russia’s arms transfer
agreements with Iran was $400 million in both periods.

---

CRS-29
! The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with
Saudi Arabia fell slightly from the 1997-2000 period to the 2001-
2004 period, declining from $4.1 billion in the earlier period to $3.8
billion in the later period. Saudi Arabia still made 67.9% of all its
arms transfer agreements with the United States during 2001-2004.
Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements by the United Arab Emirates
(U.A.E.) with all suppliers decreased significantly from 1997-2000
to 2001-2004, falling from $13.3 billion to $1.7 billion.
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
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 1997-2004 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 — 1997-
2000, 2001-2004 and 1997-2004. Among the facts reflected in this table are the
following:
! India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1997-
2004, making arms transfer agreements totaling $15.7 billion during
these years (in current dollars). In the 1997-2000 period, the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked first in arms transfer agreements at
$13.3 billion (in current dollars). In 2001-2004, however, China
ranked first in arms transfer agreements, with a dramatic increase to
$10.4 billion from $4.9 billion in the earlier period (in current
dollars). This increase reflects the military modernization program
of China, beginning in the mid-1990s, and based primarily on major
arms agreements with Russia. The total value of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1997-2004 was $152.2
billion in current dollars. Thus India alone was responsible for
10.3% of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these
eight years. In the most recent period, 2001-2004, China made
$10.4 billion in arms transfer agreements (in current dollars). This
total constituted 14.6% of all arm transfer agreements with
developing nations during 2001-2004, which totaled $71.3 billion.
India ranked second in arms transfer agreements during 2001-2004
with $7.9 billion (in current dollars), or 11.1% of the value of all
developing world arms transfer agreements (tables 1, 1H, 1I and
1J).
! During 1997-2000, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
71.3% of all developing world arms transfer agreements. During
2001-2004, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 67.9%
of all such agreements (tables 1 and 1I).

---

CRS-30
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2004. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2004. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! India ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the
value of arms transfer agreements in 2004, concluding $5.7 billion
in such agreements. Saudi Arabia ranked second with $2.9 billion.
China ranked third with $2.2 billion.
! Five of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2004 were in Asia. Five were in the Near East .
! Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world
recipients, as a group, in 2004 totaled $16.8 billion or 77.1% 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 1997-2004. 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 2004 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($22.5
billion) was a notable increase in deliveries values from the previous
year, ($20.8 billion in constant 2004 dollars) (charts 7 and 8)(table
2A).
! The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2004 was
42.6%, a substantial increase from 30.1% in 2003. In 2004, the
United States, for the eighth year in a row, ranked first in the value
of arms deliveries to developing nations ($9.6 billion) (in constant
2004 dollars). The second leading supplier in 2004 was Russia at
$4.5 billion. Russia’s share of all deliveries to developing nations
in 2004 was 20%, essentially unchanged from 2003. France, the
third leading supplier in 2004, made $4.2 billion in deliveries.
France’s share of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2004
was 18.7%, up from 12% in 2003. The share of major West
European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in 2004 was
27.2%, down from 36% in 2003 (tables 2A and 2B).

---

CRS-31
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing
nations from 2001-2004 ($82.9 billion in constant 2004 dollars) was
dramatically lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
to developing nations from 1997-2000 ($130.1 billion in constant
2004 dollars)(table 2A).
! During the years 1997-2004, arms deliveries to developing nations
comprised 68.2% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2004, the
percentage of arms deliveries to developing nations was 64.6% of all
arms deliveries worldwide (tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).

---

CRS-32
Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1997-2004
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2004 dollars
60
Developed World
55
Developing World
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-33
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1997-2004
(in billions of constant 2004 dollars)
United States
Russia
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Major West European
All Others
20
16
14
15
12
10
10
8
6
5
4
2
0
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-34
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1997-2004 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
1997-2000
United States
76,202
63.20
Russia
14,807
81.10
France
24,969
87.80
United Kingdom
26,295
98.50
China
3,651
90.50
Germany
7,255
28.90
Italy
1,874
69.50
All Other European
15,989
67.70
All Others
10,205
44.90
TOTAL
181,247
71.80
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Deliveries Value
Developing World
Supplier
2001-2004
United States
53,967
54.90
Russia
17,625
95.70
France
11,626
78.90
United Kingdom
17,149
76.60
China
3,053
93.20
Germany
4,914
27.20
Italy
1,387
38.20
All Other European
11,096
36.30
All Others
10,400
51.60
TOTAL
131,217
63.20
Worldwide
Percentage of Total to
Supplier
Deliveries Value
Developing World
2004
United States
18,555
51.50
Russia
4,600
97.80
France
4,400
95.50
United Kingdom
1,900
68.40
China
700
85.70
Germany
900
55.60
Italy
100
100.00
All Other European
1,200
41.70
All Others
2,400
50.00
TOTAL
34,755
64.60
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-35
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1997-2004
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1997-2000 and 2001-2004. 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 1997-2000 and 2001-2004. 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 1997-2000, it accounted for
56.1% of the total value of all developing nations deliveries ($60.6
billion in current dollars). During 2001-2004 the region accounted
for 51.8% of all such deliveries ($41.1 billion in current dollars)
(tables 2C and 2D).
! For the period 1997-2000, the United States made 63.3% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2001-
2004, the United States made 58.4% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1997-2000, the United Kingdom made 81.4% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2001-
2004, the United Kingdom made 96% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1997-2000, 47.6% of France’s arms deliveries to the
developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent
period, 2001-2004, 91.1% of France’s developing world deliveries
were to nations of the Near East region (table 2D).
! For the period 1997-2000, Russia made 24.3% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2001-2004, Russia
made 8.1% of such deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
! In the earlier period, 1997-2000, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to the Near East with 42.6% ($25.8 billion
in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 25.3%
($15.3 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 14.5%
($8.8 billion in current dollars). The major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 41.6% of this region’s delivery values in
1997-2000. In the later period (2001-2004), 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-36
ranked first in Near East delivery values with 40.4% ($16.6 billion
in current dollars). The United Kingdom ranked second with 29%
($11.9 billion in current dollars). France ranked third with 19.7%
($8.1 billion in current dollars).The major West European suppliers,
as a group, held 48.7% of this region’s delivery values in 2001-2004
(tables 2C and 2E).
Asia.
! The Asia region has historically ranked second in the value of arms
deliveries from most suppliers in both time periods. In the earlier
period, 1997-2000, 36.8% of all arms deliveries to developing
nations were to those in Asia ($39.8 billion in current dollars). In
the later period, 2001-2004, Asia accounted for 39.6% of such arms
deliveries ($31.4 billion in current dollars). For the period 2001-
2004, Russia made 87.6% of its developing world arms deliveries to
Asia. Germany made 50% of its developing world deliveries to
Asia. China made 63% of its developing world deliveries to Asia,
while the United States made 33.8% (tables 2C and 2D).
! In the period from 1997-2000, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to Asia with 35.4% ($14.1 billion in current
dollars). France ranked second with 23.9% ($9.5 billion in current
dollars). Russia ranked third with 17.4% ($6.9 billion in current
dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 35.2%
of this region’s delivery values in 1997-2000 ($14 billion). In the
period from 2001-2004, Russia ranked first in Asian delivery values
with 44.9% ($14.1 billion in current dollars). The United States
ranked second with 30.6% ($9.6 billion in current dollars) (tables
2C and 2E).
Latin America.
! In the earlier period, 1997-2000, the value of all arms deliveries to
Latin America was $3.8 billion. The United States ranked first in
the value of arms deliveries to Latin America with 37.3% ($1.4
billion in current dollars). Russia and Germany tied for second with
7.8% ($300 million each in current dollars). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, held 18.3% of this region’s delivery
values in 1997-2000. In the later period, 2001-2004, the United
States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with 53.7%
($2.1 billion in current dollars). Italy was second with 7.7% ($300
million). The major West European suppliers, as a group, held
10.3% of this region’s delivery values in 2001-2004. All other non-
European suppliers combined held 20.6% ($800 million). During
2001-2004, the value of all arms deliveries to Latin America was
$3.9 billion, essentially the same as the $3.8 billion deliveries total
for 1997-2000 (tables 2C and 2E).

