This is the html version of the file http://www.milnet.com/archives/China-export.pdf

Congressional Research Service
˜
The Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RL31083

Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations,
1993-2000
August 16, 2001
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Page 2
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
1993-2000
Summary
This report is prepared annually to provide unclassified quantitative data on
conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign
countries for the preceding eight calendar years. Some general data are provided on
worldwide conventional arms transfers, but the principal focus is the level of arms
transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.
Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales
activitybyweaponssuppliers. During the years 1993-2000, the value of arms transfer
agreements with developing nations comprised 67.7% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 67.6% ofallsuchagreementsgloballyfrom1997-2000, and 69% of these
agreements in 2000.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was
over $25.4 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1994. In 2000, the
valueofallarmsdeliveriesto developingnationswas$19.4billion,anotabledecrease
in deliveries values from 1999 ($26.2 billion in constant 2000 dollars).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States, Russia, and France have
dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking
firsteachofthe last three years inthe value of arms transfer agreements. From 1997-
2000, the United States made $31.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2000 dollars, 37.2% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made nearly $16.8 billion in arms
transfer agreements, or 19.8%. France, the third leading supplier, made over $9.7
billion or 11.5% of all such agreements with developing nations during these years.
In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developingnationsat $12.6 billionor 49.7% of theseagreements. Russia was second
with $7.4 billion or 29.1% of such agreements. France ranked third with $2.1 billion
or 8.3% of such agreements. The total value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2000 notably increased, in real terms, from $8.7 billionin1999
to $12.6 billionin2000 (in constant 2000 dollars). In 2000, the United States ranked
first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $8.7 billion, or 44.8% of
all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4.4 billion or 22.7% of
such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $2.4 billion or 12.4% of such deliveries.
During the 1997-2000 period, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first
among developing nations in the value of arms transfer agreements, concluding $14
billion in such agreements. India ranked second at $7.6 billion. Egypt ranked third
with $6.9 billion. In 2000, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in the
valueofarmstransferagreementsamongalldevelopingnations weaponspurchasers,
concluding $7.4 billion in such agreements. India ranked second with $4.8 billion in
such agreements. South Korea ranked third with $2.3 billion.

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

Page 4
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1993-2000:
Suppliers and Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements With Leading Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 1997-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1993-2000 . . . . . . . 69
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Page 5
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1993-2000 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . 21
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1993-2000 and Suppliers’ Share with
Developing World (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 45
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 46
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) 48
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2000:
Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . 49
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Page 6
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions,
1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
Lending Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 56
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 57
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1993-2000:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2000:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1993-2000 (expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World,
1993-2000: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . 74
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 75

Page 7
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1993-2000
(in millions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1993-2000
(expressed as a percent of total, by year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1993-2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 79
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2000:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars) . . . . . . . 80

Page 8
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1993-2000
Introduction
Thisreportprovidesunclassified background data from U.S. government sources
on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the
period 1993 through 2000. It also includes some data on world-wide supplier
transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled “Conventional Arms Transfers
toDeveloping Nations, 1992-1999,” published by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) on August 18, 2000 (CRS Report RL30640).
The data in the report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms
transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.
Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response
to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Despite global changes
since the Cold War’s end, the developing world continues to be the primary focus of
foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of
this report, 1993-2000, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent
orders for future delivery) to developing nations have comprised 67.7% of the value
ofallinternationalarmstransferagreements. In 2000, arms transfer agreements, with
developing countries rose from 1999 totals, comprising 69% of the value of all such
agreements globally. The portion of agreements with developing countries
constituted 67.6% of all agreements globally from 1997-2000. Deliveries of
conventional arms to developing nations, from 1997-2000, constituted 70.2% of all
international arms deliveries. In 2000, arms deliveries to developing nations
constituted 66% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report completely supercede all data published in previous
editions. Since these new data for 1993-2000 reflect potentially significant updates
to and revisions in the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in
thismost recent edition should be used. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the
calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box notes on page 2). U.S.
commercially licensed arms exports are incorporated inthe maindelivery data tables,
and noted separately (see box note on page 15). Excluded are arms transfers by any
supplier to subnational groups.

