Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2000-2007

Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 2000-2007
October 23, 2008
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in International Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
2000-2007
Summary
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified,
quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United
States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its
policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for the
United States are government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
transactions. Similar data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by
all suppliers, 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 2000-2007, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 66.6% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 67.7% of all such agreements globally from 2004-2007, and 70.5% of
these agreements in 2007.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2007 was
nearly $42.3 billion. This was an increase from $38.1 billion in 2006. In 2007, the
value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $17.2 billion, the lowest total
in these deliveries values for the entire 2000-2007 period (in constant 2007 dollars).
Recently, from 2004-2007, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second
for 3 out of 4 years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2004-2007,
Russia made nearly $39.3 billion, 27.9% of all such agreements, expressed in
constant 2007 dollars. During this same period, the United States made $34.7 billion
in such agreements, 24.6% of all such agreements. Collectively, the United States
and Russia made 52.5% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
during this four-year period.
In 2007, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations with $12.2 billion or 28.8% of these agreements. The United
Kingdom was second with $9.8 billion or 23.2% of such agreements. Russia was
third with $9.7 billion or 23%. In 2007, the United States ranked first in the value
of arms deliveries to developing nations at $7.6 billion, or 44.2% of all such
deliveries. Russia ranked second at $4.6 billion or 26.7% of such deliveries.
In 2007, Saudi Arabia ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements
among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $10.6 billion in such
agreements. India ranked second with $5 billion in such agreements. Pakistan
ranked third with $4.2 billion.

Contents
Introduction and Overview..........................................1
Major Findings....................................................4
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide.......................4
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations..............6
United States.............................................8
Russia ...................................................9
China ..................................................11
Major West European Suppliers.............................12
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements..............................14
Near East...............................................15
Asia ...................................................15
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers......................16
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations.............17
United States............................................17
Russia ..................................................18
China ..................................................18
Major West European Suppliers.............................18
All Other European Suppliers...............................18
All Other Suppliers.......................................18
Arms Values Data Tables and Charts for 2000-2007.....................21
Selected Weapons Deliveries toDeveloping Nations, 2000-2007............56
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
2000-2007 ..................................................62
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 2000-2007.......62
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 2000-2007.......................62
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 2000-2007...........73
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts...................74
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 2000-2007 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars).........................28
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 2000-2007 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars).........................33
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S. dollars)......................34
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,

2000-2007 (in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)................35

2000-2007 (expressed as a percent of total, by year)..................36
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................37
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
2000-2007 ..................................................38
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
2000-2007 ..................................................39
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 2000-2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................40
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................41
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................42
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
2000-2007: Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................43
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2007:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................44
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................45
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars).........................46
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)...........................47
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................48
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 2000-2007....49
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
2000-2007 ..................................................50
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................51
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................52
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................53
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................54
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2007:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................55
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Developing Nations........................................57
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific........................................58

to Near East.................................................59
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Latin America.............................................60
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Africa...................................................61
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................63
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
2000-2007 (in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)................64
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
2000-2007 (expressed as a percent of total, by year)..................65
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 2000-2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................66
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................67
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................68
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars).........................69
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)...........................70
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 2000-2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................71
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................72

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 2000-2007
Introduction and Overview
This report provides Congress with official, unclassified, background data from
U.S. government sources on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by
major suppliers for the period 2000 through 2007. It also includes some data on
worldwide supplier transactions. It updates and revises CRS Report RL34187,
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1999-2006.
The data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing
supplier-purchaser relationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these
data can assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing whether the current nature
of the international weapons trade affects U.S. national interests. For most of recent
American history, maintaining regional stability, and ensuring the security of U.S.
allies and friendly nations throughout the world, have been important elements of
U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the degree to which individual arms suppliers are
making arms transfers to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a
context for evaluating policy questions it may confront. Such policy questions may
include, for example, whether or not to support specific U.S. arms sales to given
countries or regions or to support or oppose such arms transfers by other nations.
The data in this report may also assist Congress in evaluating whether multilateral
arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign policy initiatives are being supported
or undermined by the actions of arms suppliers.
The principal focus of this report is the level of arms transfers by major weapons
suppliers to nations in the developing world — where most of the potential for the
outbreak of regional military conflicts currently exists. For decades, during the
height of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an
instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies. This was
equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies. The underlying rationale for U.S.
arms transfer policy then was to help ensure that friendly states were not placed at
risk through a military disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union
or its allies. Following the Cold War’s end, U.S. arms transfer policy has been based
on assisting friendly and allied nations in developing and maintaining their ability to
deal with regional security threats and concerns.
The data in this 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. Where before the
principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support

a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic
considerations as those of foreign or national security policy.
The developing world continues to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales
activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 2000-
2007, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future
delivery) to developing nations comprised 66.6% of the value of all international
arms transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 67.7% of all agreements globally from 2004-2007. In 2007, arms transfer
agreements with developing countries accounted for 70.5% of the value of all such
agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from
2004-2007, constituted 64.7% of all international arms deliveries. In 2007, arms
deliveries to developing nations constituted 55.6% 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 2000-2007 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 3). U.S.
commercially licensed arms export delivery values are excluded (see box note on
page 20). Also 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 3. The report’s
table of contents provides a detailed listing and description of the various data tables
to guide the reader to specific items of interest.

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 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. 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. Details on data
used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8, and 9.
ARMS TRANSFER VALUES
The values of arms transfer agreements (or deliveries) in this report refer to
the total values of conventional 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.
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.
CONSTANT 2007 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. The
report converts these dollar amounts (current dollars) into constant 2007 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 1A, 2A, 8A, and
9A. Unless otherwise noted in the report, all dollar values are stated in
constant terms. The exceptions to this rule are all regional data tables that are
composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (2000-2003 and 2004-2007). These
tables are expressed in current dollar terms. And 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.

Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2007 was nearly $60 billion. This was an increase in arms
agreements values over 2006 of 9.2% (Chart 1)(Table 8A).
In 2007, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at over $24.8 billion (41.5% of all such agreements), up
significantly from $16.7 billion in 2006. Russia ranked second with $10.4 billion in
agreements (17.3% of these agreements globally), down from $14.3 billion in 2006.
The United Kingdom ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide were $9.8
billion in 2007, up from $4.1 billion in 2006. The United States, Russia, and the
United Kingdom collectively made agreements in 2007 valued at over $45 billion,
75.2% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (Figure

1)(Tables 8A, 8B, and 8D).

For the period 2004-2007, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements ($208.3 billion) was substantially higher than the worldwide value during

2000-2003 ($147.6 billion), an increase of 29.2%. During the period 2000-2003,

developing world nations accounted for 67.7% of the value of all arms transfer
agreements made worldwide. During 2004-2007, developing world nations
accounted for 67.7% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2007,
developing nations accounted for 70.5% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (Figure 1)(Table 8A).
In 2007, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making nearly $12.8 billion in such deliveries or 41.3%. This is the
eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. Russia
ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2007, making $4.7 billion in such
deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third in 2007, making $2.6 billion in such
deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in 2007 collectively delivered nearly
$20.1 billion, 64.8% 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 2007 was $31 billion. This is
a decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year (a decline from
$33.6 billion). The total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2004-2007
($134.9 billion) was lower than the deliveries worldwide from 2000-2003 ($143.6
billion, a decline of nearly $10 billion) (Figure 2)(Tables 9A and 9B)(Charts 7 and

8).

Developing nations from 2004-2007 accounted for 64.7% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 2000-2003, developing nations
accounted for 65.1% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2007,
developing nations collectively accounted for 55.6% of the value of all international
arms deliveries (Figure 2)(Tables 2A, 9A, and 9B).

Worldwide weapons orders increased in 2007. The total of nearly $60 billion
was an increase from $54.9 billion in 2006, or 9.2%. Global arms agreement values
for the other years covered here ranged from $48.7 billion in 2005 to $32.6 billion
in 2003. Of the major arms orders secured in 2007 most were made by the traditional
major suppliers. In some instances these orders represented significant new
acquisitions by the purchasing country. In others they reflected the continuation or
acceleration of a longer-term weapons-acquisition program.
The increase in new weapons sales can also be explained, in part, by the
decision of some purchasing nations to acquire major systems they had deferred
buying due to budgetary considerations. Some nations were completing the
integration of major weapons systems they have already purchased into their force
structures. Some of the growth in arms transfer agreements more recently also
reflects contracts related to training and support services, as well as upgrades of
existing weapons systems. Individual orders such as these can be expensive, and in
given instances prove to be nearly as costly as orders for new units of military
equipment.
Because the international arms market continues to be intensely competitive,
several producing countries have focused sales efforts on prospective clients in
nations and regions where individual suppliers have had competitive advantages
resulting from well-established military-support relationships. Arms sales to new
NATO member nations in Europe to support their military modernization programs
have created new business for arms suppliers, while allowing these NATO states to
sell some of their older generation military equipment, in refurbished form, to other
less-developed countries.
There are inherent limitations on these European sales due to the smaller
defense budgets of many of the purchasing countries. Yet creative seller financing
options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-production, and counter-trade
agreements to offset costs to the buyers continue to facilitate new arms agreements.
It seems likely that the United States and European countries or consortia will
compete vigorously for prospective arms contracts within the European region in the
foreseeable future. Such sales seem particularly important to European suppliers, as
they can potentially compensate, in part, for lost weapons deals elsewhere in the
developing world that result from reduced demand for new weapons.
Developed nations continue their efforts to protect important elements of their
national military industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other developed
nations. However, several key arms suppliers have placed additional 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. The consolidation of certain sectors of the
domestic defense industries of key weapons-producing nations continues, in the face
of intense foreign competition. Some supplying nations, meanwhile, have chosen to
manufacture items for niche weapons categories where their specialized production
capabilities give them important advantages in the international arms marketplace.
Despite the recent upward trend in weapons purchases with the developed
world, some developing nations have limited their weapons purchases primarily due

to their limited financial resources to pay for such equipment. Other prospective
arms purchasers in the developing world with significant financial assets have been
cautious in launching new and costly weapons-procurement programs. Increases in
the price of oil, while an advantage for major oil producing states in funding their
arms purchases, has, simultaneously, caused economic difficulties for many oil
consuming states, contributing to their decisions to curtail or defer new weapons
acquisitions. A number of less affluent developing nations have chosen to upgrade
existing weapons systems in their inventories, while reducing their purchases of new
ones. This circumstance may curtail sales of some new weapons systems. Yet the
weapons upgrade market can be very lucrative for some arms producers, and
partially mitigate the effect of fewer opportunities for the sale of major items of
military equipment.
Most recently, the nations in the Near East and Asia regions have resumed large
weapons purchases in contrast with arms sales activity in the earliest years of this
report. These major orders continue to be made by a select few developing nations
in these regions. They have been made principally by India and China in Asia, and
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the Near East. These purchasing
tendencies are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of either the threat
assessments of individual states or the strength of their individual economies. For the
larger group of nations in these regions the strength of the economies of a wide range
of nations in the developing world continues to be the most significant factor in the
timing of many of their arms purchasing decisions.
Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, Africa, are regions where some
nations wish to modernize important sectors of their military forces. Some large
arms orders (by regional standards) have been placed by a few states in these two
regions within the last decade. Yet in Latin America and Africa, many countries are
constrained in their weapons purchases by their financial resources. So long as there
is limited availability of seller-supplied credit and financing for weapons purchases,
and national budgets for military purchases remain relatively low, it seems likely that
major arms sales to these two regions of the developing world will be limited to a
small number of nations there.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2007 was
nearly $42.3 billion, an increase from the $38.1 billion total in 2006 Chart 1)(Figure
1)(Table 1A). In 2007, the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17.2
billion) was lower than the value of 2006 deliveries (over $21.4 billion), and the
lowest total for the 2000-2007 period (Charts 7 and 8)(Figure 2)(Table 2A).
Recently, from 2004-2007, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second
for 3 out of these 4 years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2004-2007,
Russia made nearly $39.3 billion, 27.9% of all such agreements, expressed in
constant 2007 dollars. During this same period, the United States made $34.7 billion
in such agreements, 24.6% of all such agreements. Collectively, the United States
and Russia made 52.5% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
during this four year period. The United Kingdom, the third leading supplier, from

2004-2007 made $21.3 billion or 15.1% of all such agreements with developing
nations during these years. In the earlier period (2000-2003) the United States ranked
first with $46.4 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations or
48.3%; Russia made $25.6 billion in arms transfer agreements during this period or

26.6%. France made nearly $5 billion in agreements or 5.2% (Table 1A).