---

CRS-37
Africa.
! In the earlier period, 1997-2000, the value of all arms deliveries to
Africa was over $3.9 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of
arms deliveries to Africa with 23.1% ($900 million in current
dollars). China ranked second with 15.4% ($600 million in current
dollars).The non-major West European suppliers, as a group, held
33.4% of this region’s delivery values in 1997-2000 ($1.3 billion).
The United States held 2.4%. In the later period, 2001-2004, Russia
tied for first with Germany in African delivery values with 20.3%
each ($600 million each in current dollars). China ranked third with
6.8% ($200 million in current dollars). The United States held
5.2%. The other non-major European suppliers collectively held
23.7% ($700 million in current dollars). All other non-European
suppliers collectively held 16.9% ($500 million in current dollars).
During the 2001-2004 period, the value of all arms deliveries to
Africa decreased from $3.9 billion in 1997-2000 to about $3 billion
(in current dollars) (Tables 2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1997-
2004 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 — 1997-2000, 2001-2004 and 1997-2004. 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 2001-2004 ($28.4
billion), and first for the entire period from 1997-2004 ($69.4
billion).
! The United Kingdom ranked third among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms deliveries from 2001-2004 ($12.4
billion), and second for the entire period from 1997-2004 ($31.3
billion).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms deliveries from 2001-2004 ($16.1 billion), and
fourth for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($26.9 billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2004 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:

---

CRS-38
! The United States, Russia, and France — the year’s top three arms
suppliers — ranked by the value of their arms deliveries —
collectively made deliveries in 2004 valued at $18.3 billion, 81.3%
of all arms deliveries made to developing nations by all suppliers.
! In 2004, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries
to developing nations, making $9.6 billion in such agreements, or
42.6% of them.
! Russia ranked second and France third in deliveries to developing
nations in 2004, making $4.5 billion and $4.2 billion in such
deliveries respectively.
! The United Kingdom ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing
nations in 2004, making $1.3 billion in such deliveries, while China
ranked fifth with $600 million in deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1997-2004:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1997-2000 and 2001-2004. 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, 2001-2004, the principal arms recipients
of the United States in the Near East region, based on the value of
their arms deliveries were Egypt ($5.3 billion) Saudi Arabia ($4.7
billion), Israel ($3.3 billion), and Kuwait ($1 billion). The principal
arms recipients of Russia were Yemen ($400), Egypt and the U.A.E.
($200 million each). The principal arms recipients of China were
Egypt ($300 million), Kuwait ($200 million), and Algeria, Iran, and
Yemen ($100 million each). The principal arms recipients of the
four major West European suppliers, as a group, were Saudi Arabia
($13.9 billion), and the U.A.E. ($5.6 billion). The principal arms
recipient of all other European suppliers collectively was Saudi
Arabia ($400 million). The principal arms recipients of all other
suppliers, as a group, were Iran, Kuwait and Libya ($400 million
each).
! For the period 2001-2004, Saudi Arabia received $19 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the United States ($4.7
billion), and the four major West Europeans, as a group ($13.9
billion). Egypt received $5.9 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal
supplier was the United States ($5.3 billion). Israel received $3.4
billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United
States ($3.3 billion). The U.A.E. received $6.8 billion in arms
deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West
Europeans, as a group ($5.6 billion), and the United States ($800

---

CRS-39
million). Kuwait received $1.5 billion in arms deliveries. Its
principal supplier was the United States ($1 billion). Iran received
$500 million in arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were Russia
and China ($100 million each), all other non-major European
suppliers collectively ($100 million), and all other non-European
suppliers ($200 million).
! The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined
dramatically from $16 billion in 1997-2000 to $4.7 billion in 2001-
2004, as implementation of major orders placed during the Persian
Gulf war era were essentially concluded.
! The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined dramatically
from the 1997-2000 period to the 2001-2004 period. Russian arms
deliveries fell from $1 billion to $100 million.
! Chinese arms deliveries to Iran dropped substantially from 1997-
2000 to 2001-2004, falling from $400 million in 1997-2000 to $100
million in 2001-2004.
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of
arms in the developing world from 1997-2004 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 — 1997-2000, 2001-2004 and
1997-2004. Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
! Saudi Arabia and China were the top two developing world
recipients of arms from 1997-2004, receiving deliveries valued at
$54.7 billion and $13 billion, respectively, during these years. The
total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations from 1997-
2004 was $187.2 billion in current dollars (see table 2). Thus,
Saudi Arabia and Taiwan were responsible for 29.2% and 6.9%,
respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these eight
years — together 36.1% of the total. In the most recent period —
2001-2004 — Saudi Arabia and China ranked first and second in the
value of arms received by developing nations ($19 billion and $8.8
billion, respectively, in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and
China accounted for 35.1% of all developing world arms deliveries
($27.8 billion out of $79.2 billion — the value of all deliveries to
developing nations in 2001-2004 (in current dollars).
! For the 2001-2004 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $19 billion
in arms deliveries (in current dollars), or 24% of all deliveries to
developing nations during this period.

---

CRS-40
! During 1997-2000, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
68.3% of all developing world arms deliveries. During 2001-2004,
the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 76% of all such
deliveries (tables 2 and 2I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2004. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2004. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
! The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) was the leading recipient of
arms deliveries in 2004 among developing nations, receiving $3.6
billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia ranked second with $3.2
billion. China ranked third with $2.7 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
! Arms deliveries in 2004 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $17.7 billion, or 78.8% of all developing
nations deliveries. Five of the top ten arms recipients in the
developing world in 2004 were in the Asian region; four were in the
Near East region; one was in Africa (tables 2 and 2J).