Page 9
CRS-2
CALENDAR YEAR DATA USED
All arms transfer and arms delivery data in this report are for the calendar year
or calendar year period given. This applies to both U.S. and foreign data alike.
United States government departments and agencies publish data on U.S. arms
transfers and deliveries but generally use the United States fiscal year as the
computational time period for these data. (A U.S. fiscal year covers the period from
October 1 through September 30). As a consequence, there are likely to be distinct
differencesnoted inthose publishedtotals usingafiscalyearbasisandthose provided
in this report which use a calendar year basis for its figures. Details regarding data
used are outlined in footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9.
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
The developing nations category, as used in this report, includes all countries
exceptthe UnitedStates, Russia,European nations, Canada,Japan,Australia,andNew
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 2000 DOLLARS
Throughout this report values of arms transfer agreements and values of arms
deliveries for all suppliers are expressed in U.S. dollars. Values for any given year
generally reflect the exchange rates that prevailed during that specific year. In many
instances,the report converts thesedollar amounts (current dollars) intoconstant 2000
dollars. Although this helps to eliminate the distorting effects of U.S. inflation to permit
amoreaccurate comparisonofvariousdollarlevelsover time, the effectsoffluctuating
exchange rates are not neutralized. The deflators used for the constant dollar
calculations in this report are those provided by the U.S. Department of Defense and
are set out at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8, and 9. Unless otherwise noted in the
report, all dollar values are stated in constant terms. Because all regional data
tables are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (1993-1996 and 1997-2000),
they must be expressed in current dollar terms. Where tables rank leading arms
suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients using four-year
aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.

Page 10
CRS-3
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2000 was nearly $36.9 billion. This is a clear increase in arms
agreementsvaluesover 1999, andisthe thirdyearinarow that total armsagreements
increased over the previous year. This total, however, is substantially lower in
constant dollars than that of 1993, during the period of post-Persian Gulf war
rearmament. (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2000, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $18.6 billion (50.4% of all such agreements), up from
nearly $12.9 billion in 1999. Russia ranked second with $7.7 billion in agreements
(20.9% of these agreements globally), up notably from $4.1 billion in 1999. France
ranked third, as its arms transfer agreements worldwide rose significantly from $936
million in 1999 to $4.1 billion in 2000. The United States, Russia and France,
collectively made agreements in 2000 valued at nearly $30.4 billion, 82.4% of all
international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables 8A,
8B, and 8D).
For the period 1997-2000, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements (about $125.1 billion) has been notably less than the worldwide value
during 1993-1996 (about $142.4 billion), a decline of 12.1%. During the period
1993-1996, developing world nations accounted for 67.7% of the value of all arms
transfer agreements made worldwide. During 1997-2000, developing world nations
accounted for 67.6% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2000,
developing nations accounted for 69% of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide (figure 1)(table 8A).
In 2000, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms
deliveries, making nearly $14.2 billioninsuch deliveries or 48.3%. This is the eighth
year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries, reflecting, in
particular, implementation of arms transfer agreements made during and in the
aftermathofthe PersianGulfWar. The United Kingdom ranked second in worldwide
arms deliveries in 2000, making $5.1 billion in such deliveries. Russia ranked third
in 2000, making $3.5 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in
2000 collectively delivered nearly $22.8 billion, 77.5% 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 2000 was nearly $29.4 billion.
This is a substantial decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous
year (nearly $38 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years. The total value
of such arms deliveries worldwide in 1997-2000 ($151.1 billion) was a nominal
decrease in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 1993-1996
($152.8 billion). (figure 2)(tables 9A and 9B)(charts 7 and 8).