From 2000-2007, most arms transfers to developing nations were made by two
major suppliers in any given year. The United States ranked first among these
suppliers for five of the last eight years during this period, falling to third place in
2005. Russia has been a strong competitor for the lead in arms transfer agreements
with developing nations, ranking second every year from 2000 through 2003, and
first from 2004-2006. Although Russia has lacked the larger traditional client base
for armaments held by the United States and the major West European suppliers, its
recent successes in concluding new arms orders suggests that Russia is likely to
continue to be, for some time, a significant leader in arms agreements with
developing nations. Russia’s most significant high value arms transfer agreements
continue to be with India and China. Russia has also had some success in concluding
arms agreements with clients beyond its principal two. Russia continues to seek to
expand its prospects in North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
Most recently Russia has increased sales efforts in Latin America, despite
having essentially abandoned major arms sales efforts there after the end of the Cold
War. Venezuela has become a significant new arms client gained by Russia in this
region. The Russian government has adopted more flexible payment arrangements
for its prospective customers in the developing world, including a willingness in
specific cases to forgive outstanding debts owed to it by a prospective client in order
to secure new arms purchases. Additionally, Russia continues to seek to enhance the
quality of its follow-on support services to make Russian products more attractive
and competitive, and to assure its potential clients that it can effectively provide
timely service and spare parts for the weapons systems it exports.
Major West European arms suppliers, particularly France and the United
Kingdom, have concluded large orders with developing countries over the last eight
years based on either long-term supply relationships or their having specialized
weapons systems readily available. Germany has been a key source of naval systems
for developing nations. Although it faces increased competition from these other
major arms suppliers, the United States appears likely to hold its position as the
principal supplier to key developing world nations, especially those able to afford
major new weapons. The United States has developed for decades such a wide base
of arms equipment clients globally that it is able to conclude a notable number of
agreements annually to provide upgrades, ordnance and support services for the large
variety of weapons systems it has previously sold to its clients. Thus, even when the
United States does not conclude major new arms agreements in a given year, it can
still register significant arms agreement values based on transactions in these other
categories.
The principal arms-supplying nations continue to focus their sales efforts on the
wealthier developing countries. Arms transfers to the less affluent developing
nations are still constrained by the scarcity of funds in their defense budgets and the
unsettled state of the international economy. The overall decline in the level of arms

agreements with developing nations that began after 2001 and continued through
2003 has halted. Arms transfer agreements with developing countries reached their
highest total value in 2007 at nearly $43.3 billion. From 2004 through 2007 there has
been a steady increase in arms transfer agreements with developing countries, aid to
an important degree by sales to the more affluent nations in this group. Those
developing nations with notably increased oil revenues have been particularly active
in seeking new weaponry most recently.
China, as well as other European and non-European suppliers, appears to have
increased their participation in the arms trade with the developing world in recent
years, albeit at lower levels, and with more uneven results, than those of the major
suppliers. Nevertheless, these non-major arms suppliers have proven capable, on
occasion, of making arms deals of consequence. Most of their annual arms transfer
agreement values during 2000-2007 have been comparatively low, although the
values are larger when they are aggregated together as a group. In individual cases
they have been successful in selling older generation equipment, while they procure
newer weapons to upgrade their own military forces. These arms suppliers also are
more likely to be sources of small arms and light weapons and associated ordnance,
rather than routine sellers of major military equipment. Most of these arms suppliers
have not consistently ranked with the traditional major suppliers of advanced
weaponry in the value of their arms agreements and deliveries (Tables 1A, 1F, 1G,

2A, 2F, and 2G).

United States. The total value — in real terms — of United States arms
transfer agreements with developing nations rose from $9.1 billion in 2006 to $12.2
billion in 2007. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 28.8% in
2007, up from a 24% share in 2006 (Charts 1, 3 and 4)(Figure 1)(Tables 1A and

1B).

In 2007, the total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing
nations was attributable to a few major deals with clients in the Near East and in
Asia. A substantial number of smaller valued purchases by a wide number of
traditional U.S. arms clients throughout the Near East and Asia contributed notably
to the overall U.S. agreements total. The arms agreement total of the United States
in 2007 illustrates the continuing U.S. advantage of having well-established defense-
support arrangements with weapons purchasers worldwide, based upon the existing
variety of U.S. weapons systems their militaries utilize. U.S. agreements with all of
its clients in 2007 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 the larger valued arms transfer agreements the United States concluded
in 2007 with developing nations were: with the United Arab Emirates for 26 UH-
60M Black Hawk helicopters for over $800 million, and for 20 High Mobility
Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) launchers and rockets for $595 million. Other
U.S. arms agreements in 2007 were with Egypt for co-production of 125 M1A1
Abrams tanks for $771 million; with Saudi Arabia for 152 GE/Pratt&Whitney jet
engines for $386 million, and for F-15 aircraft follow-on services for $319 million;
with South Korea for 58 AN/VRC-90E SINCGAR radio systems for $427 million

and for 210 SM-2 STANDARD Block III missiles for $210 million; with Colombia
for 15 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters for $217 million; and with Jordan for a
C4SIR system for $208 million.
Russia. The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2007 was $9.7 billion, a decrease from $14.4 billion in 2006, placing
Russia third in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all
developing world arms transfer agreements increased, then fell from 37.9% in 2006
to 23% in 2007 (Charts 1, 3, and 4)(Figure 1)(Tables 1A, 1B, and 1G).
Russian arms transfer agreement totals with developing nations have been
notable during the last four years. During the 2004-2007 period, Russia ranked first
among all suppliers to developing countries, making $37.9 billion in agreements (in
current 2007 dollars) (Table 1F). Russia’s status as a leading supplier of arms to
developing nations stems from a successful effort to overcome the significant
economic and political problems associated with the dissolution of the former Soviet
Union. Traditional arms clients of the former Soviet Union were generally less
wealthy developing countries valued as much for their political support during the
Cold War, as for their desire for Soviet weaponry. Several of these Soviet-era client
states received substantial military aid grants and significant discounts on their arms
purchases. After 1991 Russia consistently placed a premium on obtaining hard
currency for the weapons it sold. Faced with stiff competition from Western arms
suppliers in the post-Cold War period, Russia modified and adapted its selling
practices in an effort to regain and sustain an important share of the developing-world
arms market.
In recent years, Russian leaders have made significant efforts to provide more
creative financing and payment options for prospective arms clients. They have
agreed to engage in counter-trade, offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make
significant licensed production agreements in order to sell Russia’s weapons. The
willingness to license production has been a central element in several cases
involving Russia’s principal arms clients, India and China. Russia’s efforts to
expand its arms customer base have met with mixed results. Russia’s arms sales
efforts, apart from those with China and India, have been focused on Southeast Asia.
Here Russia has secured arms agreements with Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
Most recently Russia has concluded major arms deals with Venezuela and with
Algeria. Elsewhere in the developing world Russian military equipment can be
competitive because it ranges from the most basic to the highly advanced. For less
affluent developing nations Russia’s less expensive armaments are particularly
attractive.
The sale of military aircraft and missiles continues to be a significant portion of
Russia’s arms exports. But the absence of major new research and development
efforts in this and other military equipment areas can jeopardize long-term Russian
foreign arms sales prospects. Although military weapons research and development
(R&D) programs exist in Russia, other major arms suppliers are currently more
advanced in the process of developing and producing weaponry than in existing
Russian R&D programs.

Despite these potential difficulties, Russia continues to have important arms
development and sales programs involving India and China, which should provide
it with sustained business throughout this decade. Through agreements concluded
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 licensed
production. It continues to provide support services and items for these various
weapons systems. Sales of advanced weaponry in South Asia by Russia have been
a matter of ongoing concern to the United States because of long-standing tensions
between India and Pakistan. When India acquires a new weapon system this typically
leads Pakistan to seek comparable weapons or those with offsetting capabilities. A
key U.S. policy objective is keeping a potentially destabilizing arms race in this
region within check.¹
China has been Russia’s other key arms client in Asia, especially for advanced
aircraft and naval systems. Since 1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft
and agreed to licensed production of them. It has 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 2005, Russia agreed to
sell China 30 IL-76TD military transport aircraft and 8 IL-78M aerial refueling tanker
aircraft for more than $1 billion. Russia also signed new arms transfer agreements
with China for a number of AL-31F military aircraft engines for $1 billion, and
agreed to sell jet engines for China’s FC-1 fighter aircraft at a cost in excess of $250
million. Chinese arms acquisitions are apparently aimed at enhancing its military
projection capabilities in Asia, and its ability to influence events throughout the
region. These acquisitions continue to be monitored by U.S. policymakers. The U.S.
policy interest is, among other things, ensuring that it provides appropriate military
equipment to U.S. allies and friendly states in Asia to help offset any prospective
threat China may pose to such nations, while keeping the U.S. military aware of any
threat it may face in any confrontation with China.² In 2007 there were no especially
large Chinese arms agreements with Russia, possibly because the Chinese military
is focused on absorbing and integrating previous arms purchases from Russia into its
force structure.
Among the most significant arms transfer deals Russia made in 2007 were with
India. These agreements included the sale of 347 T-90 main battle tanks, 40 Su-
30MKI combat fighter aircraft and a number of MiG-29 fighter aircraft. Also
concluded was an agreement for the production of jet aircraft engines and one for

¹ For detailed background see CRS Report RL33515, Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia:
Potential Implications, by Christopher Bolkcom, Richard F. Grimmett, and K. Alan
Kronstadt; CRS Report RL32115, Missile Proliferation and the Strategic Balance in South
Asia, by Andrew Feickert and K. Alan Kronstadt; and CRS Report RL30427, Missile
Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Selected Foreign Countries, by Andrew Feickert.
² For detailed background see CRS Report RL30700, China’s Foreign Conventional Arms
Acquisitions: Background and Analysis, by Shirley Kan, Christopher Bolkcom, and Ronald
O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S.
Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

long term defense production cooperation. An important portion of Russia’s $9.7
billion arms agreement total for 2007 was with India.
In 2007, Russia also made new arms sales with Indonesia for three Su-27SKM
and three Su-30MK2 fighter aircraft for $355 million, and for Mi-17 and Mi35M
helicopters for over $100 million. Iran contracted with Russia for five batteries of
the S-300PMU1 air defense system, and Syria purchased the Buk-M1-2 air defense
system.
China. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s provided China with the opportunity to
become an important supplier of less expensive weapons to certain developing
nations. During that conflict China demonstrated that it was willing to provide arms
to both combatants in the war, in quantity and without conditions. Since that time
China’s arms sales have been more regional and targeted. From 2004-2007, the
value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations averaged about
$2.3 billion annually. During the period of this report, the value of China’s arms
transfer agreements with developing nations were highest in 2007 at $3.8 billion. A
significant portion of that total can be attributed to a significant contract with
Pakistan associated with the production of the J-17 fighter aircraft. Generally,
China’s sales figures reflect several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa,
and the Near East, rather than one or two especially large agreements for major
weapons systems (Tables 1A, 1G, and 1H)(Chart 3).
There have been few developing nations with significant financial resources that
have sought to purchase Chinese military equipment during the eight-year period of
this report, because most Chinese weapons for export are less advanced and
sophisticated than weaponry available from Western suppliers or Russia. China,
consequently, does not appear likely to be a key supplier of major conventional
weapons in the international arms market for the foreseeable future. China’s likely
client base could be states in Asia and Africa seeking quantities of small arms and
light weapons, rather than major combat systems. At the same time, China has been
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 and important client. Iran and North Korea have also reportedly received
Chinese missile technology, which may have increased their capabilities to threaten
other countries in their respective neighborhoods. The continued reporting of such
activities by credible sources 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. Since China has some military products
— particularly missiles — that some developing countries would like to acquire, it
can present an 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.³

³ For detailed background on the MTCR and proliferation control regimes and related policy
(continued...)