---

CRS-41
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
3,463
5,936
8,020
12,490
6,631
8,564
6,290
6,876
58,270
Russia
3,300
2,100
3,300
6,200
5,400
5,300
4,100
5,900
35,600
France
900
5,300
1,100
2,200
700
400
500
1,000
12,100
United Kingdom
1,000
1,000
1,100
0
200
700
0
3,200
7,200
China
1,300
500
2,500
500
1,000
400
300
600
7,100
Germany
100
1,400
2,000
900
100
100
0
0
4,600
Italy
300
0
500
100
200
0
300
600
2,000
All Other European
1,300
1,400
4,000
1,400
1,000
1,300
2,200
1,300
13,900
All Others
700
1,000
1,600
2,000
1,600
1,300
900
2,300
11,400
TOTAL
12,363
18,636
24,120
25,790
16,831
18,064
14,590
21,776
152,170
*Dollar inflation
Index:(2004=1.00)
0.8215
0.8432
0.8632
0.8860
0.9119
0.9382
0.9635
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-42
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
4,215
7,035
9,291
14,097
7,272
9,128
6,528
6,876
64,442
Russia
4,017
2,489
3,823
6,998
5,922
5,649
4,255
5,900
39,053
France
1,096
6,281
1,274
2,483
768
426
519
1,000
13,847
United Kingdom
1,217
1,185
1,274
0
219
746
0
3,200
7,841
China
1,582
593
2,896
564
1,097
426
311
600
8,069
Germany
122
1,659
2,317
1,016
110
107
0
0
5,331
Italy
365
0
579
113
219
0
311
600
2,187
All Other European
1,582
1,659
4,634
1,580
1,097
1,386
2,283
1,300
15,521
All Others
852
1,185
1,854
2,257
1,755
1,386
934
2,300
12,523
TOTAL
15,048
22,086
27,942
29,108
18,459
19,254
15,141
21,776
168,814
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-43
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
United States
28.01%
31.85%
33.25%
48.43%
39.40%
47.41%
43.11%
31.58%
Russia
26.69%
11.27%
13.68%
24.04%
32.08%
29.34%
28.10%
27.09%
France
7.28%
28.44%
4.56%
8.53%
4.16%
2.21%
3.43%
4.59%
United Kingdom
8.09%
5.37%
4.56%
0.00%
1.19%
3.88%
0.00%
14.70%
China
10.52%
2.68%
10.36%
1.94%
5.94%
2.21%
2.06%
2.76%
Germany
0.81%
7.51%
8.29%
3.49%
0.59%
0.55%
0.00%
0.00%
Italy
2.43%
0.00%
2.07%
0.39%
1.19%
0.00%
2.06%
2.76%
All Other European
10.52%
7.51%
16.58%
5.43%
5.94%
7.20%
15.08%
5.97%
All Others
5.66%
5.37%
6.63%
7.75%
9.51%
7.20%
6.17%
10.56%

[Major West
18.60%
41.32%
19.49%
12.41%
7.13%
6.64%
5.48%
22.04%]
European*
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-44
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
6,034
7,426
22,577
18,779
1,215
1,995
83
161
Russia
11,400
16,800
2,200
2,600
200
500
900
600
France
3,000
900
5,500
1,600
400
100
0
100
United Kingdom
1,800
2,200
600
1,800
0
0
100
0
China
2,300
1,300
1,500
800
0
0
600
200
Germany
2,500
100
400
100
0
100
0
600
Italy
400
200
100
500
100
200
100
100
All Other European
1,000
2,700
2,700
1,400
900
600
1,300
700
All Others
2,500
3,300
1,400
900
500
1,200
800
500
[Major West
7,700
3,400
6,600
4,000
500
400
200
800]
European*
TOTAL
30,934
34,926
36,977
28,479
3,315
4,695
3,883
2,961
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1997-2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial
agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
*Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-45
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1997-2004
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
20.17%
26.18%
75.49%
66.21%
4.06%
7.03%
0.28%
0.57%
100.00%
100.00%
Russia
77.55%
81.95%
14.97%
12.68%
1.36%
2.44%
6.12%
2.93%
100.00%
100.00%
France
33.71%
33.33%
61.80%
59.26%
4.49%
3.70%
0.00%
3.70%
100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
72.00%
55.00%
24.00%
45.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
100.00%
100.00%
China
52.27%
56.52%
34.09%
34.78%
0.00%
0.00%
13.64%
8.70%
100.00%
100.00%
Germany
86.21%
11.11%
13.79%
11.11%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
66.67%
100.00%
100.00%
Italy
57.14%
20.00%
14.29%
50.00%
14.29%
20.00%
14.29%
10.00%
100.00%
100.00%
All Other
16.95%
50.00%
45.76%
25.93%
15.25%
11.11%
22.03%
12.96%
100.00%
100.00%
European
All Others
48.08%
55.93%
26.92%
15.25%
9.62%
20.34%
15.38%
8.47%
100.00%
100.00%
[Major West
51.33%
39.53%
44.00%
46.51%
3.33%
4.65%
1.33%
9.30%
100.00%
100.00% ]
European*
TOTAL
41.19%
49.15%
49.23%
40.08%
4.41%
6.61%
5.17%
4.17%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-46
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1997-2004
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
19.51%
21.26%
61.06%
65.94%
36.65%
42.49%
2.14%
5.44%
Russia
36.85%
48.10%
5.95%
9.13%
6.03%
10.65%
23.18%
20.26%
France
9.70%
2.58%
14.87%
5.62%
12.07%
2.13%
0.00%
3.38%
United Kingdom
5.82%
6.30%
1.62%
6.32%
0.00%
0.00%
2.58%
0.00%
China
7.44%
3.72%
4.06%
2.81%
0.00%
0.00%
15.45%
6.75%
Germany
8.08%
0.29%
1.08%
0.35%
0.00%
2.13%
0.00%
20.26%
Italy
1.29%
0.57%
0.27%
1.76%
3.02%
4.26%
2.58%
3.38%
All Other
3.23%
7.73%
7.30%
4.92%
27.15%
12.78%
33.48%
23.64%
European
All Others
8.08%
9.45%
3.79%
3.16%
15.08%
25.56%
20.60%
16.89%
[Major West
24.89%
9.73%
17.85%
14.05%
15.08%
8.52%
5.15%
27.02%]
European*
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-47
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
1997-2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
United States*
29,909
2
Russia
14,900
3
France
9,500
4
China
4,800
5
Germany
4,400
6
United Kingdom
3,100
7
Sweden
2,400
8
Israel
1,700
9
Ukraine
1,300
10
Belarus
1,100
11
North Korea
1,000
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001-2004
1
United States
28,361
2
Russia
20,700
3
United Kingdom
4,100
4
France
2,600
5
Israel
2,500
6
China
2,300
7
Ukraine
2,000
8
Italy
1,100
9
Netherlands
1,100
10
Poland
900
11
South Africa
600
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2004
1
United States*
58,270
2
Russia
35,600
3
France
12,100
4
United Kingdom
7,200
5
China
7,100
6
Germany
4,600
7
Israel
4,200
8
Ukraine
3,300
9
Sweden
2,400
10
Italy
2,000
11
Belarus
1,300
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained. *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-48
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2004
1
United States
6,876
2
Russia
5,900
3
United Kingdom
3,200
4
Israel
1,200
5
France
1,000
6
China
600
7
Italy
600
8
Ukraine
400
9
South Africa
400
10
Netherlands
400
11
Libya
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-49
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
1997-2000
Algeria
0
600
200
0
500
100
1,400
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
5,500
100
500
100
100
0
6,300
Iran
0
400
600
100
0
400
1,500
Iraq
0
0
0
0
200
0
200
Israel
4,900
0
0
0
0
100
5,000
Jordan
200
0
0
300
0
100
600
Kuwait
500
0
200
0
0
100
800
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
200
400
700
Morocco
0
0
0
100
300
0
400
Oman
0
0
0
300
0
0
300
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
4,100
0
0
0
800
0
4,900
Syria
0
300
0
100
100
100
600
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
6,800
600
0
5,600
200
100
13,300
Yemen
0
0
0
0
200
200
400
2001-2004
Algeria
0
200
0
0
0
100
300
Bahrain
300
0
0
100
0
100
500
Egypt
5,700
200
300
100
200
0
6,500
Iran
0
400
200
0
100
100
800
Iraq
0
100
0
300
200
100
700
Israel
4,400
300
0
0
100
0
4,800
Jordan
900
0
0
0
100
100
1,100
Kuwait
1,800
100
200
0
0
200
2,300
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
0
300
400
Morocco
0
200
0
0
0
100
300
Oman
1,000
0
0
1,200
0
0
2,200
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
3,800
0
0
1,700
0
100
5,600
Syria
0
200
0
0
0
100
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.**
700
100
0
500
400
0
1,700
Yemen
0
600
100
0
100
100
900
Source: U.S. Government
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European includes
France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. **The United States total for 1997-2000
includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.