Page 11
CRS-4
Developing nations from 1997-2000 accounted for 70.2% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1993-1996, developing nations
accounted for 65.8% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. Most recently, in
2000, developing nations collectively accounted for 66% of the value of all
international arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, (9A and 9B).
Intense competition continues among major weapons suppliers. However, the
limited resources of most developing nations to expend on weapons, and the need of
manysellingnationsto securecashfor theirweapons,placesconstraintsonsignificant
expansion of the arms trade. Developed nations are likely to continue to seek to
protect important elements of their own national military industrial bases.
Consequently, these nations are likelyto limittheirarmspurchasesfrom one another,
except in instances where they are engaged in joint production of specific weapons.
Those nations that can effectively restructure and consolidate theirdefenseindustries
seem most likely to be the key players in the international arms marketplace in the
next few years. Some traditional arms supplying nations may find it necessary to
participate inmorejointproduction venturesor to join inmultinational mergers, such
assomeGermanandFrenchdefensefirmsdidthrough formationofEADS(European
Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company) in 1999, to maintain the competitiveness
and viabilityof their national defense industrial sectors. Other arms supplyingnations
may choose to focus on specialized niche markets in their arms exporting efforts,
concentrating on sales of weapons they believe they can readily produce and sell
consistently.
A number of weapons exporters continue to focus their efforts on maintaining
and expanding arms sales to nations and regions where they have competitive
advantagesdue to prior political/militaryties with the prospective buyers. New arms
salesopportunities mayyetdevelopwithsomeEuropeannationsinthe nearterm due
to the expansion of NATO. This has yet to occur to any significant degree, due to
the limited financial resources of the new NATO members. As a consequence, these
nations have focused in the short run on upgrades of existing weapons systems in
ways that require fewer major expenditures by their governments.
It ispossible that additional notable arms sales mayresultinthe Near East, Asia,
and Latin America as individual nations seek to replace older military equipment. A
significant factor in the development of arms sales prospects in these regions
especially will be the state of the international economy. A large portion of the
developingworldhasnotrecoveredfullyfromrecentinternationalfinancialproblems.
The 1997-1998 fall in the price of crude oil, now reversed, created great financial
difficulties for some Persian Gulf states. Saudi Arabia found itself in significant
financial straits, in light of the various obligations it undertook during and after the
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, its domestic spending programs, and the magnitude of
the costs associated with its weapons procurement program. Despite the significant
increase in the price of crude oil since 1999, that fact, by itself, has not resulted in
substantial new and expensive weapons procurement programs by most major oil
producingnationsinthe developing world. Indeed, the notable decline in major arms
purchases bySaudi Arabia, traditionally the single largest arms purchaser inthe early
to mid-1990s, is a graphic example of the caution oil-rich nations are displaying at
present. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), for its part, has made significant
purchases of advanced military hardware most recently, particularly combat aircraft.

Page 12
CRS-5
The U.A.E. has lacked the debt problems confronted bythe Saudis in the mid-1990s.
Asaconsequence,the U.A.E. has gainedsignificantbargainingpower asitseeksnew
weapons, and has become a prime marketing target for major arms suppliers.
The Asian financial crisis that struck in 1997 resulted in a significant reduction
in planned weapons purchases by several states in that region, and had the added
effect of reducing the income of other developing countries dependent on trade with
Asian countries. The economic situation in Asia in the last year appears to have
stabilized. This improved financial environment has resulted in some important new
arms purchases in Asia, but it has not led to full restoration of major arms
procurement plans underway in key Asian nations at the time they fell into financial
difficulties. Despite the fact that some Latin American states have expressed interest
in modernizing older items in their military inventories, domestic budget constraints
continue to slow implementation of these programs. The paucity of financing credits
and insufficient national funds have also led many developing nations generally to
curtailordeferpurchasesofadditionalweaponry. In view of the current uncertainties
in the international economic environment, it seems likely that most major weapons
purchases will be made by more affluent developing countries. The remainder of the
arms trade seems likely to be based on significant upgrades of existing weapons
systemsandequipment, where possible, and on the support and maintenance of these
weapons and related equipment.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was
$25.4 billion. This was the highest total, in real terms, since 1994. The total value
of new arms transfer agreements with developing nations has increased for the last
two years (chart 1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2000, the value of all arms deliveries to
developing nations ($19.4 billion) was a substantial decrease from the value of 1999
deliveries values ($26.2 billion), and the lowest total of the last eight years (charts 7
and 8)(figure 2)(table 2A).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States, Russia, and France have
dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking
first each of the last three years inthe valueof arms transfer agreements. From 1997-
2000, the United States made nearly $31.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developingnations,37.2%ofallsuchagreements. Russia, the second leading supplier
during this period, made nearly $16.8 billion in arms transfer agreements or 19.8%.
France, the third leading supplier, made over $9.7 billion or 11.5% of all such
agreements with developing nations during these years. In the earlier period (1993-
1996) the United States ranked first with nearly $35.8 billion in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations or 37.1%; France made over $17.9 billion in
agreements or 18.6%. Russia made nearly $16.3 billion in arms transfer agreements
during this period or 16.9% (table 1A)(figure 1).
During the period from 1993-2000, most arms transfers to developing nations
were made by two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has
rankedeitherfirstorsecondamongthesesuppliersnearlyeveryyearfrom1993-2000.
The exception was 1997 when the U.S. ranked a close third to Russia. France has
beenaconsistentcompetitor for the leadinarms transferagreementswithdeveloping