China, among others, has been a key source of a variety of small arms and light
weapons transferred to African states. Although the prospects for significant revenue
earnings from these arms sales are limited, China may view such sales as one means
of enhancing its status as an international political power, and increasing its ability
to obtain access to significant natural resources, especially oil. Controlling the sales
of small arms and light weapons to regions of conflict, in particular to some African
nations, has been a matter of concern to the United States. The United Nations also
has undertaken an examination of this issue in an effort to achieve consensus on a
path to address it.⁴
Major West European Suppliers. Beyond the United States and Russia,
the four major West European arms suppliers — France, the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Italy — are the nations that can supply a wide variety of more highly
sophisticated weapons to would-be purchasers. They can serve as alternative sources
of armaments that the United States chooses not to supply for policy reasons. The
United Kingdom sold major combat fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s,
when the U.S. chose not to sell a comparable aircraft for policy reasons. These four
NATO nations have been allies of the United States and generally have supported the
U.S. position in restricting arms sales to certain nations during the Cold War era. In
the post-Cold War era, their national defense export policies have not been fully
coordinated with the United States as likely would have been the case at the Cold
War’s height.
These leading European arms supplying states, particularly France, view arms
sales foremost as a matter for national decision. France has also frequently used
foreign military sales as an important means for underwriting development and
procurement of weapons systems for its own military forces. So the potential exists
for policy differences between the United States and major West European supplying
states over conventional weapons transfers to specific countries. Such a conflict
resulted from an effort led by France and Germany to lift the arms embargo on arms
sales to China currently adhered to by members of the European Union. The United
States viewed this as a misguided effort, and vigorously opposed it. The proposal to
lift the embargo was ultimately not adopted, but it proved to be a source of
significant tension between the U.S. and the European Union. Thus, arms sales
activities of major European suppliers continue to be of interest to U.S.

³ (...continued)
issues see CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status,
by Mary Beth Nikitin, Paul Kerr, Steve Bowman and Steven A. Hildreth, and CRS Report
RL31848, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and International Code of Conduct
Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC): Background and Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert.
⁴ For background on China’s actions and motivations for increased activities in Africa see
CRS Report RL33055, China and Sub-Saharan Africa, by Raymond W. Copson, Kerry
Dumbaugh, and Michelle Lau. For background on U.S. policy concerns regarding small
arms and light weapons transfers see CRS Report RS20958, International Small Arms and
Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy, by Richard F. Grimmett.

policymakers, given their capability to make sales of advanced military equipment
to countries of concern to U.S. national security policy.⁵
The four major West European suppliers (France, the 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 2006 and
2007. This group’s share rose from 18.5% in 2006 to 32.2% in 2007. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2007 was
$13.6 billion compared with a total of $7.1 billion in 2006. Of these four nations, the
United Kingdom was the leading supplier with $9.8 billion in agreements in 2007,
a dramatic increase from $4.1 billion in agreements in 2006. A substantial portion
of the United Kingdom’s $9.8 billion agreement total in 2007 is attributable to an
order valued in excess of $9 billion from Saudi Arabia for 72 Typhoon Eurofighter
aircraft. Germany’s $1.5 billion in arms agreements in 2007 resulted primarily from
an agreement with South Korea for the purchase of an existing Patriot PAC-2 air
defense system for $1.2 billion (Charts 3 and 4)(Tables 1A and 1B).
Collectively, the four major West European suppliers held a 32.2% share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations during 2007. In the period from
2004-2007 they have generally been important participants in the developing world
arms market. Individual suppliers within the major West European group have had
notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 2000 and 2005 ($2.2 billion
and $6.8 billion, respectively). The United Kingdom also had large agreement years
in 2004 ($4.5 billion), in 2006 ($4.1 billion), and $9.8 billion in 2007. Germany
concluded arms agreements totaling nearly $2 billion in 2006, and $1.5 billion in
2007. In the case of each of these three European nations, large agreement totals in
one year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large arms contracts with one
or more major purchasers in that particular year (Table 1A and 1B).
The Major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in
weapons exports strengthened over the years through strong government marketing
support for their foreign arms sales. As they all 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 United States. But 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, on a sustained basis,
large new contracts with developing nations.

⁵ For detailed background see CRS Report RL32870, European Union’s Arms Embargo on
China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy, by Kristin Archick, Richard F. Grimmett,
and Shirley Kan. It should be noted that members of the European Union, and others, have
agreed to a common effort to attempt some degree of control on the transfer of certain
weapons systems, but the principal vehicle for this cooperation — the Wassenaar
Arrangement — lacks a mechanism to enforce its rules. For detailed background see CRS
Report RS20517, Military Technology and Conventional Weapons Exports Controls: The
Wassenaar Arrangement, by Richard F. Grimmett.

Continuing strong demand for U.S. defense equipment as well as concern for
maintaining their market share of the arms trade has led European Union (EU)
member states to adopt a new code of conduct for defense procurement practices.
This code was agreed to on November 21, 2005, at the European Defense Agency’s
(EA) steering board meeting. Currently voluntary, the EU hopes it will become
mandatory, and through its mechanisms foster greater competition within the
European defense equipment sector in the awarding of contracts for defense items.
The larger hope is that by fostering greater intra-European cooperation and
collaboration in defense contracting, and the resulting programs, that the defense
industrial bases of individual EU states will be preserved, and the ability of European
defense firms to compete for arms sales in the international arms marketplace will
be substantially enhanced.
A few European arms suppliers have begun to phase out production of certain
types of weapons systems. Such suppliers 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; the Eurocopter is another.
Other European suppliers have also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense
production ventures with the United States such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF),
rather than attempting to compete directly, thereby meeting their own requirements
for advanced combat aircraft, while positioning themselves to share in profits
resulting from future sales of this new fighter aircraft.⁶
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
The markets for arms in regions of the developing world have traditionally been
dominated by the Near East and by Asia. Nations in the Latin America and Africa
regions, by contrast, have not been major purchasers of weapons, except on rare
occasions. The regional arms agreement data tables in this report demonstrate this.
United States policymakers have placed emphasis on helping to maintain stability
throughout the regions of the developing world. Thus, the United States has made
and supported arms sales and transfers it has believed would advance that goal, while
discouraging significant sales by other suppliers to states and regions where military
threats to nations in the area are minimal. Other arms suppliers do not necessarily
share the U.S. perspective on what constitutes an appropriate arms sale. For in some
instances the financial benefit of the sale to the supplier trumps other considerations.
The regional and country specific arms-transfer data in this report provide an
indication of where various arms suppliers are focusing their attention and who their
principal clients are. By reviewing these data, policymakers can identify potential
developments which may be of concern, and use this information to assist their
review of options they may choose to consider given the circumstances. What
follows below is a review of data on arms-transfer agreement activities in the two
regions that lead in arms acquisitions, the Near East and Asia. This is followed, in

⁶ For detailed background on issues relating to the Joint Strike Fighter program see CRS
Report RL30563, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background,
Status, and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.

turn, by a review of data regarding the leading arms purchasers in the developing
world.
Near East.⁷ The primary catalyst for new weapons procurements in the Near
East region in the last decade was the Persian Gulf crisis of August 1990-February
1991. This crisis, culminating in a U.S.-led war to expel Iraq from Kuwait, created
new demands by key purchasers such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab
Emirates, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for a variety
of advanced weapons systems. Subsequently, major concerns over the growing
strategic threat from Iran has become the principal driver of GCC states’ arms
purchases. Because GCC states do not share a land border with Iran, their weapons
purchases have focused primarily on air, naval, and missile defense systems. Egypt
and Israel, meanwhile, have continued their military modernization programs,
increasing their arms purchases from the United States.⁸
Most recently, the position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the
Persian Gulf region has been re-established. In the period from 2000-2003, Saudi
Arabia’s total arms agreements were valued at $3.2 billion (in current dollars), less
than the levels of the U.A.E., Egypt, and Israel. For the period from 2004-2007,
Saudi Arabia’s total arms agreements were $23.2 billion (in current dollars), making
it the leading Near East purchaser once again.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. However, in 2000-2003, it accounted for 42.3% of the total value of all
developing nations arms transfer agreements ($33.3 billion in current dollars),
ranking it second behind Asia which was first with 46.9% of these agreements ($35.2
billion in current dollars). But, during 2004-2007, the Near East region accounted
for 46.3% of all such agreements ($63.1 billion in current dollars), again placing it
first in arms agreements with the developing world. The Asia region ranked second
in 2004-2007 with $57.6 billion in agreements or 42.3% (Tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 2000-2003 period with 73.6% of their total value ($24.5 billion in current
dollars). Russia was second during these years with 9.3% ($3.1 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 2004-2007, the United States accounted for 32.8% of arms
agreements with this region ($20.7 billion in current dollars), while the United
Kingdom accounted for 27.9% of the region’s agreements ($17.6 billion in current
dollars). Russia accounted for 20.8% of the region’s agreements in the most recent
period ($13.1 billion in current dollars) (Chart 5)(Tables 1C and 1E).
Asia. Efforts in several developing nations in Asia have been focused on
upgrading and modernizing defense forces, and this has led to new conventional

⁷ In this report the Near East region includes the following nations: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt,
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The countries included in the other
geographic regions are listed at the end of the report.
⁸ For detailed background see CRS Report RL31533, The Persian Gulf States: Issues for
U.S. Policy, 2006, by Kenneth Katzman.

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. Russian arms sales to these two countries have been primarily
responsible for the increase in Asia’s overall share of the arms market in the
developing world. Russia has expanded its client base in Asia, receiving aircraft
orders from Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. India has also expanded its weapons
supplier base, purchasing the Phalcon early warning defense system aircraft in 2004
from Israel for $1.1 billion, and numerous items from France in 2005, in particular
6 Scorpene diesel attack submarines for $3.5 billion. In 2007, India made major
purchases from Russia of T-90 main battle tanks, Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft, and
MiG-29 fighter aircraft. The United States made a multi-billion dollar sale to
Pakistan in 2006 of new F-16 fighter aircraft, weapons, and aircraft upgrades, while
Sweden sold it a SAAB-2000 based AWACS airborne radar system for over a billion
dollars. In 2007, Pakistan contracted with China for production of J-17 fighter
aircraft. These transactions have placed Pakistan among the leading major Asian
arms buyers of recent years. The data on regional arms-transfer agreements from
2000-2007 continue to reflect that Near East and Asian nations are the primary
sources of orders for conventional weaponry in the developing world.
Asia has traditionally been the second largest developing-world arms market.
In 2004-2007, Asia ranked second, accounting for 42.3% of the total value of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($57.6 billion in current dollars).
Yet in the earlier period, 2000-2003, the region ranked first, accounting for 46.9%
of all such agreements ($35.2 billion in current dollars) (Tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 49.8% ($17.5 billion in current dollars). The
United States ranked second with 19.8% ($7 billion in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 12.5% of this region’s agreements in
2000-2003. In the later period (2004-2007), Russia ranked first in Asian agreements
with 35.9% ($20.7 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combat aircraft,
and naval system sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with
19.3% ($11.1 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, made 17.4% of this region’s agreements in 2004-2007. (Chart 6)(Table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 2000-2007,
making arms transfer agreements totaling $31.9 billion during these years (in current
dollars). In the 2000-2003 period, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements at
$10.1 billion (in current dollars). In 2004-2007 India ranked first in arms transfer
agreements, with a large increase to $24.2 billion from $7.7 billion in the earlier
2000-2003 period (in current dollars). This increase reflects the continuation of a
military modernization effort by India, underway since the 1990s, based primarily on
major arms agreements with Russia. The total value of all arms transfer agreements
with developing nations from 2000-2007 was $217.6 billion in current dollars. Thus
India alone accounted for 14.7% of all developing-world arms-transfer agreements
during these eight years. In the most recent period, 2004-2007, India made $24.2
billion in arms transfer agreements (in current dollars). This total constituted 17.8%

of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during these four years ($136
billion in current dollars). Saudi Arabia ranked second in arms transfer agreements
during 2004-2007 with $23.2 billion (in current dollars), or 17.1% of the value of all
developing-world arms-transfer agreements (Tables 1, 1I, and 1J).
During 2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 66.9% of
all developing world arms transfer agreements. During 2004-2007, the top ten
recipients collectively accounted for 61.6% of all such agreements. Arms transfer
agreements with the top ten developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $34.1
billion in 2007 or 80.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in
that year. These percentages reflect the continued concentration of major arms
purchases by developing nations among a few countries (Tables 1, 1I, and 1J).
Saudi Arabia ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of
arms transfer agreements in 2007, concluding $10.6 billion in such agreements.
India ranked second in agreements at $5 billion. Pakistan ranked third with $4.2
billion in agreements. Seven of the top ten recipients were in the Near East region;
three were in the Asian region (Table 1J).⁹
India was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing world
recipients in 2007, receiving $1.6 billion in such deliveries. Israel ranked second in
arms deliveries in 2007 with $1.5 billion. Egypt ranked third with $1.5 billion
(Table 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $11.1 billion, or 64.5% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2007.
Five of these top ten recipients were in Asia; three were in the Near East; one was in
Latin America, 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 and type
of conventional weaponry actually transferred 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).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, historically the largest purchasing region
in the developing world, reflect the 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 2004-2007 from Table 5:
United States.
^!557 tanks and self-propelled guns

⁹ For countries included in the Asia region and the Latin American region see the listings
of nations by regions given at the end of this report.