---

CRS-50
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
U.A.E.*
13,300
2
India
7,800
3
Egypt
6,300
4
South Africa
5,100
5
Israel
5,000
6
Saudi Arabia
4,900
7
China
4,900
8
South Korea
4,900
9
Singapore
3,000
10
Malaysia
2,500
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 2001-2004
1
China
10,400
2
India
7,900
3
Egypt
6,500
4
Saudi Arabia
5,600
5
Israel
4,800
6
South Korea
3,300
7
Malaysia
2,900
8
Pakistan
2,500
9
Kuwait
2,300
10
Oman
2,200
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value 1997-2004
1
India
15,700
2
China
15,300
3
U.A.E.*
15,000
4
Egypt
12,800
5
Saudi Arabia
10,500
6
Israel
9,800
7
South Korea
8,200
8
Malaysia
5,400
9
South Africa
5,300
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. *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-51
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2004:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Agreements Value
2004
1
India
5,700
2
Saudi Arabia
2,900
3
China
2,200
4
Egypt
1,700
5
Oman
1,000
6
Israel
900
7
Pakistan
800
8
Taiwan
600
9
Afghanistan
500
10
U.A.E.
500
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-52
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
10,170
10,450
12,213
8,164
5,851
6,926
6,035
9,557
69,366
Russia
2,200
2,300
2,700
3,600
4,100
3,400
4,100
4,500
26,900
France
6,100
7,000
3,500
1,900
900
1,400
2,400
4,200
27,400
United Kingdom
6,400
3,300
4,500
4,700
3,700
3,400
4,000
1,300
31,300
China
1,100
600
400
700
700
800
600
600
5,500
Germany
400
200
700
500
100
0
700
500
3,100
Italy
400
200
500
0
200
100
100
100
1,600
All Other European
3,000
2,100
2,100
2,000
1,100
1,200
1,000
500
13,000
All Others
1,100
1,000
800
1,000
1,300
1,500
1,100
1,200
9,000
TOTAL
30,870
27,150
27,413
22,564
17,951
18,726
20,035
22,457
187,166
Dollar inflation index:
0.8215
0.8438
0.8632
0.8860
0.9119
0.9382
0.9635
1
(2004=1.00)*
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-53
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
12,380
12,384
14,149
9,214
6,416
7,382
6,264
9,557
77,746
Russia
2,678
2,607
2,665
4,063
4,496
3,624
4,255
4,500
28,888
France
7,425
8,296
4,055
2,144
987
1,492
2,491
4,200
31,090
United Kingdom
7,791
7,585
5,213
5,305
4,057
3,624
4,152
1,300
39,027
China
1,339
711
463
790
768
853
623
600
6,147
Germany
487
237
811
564
110
0
727
500
3,436
Italy
487
237
579
0
219
107
104
100
1,833
All Other European
3,652
2,489
2,433
2,257
1,206
1,279
1,038
500
14,854
All Others
1,339
1,185
927
1,129
1,426
1,599
1,142
1,200
9,947
TOTAL
37,578
35,731
31,295
25,466
19,685
19,960
20,796
22,457
212,968
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-54
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
United States
32.94%
38.49%
44.55%
36.18%
32.59%
36.99%
30.12%
42.56%
Russia
7.13%
8.47%
9.85%
15.95%
22.84%
18.16%
20.46%
20.04%
France
19.76%
25.78%
12.77%
8.42%
5.01%
7.48%
11.98%
18.70%
United Kingdom
20.73%
12.15%
16.42%
20.83%
20.61%
18.16%
19.97%
5.79%
China
3.56%
2.21%
1.46%
3.10%
3.90%
4.27%
2.99%
2.67%
Germany
1.30%
0.74%
2.55%
2.22%
0.56%
0.00%
3.49%
2.23%
Italy
1.30%
0.74%
1.82%
0.00%
1.11%
0.53%
0.50%
0.45%
All Other European
9.72%
7.73%
7.66%
8.86%
6.13%
6.41%
4.99%
2.23%
All Others
3.56%
3.68%
2.92%
4.43%
7.24%
8.01%
5.49%
5.34%
[Major West
43.08%
39.41%
33.56%
31.47%
27.30%
26.17%
35.94%
27.16%]
European*
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-55
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
14,072
9,604
25,796
16,606
1,426
2,084
95
152
Russia
6,900
14,100
2,600
1,300
300
100
900
600
France
9,500
600
8,800
8,100
200
100
0
100
United Kingdom
3,200
500
15,300
11,900
200
0
100
0
China
1,400
1,700
800
800
100
0
600
200
Germany
500
600
1,000
0
300
0
0
600
Italy
800
100
100
0
0
300
100
100
All Other European
1,600
1,400
5,200
1,400
1,000
500
1,300
700
All Others
1,800
2,800
1,000
1,000
300
800
800
500
[Major West European*
14,000
1,800
25,200
20,000
700
400
200
800]
TOTAL
39,772
31,404
60,596
41,106
3,826
3,884
3,895
2,952
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-56
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1997-2004
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
TOTAL
TOTAL
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
34.00%
33.76%
62.33%
58.38%
3.45%
7.33%
0.23%
0.53% 100.00%
100.00%
Russia
64.49%
87.58%
24.30%
8.07%
2.80%
0.62%
8.41%
3.73% 100.00%
100.00%
France
51.35%
6.74%
47.57%
91.01%
1.08%
1.12%
0.00%
1.12% 100.00%
100.00%
United Kingdom
17.02%
4.03%
81.38%
95.97%
1.06%
0.00%
0.53%
0.00% 100.00%
100.00%
China
48.28%
62.96%
27.59%
29.63%
3.45%
0.00%
20.69%
7.41% 100.00%
100.00%
Germany
27.78%
50.00%
55.56%
0.00%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00% 100.00%
100.00%
Italy
80.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
10.00%
20.00% 100.00%
100.00%
All Other European
17.58%
35.00%
57.14%
35.00%
10.99%
12.50%
14.29%
17.50% 100.00%
100.00%
All Others
46.15%
54.90%
25.64%
19.61%
7.69%
15.69%
20.51%
9.80% 100.00%
100.00%
[Major West European*
34.91%
7.83%
62.84%
86.96%
1.75%
1.74%
0.50%
3.48% 100.00%
100.00%
TOTAL
36.80%
39.58%
56.06%
51.81%
3.54%
4.90%
3.60%
3.72% 100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-57
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1997-2004
Asia
Near East
Latin America
Africa
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