Page 13
CRS-6
nations, ranking first in 1994 and 1997, and second in 1993, 1995, and 1998, while
Russia has ranked first in 1995, and second in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000. Despite
Russia’s recent successes in securing new arms orders, as competition over the
internationalarmsmarketintensifies,France seems more likelyto rank higher inarms
deals with developing nations than Russia. As a supplier nation, Russia has more
significant limitations in its prospective arms client base than other major suppliers.
A close review of Russia’s largest value arms agreements in recent years shows they
have been with two principal clients, India and China, and not with a notably
expanding number of nations elsewhere in the developing world.
Arms suppliers like the United Kingdom and Germany, from time to time, may
conclude significant orders with developing countries, based on either long-term
supplying relationships or their having specialized weapons systems they will readily
provide. However, as the 21
st
centurybegins,theUnitedStatesseemsbestpositioned
to lead in new arms agreements with developing nations. New and very costly
weapons purchases from individual developing countries seem likely to be sporadic
in the near term. The overall level of the arms trade with developing nations is likely
to remain generally static for the foreseeable future, despite some notable purchases
madeinthe lasttwo years.Annualsalestotals withdevelopingcountriesappear likely
to be notably below those of the Persian Gulf war period.
Other suppliers in the tier below the United States, France, and Russia, such as
China, other European, and non-European suppliers, have been participants in the
arms trade with developing nations at a much lower level. These suppliers are,
nonetheless, capable of making an occasional arms deal of a significant nature. Yet
most of their annual arms transfer agreements values totals during 1993-2000 are
comparatively low, and based upon smaller transactions. Few of these countries are
likely to be major suppliers of advanced weaponry on a sustained basis. With some
exceptions, most of them are more likely to make sales of less sophisticated and less
expensive military equipment ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F and 2G).
United States.
In 2000, the total value, inreal terms, of United States arms transfer agreements
with developing nations rose to $12.6 billion from about $8.7 billion in 1999. The
U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 49.7% in 2000, a significant
increase from 36.6% in 1999 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and 1B).
The value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations was very
high in2000. This is primarily due to major purchases by key U.S. clients in the Near
East, and to a much lesser extent in Asia. These arms agreement totals also reflect a
continuationofwellestablisheddefense support arrangementswiththesepurchasers.
U.S. agreements with these buyers in2000 include not only the highly visible sales of
major weapons systems, but also the upgrading of existing ones, and agreements for
a wide variety of spare parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and support services.
Among major weapons systems sold by the United States in 2000 were 80 new
productionF-16block60combatfighteraircraftto theUnitedArabEmiratesthrough
a licensed commercial agreement with a value of $6.432 billion. This agreement with
the U.A.E. is the one of the largest combat aircraft sales ever made by the United
States, and accounts for asubstantialportion ofthe overalltotal of U.S. arms transfer