^!587 APCs and armored cars
^!6 minor surface combatants
^!94 supersonic combat aircraft
^!29 helicopters
^!748 surface-to-air missiles
^!77 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
^!230 tanks and self-propelled guns
^!260 APCs and armored cars
^!30 supersonic combat aircraft
^!30 helicopters
^!1,640 surface-to-air missiles
China.
^!60 other aircraft
^!80 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
^!20 tanks and self-propelled guns
^!60 APCs and armored cars
^!3 major surface combatants
^!27 minor surface combatants
^!6 guided missile boats
^!20 supersonic combat aircraft
^!10 helicopters
^!80 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
^!130 tanks and self-propelled guns
^!1,280 APCs and armored cars
^!10 minor surface combatants
^!9 guided missile boats
^!320 surface-to-air missiles
^!70 anti-ship missiles
All Other Suppliers.
^!560 APCs and armored cars
^!88 minor surface combatants
^!20 helicopters
^!30 surface-to-surface missiles
^!20 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 2004-2007, 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 deliveries of supersonic
combat aircraft to the region. The United States, China, and the European suppliers
delivered many anti-ship missiles. 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 a large portion of the dollar values of
arms deliveries by the United States, Russia, and European suppliers to the Near East
region during the 2004-2007 period.
The cost of naval combatants is also generally high, and the 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, nonetheless, deadly and can create important security threats within the
region. In particular, from 2004-2007, the United States delivered 77 anti-ship
missiles to the Near East region, China delivered 80, and the four major West
European suppliers delivered 80. The United States delivered six minor surface
combatants to the Near East, while the major West European suppliers collectively
delivered three major surface combatants, 27 minor surface combatants and six
guided missile boats. The non-major West European suppliers collectively delivered
70 anti-ship missiles. Other non-European suppliers collectively delivered 560 APCs
and armored cars, 88 minor surface combatants, as well as 30 surface-to-surface
missiles, a weapons category not delivered by any of the other major weapons
suppliers during this period to any region.

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
United States commercially licensed arms deliveries data are not included in
this report. 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 authorization, 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 commercially licensed arms deliveries data are obtained from
shipper’s export documents and completed licenses from ports of exit by the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency which are then provided to the U.S.
Census Bureau. The Census Bureau takes these arms export data, and, following
a minimal review of them, submits them to the Directorate of Defense Trade
Controls in the Political-Military Bureau (PM/DDTC) of the State Department,
which makes the final compilation of such data — details of which are not
publicly available. Once compiled by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
at the State Department, these commercially licensed arms deliveries data are not
revised. By contrast, the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program data, for both
agreements and deliveries, maintained by the Defense Department, are
systematically collected, reviewed for accuracy on an on-going basis, and are
revised from year-to-year as needed to reflect any changes or to correct any errors
in the information. This report includes all FMS deliveries data. By excluding
U.S. commercial licensed arms deliveries data, the U.S. arms delivery totals will
be understated.
Some have suggested that a systematic data collection and reporting system
for commercial licensed exports, comparable to the one which exists now in the
Department of Defense, should be established by the Department of State. Having
current and comprehensive agreement and delivery data on commercially licensed
exports would provide a more complete picture of the U.S. arms export trade, in
this view, and thus facilitate Congressional oversight of this sector of U.S. exports.

Arms Values Data Tables and Charts for 2000-2007
Tables 1 through 1J present data on arms transfer agreements with developing
nations by major suppliers from 2000-2007. 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.
Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D provide data on worldwide arms transfer agreements
from 2000-2007, while Tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D 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 magnitude of arms transactions by arms
suppliers with recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise
noted. Illustrative pie and bar charts are provided in this section to give the relative
market share of individual arms suppliers globally, to the developing world and to
specific regions. Figure 1 provides the value of worldwide arms transfer agreements
for 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2007, and the suppliers’ share of such agreements
with the developing world. Figure 2 provides the value of worldwide arms deliveries
for 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2007, and the suppliers’ share of such deliveries with
the developing world. Specific content of other individual data tables is described
below.
Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements to
developing nations by major suppliers from 2000-2007. This table provides the data
from which Tables 1A (constant dollars) and Table 1B (supplier percentages) are
derived.
^!Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 2000-2007
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007.
These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars.¹⁰ 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 2000-2003 and 2004-

2007.

^!Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 2000-2007 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers

¹⁰ Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they are
expressed in current dollar terms.

on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with the
developing world for each of three periods — 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-

2007.

^!Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2007 the values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars.
^!Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 2000-2007:
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 2000-2003 and 2004-
2007. These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the
data contained in Table 1 and Table 1C.
^!Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2000-2007: 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 2000-2007 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—2000-

2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-2007.

^!Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2007: Agreements
With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2007. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2007.
^!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 2000-2007. 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.
^!Regional Arms Delivery Values, 2000-2007
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. These values are
expressed in current U.S. dollars.¹¹ Table 2D, derived from Table 2C, gives the

¹¹ Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they are
(continued...)

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 2000-2003 and 2004-2007.
^!Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007: Leading
Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 2000-
2007 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 — 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-2007.
^!Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2007: Leading
Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2007 the values of arms deliveries to developing
nations of the top ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars.
^!Arms Deliveries to Near East, 2000-2007: Suppliers and
Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. These values
are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in
Table 2 and Table 2C.
^!Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007: The Leading
Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of
arms in the developing world from 2000-2007 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 — 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and

2000-2007.

^!Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2007: Agreements
With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2007. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2007.

¹¹ (...continued)
expressed in current dollar terms.

Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 2000-2007
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2007 dollars
⁶⁰
^De^v^e^l^o^p^e^d^W^o^r^l^d
⁵⁵^D^e^ve^lo^pi^ng^W^o^r^l^d
⁵⁰
⁴⁵
⁴⁰
³⁵
³⁰
²⁵
²⁰
¹⁵
¹⁰
⁵
⁰
²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

CRS-25
Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide
(supplier percentage of value)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

CRS-26
Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations
(supplier percentage of value)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 2000-2007
(billions of constant 2007 dollars)
United StatesRussia
²⁵¹⁶
¹⁴
²⁰¹²
¹⁵¹⁰
⁸
¹⁰⁶
⁴
⁵
²
⁰⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^g/w
^s^.orMajor West European
^le^akAll Others
¹⁶¹⁶
^://wiki¹⁴¹⁴
^h^ttp
¹²¹²
¹⁰¹⁰
⁸⁸
⁶⁶
⁴⁴
²²
⁰⁰
²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 2000-2007 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 2000-2003Developing World
United States65,94870.40
Russia 26,610 96.00
France 13,656 36.30
United Kingdom2,91939.50
China 3,164 100.00
Germany 6,660 21.80
Italy2,67726.00
All Other European15,60138.20
All Others10,32264.90
TOTAL 147,558 65.10
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 2004-2007Developing World
United States68,88650.40
Russia 40,940 96.00
France 18,440 53.50
United Kingdom23,50690.70
China 9,383 100.00
Germany 7,199 61.10
Italy4,36761.90
All Other European23,42144.70
All Others12,20272.80
TOTAL 208,344 67.70
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 2007Developing World
United States24,86048.90
Russia 10,400 93.30
France 1,800 83.30
United Kingdom9,800100.00
China 3,800 100.00
Germany 1,500 100.00
Italy90088.90
All Other European4,40036.40
All Others2,50056.00
TOTAL 59,960 70.50
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

CRS-29
Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Near East
(supplier percentage of value)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

CRS-30
Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in Asia
(supplier percentage of value)
(excludes Japan, Australia, and New Zealand)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 2000-2007
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2007 dollars
50
Developed World
45Developing World
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2001 20 02 20 03 2004 2005 2006 2 007
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 2000-2007
(in billions of constant 2007 dollars)
United StatesRussia
¹⁰¹⁰
⁸⁸
⁶⁶
⁴⁴
²²
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷⁰²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷⁰
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^akAll Others
Major West European
^://wiki¹⁰¹⁰
^h^ttp
⁸⁸
⁶⁶
⁴⁴
²²
⁰⁰
²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 2000-2007 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide DeliveriesPercentage of Total to
SupplierValue Developing World
2000-2003
United States50,55160.30
Russia 19,752 91.60
France 10,056 66.30
United Kingdom23,29075.30
China4,09489.50
Germany 6,380 30.90
Italy2,09533.40
All Other European15,26656.00
All Others12,13248.20
TOTAL 143,617 65.10
Worldwide DeliveriesPercentage of Total to
SupplierValue Developing World
2004-2007
United States51,21664.30
Russia 20,125 95.90
France 12,174 73.00
United Kingdom14,51269.40
China4,46093.20
Germany 7,328 32.90
Italy1,97531.40
All Other European12,24837.40
All Others10,88139.90
TOTAL 134,918 64.70
SupplierWorldwide DeliveriesValue 2007Percentage of Total toDeveloping World
United States12,79359.50
Russia 4,700 97.90
France 2,100 33.30
United Kingdom2,60034.60
China1,40085.70
Germany 1,000 40.00
Italy50040.00
All Other European3,20034.40
All Others2,70018.50
TOTAL 30,933 55.60
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t

CRS-34
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-2007
18,624 6,343 8,334 5,915 6,819 5,643 8,925 12,160 72,763
6,600 5,300 5,400 4,500 7,300 6,800 14,100 9,700 59,700
1,800 1,100 400 900 1,100 6,400 400 1,500 13,600
i ngdom 0 200 700 100 4,100 2,800 4,000 9,800 21,700
600 1,100 400 600 900 3,000 1,400 3,800 11,800
any 1,000 100 100 0 100 800 1,900 1,500 5,500
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723} 100 200 0 300 600 600 600 800 3,200
^g/w1,300 1,100 1,400 1,300 2,300 3,500 2,600 1,600 15,100
^s^.or
^le^ak1,800 1,600 1,100 1,200 2,500 1,300 3,300 1,400 14,200
^://wiki
^h^ttpL 31,824 17,043 17,834 14,815 25,719 30,843 37,225 42,260 217,563
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^Dev^e^lopin^gⁿ^a^tion^s^categ^ory^ex^clu^d^es^th^{e U.S., Eu}^{rope, C}^aⁿ^a^da,^J^a^pan^,^A^u^s^t^{ralia an}^{d New}^Z^ealan^{d. A}^{ll data}^are^f^o^r^th^e^calen^d^ar^y^ear^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^ex^cep^{t f}^o^r^{U. S. MA}^P⁽^M^ilitar^y
^{ce P}^r^o^g^r^a^m⁾^{, I}^M^ET⁽^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Militar}^y^Ed^u^catioⁿ^an^d^T^r^ainⁱⁿ^g⁾^{, an}^d^Ex^{cess Def}^eⁿ^s^{e A}^r^{ticle d}^a^{ta w}^h^ich^ar^{e in}^clu^d^ed^f^{or th}^{e particu}^l^{ar f}ⁱ^s^{cal y}^{ear. A}^ll^am^ouⁿ^t^s^gⁱ^v^eⁿⁱⁿ^clu^d^e
^a^lu^{es o}^f^{all categ}^o^r^{ies o}^f^w^eap^oⁿ^{s, sp}^ar^{e p}^a^r^t^{s, co}ⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^{all asso}^ciated^ser^v^{ices, m}^ilitar^y^assistan^{ce, ex}^{cess d}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e ar}^{ticles, an}^d^tr^ainⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^{. Statistics f}^o^r^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^co^uⁿ^t^rⁱ^es
^e^{d u}^pon^es^tim^{ated s}^e^llin^g^pric^e^s^.^Al^l^fo^r^e^igⁿ^{data are}^rouⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.^T^h^{e Un}^{ited States}^{total in}^{2000 in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billion}^licen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^rcial
^en^{t w}^ith^th^{e Un}^{ited A}^r^{ab Em}^irates^f^o^{r 80 F-}^{16 aircraf}^t^.

CRS-35
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TO TAL2000-2007
ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^22,673^7,491^9,585^6,654^7,445^5,956^9,142^12,160^81,105
^s^sⁱ^a⁸^,035^6,259^6,210^5,062^7,970^7,177^14,442^9,700^64,856
^an^ce^2,191^1,299⁴⁶⁰^1,012^1,201^6,755⁴¹⁰^1,500^14,828
ⁱ^t^e^{d K}ⁱⁿ^g^dom⁰²³⁶⁸⁰⁵¹¹²^4,476^2,955^4,097^9,800^22,482
ⁱⁿ^a⁷³⁰^1,299⁴⁶⁰⁶⁷⁵⁹⁸³^3,166^1,434^3,800^12,547
^rm^an^y¹^,217¹¹⁸¹¹⁵⁰¹⁰⁹⁸⁴⁴^1,946^1,500^5,850
^y¹²²²³⁶⁰³³⁷⁶⁵⁵⁶³³⁶¹⁵⁸⁰⁰^3,398
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}
^g/w^l^O^t^h^e^{r Eu}^ropean^1,583^1,299^1,610^1,462^2,511^3,694^2,663^1,600^16,422
^s^.or^l^O^t^h^e^rs^2,191^1,889^1,265^1,³⁵⁰^2,730^1,372^3,380^1,400^15,577
^le^ak
^://wiki^T^A^L^38,744^20,126^20,511^16,665^28,081^32,552^38,129^42,260^237,067
^h^ttp
^llarⁱⁿ^f^l^atioⁿ^Iⁿ^d^e^x^:
⁰^.8214^0.8468^0.⁸⁶⁹⁵^0.889^0.9159^0.9475^0.9763¹
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{ed on}^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e P}^r^{ice Def}^l^ator.