1997-00
2001-04
United States
35.38%
30.58%
42.57%
40.40%
37.27%
53.66%
2.44%
5.15%
Russia
17.35%
44.90%
4.29%
3.16%
7.84%
2.57%
23.11%
20.33%
France
23.89%
1.91%
14.52%
19.71%
5.23%
2.57%
0.00%
3.39%
United Kingdom
8.05%
1.59%
25.25%
28.95%
5.23%
0.00%
2.57%
0.00%
China
3.52%
5.41%
1.32%
1.95%
2.61%
0.00%
15.40%
6.78%
Germany
1.26%
1.91%
1.65%
0.00%
7.84%
0.00%
0.00%
20.33%
Italy
2.01%
0.32%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
7.72%
2.57%
3.39%
All Other European
4.02%
4.46%
8.58%
3.41%
26.14%
12.87%
33.38%
23.71%
All Others
4.53%
8.92%
1.65%
2.43%
7.84%
20.60%
20.54%
16.94%
[Major West European*
35.20%
5.73%
41.59%
48.65%
18.30%
10.30%
5.13%
27.10%]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-58
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
United States
40,997
2
United Kingdom
18,900
3
France
18,500
4
Russia
10,800
5
China
2,800
6
Sweden
2,400
7
Germany
1,800
8
Ukraine
1,800
9
Belarus
1,400
10
Israel
1,100
11
Italy
1,100
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1
United States
28,369
2
Russia
16,100
3
United Kingdom
12,400
4
France
8,900
5
China
2,700
6
Israel
1,800
7
Germany
1,300
8
Ukraine
1,200
9
Brazil
500
10
North Korea
500
11
Italy
500
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2004
1
United States
69,366
2
United Kingdom
31,300
3
France
27,400
4
Russia
26,900
5
China
5,500
6
Germany
3,100
7
Ukraine
3,000
8
Israel
2,900
9
Sweden
2,700
10
Belarus
1,600
11
Italy
1,600
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-59
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2004
1
United States
9,557
2
Russia
4,500
3
France
4,200
4
United Kingdom
1,300
5
China
600
6
Germany
500
7
Libya
300
8
Ukraine
300
9
Brazil
300
10
Israel
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-60
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
1997-2000
Algeria
0
500
100
0
700
100
1,400
Bahrain
600
0
0
0
0
0
600
Egypt
3,200
400
0
100
0
100
3,800
Iran
0
1,000
400
100
300
100
1,900
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Israel
3,800
0
0
1,000
0
200
5,000
Jordan
300
0
0
0
0
200
500
Kuwait
1,400
0
200
1,200
100
0
2,900
Lebanon
100
0
0
100
0
0
200
Libya
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Morocco
100
0
0
100
200
200
600
Oman
0
0
0
200
0
0
200
Qatar
0
0
0
1,800
0
0
1,800
Saudi Arabia
16,000
0
0
17,100
2,600
0
35,700
Syria
0
300
0
100
0
100
500
Tunisia
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
U.A.E.
200
400
0
3,400
800
0
4,800
Yemen
0
0
0
100
200
100
400
2001-2004
Algeria
100
100
100
0
100
0
400
Bahrain
300
0
0
0
0
0
300
Egypt
5,300
200
300
100
0
0
5,900
Iran
0
100
100
0
100
200
500
Iraq
0
0
0
0
100
100
200
Israel
3,300
0
0
0
100
0
3,400
Jordan
300
0
0
100
100
0
500
Kuwait
1,000
100
200
0
0
200
1,500
Lebanon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Libya
0
100
0
0
100
200
400
Morocco
100
0
0
100
0
100
300
Oman
100
0
0
100
0
100
300
Qatar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saudi Arabia
4,700
0
0
13,900
400
0
19,000
Syria
0
100
0
0
100
100
300
Tunisia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.A.E.
800
200
0
5,600
200
0
6,800
Yemen
0
400
100
100
100
0
700
Source: U.S. Government
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European includes
France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.

---

CRS-61
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1997-2004:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
Saudi Arabia
35,700
2
Taiwan
7,300
3
South Korea
5,100
4
Israel
5,000
5
U.A.E.
4,800
6
China
4,200
7
Egypt
3,800
8
Kuwait 2,900
9
Pakistan
2,800
10
India
2,200
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1
Saudi Arabia
19,000
2
China
8,800
3
U.A.E.
6,800
4
India
6,000
5
Egypt
5,900
6
Taiwan
3,900
7
Israel
3,400
8
South Korea
2,600
9
Pakistan
2,400
10
Malaysia
1,400
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value 1997-2004
1
Saudi Arabia
54,700
2
China
13,000
3
U.A.E.
11,600
4
Taiwan
11,200
5
Egypt
9,700
6
Israel
8,400
7
India
8,200
8
Pakistan
8,200
9
South Korea
7,700
10
Malaysia
3,000
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same,
the actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-62
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2004:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Recipient
Deliveries Value
2004
1
U.A.E.
3,600
2
Saudi Arabia
3,200
3
China
2,700
4
India
1,700
5
Egypt
1,700
6
Israel
1,500
7
Taiwan
1,100
8
Pakistan
900
9
South Korea
800
10
South Africa
500
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-63
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1997-2004
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 1997-2004 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, 2001-2004
! The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the
United States was a leading supplier of several major classes of
conventional weaponry from 2001-2004. Russia also transferred
significant quantities of certain weapons classes during these years.
! The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in
weapons deliveries from 2001-2004 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,
such as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery pieces,
and the various missile categories, surface-to-surface, surface-to-air,