Page 14
CRS-7
agreementswiththe developingworldin2000. Other United States sales to the Near
East region in 2000 included agreements to upgrade Egypt’s AH-64 Apache
helicopters for $400 million, to provide Egypt with 6 SPS-48E 3D land-based radar
systems, as well as with Avenger and Stinger missiles. Israel also ordered the
reconfiguration of 24 of its AH-64 Apache helicopters for $270 million, and signed
an agreement for the purchase of 35 Blackhawk helicopters, together with a number
of helicopter engines for nearly $340 million.
In Asia, the United States sold South Korea 29 Multiple Launch Rocket
Systems (MLRS) for over $260 million;component kits for South Korea’s F-16 C/D
fighteraircraftforover$190million,andcontractedforanumberofairandsea-based
missiles. Thailand ordered 18 earlier generation F-16 A/B fighters, and Taiwan
ordered AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. These illustrative cases are an
important component of the overall U.S. agreements totals for calendar year 2000.
It must be emphasized, however, that the sale of munitions, upgrades to existing
systems, spare parts, training and support services to developing nations worldwide
account for a very substantial portion of total U.S. arms agreements. This is a
reflection of the large number of countries in the developing, and developed, world
that have acquired and utilize a wide range of American weapons systems, and have
a continuing requirement to have these systems supported.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations rose significantly from $3.2 billion in 1999 to $7.4 billion in 2000, placing it
second in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all
developing world arms transfer agreements increased as well, rising from 13.6% in
1999 to 29.1% in 2000 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Russia’sarmstransferagreementstotals withdevelopingnationshaveincreased
for the lasttwo years,andduringthe 1997-2000 period, Russiarankedsecondamong
all suppliers to developing countries, making $16.8 billion in agreements. Its arms
agreement values ranged from a high of $7.4 billion in 2000 to a low of $1.4 billion
in 1993 (in constant 2000 dollars). Russia’s arms sales totals reflect the continuing
effect of the economic and political problems stemming from the breakup of the
former Soviet Union. Many of Russia’s traditional arms clients are less wealthy
developing nations that were once provided generous grant military assistance and
deep discounts on arms purchases. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in
December 1991, Russia did not resume those financing and sales practices. Russia
now actively seeks to sell weapons as a means of obtaining hard currency. While
some former arms clients in the developing world continue to express interest in
obtainingadditionalRussianweaponry,theyhavebeenrestricted indoingsobyalack
of funds to pay for the armaments they seek. Russia, has found it increasingly
necessary to agree to licensed production of major weapons systems as a condition
of sales with its two principal clients in recent years, India and China. Such
agreements with these nations have accounted for a large portion of Russia’s arms
transfer agreement totals since the mid-1990s.
Russia’s efforts to make lucrative new sales of conventional weapons continue
to confront significant difficulties, especially since most potential cash-paying arms