CRS-36
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

58.52% 37.22% 46.73% 39.93% 26.51% 18.30% 23.98% 28.77%

20.74% 31.10% 30.28% 30.37% 28.38% 22.05% 37.88% 22.95%

5.66% 6.45% 2.24% 6.07% 4.28% 20.75% 1.07% 3.55%

i ngdom 0.00% 1.17% 3.93% 0.67% 15.94% 9.08% 10.75% 23.19%

1.89% 6.45% 2.24% 4.05% 3.50% 9.73% 3.76% 8.99%

any 3.14% 0.59% 0.56% 0.00% 0.39% 2.59% 5.10% 3.55%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}0.31% 1.17% 0.00% 2.02% 2.33% 1.95% 1.61% 1.89%
^g/w4.08% 6.45% 7.85% 8.77% 8.94% 11.35% 6.98% 3.79%
^s^.or
^le^ak5.66% 9.39% 6.17% 8.10% 9.72% 4.21% 8.87% 3.31%
^://wikiajor West European*9.11%9.39%6.73%8.77%22.94%34.37%18.54%32.18%]
^h^ttpL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-37
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007
6,977 11,092 24,487 20,655 1,191 1,638 94 186
17,500 20,700 3,100 13,100 300 3,600 900 500
2,700 4,600 1,200 3,600 0 300 100 900
i ngdom 400 2,400 500 17,600 0 700 0 0
1,300 6,000 700 1,800 100 200 600 1,200
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,100 1,800 100 1,500 0 1,100 0 0
^g/w 200 1,200 100 1,000 200 100 200 300
^s^.or
^le^ak2,100 3,900 1,800 2,600 200 2,800 1,000 800
^://wiki2,900 5,900 1,300 1,200 900 800 700 500
^h^ttpajor West European*4,40010,0001,90023,7002002,2003001,200]
L 35,177 57,592 33,287 63,055 2,891 11,238 3,594 4,386
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^A^ll^f^o^reigⁿ^data^are^rouⁿ^d^ed^{to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.^T^h^{e Un}^{ited States}^{total f}^o^{r Near Eas}^tⁱⁿ^2000-^{2003 in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.43}²^b^illioⁿ^licen^sed^co^m^m^e^r^c^{ial ag}^r^eem^en^{t w}^ith^th^e
^t^e^{d A}^r^{ab Em}ⁱ^r^at^esⁱⁿ^{2000 f}^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed Fran}^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-38
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 2000-2007
^As^ia^{Near E}^a^s^t^L^a^{tin Am}^erica^Africa^T^O^T^A^L
^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007
ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^21.30%^33.04%^74.77%^61.53%^3.64%^4.88%^0.29%^0.55%^100.00%^100.00%
^s^sⁱ^a^80.28%^54.62%^14.22%^34.56%^1.38%^9.50%^4.13%^1.32%^100.00%^100.00%
^an^ce^67.50%^48.94%^30.00%^38.30%^0.00%^3.19%^2.50%^9.57%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱ^t^e^{d K}ⁱⁿ^g^dom^44.44%^11.59%^55.56%^85.02%^0.00%^3.38%^0.00%^0.00%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱⁿ^a^48.15%^65.22%^25.93%^19.57%^3.70%^2.17%^22.22%^13.04%^100.00%^100.00%
^rm^an^y^91.67%^40.91%^8.33%^34.09%^0.00%^25.00%^0.00%^0.00%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}^y^28.57%^46.15%^14.29%^38.46%^28.57%^3.85%^28.57%^11.54%^100.00%^100.00%
^g/w^e^r^41.18%^38.61%^35.29%^25.74%^3.92%^27.72%^19.61%^7.92%
^s^.or^ropean^100.00%^100.00%
^le^ak^l^O^t^h^e^rs^50.00%^70.24%^22.41%^14.29%^15.52%^9.52%^12.07%^5.95%^100.00%^100.00%
^://wiki^aj^or^W^e^s^t^64.71%^26.95%^27.94%^63.88%^2.94%^5.93%^4.41%^3.23%
^h^ttp^opean*^100.00%^100.00%^]
^TA^L^46.93%^42.26%^44.41%^46.27%^3.86%^8.25%^4.80%^3.22%^100.00%^100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed Fran}^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-39
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 2000-2007
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007

19.83% 19.26% 73.56% 32.76% 41.20% 14.58% 2.62% 4.24%

49.75% 35.94% 9.31% 20.78% 10.38% 32.03% 25.04% 11.40%

7.68% 7.99% 3.61% 5.71% 0.00% 2.67% 2.78% 20.52%

i ngdom 1.14% 4.17% 1.50% 27.91% 0.00% 6.23% 0.00% 0.00%

3.70% 10.42% 2.10% 2.85% 3.46% 1.78% 16.69% 27.36%

any 3.13% 3.13% 0.30% 2.38% 0.00% 9.79% 0.00% 0.00%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}0.57% 2.08% 0.30% 1.59% 6.92% 0.89% 5.56% 6.84%
^g/w
^s^.or5.97% 6.77% 5.41% 4.12% 6.92% 24.92% 27.82% 18.24%
^le^ak8.24% 10.24% 3.91% 1.90% 31.13% 7.12% 19.48% 11.40%
^://wikiajor West European*12.51%17.36%5.71%37.59%6.92%19.58%8.35%27.36%]
^h^ttpL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2000-2003
1United States*39,216
2Russia21,800
3France4,200
4China2,700
5Israel2,100
6Ukraine1,800
7Germany1,200
8United Kingdom1,000
9Brazil700
10Italy600
11Poland600
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2004-2007
1Russia 37,900
2United States33,547
3United Kingdom20,700
4France9,400
5China9,100
6Israel4,900
7Germany4,300
8Italy2,600
9Spain2,100
10Ukraine1,500
11 Netherlands 1,400
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2000-2007
1United States*72,763
2Russia59,700
3United Kingdom21,700
4France13,600
5China11,800
6Israel7,100
7Germany5,500
8Ukraine3,300
9Italy3,200
10Spain2,500
11 Netherlands 1,500
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^rei^gn^d^a^{ta are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.
^*^T^h^e^Un^ited^S^t^a^t^e^s^{total in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billio}ⁿ^licen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^{rcial ag}^reem^en^{t w}^ith^th^{e Un}^ited
^A^r^{ab Em}ⁱ^r^at^esⁱⁿ^{2000 f}^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.

Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations
in 2007: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2007
1United States12,160
2United Kingdom9,800
3Russia9,700
4China3,800
5France1,500
6Germany1,500
7Italy800
8Israel700
9Brazil300
10Ukraine300
11 Switzerland 300
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illio^n.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RecipientU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestAll OtherAllTotal
Count ry Eur o pe an* Eur o pe an Others
2000-2003
Alge ria 0 400 100 0 100 0 600
Bahrain 400 0 0 0 0 0 400
Egyp t 5,900 400 200 100 200 0 6,800
Ir an 0 200 100 0 100 100 500
Ir aq 0 100 0 0 200 100 400
Is rael 5,000 0 0 0 100 0 5,100
J ordan 700 0 0 0 100 200 1,000
K uwait 1,700 100 200 0 0 200 2,200
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 100 0 0 200 300 600
Morocco 0 0 0 100 0 0 100
Oman 900 0 0 400 0 0 1,300
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia2,70000500003,200
Syria 0 400 0 0 0 300 700
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E.** 7,100 800 0 800 400 200 9,300
Yeme n 0 700 100 0 200 0 1,000
2004-2007
Alge ria 0 3,900 100 0 0 0 4,000
Bahrain 400 0 0 100 0 100 600
Egyp t 4,300 500 300 0 300 100 5,500
Ir an 0 2,100 400 0 300 100 2,900
Ir aq 2,000 100 100 400 700 200 3,500
Is rael 3,300 300 0 800 0 0 4,400
J ordan 1,100 200 0 0 300 0 1,600
K uwait 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 1,100
Lebanon 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
Libya 0 400 0 800 200 100 1,500
Morocco 100 200 0 500 0 200 1,000
Oman 200 0 0 2,300 0 100 2,600
Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
Saudi Arabia5,200060016,90040010023,200
Syria 0 4,900 0 0 0 500 5,400
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E. 2,700 200 0 1,600 200 300 5,000
Yeme n 0 200 0 0 100 200 500
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^Note:^{0=data les}^s^th^an^{$50 m}^illion^{or n}^{il. A}^ll^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.
^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^eg^{ate f}ⁱ^g^u^r^e.
^*^*^T^h^e^Un^{ited States}^{total f}^o^{r 2000-}^{2003 in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billion}^licen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^{rcial ag}^reem^en^{t w}^ith^th^e
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^{d A}^r^{ab Em}ⁱ^r^at^esⁱⁿ^{2000 f}^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.

Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
2000-2007: Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientAgreements Value 2000-2003
1China10,100
2U.A.E.*9,300
3India7,700
4Egypt6,800
5Israel5,100
6South Korea4,700
7Saudi Arabia3,200
8Malaysia3,100
9Singapore2,300
10Kuwait2,200
RankRecipientAgreements Value 2004-2007
1India24,200
2Saudi Arabia23,200
3Pakistan12,100
4China5,900
5Egypt5,500
6Syria5,400
7U.A.E.5,000
8Venezuela4,700
9Israel4,400
10South Korea4,200
RankRecipientAgreements Value 2000-2007
1India31,900
2Saudi Arabia26,400
3China16,000
4U.A.E.*14,300
5Pakistan13,700
6Egypt12,300
7Israel9,500
8South Korea8,900
9Syria6,100
10 V e nezuela 4,900
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^t^e^:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^are^t^h^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.
^*^T^h^e^U.A^.^{E. total in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billion}^licen^s^e^d^com^m^e^rcial^ag^reem^en^t^w^ith^th^{e Un}^{ited States}ⁱⁿ
^{2000 f}^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.

Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations
in 2007: Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientAgreements Value2007
1Saudi Arabia10,600
2India5,000
3Pakistan4,200
4Syria3,700
5South Korea2,700
6U.A.E.1,900
7Iraq1,900
8Egypt1,700
9Oman1,400
10Israel1,000
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te^{: A}^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data a}^r^e^r^o^und^e^d^{to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

CRS-45
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷^TO^TA^L^2000-2007
ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^8,027^5,389^6,500^6,096^7,471^8,388^8,126^7,613^57,610
^s^sⁱ^a³^,500^4,300^3,500^4,200^5,300^3,100^5,500^4,600^34,000
^an^ce^1,900^1,000⁹⁰⁰^1,900^5,200^2,000⁴⁰⁰⁷⁰⁰^14,000
ⁱ^t^e^{d K}ⁱⁿ^g^dom^4,300^3,400^3,400^3,900^2,400^3,000^3,300⁹⁰⁰^24,600
ⁱⁿ^a⁸⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰⁷⁰⁰⁹⁰⁰⁹⁰⁰^1,000^1,200^7,100
^rm^an^y⁵⁰⁰¹⁰⁰³⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰³⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰^4,000
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}^y¹⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰^1,200
^g/w
^s^.or^l^O^t^h^e^{r Eu}^ropean^2,100^1,800^1,900^1,500⁹⁰⁰^1,300^1,100^1,100^11,700
^le^ak^l^O^t^h^e^rs^1,100^1,400^1,500^1,000^1,700^1,400⁵⁰⁰⁵⁰⁰^9,100
^://wiki^T^A^L^22,327^18,389^19,000^20,196^24,771^20,488^20,926^17,213^163,310
^h^ttp
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^D^e^ve^l^o^pⁱ^{ng na}^tⁱ^o^{ns c}^a^t^e^g^o^r^y^excludes^th^{e Un}^{ited States}^{, R}^u^s^sⁱ^{a, Eu}^{rope, C}^aⁿ^a^{da, J}^a^pan^,^A^u^s^t^{ralia, an}^{d New}^Z^ealan^{d. A}^{ll data}^are^f^o^r^th^e^calen^dar^y^{ear g}ⁱ^v^eⁿ^,^ex^ce^pt^f^o^{r U}^.^S^.
^P⁽^M^ilitar^y^A^ssistan^{ce P}^r^o^g^r^a^m⁾^{, I}^M^ET⁽^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l^M^ilita^r^y^E^d^u^c^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^Tr^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g⁾^,^e^x^c^e^s^s^d^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^a^r^tⁱ^c^l^e^s^,^w^hⁱ^c^h^a^r^eⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^d^f^o^r^t^h^e^p^a^r^tⁱ^c^u^l^a^r^fⁱ^s^c^a^l^y^e^a^r^.^Lⁱ^c^eⁿ^s^e^d
^m^e^r^c^{ial ex}^p^o^r^{ts ar}^{e ex}^clu^d^ed^{. A}^{ll am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s g}ⁱ^v^eⁿⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e th}^{e v}^a^lu^{es o}^f^{all categ}^o^r^{ies o}^f^w^eap^oⁿ^{s an}^d^am^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^,^m^ilitar^y^sp^ar^{e p}^a^r^t^{s, m}^ilitar^y^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^m^ilitar^y^assistan^ce
ⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram^s^{, an}^{d all as}^s^o^{ciated s}^e^rv^ices^{. Statis}^tics^f^o^{r f}^o^reigⁿ^couⁿ^t^ries^{are bas}^e^{d u}^pon^es^tim^{ated s}^e^llin^g^prices^.^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.