---

CRS-64
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 2001-2004 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 370 tanks and self-propelled guns, 300 APCs and armored
cars, 4 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface combatants, 1 submarine, 240
supersonic combat aircraft, 200 helicopters, 770 surface-to-air missiles, and 70 anti-
ship missiles. The United States delivered 32 tanks and self-propelled guns, 91
artillery pieces, 6 major surface combatants, 2 minor surface combatants; 8
supersonic combat aircraft, 65 helicopters, 2,267 surface-to-air missiles, and 198
anti-ship missiles. China delivered 130 tanks and self-propelled guns, 300 artillery
pieces, 310 APCs and armored cars, 10 minor surface combatants, 50 supersonic
combat aircraft, and 500 surface-to-air missiles. The four major West European
suppliers as a group delivered 1 major surface combatant, 7 minor surface
combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft; and 20 helicopters. All other European
suppliers collectively delivered 110 tanks and self-propelled guns, 260 APCs and
armored cars, 1 major surface combatant, 24 minor surface combatants, 3
submarines, 10 helicopters, and 70 surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European
suppliers collectively delivered 90 artillery pieces, 100 APCs and armored cars, 2
major surface combatants, 14 minor surface combatants, 40 supersonic combat
aircraft, and 510 surface-to-air missiles.
Near East.
Russia delivered 190 APCs and armored cars, 30 supersonic combat aircraft,
60 helicopters, and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles. The United States delivered 401
tanks and self-propelled guns, 36 APCs and armored cars, 31 supersonic combat
aircraft, 12 helicopters, 347 surface-to-air missiles, and 122 anti-ship missiles.
China delivered 40 APCs and armored cars, 5 minor surface combatants, and 70
anti-ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers collectively delivered
300 tanks and self-propelled guns, 30 APCs and armored cars; 5 major surface
combatants, 26 minor surface combatants, 5 guided missile boats, 30 supersonic
combat aircraft; and 20 helicopters. All other European suppliers as a group
delivered 270 tanks and self-propelled guns, 130 APCs and armored cars, 1 major
surface combatant, 28 minor surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, and
540 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers collectively delivered 270 APCs and
armored cars, 80 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters, 40 surface-to-surface
missiles, and 20 anti-ship missiles.

---

CRS-65
Latin America.
Russia delivered 10 helicopters, and 30 surface-to-air missiles. The United
States delivered 15 artillery pieces, 2 major surface combatants, 9 minor surface
combatants; 4 supersonic combat aircraft, 14 helicopters, 22 surface-to-air missiles,
and 16 anti-ship missiles. China delivered 10 minor surface combatants. The four
major West European suppliers collectively delivered 3 major surface combatants,
1 minor surface combatant, and 10 helicopters. All other European suppliers
collectively delivered 30 tanks and self-propelled guns, 10 helicopters, and 40
surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers as a group delivered 20
artillery pieces, 2 minor surface combatants, 10 helicopters, 40 surface-to-air
missiles, and 30 anti-ship missiles.
Africa.
Russia delivered 10 tanks and self-propelled guns, 30 artillery pieces, 130
APCs and armored cars; 2 minor surface combatants, 60 helicopters, and 40 surface-
to-air missiles. China delivered 21 minor surface combatants. The four major West
European suppliers collectively delivered 50 APCs and armored cars; 4 major
surface combatants, 6 minor surface combatants, and 10 helicopters. All other
European suppliers collectively delivered 10 tanks and self-propelled guns, 800
artillery pieces, 370 APCs and armored cars, 4 minor surface combatants, 20
supersonic combat aircraft, 20 helicopters, and 20 surface-to-air missiles. All other
non-European suppliers as a group delivered 50 tanks and self-propelled guns, 40
artillery pieces, 140 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface combatant; 14 minor
surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, and 60 helicopters.

---

CRS-66
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
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled
1,202
400
300
360
1,580
170
Guns
Artillery
180
520
230
50
640
1,360
APCs and Armored Cars
1,061
820
120
510
1,130
620
Major Surface Combatants
9
2
1
9
11
2
Minor Surface Combatants
3
5
21
38
99
58
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
3
18
0
2
Submarines
0
5
0
9
1
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
391
160
70
110
90
70
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
10
0
60
30
30
Other Aircraft
58
50
70
70
130
110
Helicopters
170
270
0
60
130
40
Surface-to-Air Missiles
1,111
1,510
850
1,760
1,290
820
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
20
Anti-Ship Missiles
247
200
160
320
0
20
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled
200
390
130
300
420
50
Guns
Artillery
175
40
320
100
920
150
APCs and Armored Cars
57
620
350
100
760
510
Major Surface Combatants
10
4
0
13
2
3
Minor Surface Combatants
15
4
46
40
56
110
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
5
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
3
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
43
300
50
40
30
50
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
10
0
20
10
0
Other Aircraft
31
0
100
120
100
140
Helicopters
91
330
0
60
40
100
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,636
1,840
500
10
670
550
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
40
Anti-Ship Missiles
336
70
80
10
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-67
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
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
369
30
100
0
330
20
Artillery
160
0
180
0
30
930
APCs and Armored Cars
28
70
120
120
70
100
Major Surface Combatants
7
2
1
7
1
2
Minor Surface Combatants
0
5
16
10
6
50
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
2
0
0
0
Submarines
0
4
0
4
1
2
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
279
100
50
80
0
50
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
50
10
0
Other Aircraft
12
20
30
10
30
50
Helicopters
62
110
0
10
10
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
522
1,510
380
1,650
100
50
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
181
170
60
130
0
10
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
32
370
130
0
110
0
Artillery
91
10
300
10
90
90
APCs and Armored Cars
20
300
310
20
260
100
Major Surface Combatants
6
4
0
1
1
2
Minor Surface Combatants
2
2
10
7
24
14
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
3
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
8
240
50
10
0
40
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
15
0
0
20
0
0
Other Aircraft
8
0
20
0
40
50
Helicopters
65
200
0
20
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
2,267
770
500
0
70
510
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
198
70
10
10
0
0
Source: U.S. Government
Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given.
Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating
to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide
range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily
definitive.