Page 15
CRS-8
purchasers have been longstanding customers of the United States or major West
European suppliers. These prospective arms buyers have proven reluctant to replace
their weapons inventories with unfamiliar non-Western armaments when newer
versions of existing equipment are readily available from their traditional suppliers,
even in an era of intense competition. The difficult transition Russia has attempted to
make from the state supported and controlled industrial system of the former Soviet
Union has also led some potential arms customers to question whether the Russian
defense industries can be reliable suppliers of the spare parts and support services
necessary for the maintenance of weapons systems they sell abroad.
Yet because Russia has had a wide variety of weaponry to sell, from the most
basic to the highly sophisticated, and despite the internal problems evident in the
Russian defense industrial sector, various developing countries still view Russia as a
potential source of their military equipment. Russia, therefore, has made strong
efforts to gain arms agreements with developing nations that can pay cash for their
purchases, and Russian sales since 1995 indicate that Russia has had varying degrees
of success in doing so. After 1995, Russia has made smaller arms deals with Kuwait
and the United Arab Emirates for armored fighting vehicles and with Malaysia for
MiG-29fighteraircraft. In 2000, Russia concluded a $500 million agreement with the
U.A.E. for the Pantsir S-1 air defense missile system. Iran, primarily due to its own
economic difficulties (as well as U.S. pressure on Russia), was not a major purchaser
of arms from the Russians after 1995. Iran had been a primary purchaser of Russian
armaments inthe early 1990s, receiving such items as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24
fighter-bombers, T-72 tanks, and Kilo class attack submarines. In late 2000, Russia
served public notice that it again intended to pursue major arms sales with Iran,
despite objections from the United States. Iraq was once a major purchaser of
advancedweaponryfromRussia,but hasnotbeenasourceoforders sincethe Persian
Gulf war. Russia clearly would pursue new major weapons deals with Iraq if current
U.N. sanctions on Iraq that ban Iraqi arms purchases are lifted.
Russia’s principal arms clients since 1994 have been India and China. Among
Russia’snotablearmsdealsduringrecent years hasbeenthe saleof40 newSu-30MK
fighter aircraft to India. Elements of a longer range plan for procurement as well as
co-production of a number of advanced Russian weapons systems were agreed to
with India in 1999 and 2000. These agreements are likely to result in significant
aircraft, missile, and naval craft agreements and deliveries to the Indian government
inthe yearsto come. In late 2000, Russia concluded a licensed production agreement
with India valued in excess of $3 billion for 140 Su-30MKI combat aircraft. It also
concluded an agreement for the sale to India of 310 T-90 main battle tanks for about
$700 million, and an agreement to retrofit and deliver the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft
carrier for over $650 million. Russia’s arms supplying relationship with China began
to mature in 1994. By 1996 Russia had sold China at least 72 Su-27 fighter aircraft
as well as four Kilo class attack submarines. Subsequently, a licensed production
agreement was finalized between Russia and China, permitting the Chinese to co-
produce at least 200 Su-27 aircraft. Russia also sold China two Sovremenny-class
destroyers, withassociatedmissilesystems. In 1999, the Chinese purchased between
40-60 Su-30 multi-rolefighteraircraftfor anestimated$2 billion,anddealsfor future
procurement of other weapons systems were agreed to in principle. In late 2000,
RussiaconcludedanagreementwithChinato purchaseatleastfourupgradedRussian
Mainstay airborne early warning aircraft, designated the A-50E, for about $1 billion.

Page 16
CRS-9
Given this recent history, it seems likely that India and China will continue to figure
significantly in Russia’s arms export program for some years to come.
China.
Chinaemergedasanimportantarmssupplierto certaindevelopingnationsinthe
1980s, primarily due to arms agreements made with both combatants in the Iran-Iraq
war. From 1993 through 2000, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations has averaged about $970 million annually. During the period of
this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
reached its peak in 1999 at $2.7 billion. Its sales figures that year resulted generally
from several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the Near East, rather
than one or two especially large sales of major weapons systems. In 2000, China’s
armstransferagreementstotal was$400 million. Pakistan continues as a key Chinese
client. China, more recently, has become a major purchaser of arms, primarily from
Russia (tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
Sincethelate1980s,fewclientswithfinancialresourceshavesoughttopurchase
Chinese military equipment, much of which is less advanced and sophisticated than
weaponry available from Western suppliers and Russia. China did supply Silkworm
anti-ship missiles to Iran, as well as other less advanced conventional weapons. Yet
China does not appear likely to be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the
international arms market in the foreseeable future, since more sophisticated
weaponryisavailablefromother supplierssuchasRussia,or majorWesternweapons
exporters. Reports persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-
surface missiles to Pakistan, a long-standing client. Iran and North Korea have also
reportedly received Chinese missile technology. These reports raise important
questionsabout China’sstated commitmentto the restrictions on missiletransfers set
out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its pledge not to
assist others build missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. With a need for hard
currency, and some military products (especially missiles) that some developing
countries would like to acquire, China can present an important obstacle to efforts to
stem proliferation of advancedmissilesystemsto some areas of the developing world
where political and military tensions are significant.
Major West European Suppliers.
The four major West European suppliers (France, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Italy), as a group, registered a decline intheir collective share of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations between 1999 and 2000. This group’s share fell
from 15.4% in 1999 to 12.2% in 2000. The collective value of this group’s arms
transfer agreements with developing nations in 2000 was $3.1 billion compared with
a total of over $3.6 billion in 1999. Of these four, France was the leading supplier
with $2.1 billioninagreements in2000, a notable increase from $312 millionin1999.
TheFrenchagreementtotalin2000wasprimarilyattributableto the saleto Singapore
of six Lafayette class frigates ( as well as an associated missiles package) for about
$1.5 billion. France also sold India 10 Mirage 2000H fighter aircraft for about $300
million. Germany registered a significant decline in arms agreements from about $2.1
billion in 1999 to $1 billion in 2000. Germany’s total in 2000 was principally due to
a sale to South Korea of three Type 214 diesel-electric submarines. Both the United