CRS-46
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷^TO^TA^L^2000-2007
ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^9,772^6,364^7,476^6,857^8,157^8,853^8,323^7,613^63,415
^s^sⁱ^a⁴^,261^5,078^4,025^4,724^5,787^3,272^5,634^4,600^37,381
^an^ce^2,313^1,181^1,035^2,137^5,677^2,111⁴¹⁰⁷⁰⁰^15,564
ⁱ^t^e^{d K}ⁱⁿ^g^dom^5,235^4,015^3,910^4,387^2,620^3,166^3,380⁹⁰⁰^27,614
ⁱⁿ^a⁹⁷⁴⁹⁴⁵⁹²⁰⁷⁸⁷⁹⁸³⁹⁵⁰^1,024^1,200^7,783
^rm^an^y⁶⁰⁹¹¹⁸³⁴⁵⁹⁰⁰⁸⁷³³¹⁷⁸¹⁹⁴⁰⁰^4,381
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}^y¹²²²³⁶²³⁰¹¹²¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁶²⁰⁵²⁰⁰^1,320
^g/w
^s^.or^l^O^t^h^e^{r Eu}^ropean^2,557^2,126^2,185^1,687⁹⁸³^1,372^1,127^1,100^13,136
^le^ak^l^O^t^h^e^rs^1,339^1,653^1,725^1,125^1,856^1,478⁵¹²⁵⁰⁰^10,188
^://wiki^T^A^L^27,182^21,716^21,852^22,718^27,046^21,623^21,434^17,213^180,783
^h^ttp
^llarⁱⁿ^f^l^atioⁿⁱⁿ^d^e^x^:
⁰^.8214^0.8468^0.⁸⁶⁹⁵^0.889^0.9159^0.9475^0.9763¹
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{ed on}^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e P}^r^{ice Def}^l^ator.

CRS-47
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

35.95% 29.31% 34.21% 30.18% 30.16% 40.94% 38.83% 44.23%

15.68% 23.38% 18.42% 20.80% 21.40% 15.13% 26.28% 26.72%

8.51% 5.44% 4.74% 9.41% 20.99% 9.76% 1.91% 4.07%

i ngdom 19.26% 18.49% 17.89% 19.31% 9.69% 14.64% 15.77% 5.23%

3.58% 4.35% 4.21% 3.47% 3.63% 4.39% 4.78% 6.97%

any 2.24% 0.54% 1.58% 3.96% 3.23% 1.46% 3.82% 2.32%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}0.45% 1.09% 1.05% 0.50% 0.40% 0.49% 0.96% 1.16%
^g/w9.41% 9.79% 10.00% 7.43% 3.63% 6.35% 5.26% 6.39%
^s^.or
^le^ak4.93% 7.61% 7.89% 4.95% 6.86% 6.83% 2.39% 2.90%
^://wikiajor West European*30.46%25.56%25.26%33.17%34.31%26.36%22.46%12.78%]
^h^ttp
L 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-48
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007
8,699 10,374 16,507 19,803 716 1,265 90 156
13,200 12,800 1,700 3,100 100 2,000 500 600
600 1,600 4,900 6,100 100 400 100 100
i ngdom 600 600 14,400 8,000 0 200 0 700
1,600 2,300 900 900 0 100 400 800
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,100 900 400 300 0 0 200 1,100
^g/w 100 100 100 0 200 100 100 300
^s^.or
^le^ak 1,400 1,300 4,300 1,600 700 1,200 1,000 500
^://wiki 6,500 3,000 1,300 900 400 700 700 300
^h^ttpajor West European* 2,4003,20019,80014,4003007004002,200]
L 33,799 32,974 44,507 40,703 2,216 5,965 3,090 4,556
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-49
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 2000-2007
^As^ia^{Near E}^a^s^t^L^a^{tin Am}^erica^Africa^T^O^T^A^L^TO^TA^L
^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007^2000-2003^2004-2007
ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^33.44%^32.83%^63.46%^62.67%^2.75%^4.00%^0.35%^0.49%^100.00%^100.00%
^s^sⁱ^a^85.16%^69.19%^10.97%^16.76%^0.65%^10.81%^3.23%^3.24%^100.00%^100.00%
^an^ce^10.53%^19.51%^85.96%^74.39%^1.75%^4.88%^1.75%^1.22%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱ^t^e^{d K}ⁱⁿ^g^dom^4.00%^6.32%^96.00%^84.21%^0.00%^2.11%^0.00%^7.37%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱⁿ^a^55.17%^56.10%^31.03%^21.95%^0.00%^2.44%^13.79%^19.51%^100.00%^100.00%
^rm^an^y^64.71%^39.13%^23.53%^13.04%^0.00%^0.00%^11.76%^47.83%^100.00%^100.00%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}^y^20.00%^20.00%^20.00%^0.00%^40.00%^20.00%^20.00%^60.00%^100.00%^100.00%
^g/w^l^O^t^h^e^{r Eu}^ropean^18.92%^28.26%^58.11%^34.78%^9.46%^26.09%^13.51%^10.87%^100.00%^100.00%
^s^.or
^le^ak^l^O^t^h^e^rs^73.03%^61.22%^14.61%^18.37%^4.49%^14.29%^7.87%^6.12%^100.00%^100.00%
^aj^or^W^e^s^t^10.48%^15.61%^86.46%^70.24%^1.31%^3.41%^1.75%^10.73%^100.00%^100.00%^]
^://wiki^opean*
^h^ttp
^TA^L^40.42%^39.16%^53.23%^48.34%^2.65%^7.08%^3.70%^5.41%^100.00%^100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

CRS-50
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 2000-2007
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007 2000-2003 2004-2007

25.74% 31.46% 37.09% 48.65% 32.31% 21.21% 2.91% 3.42%

39.05% 38.82% 3.82% 7.62% 4.51% 33.53% 16.18% 13.17%

1.78% 4.85% 11.01% 14.99% 4.51% 6.71% 3.24% 2.19%

i ngdom 1.78% 1.82% 32.35% 19.65% 0.00% 3.35% 0.00% 15.36%

4.73% 6.98% 2.02% 2.21% 0.00% 1.68% 12.94% 17.56%

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 3.25% 2.73% 0.90% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 6.47% 24.14%
^g/w
^s^.or 0.30% 0.30% 0.22% 0.00% 9.03% 1.68% 3.24% 6.58%
^le^ak

4.14% 3.94% 9.66% 3.93% 31.59% 20.12% 32.36% 10.97%

^://wiki
^h^ttp 19.23% 9.10% 2.92% 2.21% 18.05% 11.74% 22.65% 6.58%
ajor West European* 7.10%9.70%44.49%35.38%13.54%11.74%12.94%48.29%]
L 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2000-2003
1United States26,012
2Russia15,500
3United Kingdom15,000
4France5,700
5China3,100
6Sweden2,500
7Israel1,700
8Germany1,700
9Ukraine1,300
10North Korea800
11Belarus600
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2004-2007
1United States31,598
2Russia18,500
3United Kingdom9,600
4France8,300
5China4,000
6Germany2,300
7Israel1,300
8Netherlands900
9Ukraine800
10Italy600
11Brazil500
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2000-2007
1United States57,610
2Russia34,000
3United Kingdom24,600
4France14,000
5China7,000
6Germany3,900
7Israel3,000
8Sweden2,900
9Ukraine2,200
10Italy1,200
11North Korea1,000
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te^:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^are^t^h^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value2007
1United States7,613
2Russia4,600
3China1,200
4United Kingdom900
5France700
6Germany400
7Netherlands200
8Spain200
9Ukraine200
10Italy200
11Israel200
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^l^l^fo^r^e^igⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RecipientU.S.RussiaChinaMajor West All OtherAllTotal
Count ry Eur o pe an* Eur o pe an Others
2000-2003
Alge ria 0 300 100 0 200 100 700
Bahrain 600 0 0 0 0 0 600
Egyp t 5,100 200 300 100 100 0 5,800
Ir an 0 300 0 0 100 400 800
Ir aq 0 0 0 0 100 100 200
Is rael 3,000 0 0 300 0 0 3,300
J ordan 600 0 400 100 100 100 1,300
K uwait 1,000 100 0 300 0 200 1,600
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 100 0 0 100 200 400
Morocco 0 0 0 100 100 100 300
Oman00000100100
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia6,0000015,3002,800024,100
Syria 0 200 0 0 100 0 300
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E. 200 300 100 3,300 300 100 4,300
Yeme n 0 300 900 100 200 0 1,500
2004-2007
Alge ria 0 900 100 0 0 0 1,000
Bahrain 300 0 0 100 0 0 400
Egyp t 5,500 200 500 0 400 0 6,600
Ir an 0 400 200 0 0 200 800
Ir aq 300 100 0 0 200 200 800
Is rael 5,700 100 0 0 0 0 5,800
J ordan 600 100 0 0 0 0 700
K uwait 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,500
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 200 0 0 200 0 400
Morocco 100 100 0 0 0 200 400
Oman 700 0 0 300 0 0 1,000
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia4,400009,900200014,500
Syria 0 300 0 0 0 300 600
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E. 600 300 0 4,000 400 0 5,300
Yeme n 0 300 0 0 100 200 600
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^{0=data les}^s^th^an^{$50 m}^illion^{or n}^{il. A}^{ll data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.
^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^eg^{ate f}ⁱ^g^u^r^e.

Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientDeliveries Value2000-2003
1Saudi Arabia24,100
2China8,500
3Egypt5,800
4India4,900
5U.A.E.4,300
6Taiwan4,100
7South Korea3,400
8Israel3,300
9Pakistan1,700
10Kuwait1,600
RankRecipientDeliveries Value2004-2007
1Saudi Arabia14,500
2China8,500
3India6,600
4Egypt6,600
5Israel5,800
6U.A.E.5,300
7Taiwan4,300
8South Korea3,200
9Pakistan3,100
10South Africa2,200
RankRecipientDeliveries Value2000-2007
1 Saudi Arabia38,600
2China17,000
3Egypt12,400
4India11,500
5U.A.E.9,600
6Israel9,100
7Taiwan8,400
8South Korea6,600
9Pakistan4,800
10Kuwait3,100
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^l^l^f^o^reⁱ^gⁿ^da^t^a^a^r^e^rouⁿ^d^e^d^t^o^t^h^eⁿ^e^a^r^e^s^t^$100^m^illi^on^.^Wh^e^r^e^rouⁿ^d^e^d^da^t^a^t^o^t^a^l^s^a^r^e^t^h^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2007:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientDeliveries Value2007
1India1,600
2Israel1,500
3Egypt1,500
4Saudi Arabia1,100
5Pakistan1,100
6South Korea1,000
7Venezuela1,000
8South Africa800
9Taiwan800
10China700
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^ed^t^o^t^h^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 2000-2007
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 2000-2007 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. The tables show these deliveries data for
all of the developing nations collectively, for Asia, for the Near East, for Latin
America, and for Africa (Tables 3-7).
Care should be taken 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.

Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Developing Nations
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestEuropean*All OtherEuropeanAllOthers
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 462 420 200 390 860 130
Ar tillery 209 440 630 110 630 670
APCs and Armored Cars60620360901,090560
Major Surface Combatants1650522
Minor Surface Combatants4440459092
Guided Missile Boats001900
Submarines 0 1 0 2 2 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft6724070208070
Subsonic Combat Aircraft1510030100
Other Aircraft532090130150130
Helicopters 121 390 10 70 100 50
Surface-to-Air Missiles3,0171,77055050720540
Surface-to-Surface Missiles04000040
Anti-Ship Missiles30917060170050
2004-2007
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 375 270 150 40 420 30
Ar tillery 239 20 440 10 1,260 750
APCs and Armored Cars6415104502201,880691
Major Surface Combatants03017517
Minor Surface Combatants21343484097
Guided Missile Boats000691
Submarines80540
Supersonic Combat Aircraft10417030703040
Subsonic Combat Aircraft20030010
Other Aircraft36201201070100
Helicopters 67 180 0 70 30 40
Surface-to-Air Missiles1,2222,81053010390150
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000030
Anti-Ship Missiles2603601201408020
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^D^e^v^e^l^opiⁿ^gⁿ^a^tⁱ^o^ns^c^a^t^e^g^o^r^y^ex^cl^u^d^es^t^h^{e U}^.^S^{., R}^u^s^sⁱ^{a, Eu}^{rope, C}^aⁿ^a^{da, Japan}^,^A^u^s^t^ralⁱ^a^an^{d N}^e^w
^Z^ealan^{d. A}^{ll data are f}^o^{r calen}^{dar y}^ears^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^.^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^cl^udes^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^,
^Germ^an^y^,^an^d^Italy^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^eg^{ate f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e. Data relatin}^g^{to s}^u^rf^ace-^to-^s^u^r^f^{ace an}^{d an}^ti-^s^h^{ip m}ⁱ^s^s^iles^by
^f^o^reigⁿ^s^u^ppliers^{are es}^tim^at^e^s^bas^e^{d on}^{a v}^a^riety^of^s^o^u^r^ces^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^{a w}ⁱ^{de ran}^g^e^of^accu^racy^{. A}^s^s^u^ch^,
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al d}^a^{ta en}^tr^{ies in}^th^{ese tw}^o^w^eap^oⁿ^{s d}^e^liv^er^y^categ^o^r^{ies ar}^{e n}^o^{t n}^ecessar^ily^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itiv^e.

Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestEuropean*All OtherEuropeanAllOthers
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 88 340 140 0 120 20
Ar tillery 108 10 370 10 100 170
APCs and Armored Cars203203102025080
Major Surface Combatants1250012
Minor Surface Combatants021142621
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 1 0 1 2 0
Supersonic Combat
Aircraft 16 200 60 0 10 40
Subsonic Combat Aircraft15003000
Other Aircraft8203006060
Helicopters 81 230 0 20 10 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles26571090510070480
Surface-to-Surface
Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles23214008000
2004-2007
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 115 40 150 0 1 0 2 0
Ar tillery 108 20 190 10 110 60
APCs and Armored Cars54250801104401
Major Surface Combatants0304116
Minor Surface Combatants63141180
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 8 0 1 2 0
Supersonic Combat
Aircraft 0 110 20 40 10 40
Subsonic Combat Aircraft2001000
Other Aircraft121010102020
Helicopters 22 80 0 20 10 0
Surface-to-Air Missiles4741070530070150
Surface-to-Surface
Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles173360405000
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^s^{ia an}^{d P}^acifⁱ^c^categ^ory^excludes^J^a^pan^,^A^u^s^t^{ralia an}^{d New}^Z^ealan^{d. A}^{ll data are f}^o^{r calen}^dar^y^ears
^gi^ve^n.^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^ega^t^e
^fⁱ^g^u^r^e.^Data^relatin^g^{to s}^u^rf^ace-^to-^s^u^r^f^{ace an}^{d an}^ti-^s^h^{ip m}ⁱ^s^s^iles^by^f^o^reigⁿ^s^u^ppliers^{are es}^tim^ates^bas^e^d^on^a
^v^a^riety^of^s^o^u^r^ces^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^a^wⁱ^d^e^r^a^ng^{e of}^accu^racy^{. A}^s^s^u^ch^{, in}^divⁱ^du^{al data en}^triesⁱⁿ^th^es^{e tw}^{o w}^eapon^s
^d^e^liv^er^y^categ^o^r^{ies ar}^{e n}^o^{t n}^ecessar^ily^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itiv^e.

Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Near East
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestEuropean*All OtherEuropeanAllOthers
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 327 70 0 340 430 30
Ar tillery 76 0 100 70 30 0
APCs and Armored Cars391505020290120
Major Surface Combatants200210
Minor Surface Combatants400303144
Guided Missile Boats001900
Submarines 0 0 0 1 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft4730020300
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft30040905040
Helicopters 15 80 0 30 20 20
Surface-to-Air Missiles360580005400
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000040
Anti-Ship Missiles77306090020
2004-2007
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns 557 230 0 2 0 130 0
Ar tillery 30 0 0 0 20 40
APCs and Armored Cars5872600601280560
Major Surface Combatants000300
Minor Surface Combatants600271088
Guided Missile Boats000690
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft943002000
Subsonic Combat Aircraft0001000
Other Aircraft606002040
Helicopters 29 30 0 10 0 20
Surface-to-Air Missiles7481640003200
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000030
Anti-Ship Missiles77080807020
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^ll^{data f}^o^{r calen}^{dar y}^ears^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^.^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^ited^Kin^g^dom^,^Germ^an^y^,
^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^eg^{ate f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e. Data relatin}^g^{to s}^u^rf^ace-^to-^s^u^r^f^{ace an}^{d a}ⁿ^tⁱ^-^s^h^{ip m}ⁱ^s^s^iles^by^f^o^reigⁿ
^s^u^ppliers^{are es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{a v}^a^riety^of^s^o^u^r^ces^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^{a w}ⁱ^{de ran}^g^e^of^accu^racy^{. A}^s^s^u^ch^{, in}^divⁱ^du^{al data}
^en^tr^{ies in}^th^{eses tw}^o^w^eap^oⁿ^{s d}^e^liv^er^y^categ^o^r^{ies ar}^{e n}^o^{t n}^ecessar^ily^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itiv^e.

Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Latin America
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestEuropean*All OtherEuropeanAllOthers
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns0005013020
Ar tillery 25 0 0 10 30 20
APCs and Armored Cars100000
Major Surface Combatants200200
Minor Surface Combatants00201130
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft400000
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft700302020
Helicopters 25 10 0 10 30 0
Surface-to-Air Missiles03040504040
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles0000030
2004-2007
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns0002000
Ar tillery 101 0 10 0 10 0
APCs and Armored Cars000000
Major Surface Combatants000740
Minor Surface Combatants900122
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 2 2 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft1010010200
Subsonic Combat Aircraft0000010
Other Aircraft18101002030
Helicopters 16 40 0 10 0 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles000000
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles10000100
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^ll^{data f}^o^{r calen}^{dar y}^ears^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^.^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^ited^Kin^g^dom^,^Germ^an^y^,
^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^a^ggr^e^g^a^t^e^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e. Data relati}ⁿ^g^{to s}^u^rf^ace-^to-^s^u^r^f^{ace an}^{d an}^ti-^s^h^{ip m}ⁱ^s^s^iles^by^f^o^reigⁿ
^s^u^ppliers^{are es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{a v}^a^riety^of^s^o^u^r^ces^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^{a w}ⁱ^{de ran}^g^e^of^accu^racy^{. A}^s^s^u^ch^{, in}^divⁱ^du^{al data}
^en^tr^{ies in}^th^{eses tw}^o^w^eap^oⁿ^{s d}^e^liv^er^y^categ^o^r^{ies ar}^{e n}^o^{t n}^ecessar^ily^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itiv^e.

Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers
to Africa
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestEuropean*All OtherEuropeanAllOthers
2000-2003
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns01060018060
Ar tillery 0 430 160 20 470 480
APCs and Armored Cars0150050550360
Major Surface Combatants000100
Minor Surface Combatants029102027
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft0101004030
Subsonic Combat Aircraft01000100
Other Aircraft8020102010
Helicopters 0 70 10 10 40 20
Surface-to-Air Missiles070007020
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0400000
Anti-Ship Missiles000000
2004-2007
Tanks and Self-Propelled
Guns000028010
Ar tillery 0 0 240 0 1120 650
APCs and Armored Cars0037050160130
Major Surface Combatants000301
Minor Surface Combatants00299207
Guided Missile Boats000001
Submarines 0 0 0 2 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft02010000
Subsonic Combat Aircraft0001000
Other Aircraft004001010
Helicopters 0 30 0 30 20 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles010001000
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles0001000
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll data are f}^o^{r calen}^{dar y}^ears^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^.^*^M^aj^{or W}^e^s^t^E^u^ropeanⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^,
^Germ^an^y^,^an^{d Italy}^totals^as^an^ag^g^r^eg^ate^fⁱ^g^u^r^e.^{Data relatin}^g^{to s}^u^rf^ace-^to-^s^u^r^f^{ace an}^{d an}^ti-^s^h^{ip m}ⁱ^s^s^iles^by
^f^o^reigⁿ^s^u^ppli^e^r^s^{are es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{a v}^a^riety^of^s^o^u^r^ces^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^{a w}ⁱ^{de ran}^g^e^of^accu^racy^{. A}^s^s^u^ch^,
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al d}^a^{ta en}^tr^{ies in}^th^{ese tw}^o^w^eap^oⁿ^{s d}^e^liv^er^y^categ^o^r^{ies ar}^{e n}^o^{t n}^ecessar^ily^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itiv^e.

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and
Deliveries Values,
2000-2007
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 2000-2007 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 2000-2003,
2004-2007, and 2007. 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,
2000-2007
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.
^!Total Worldwide Delivery Values 2000-2007
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items
actually transferred) worldwide by major suppliers from 2000-2007. 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.

CRS-63
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
20002001200220032004200520062007TOTAL 2000-2007
17,474 11,414 12,987 14,455 12,602 12,852 16,307 24,860 122,951
6,700 5,500 5,800 4,700 7,500 7,300 14,300 10,400 62,200
3,700 4,400 700 2,800 2,900 8,400 4,500 1,800 29,200
i ngdom 600 600 700 600 6,000 2,800 4,100 9,800 25,200
600 1,100 400 600 900 3,000 1,400 3,800 11,800
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,200 2,000 1,000 1,500 1,700 1,700 2,000 1,500 12,600
^g/w 200 1,100 400 600 600 1,500 1,200 900 6,500
^s^.or 4,100 2,700 4,400 2,100 5,700 6,400 5,900 4,400 35,700
^le^ak
2,400 2,600 2,200 1,600 3,100 2,200 3,900 2,500 20,500
^://wiki
^h^ttp
L 36,974 31,414 28,587 28,955 41,002 46,152 53,607 59,960 326,651
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^A^{ll d}^a^{ta ar}^{e f}^o^r^th^{e calen}^d^a^r^y^ear^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^,^ex^cep^{t f}^o^r^{U.S. MA}^P⁽^M^ilitar^y^A^ssistan^ce^P^r^o^g^r^a^m⁾^an^d^I^M^ET⁽^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l^Militar^y^Edu^cation^an^{d T}^r^ainⁱⁿ^g⁾^{, ex}^ces^s^def^eⁿ^s^{e articles}^,
^{are in}^clu^d^{ed f}^o^{r th}^{e particu}^l^{ar f}ⁱ^s^{cal y}^ear.^A^ll^am^ouⁿ^t^s^gⁱ^v^eⁿⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^th^e^v^a^lu^es^of^{all categ}^ories^of^w^eapon^s^an^{d am}^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^,^m^ilitar^y^sp^ar^{e p}^a^r^t^{s, m}^ilitar^y^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^ex^cess
ⁿ^s^{e ar}^{ticles, m}^ilitar^y^assistan^{ce an}^d^tr^ainⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^{, an}^d^{all asso}^ciated^ser^v^{ices. Statistics f}^o^r^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^co^uⁿ^t^rⁱ^{es ar}^e^bas^e^{d u}^pon^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed s}^e^l^lⁱⁿ^g^pri^ces^{. A}^l^l^fo^r^eⁱ^gn^dat^a^are
^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.^T^h^{e U.}^{S. total in}^{2000 in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billion}^li^cen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^{rcial ag}^reem^en^{t w}^ith^th^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^{d A}^r^{ab Em}ⁱ^r^at^es^f^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.