---

CRS-68
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
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
111
350
0
280
260
30
Artillery
6
20
30
10
110
0
APCs and Armored Cars
1,019
580
0
250
570
40
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
1
2
0
Minor Surface Combatants
1
0
0
18
0
3
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
1
12
0
0
Submarines
0
1
0
3
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
112
20
0
30
40
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
10
0
0
Other Aircraft
21
10
20
20
40
10
Helicopters
56
40
0
30
20
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
589
0
300
0
0
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
20
Anti-Ship Missiles
57
30
100
160
0
0
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
401
10
0
300
270
0
Artillery
69
0
20
70
30
0
APCs and Armored Cars
36
190
40
30
130
270
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
5
1
0
Minor Surface Combatants
4
0
5
26
28
80
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
5
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
31
30
0
30
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
0
0
Other Aircraft
22
0
60
90
50
60
Helicopters
12
60
0
20
0
20
Surface-to-Air Missiles
347
1,000
0
0
540
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
40
Anti-Ship Missiles
122
0
70
0
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-69
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
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
80
360
20
Artillery
14
0
0
40
100
30
APCs and Armored Cars
14
30
0
140
40
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
1
8
0
Minor Surface Combatants
0
0
0
2
71
0
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
6
0
2
Submarines
0
0
0
2
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
2
0
0
0
20
20
Other Aircraft
17
20
0
30
50
30
Helicopters
52
80
0
20
40
0
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
170
110
780
0
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
9
0
0
30
0
10
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
0
0
0
30
0
Artillery
15
0
0
0
0
20
APCs and Armored Cars
1
0
0
0
0
0
Major Surface Combatants
2
0
0
3
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
9
0
10
1
0
2
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
0
20
Helicopters
14
10
0
10
10
10
Surface-to-Air Missiles
22
30
0
10
40
40
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
16
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-70
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
1997-2000
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
20
200
0
630
100
Artillery
0
500
20
0
400
400
APCs and Armored Cars
0
140
0
0
450
480
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Surface Combatants
2
0
5
8
22
5
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
40
20
0
40
20
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
10
0
0
0
10
Other Aircraft
8
0
20
10
10
20
Helicopters
0
40
0
0
60
30
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
0
0
0
410
770
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anti-Ship Missiles
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001-2004
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns
0
10
0
0
10
50
Artillery
0
30
0
20
800
40
APCs and Armored Cars
0
130
0
50
370
140
Major Surface Combatants
0
0
0
4
0
1
Minor Surface Combatants
0
2
21
6
4
14
Guided Missile Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
Submarines
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft
0
30
0
0
20
10
Subsonic Combat Aircraft
0
0
0
0
10
0
Other Aircraft
0
0
20
10
10
10
Helicopters
0
60
0
10
20
60
Surface-to-Air Missiles
0
40
0
0
20
0
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-71
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1997-2004
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 1997-2004 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 1997-2000,
2001-2004, and 2004. 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, 1997-2004
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 2004 U.S. dollars.
! The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms
transfer agreements from 2001-2004, and first for the entire period from 1997-2004
(figure 1) (table 8C).
! Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2001-2004, and second from 1997-2004.
! France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2001-2004, and third from 1997-2004.
! In 2004, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was $37 billion. This
is the highest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements, in real terms, for any
year since 2000.
! In 2004, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the
world, making $12.4 billion in such agreements, or 33.5% of all arms transfer
agreements. Russia ranked second with $6.1 billion in arms transfer agreements,
or 16.5% of all arms transfer agreements. The United Kingdom ranked third with
$5.5 billion. United States arms transfer agreements fell from $15.1 billion in 2003
to $12.4 billion in 2004. The U.S. share of agreements fell from 53% to 33.5%, the
lowest U.S. worldwide arms market share since 1998. Russia’s worldwide arms
transfer agreements rose from $4.4 billion in 2003 to $6.1 billion in 2004 (table
8A)(table 8B)(table 8D).
! The United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom — the top three arms suppliers
to the world in 2004 — respectively (ranked by the value of their arms transfer
agreements) collectively made agreements in 2004 valued at nearly $24 billion,
64.9% of all arms transfer agreements made with the world by all suppliers (table
8D).

---

CRS-72
! The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 2001-2004 ($130.2
billion) was lower than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers
worldwide from 1997-2000 ($139.2 billion), a decline of 6.5% (figure 1).
! During the period from 1997-2000, developing world nations accounted for 67.7%
of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2001-2004, developing
world nations accounted for 57.3% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
! In 2004, developing nations were recipients of 58.9% of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1997-2004
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1997-2004. 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 2004 U.S. dollars.
! In 2004, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide,
making nearly $18.6 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that
United States has led in such deliveries. The U.S. total, however, is a significant
increase from 2003 when its delivery values totaled over $13.8 billion (figure 2)
(table 9A)(table 9D).
! Russia ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2004, making $4.6 billion in
such deliveries.
! France ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2004, making $4.4 billion in
such deliveries.
! In 2004, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, Russia, and
France collectively delivered $27.6 billion, 79.3% of all arms deliveries made
worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
! The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2004 was 53.4%, up significantly
from its 38.8% share in 2003, and the largest percentage share of global arms
deliveries for the entire period from 1997-2004. Russia’s share in 2004 was 13.2%,
up from 12.2% in 2003. France’s share of world arms deliveries in 2004 was
12.7%, up from 8.5% in 2003 (table 9B).
! In 2004, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was $34.8 billion, a slight
decline in the total value of deliveries from 2003 ($35.6 billion in constant 2004
dollars). (chart 7) (table 9A).
! During the period from 1997-2000, developing world nations accounted for 71.8%
of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 2001-2004, developing world
nations accounted for 63.2% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).
! In 2004, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 64.6% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide (figure 2).

---

CRS-73
! The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 2001-2004
($131.2 billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all
suppliers worldwide from 1997-2000 ($181.2 billion in constant 2004 dollars), a
decline of 27.6% (figure 2)(table 9A).

---

CRS-74
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
7,069
9,555
11,805
17,705
11,639
13,175
14,570
12,391
97,909
Russia
3,500
2,500
4,200
6,300
5,500
5,700
4,200
6,100
38,000
France
1,300
6,100
1,700
4,300
4,000
1,200
600
4,800
24,000
United Kingdom
1,000
2,000
1,400
600
500
700
300
5,500
12,000
China
1,300
700
3,100
500
1,000
400
300
600
7,900
Germany
600
5,000
4,400
1,200
1,200
900
2,700
200
16,200
Italy
300
600
700
200
1,100
300
600
600
4,400
All Other European
1,600
1,900
5,800
4,200
3,200
4,400
2,900
4,300
28,300
All Others
800
1,300
2,000
2,300
2,500
2,400
1,300
2,500
15,100
TOTAL
17,469
29,655
35,105
37,305
30,639
29,175
27,470
36,991
243,809
Dollar inflation index:
(2004=1.00)*
0.8215
0.8438
0.8632
0.8860
0.9119
0.9382
0.9635
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-75
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
8,605
11,324
13,676
19,983
12,763
14,043
15,122
12,391
107,907
Russia
4,260
2,963
4,866
7,111
6,031
6,075
4,359
6,100
41,765
France
1,582
7,229
1,969
4,853
4,386
1,279
623
4,800
26,721
United Kingdom
1,217
2,370
1,622
677
548
746
311
5,500
12,991
China
1,582
830
3,591
564
1,097
426
311
600
9,001
Germany
730
5,926
5,097
1,354
1,316
959
2,802
200
18,384
Italy
365
711
811
226
1,206
320
623
600
4,862
All Other European
1,948
2,252
6,719
4,740
3,509
4,690
3,010
4,300
31,168
All Others
974
1,541
2,317
2,596
2,742
2,558
1,349
2,500
16,577
TOTAL
21,263
35,146
40,668
42,104
33,598
31,099
28,510
36,991
269,376
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-76
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
United States
40.47%
32.22%
33.63%
47.46%
37.99%
45.16%
53.04%
33.50%
Russia
20.04%
8.43%
11.96%
16.89%
17.95%
19.54%
15.29%
16.49%
France
7.44%
20.57%
4.84%
11.53%
13.06%
4.11%
2.18%
12.98%
United Kingdom
5.72%
6.74%
3.99%
1.61%
1.63%
2.40%
1.09%
14.87%
China
7.44%
2.36%
8.83%
1.34%
3.26%
1.37%
1.09%
1.62%
Germany
3.43%
16.86%
12.53%
3.22%
3.92%
3.08%
9.83%
0.54%
Italy
1.72%
2.02%
1.99%
0.54%
3.59%
1.03%
2.18%
1.62%
All Other European
9.16%
6.41%
16.52%
11.26%
10.44%
15.08%
10.56%
11.62%
All Others
4.58%
4.38%
5.70%
6.17%
8.16%
8.23%
4.73%
6.76%
[Major West European*
18.32%
46.20%
23.36%
16.89%
22.19%
10.63%
15.29%
30.01%]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-77
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1997-
2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2000
1
United States*
65,628
2
Russia
16,500
3
France
13,400
4
Germany
11,200
5
China
5,600
6
United Kingdom
5,100
7
Sweden
3,500
8
Israel
2,300
9
Spain
1,900
10
Italy
1,800
11
Ukraine
1,800

Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2001-2004
1
United States
39,956
2
Russia
21,500
3
France
10,600
4
United Kingdom
7,100
5
Germany
5,000
6
Israel
4,400
7
Ukraine
4,100
8
Italy
2,600
9
China
2,300
10
Sweden
2,200
11
Netherlands
2,000
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 1997-2004
1
United States*
105,584
2
Russia
38,000
3
France
24,000
4
Germany
16,100
5
United Kingdom
12,200
6
China
7,900
7
Israel
6,700
8
Ukraine
5,900
9
Sweden
5,700
10
Italy
4,400
11
Spain
3,600
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained. *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-78
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with
the World in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Agreements Value 2004
1
United States
12,391
2
Russia
6,100
3
United Kingdom
5,500
4
France
4,800
5
Israel
1,400
6
Spain
1,200
7
Sweden
900
8
China
600
9
Netherlands
600
10
Italy
600
11
Austria
500
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-79
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997-2004
United States
16,622
17,220
18,060
12,969
9,673
10,294
13,327
18,555
116,720
Russia
2,600
2,500
3,400
4,200
4,500
3,500
4,200
4,600
29,500
France
6,700
7,700
4,200
2,500
1,900
2,000
2,900
4,400
32,300
United Kingdom
7,300
3,800
5,100
6,200
4,600
4,900
4,800
1,900
38,600
China
1,100
700
500
800
800
800
600
700
6,000
Germany
1,200
1,500
2,200
1,300
700
1,000
2,100
900
10,900
Italy
400
200
700
300
400
600
200
100
2,900
All Other European
4,000
3,300
3,300
3,000
3,000
2,400
3,900
1,200
24,100
All Others
2,400
1,900
2,200
2,200
2,300
2,900
2,300
2,400
18,600
TOTAL
42,322
38,820
39,660
33,469
27,873
28,394
34,327
34,755
279,620
Dollar inflation index:
(2004=1.00)*
0.8215
0.8438
0.8632
0.8860
0.9119
0.9382
0.9635
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-80
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1997-2004
(in millions of constant 2004 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1997- 2004
United States
20,234
20,408
20,922
14,638
10,608
10,972
13,832
18,555
130,169
Russia
3,165
2,963
3,939
4,740
4,935
3,731
4,359
4,600
32,432
France
8,156
9,125
4,866
2,822
2,084
2,132
3,010
4,400
36,595
United Kingdom
8,886
4,503
5,908
6,998
5,044
5,223
4,982
1,900
43,444
China
1,339
830
579
903
877
853
623
700
6,704
Germany
1,461
1,778
2,549
1,467
768
1,066
2,180
900
12,169
Italy
487
237
811
339
439
640
208
100
3,261
All Other European
4,869
3,911
3,823
3,386
3,290
2,558
4,048
1,200
27,085
All Others
2,921
2,252
2,549
2,483
2,522
3,091
2,387
2,400
20,605
TOTAL
51,518
46,007
45,946
37,776
30,567
30,266
35,629
34,755
312,464
Source: U.S. Government

---

CRS-81
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1997-2004
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
United States
39.28%
44.36%
45.54%
38.75%
34.70%
36.25%
38.82%
53.39%
Russia
6.14%
6.44%
8.57%
12.55%
16.14%
12.33%
12.24%
13.24%
France
15.83%
19.84%
10.59%
7.47%
6.82%
7.04%
8.45%
12.66%
United Kingdom
17.25%
9.79%
12.86%
18.52%
16.50%
17.26%
13.98%
5.47%
China
2.60%
1.80%
1.26%
2.39%
2.87%
2.82%
1.75%
2.01%
Germany
2.84%
3.86%
5.55%
3.88%
2.51%
3.52%
6.12%
2.59%
Italy
0.95%
0.52%
1.77%
0.90%
1.44%
2.11%
0.58%
0.29%
All Other European
9.45%
8.50%
8.32%
8.96%
10.76%
8.45%
11.36%
3.45%
All Others
5.67%
4.89%
5.55%
6.57%
8.25%
10.21%
6.70%
6.91%
[Major West European*
36.86%
34.00%
30.76%
30.77%
27.27%
29.94%
29.13%
21.00%]
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Government
* Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.

---

CRS-82
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1997-2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2000
1
United States
64,871
2
United Kingdom
22,400
3
France
21,100
4
Russia
12,700
5
Germany
6,200
6
Sweden
3,800
7
China
3,100
8
Israel
2,400
9
Ukraine
2,200
10
Canada
2,200
11
Italy
1,600
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 2001-2004
1
United States
51,849
2
Russia
16,800
3
United Kingdom
16,200
4
France
11,200
5
Germany
4,700
6
Ukraine
3,300
7
Israel
3,200
8
China
2,900
9
Canada
2,800
10
Sweden
1,800
11
Italy
1,300
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value 1997-2004
1
United States
116,720
2
United Kingdom
38,600
3
France
32,300
4
Russia
29,500
5
Germany
10,900
6
China
6,000
7
Sweden
5,600
8
Israel
5,600
9
Ukraine
5,500
10
Canada
5,000
11
Italy
2,900
Source: U.S. Government
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the actual rank order is maintained.

---

CRS-83
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2004:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Rank
Supplier
Deliveries Value
2004
1
United States
18,555
2
Russia
4,600
3
France
4,400
4
United Kingdom
1,900
5
Germany
900
6
Canada
900
7
China
700
8
Israel
500
9
Libya
300
10
Brazil
300
11
Ukraine
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-84
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1997-2004
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-85
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-86
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

---

---

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---