Page 17
CRS-10
Kingdom and Italy also registered a notable decline in their respective arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1999 to 2000, both falling from over $620
million in 1999 to essentially nil in 2000. (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major WestEuropean suppliers,collectively,heldabout a 25.8% share
of allarms transfer agreements with developingnationsduring the period from 1993-
2000. Since the end of the Persian Gulf war, the major West European suppliers have
generallymaintainedanotableshareofarms transfer agreements. For the 1997-2000
period, they collectively held 21.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations ( $18.2 billion). Individual suppliers within the major West European group
have had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 1993, 1994, and
1997 ($4.6 billion, $9.4 billion, and $4.7 billion respectively). The United Kingdom
also had large agreement years in 1993 and 1996 ($2.7 billion and $3 billion
respectively). Germany’s 1999 agreement total of $2.1 billion was its highest over the
last eight years, although it has concluded arms agreements totaling at least $1 billion
for the last three years. For each of these three nations, large agreement totals in one
year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large arms contracts with one or
more major purchasers in that particular year (table 1A and 1B).
The major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in
weapons exports enhancedbytraditionally strong government marketing support for
foreign arms sales. Since they can produce both advanced and basic air, ground, and
naval weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers have competed
successfully for arms sales contracts with developing nations against both the United
States, which has tended to sell to several of the same clients, and with Russia, which
has sold to nations not traditional customers of the U.S. The continuing demand for
U.S.weaponsintheglobalarmsmarketplacehascreatedamoredifficultenvironment
forindividualWestEuropean suppliersto securelargenewcontracts withdeveloping
nations on a sustained basis. Consequently, some of these suppliers in future years
may chose not to compete for some sales of certain types of weapons systems, even
reducing or eliminating some categories of items they have been producing. Instead,
they may seek to join increasing numbers of joint production ventures with other key
Europeanweaponssuppliersorevenpurchasingcountriesinaneffortto sustainmajor
sectors of their individual defense industrial bases. The recent trend toward mergers
of various European defense firms has encouraged more joint ventures of this kind.
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
The Persian Gulf War from August 1990-February 1991 played a major role in
further stimulating already high levels of arms transfer agreements with nations inthe
Near East region. The war created new demands by key purchasers such as Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons systems. These
demands were not only a response to Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but a
reflection of concerns regarding perceived threats from a potentially hostile Iran. In
Asia, efforts in several countries focused on upgrading and modernizing defense
forces have led to important new conventional weapons sales in that region. Russia
also, in the 1990s, developed a significant role as the principal supplier of advanced
conventional weaponry to China, while maintaining its position as principal supplier
to India. The data on regional arms transfer agreements from 1993-2000 continue to

Page 18
CRS-11
reflect the primacy of developing nations in the Near East and Asia regions as
customers for conventional armaments.
Near East.
The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1993-1996, it accounted for 54.6% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements ($46 billion in current dollars). During 1997-2000,
the region accounted for 47.2% of all such agreements ($38.4 billion in current
dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
TheUnitedStatesdominatedarmstransferagreementswiththeNearEastduring
the 1993-2000 periodwith55.2%oftheirtotalvalue($46.5billionincurrent dollars).
France was second during these years with 22.8% ($19.2 billion in current dollars).
Recently, from 1997-2000, the United States accounted for 60.9% of arms
agreements with this region ($23.4 billionincurrent dollars),whileFranceaccounted
for 16.2% of the region’s agreements ($6.2 billion in current dollars), representing
most of the arms transfer agreements by the major West European suppliers with the
Near East (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).
Asia.
Asiahasgenerallybeenthe secondlargestdevelopingworldarmsmarket. In the
earlier period (1993-1996), Asia accounted for 36.1% of the total value of all arms
transferagreementswithdevelopingnations($30.3 billionincurrent dollars). During
1997-2000, the region accounted for 37.6% of all such agreements ($30.5 billion in
current dollars) (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1993-1996), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 35.3%. The United States ranked second with
21.2%. The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 23.7% of this region’s
agreements in 1993-1996. In the later period (1997-2000), Russia ranked first in
Asian agreements with 40.7%, primarily due to major combat aircraft sales to India
and China. The United States ranked second with 19%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 23% of this region’s agreements in 1997-2000. (Chart
6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
Saudi Arabia has been, by a clear margin, the leading developing world arms
purchaser from 1993-2000, making arms transfer agreements totaling $24.5 billion
during these years (in current dollars). In the 1993-1996 period, the value of its arms
transfer agreements was high ($18.8 billion in current dollars), ranking first for that
period. From 1997-2000, however, the total value of Saudi Arabia’s arms transfer
agreements dropped significantly to $5.7 billion(in current dollars), ranking it fourth
for that period. This decline resulted from Saudi debt obligations stemming from the
Persian Gulf era, coupled with a significant fall in Saudi revenues caused by the
notable decline in the market price of its oil. The total value of all arms transfer
agreements with developing nations from 1993-2000 was $165.2 billion in current

Page 19
CRS-12
dollars. Saudi Arabia alone was responsible for 14.8% of all developing world arms
transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period, 1997-2000,
the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations ($14 billion in current dollars). India ranked second during these
years ($7.6 billion in current dollars). The U.A.E. from 1997-2000 accounted for
17.2% of the value of all developing world arms transfer agreements ($14 billion out
of $81.2 billion in current dollars) (tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).
The values of the arms transfer agreements of the top ten developing world
recipient nations in both the 1993-1996 and, 1997-2000 periods accounted for the
major portion of the total developing nations arms market. During 1993-1996, the
top ten recipients collectively accounted for 70.3% of all developing world arms
transferagreements. During 1997-2000, the top ten recipients collectively accounted
for 72.8% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten
developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $22.9 billion in 2000 or 90% of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations in that year. This reflects the
continued concentration of major arms purchases by developing nations within a few
countries (tables 1, 1I and 1J).
The United Arab Emirates ranked first among all developing world recipients in
the value of arms transfer agreements in 2000, concluding $7.4 billion in such
agreements. India ranked second in agreements in 2000 at $4.8 billion. South Korea
ranked third with $2.3 billion in agreements. Six of these top ten recipients were in
Asia (table 1J).
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in2000, receiving $7.3 billioninsuch deliveries. Saudi Arabia alone
received 37.7% of the total value of allarms deliveriesto developing nations in2000.
China ranked second in arms deliveries in 2000 with $1.6 billion. Egypt ranked third
with $1.3 billion (tables 2 and 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $15.6 billion, or 80.5% of allarms deliveries to developing nations in2000.
Six of these top ten recipients were in the Near East (tables 2 and 2J).
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply of
conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even though the United
States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery
of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the other
European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are capable
of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to developing
nations (tables 3-7) (pages 64-68).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, the largest purchasing region in the
developing world, reflect the substantial quantities and types delivered byboth major
and lesser suppliers. The following is an illustrative summary of weapons deliveries
to this region for the period 1997-2000 from table 5 (page 66):

Page 20
CRS-13
United States.
!
93 tanks and self-propelled guns
!
1,019 APCs and armored cars
!
129 supersonic combat aircraft
!
56 helicopters
!
589 surface-to-air missiles
!
57 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
!
350 tanks and self-propelled guns
!
600 APCs and armored cars
!
1 submarine
!
20 supersonic combat aircraft