CRS-64
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
20002001200220032004200520062007TOTAL 2000-2007
21,273 13,479 14,936 16,260 13,759 13,564 16,703 24,860 134,835
8,157 6,495 6,671 5,287 8,189 7,704 14,647 10,400 67,549
4,505 5,196 805 3,150 3,166 8,865 4,609 1,800 32,096
i ngdom 730 709 805 675 6,551 2,955 4,200 9,800 26,425
730 1,299 460 675 983 3,166 1,434 3,800 12,547
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,461 2,362 1,150 1,687 1,856 1,794 2,049 1,500 13,859
^g/w 243 1,299 460 675 655 1,583 1,229 900 7,045
^s^.or 4,991 3,188 5,060 2,362 6,223 6,755 6,043 4,400 39,024
^le^ak
2,922 3,070 2,530 1,800 3,385 2,322 3,995 2,500 22,523
^://wiki
^h^ttp
L 45,013 37,097 32,878 32,570 44,767 48,709 54,908 59,960 355,903
llar inflation index:
0.8214 0.8468 0.8695 0.889 0.9159 0.9475 0.9763 1
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{ed on}^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e P}^r^{ice Def}^l^ator.

CRS-65
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

47.26% 36.33% 45.43% 49.92% 30.74% 27.85% 30.42% 41.46%

18.12% 17.51% 20.29% 16.23% 18.29% 15.82% 26.68% 17.34%

10.01% 14.01% 2.45% 9.67% 7.07% 18.20% 8.39% 3.00%

i ngdom 1.62% 1.91% 2.45% 2.07% 14.63% 6.07% 7.65% 16.34%

1.62% 3.50% 1.40% 2.07% 2.20% 6.50% 2.61% 6.34%

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 3.25% 6.37% 3.50% 5.18% 4.15% 3.68% 3.73% 2.50%
^g/w 0.54% 3.50% 1.40% 2.07% 1.46% 3.25% 2.24% 1.50%
^s^.or
^le^ak 11.09% 8.59% 15.39% 7.25% 13.90% 13.87% 11.01% 7.34%
^://wiki 6.49% 8.28% 7.70% 5.53% 7.56% 4.77% 7.28% 4.17%
^h^ttpajor West European*15.42%25.78%9.79%18.99%27.32%31.20%22.01%23.35%]
L 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^Co^lu^mⁿ^{s m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t to}^{tal d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2000-2003
1United States*56,330
2Russia22,700
3France11,600
4Germany5,700
5Israel4,000
6Ukraine3,600
7China2,700
8United Kingdom2,500
9Italy2,300
10Spain2,100
11Sweden1,300
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2004-2007
1United States66,621
2Russia39,500
3United Kingdom22,700
4France17,600
5China9,100
6Germany6,900
7Israel6,800
8Spain4,400
9Italy4,200
10Sweden4,100
11Austria3,000
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2000-2007
1United States*122,951
2Russia62,200
3France29,200
4United Kingdom25,200
5Germany12,600
6China11,800
7Israel10,800
8Italy6,500
9Spain6,500
10Ukraine5,500
11Sweden5,400
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are t}^h^e
^s^a^m^e^{, th}^{e ran}^k^{order is}^m^aⁱⁿ^t^aⁱⁿ^{ed. *}^T^h^e^U.S.^{total in}^clu^d^es^{a $6.432 billion}^licen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^rcial
^ag^reem^en^t^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d A}^r^{ab Em}ⁱ^r^at^esⁱⁿ^{2000 f}^o^{r 80 F}^-^{16 ai}^rcraf^t^.

Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2007
1United States24,860
2Russia10,400
3United Kingdom9,800
4China3,800
5Spain2,000
6France1,800
7Germany1,500
8Israel1,000
9Italy900
10South Korea500
11 Switzerland 400
^Source:^{U.S. Gov}^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.
^W^h^er^{e r}^o^uⁿ^d^ed^d^a^{ta to}^{tals ar}^{e th}^{e sam}^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

CRS-68
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
20002001200220032004200520062007TOTAL 2000-2007
12,865 9,166 10,058 11,110 11,747 12,053 12,571 12,793 92,363
4,200 4,700 3,600 4,400 5,500 3,200 5,900 4,700 36,200
2,500 2,000 1,500 2,600 5,500 2,400 1,500 2,100 20,100
i ngdom 5,900 4,200 4,900 4,900 3,300 3,700 4,300 2,600 33,800
900 900 900 800 900 900 1,100 1,400 7,800
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,300 700 1,300 2,200 2,000 1,500 2,500 1,000 12,500
^g/w 300 500 600 400 200 900 300 500 3,700
^s^.or 3,100 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,200 2,900 3,500 3,200 24,900
^le^ak
2,300 2,600 3,000 2,500 3,100 2,700 1,900 2,700 20,800
^://wiki
^h^ttp
L 33,365 27,766 28,858 32,910 34,447 30,253 33,571 30,993 252,163
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^A^{ll d}^a^{ta ar}^{e f}^o^r^th^{e calen}^d^a^r^y^ear^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^,^ex^cep^{t f}^o^r^{U.S. MA}^P⁽^M^ilitar^y^A^ssistan^{ce P}^r^o^g^r^a^m⁾^,^I^M^ET⁽^Iⁿ^t^erⁿ^a^tioⁿ^a^{l Militar}^y^Ed^u^cation^an^{d T}^r^ainⁱⁿ^g⁾^{, ex}^ces^s^def^eⁿ^s^{e articles}^,
^{are in}^clu^d^{ed f}^o^{r th}^{e particu}^l^{ar f}ⁱ^s^{cal y}^{ear. L}ⁱ^cen^s^e^{d com}^m^e^{rcial ex}^ports^{are ex}^clu^d^{ed. A}^{ll am}^ouⁿ^t^s^gⁱ^v^eⁿⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e th}^{e v}^a^l^u^e^s^o^f^all^categ^o^r^{ies o}^f^w^eap^oⁿ^{s an}^d^am^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^,^m^ilitar^y
^e^p^a^r^t^s,^m^ilitar^y^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^ex^{cess d}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e ar}^{ticles, m}^ilitar^y^assistan^{ce an}^d^tr^ainⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^{, an}^d^{all asso}^ciated^ser^v^ices^{. Statis}^tics^f^o^{r f}^o^reigⁿ^couⁿ^t^ries^{are bas}^e^{d u}^pon^es^tim^ated
^g^prices^{. A}^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data ar}^{e rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^{t $100 m}^illion^.

CRS-69
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007
(in millions of constant 2007 U.S. dollars)
20002001200220032004200520062007TOTAL2000- 2007
15,662 10,824 11,568 12,497 12,826 12,721 12,876 12,793 101,767
5,113 5,550 4,140 4,949 6,005 3,377 6,043 4,700 39,879
3,044 2,362 1,725 2,925 6,005 2,533 1,536 2,100 22,230
i ngdom 7,183 4,960 5,635 5,512 3,603 3,905 4,404 2,600 37,802
1,096 1,063 1,035 900 983 950 1,127 1,400 8,553
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723}any 1,583 827 1,495 2,475 2,184 1,583 2,561 1,000 13,707
^g/w 365 590 690 450 218 950 307 500 4,071
^s^.or 3,774 3,543 3,450 4,499 2,402 3,061 3,585 3,200 27,514
^le^ak
2,800 3,070 3,450 2,812 3,385 2,850 1,946 2,700 23,013
^://wiki
^h^ttpL 40,620 32,789 33,189 37,019 37,610 31,929 34,386 30,993 278,536
llar inflation index:
0.8214 0.8468 0.8695 0.889 0.9159 0.9475 0.9763 1
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{ed on}^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e P}^r^{ice Def}^l^ator.

CRS-70
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 2000-2007
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

38.56% 33.01% 34.85% 33.76% 34.10% 39.84% 37.45% 41.28%

12.59% 16.93% 12.47% 13.37% 15.97% 10.58% 17.57% 15.16%

7.49% 7.20% 5.20% 7.90% 15.97% 7.93% 4.47% 6.78%

i ngdom 17.68% 15.13% 16.98% 14.89% 9.58% 12.23% 12.81% 8.39%

2.70% 3.24% 3.12% 2.43% 2.61% 2.97% 3.28% 4.52%

any 3.90% 2.52% 4.50% 6.68% 5.81% 4.96% 7.45% 3.23%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34723} 0.90% 1.80% 2.08% 1.22% 0.58% 2.97% 0.89% 1.61%
^g/w 9.29% 10.80% 10.40% 12.15% 6.39% 9.59% 10.43% 10.32%
^s^.or
^le^ak 6.89% 9.36% 10.40% 7.60% 9.00% 8.92% 5.66% 8.71%
^://wiki
^h^ttpajor West European*29.97%26.65%28.76%30.69%31.93%28.10%25.62%20.00%]
L 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^{or W}^e^s^t^Eu^ropean^categ^oryⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Fran^{ce, Un}^{ited Kin}^g^dom^{, Germ}^an^y^,^Italy^.

Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 2000-2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2000-2003
1United States48,358
2United Kingdom18,400
3Russia16,100
4France9,800
5Germany5,000
6Sweden4,300
7China3,200
8Ukraine2,300
9Israel2,200
10Canada1,900
11Italy1,000
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2004-2007
1United States49,164
2Russia19,300
3United Kingdom13,900
4France11,500
5Germany7,000
6China4,300
7Canada3,000
8Sweden2,500
9Israel2,000
10Italy1,900
11 Netherlands 1,700
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2000-2007
1United States92,363
2Russia36,200
3United Kingdom33,800
4France20,100
5Germany12,500
6China 7,800
7Sweden6,000
8Canada5,600
9Israel5,000
10Ukraine4,300
11Italy3,700
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^{ll f}^o^reigⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed da}^t^a^t^o^tals^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2007:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value2007
1United States12,793
2Russia4,700
3United Kingdom2,600
4France2,100
5China1,400
6Germany1,000
7Canada900
8Sweden800
9Spain600
10Israel500
11Italy500
^Source:^{U.S. Go}^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t
^No^te:^A^l^l^fo^r^e^igⁿ^{data are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed to th}^{e n}^eares^t^{$100 m}^illion^.^W^h^{ere rou}ⁿ^d^{ed data totals}^{are th}^e
^sam^e^{, th}^{e r}^aⁿ^k^o^r^d^e^r^{is m}^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^.

Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 2000-2007
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.

Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and
Charts
ASIANEAR EASTEUROPE
Af ghanistan Al ge r i a Albania
Australia Bahrain Arme nia
Bangladesh E gyp t Aus t r i a
Brunei Ir a n Azerbaij an
Burma (Myanmar)IraqBelarus
Chi n a Is r a e l Bosnia/Herzegovi na
Fi j i Jordan Bulgaria
India Kuwait Belgium
Indonesia Lebanon Canada
J a pan Libya Cr oatia
Cambodia Morocco C z e c h o s l o va ki a /
KazakhstanOmanCzech Republic
K yr gyzs t a n Qa t a r Cyprus
LaosSaudi ArabiaDenmark
Malaysia Syr i a Estonia
Nepal T unisia Finland
New ZealandUnited Arab EmiratesFrance
North KoreaYemenFYR/Macedonia
PakistanGeorgia
Papua New GuineaGermany
Philippines Gr eece
PitcairnHungary
Singapore Iceland
South KoreaIreland
Sri LankaItaly
TaiwanLatvia
Taj ikistan Li echtenstein
Thailand Lithuania
Turkmenistan Luxembourg
UzbekistanMalta
VietnamMoldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia/Federal
Republic(Ser b i a/
Montenegro)

AFRICALATIN AMERICA
AngolaAntigua
BeninArgentina
BotswanaBahamas
Burkina FasoBarbados
BurundiBelize
CameroonBermuda
Cape VerdeBolivia
Central African RepublicBrazil
ChadBritish Virgin Islands
CongoCayman Islands
Côte d’IvoireChile
Dj ibouti Colombia
Equatorial GuineaCosta Rica
EthiopiaCuba
GabonDominica
GambiaDominican Republic
GhanaEcuador
GuineaEl Salvador
Guinea-BissauFrench Guiana
KenyaGrenada
Lesot ho Guadeloupe
Liberia Guatemala
Madaga scar Guya na
MalawiHaiti
MaliHonduras
Mauritania Jamaica
Mauritius Martinique
Moza mbique Mexico
Nami bia Montserrat
NigerNetherlands Antilles
Ni ge r i a Ni c a r a gu a
Réunion Panama
RwandaParaguay
SenegalPeru
SeychellesSt. Kitts & Nevis
Sierra LeoneSt. Lucia
SomaliaSt. Pierre & Miquelon
South AfricaSt. Vincent
SudanSuriname
Swaziland Trinidad
TanzaniaTurks & Caicos
Togo V enezuela

Uganda
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe