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 forthe period 2000 through 2007. It also includes some data on worldwide supplier transactions. Itupdates and revises CRS Report RL34187(pdf) , Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,1999-2006 . The data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing supplier-purchaserrelationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these data can assist Congress in itsoversight 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 ensuringthe security of U.S. allies and friendly nations throughout the world, have been important elementsof U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the degree to which individual arms suppliers are making armstransfers to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policyquestions it may confront. Such policy questions may include, for example, whether or not tosupport specific U.S. arms sales to given countries or regions or to support or oppose such armstransfers by other nations. The data in this report may also assist Congress in evaluating whethermultilateral arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign policy initiatives are being supportedor undermined by the actions of arms suppliers. The principal focus of this report is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliersto nations in the developing world -- where most of the potential for the outbreak of regional militaryconflicts currently exists. For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventionalweapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and itsallies. 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 amilitary disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union or its allies. Following the ColdWar's end, U.S. arms transfer policy has been based on assisting friendly and allied nations indeveloping 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 havechanged in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years. Relationships between armssuppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response to changing political, military, and economiccircumstances. Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might havebeen to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economicconsiderations as those of foreign or national security policy. The developing world continues to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity byconventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 2000-2007, conventional armstransfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery) to developing nations comprised66.6% of the value of all international arms transfer agreements. The portion of agreements withdeveloping countries constituted 67.7% of all agreements globally from 2004-2007. In 2007, armstransfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 70.5% of the value of all suchagreements 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 nationsconstituted 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 thesenew data for 2000-2007 reflect potentially significant updates to and revisions in the underlyingdatabases utilized for this report, only the data in this most recent edition should be used. The dataare expressed in U.S. dollars for the calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see boxnotes on page 3). U.S. commercially licensed arms export delivery values are excluded (see box noteon page 20). Also excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups. The definitionof developing nations, as used in this report, and the specific classes of items included in its valuestotals are found in box notes on page 3. The report's table of contents provides a detailed listing anddescription of the various data tables to guide the reader to specific items of interest. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and developingnations) in 2007 was nearly $60 billion. This was an increase in arms agreements values over 2006of 9.2% ( Chart 1 )( Table 8A ). In 2007, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide , making agreementsvalued at over $24.8 billion (41.5% of all such agreements), up significantly from $16.7 billion in2006. 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 agreementsworldwide were $9.8 billion in 2007, up from $4.1 billion in 2006. The United States, Russia, andthe United Kingdom collectively made agreements in 2007 valued at over $45 billion, 75.2% of allinternational 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 ($147.6billion), an increase of 29.2%. During the period 2000-2003, developing world nations accountedfor 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. In2007, 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 , makingnearly $12.8 billion in such deliveries or 41.3%. This is the eighth year in a row that the UnitedStates 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 $2.6billion 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 )( Tables9A, 9B, and 9D ). The value of all international arms deliveries in 2007 was $31 billion. This is a decrease inthe total value of arms deliveries from the previous year (a decline from $33.6 billion). The totalvalue of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2004-2007 ($134.9 billion) was lower than the deliveriesworldwide from 2000-2003 ($143.6 billion, a decline of nearly $10 billion) ( Figure 2 )( Tables 9Aand 9B )( Charts 7 and 8 ). Developing nations from 2004-2007 accounted for 64.7% of the value of all internationalarms deliveries. In the earlier period, 2000-2003, developing nations accounted for 65.1% of thevalue of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2007, developing nations collectively accounted for55.6% 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 increasefrom $54.9 billion in 2006, or 9.2%. Global arms agreement values for the other years covered hereranged from $48.7 billion in 2005 to $32.6 billion in 2003. Of the major arms orders secured in2007 most were made by the traditional major suppliers. In some instances these orders representedsignificant new acquisitions by the purchasing country. In others they reflected the continuation oracceleration of a longer-term weapons-acquisition program. The increase in new weapons sales can also be explained, in part, by the decision of somepurchasing nations to acquire major systems they had deferred buying due to budgetaryconsiderations. Some nations were completing the integration of major weapons systems they havealready purchased into their force structures. Some of the growth in arms transfer agreements morerecently also reflects contracts related to training and support services, as well as upgrades ofexisting weapons systems. Individual orders such as these can be expensive, and in given instancesprove to be nearly as costly as orders for new units of military equipment. Because the international arms market continues to be intensely competitive, severalproducing countries have focused sales efforts on prospective clients in nations and regions whereindividual suppliers have had competitive advantages resulting from well-establishedmilitary-support relationships. Arms sales to new NATO member nations in Europe to support theirmilitary modernization programs have created new business for arms suppliers, while allowing theseNATO states to sell some of their older generation military equipment, in refurbished form, to otherless-developed countries. There are inherent limitations on these European sales due to the smaller defense budgets ofmany of the purchasing countries. Yet creative seller financing options, as well as the use ofco-assembly, co-production, and counter-trade agreements to offset costs to the buyers continue tofacilitate new arms agreements. It seems likely that the United States and European countries orconsortia will compete vigorously for prospective arms contracts within the European region in theforeseeable future. Such sales seem particularly important to European suppliers, as they canpotentially compensate, in part, for lost weapons deals elsewhere in the developing world that resultfrom reduced demand for new weapons. Developed nations continue their efforts to protect important elements of their nationalmilitary industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other developed nations. However, severalkey arms suppliers have placed additional emphasis on joint production of various weapons systemswith other developed nations as a more effective way to preserve a domestic weapons productioncapability, while sharing the costs of new weapons development. The consolidation of certainsectors of the domestic defense industries of key weapons-producing nations continues, in the faceof intense foreign competition. Some supplying nations, meanwhile, have chosen to manufactureitems for niche weapons categories where their specialized production capabilities give themimportant advantages in the international arms marketplace. Despite the recent upward trend in weapons purchases with the developed world, somedeveloping nations have limited their weapons purchases primarily due to their limited financialresources to pay for such equipment. Other prospective arms purchasers in the developing worldwith significant financial assets have been cautious in launching new and costlyweapons-procurement programs. Increases in the price of oil, while an advantage for major oilproducing states in funding their arms purchases, has, simultaneously, caused economic difficultiesfor many oil consuming states, contributing to their decisions to curtail or defer new weaponsacquisitions. A number of less affluent developing nations have chosen to upgrade existing weaponssystems in their inventories, while reducing their purchases of new ones. This circumstance maycurtail sales of some new weapons systems. Yet the weapons upgrade market can be very lucrativefor some arms producers, and partially mitigate the effect of fewer opportunities for the sale ofmajor items of military equipment. Most recently, the nations in the Near East and Asia regions have resumed large weaponspurchases in contrast with arms sales activity in the earliest years of this report. These major orderscontinue to be made by a select few developing nations in these regions. They have been madeprincipally by India and China in Asia, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the NearEast. These purchasing tendencies are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of either thethreat assessments of individual states or the strength of their individual economies. For the largergroup of nations in these regions the strength of the economies of a wide range of nations in thedeveloping world continues to be the most significant factor in the timing of many of their armspurchasing decisions. Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, Africa, are regions where some nations wish tomodernize 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 Americaand 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 armssales to these two regions of the developing world will be limited to a small number of nations there. The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2007 was nearly $42.3billion, an increase from the $38.1 billion total in 2006 Chart 1 )( Figure 1 )( Table 1A ). In 2007, thevalue of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17.2 billion) was lower than the value of 2006deliveries (over $21.4 billion), and the lowest total for the 2000-2007 period ( Charts 7 and8 )( Figure 2 )( Table 2A ). Recently, from 2004-2007, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms marketin the developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second for 3 out of these 4 yearsin 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, theUnited 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 nationsduring 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 theearlier period (2000-2003) the United States ranked first with $46.4 billion in arms transferagreements with developing nations or 48.3%; Russia made $25.6 billion in arms transferagreements during this period or 26.6%. France made nearly $5 billion in agreements or 5.2% ( Table1A ). From 2000-2007, most arms transfers to developing nations were made by two majorsuppliers in any given year. The United States ranked first among these suppliers for five of the lasteight years during this period, falling to third place in 2005. Russia has been a strong competitor forthe lead in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, ranking second every year from 2000through 2003, and first from 2004-2006. Although Russia has lacked the larger traditional clientbase for armaments held by the United States and the major West European suppliers, its recentsuccesses in concluding new arms orders suggests that Russia is likely to continue to be, for sometime, a significant leader in arms agreements with developing nations. Russia's most significant highvalue arms transfer agreements continue to be with India and China. Russia has also had somesuccess in concluding arms agreements with clients beyond its principal two. Russia continues toseek 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 essentiallyabandoned major arms sales efforts there after the end of the Cold War. Venezuela has become asignificant new arms client gained by Russia in this region. The Russian government has adoptedmore flexible payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the developing world, includinga willingness in specific cases to forgive outstanding debts owed to it by a prospective client in orderto secure new arms purchases. Additionally, Russia continues to seek to enhance the quality of itsfollow-on support services to make Russian products more attractive and competitive, and to assureits potential clients that it can effectively provide timely service and spare parts for the weaponssystems it exports. Major West European arms suppliers, particularly France and the United Kingdom, haveconcluded large orders with developing countries over the last eight years based on either long-termsupply relationships or their having specialized weapons systems readily available. Germany hasbeen a key source of naval systems for developing nations. Although it faces increased competitionfrom these other major arms suppliers, the United States appears likely to hold its position as theprincipal supplier to key developing world nations, especially those able to afford major newweapons. The United States has developed for decades such a wide base of arms equipment clientsglobally 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 itsclients. Thus, even when the United States does not conclude major new arms agreements in a givenyear, it can still register significant arms agreement values based on transactions in these othercategories. The principal arms-supplying nations continue to focus their sales efforts on the wealthierdeveloping countries. Arms transfers to the less affluent developing nations are still constrained bythe 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 2001and continued through 2003 has halted. Arms transfer agreements with developing countries reachedtheir highest total value in 2007 at nearly $43.3 billion. From 2004 through 2007 there has been asteady increase in arms transfer agreements with developing countries, aid to an important degreeby sales to the more affluent nations in this group. Those developing nations with notably increasedoil 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 theirparticipation in the arms trade with the developing world in recent years, albeit at lower levels, andwith more uneven results, than those of the major suppliers. Nevertheless, these non-major armssuppliers have proven capable, on occasion, of making arms deals of consequence. Most of theirannual arms transfer agreement values during 2000-2007 have been comparatively low, although thevalues are larger when they are aggregated together as a group. In individual cases they have beensuccessful in selling older generation equipment, while they procure newer weapons to upgrade theirown military forces. These arms suppliers also are more likely to be sources of small arms and lightweapons and associated ordnance, rather than routine sellers of major military equipment. Most ofthese arms suppliers have not consistently ranked with the traditional major suppliers of advancedweaponry in the value of their arms agreements and deliveries ( Tables 1A, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2F, and2G ). United States. The total value -- in real terms --of United States arms transfer agreements with developing nations rose from $9.1 billion in 2006to $12.2 billion in 2007. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 28.8% in 2007, upfrom 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 wasattributable to a few major deals with clients in the Near East and in Asia. A substantial number ofsmaller valued purchases by a wide number of traditional U.S. arms clients throughout the Near Eastand Asia contributed notably to the overall U.S. agreements total. The arms agreement total of theUnited 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 notonly sales of major weapons systems, but also the upgrading of systems previously provided. TheU.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 withdeveloping nations were: with the United Arab Emirates for 26 UH-60M Black Hawk helicoptersfor over $800 million, and for 20 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) launchers androckets for $595 million. Other U.S. arms agreements in 2007 were with Egypt for co-productionof 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks for $771 million; with Saudi Arabia for 152 GE/Pratt&Whitney jetengines for $386 million, and for F-15 aircraft follow-on services for $319 million; with South Koreafor 58 AN/VRC-90E SINCGAR radio systems for $427 million and for 210 SM-2 STANDARDBlock III missiles for $210 million; with Colombia for 15 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters for $217million; and with Jordan for a C4SIR system for $208 million. Russia. The total value of Russia's arms transferagreements 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 developingworld 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 thelast four years. During the 2004-2007 period, Russia ranked first among all suppliers to developingcountries, making $37.9 billion in agreements (in current 2007 dollars) ( Table 1F ). Russia's statusas a leading supplier of arms to developing nations stems from a successful effort to overcome thesignificant economic and political problems associated with the dissolution of the former SovietUnion. Traditional arms clients of the former Soviet Union were generally less wealthy developingcountries valued as much for their political support during the Cold War, as for their desire forSoviet weaponry. Several of these Soviet-era client states received substantial military aid grantsand significant discounts on their arms purchases. After 1991 Russia consistently placed a premiumon obtaining hard currency for the weapons it sold. Faced with stiff competition from Western armssuppliers in the post-Cold War period, Russia modified and adapted its selling practices in an effortto regain and sustain an important share of the developing-world arms market. In recent years, Russian leaders have made significant efforts to provide more creativefinancing and payment options for prospective arms clients. They have agreed to engage incounter-trade, offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make significant licensed productionagreements in order to sell Russia's weapons. The willingness to license production has been acentral element in several cases involving Russia's principal arms clients, India and China. Russia'sefforts 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 hassecured arms agreements with Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Most recently Russia hasconcluded major arms deals with Venezuela and with Algeria. Elsewhere in the developing worldRussian military equipment can be competitive because it ranges from the most basic to the highlyadvanced. For less affluent developing nations Russia's less expensive armaments are particularlyattractive. The sale of military aircraft and missiles continues to be a significant portion of Russia's armsexports. But the absence of major new research and development efforts in this and other militaryequipment areas can jeopardize long-term Russian foreign arms sales prospects. Although militaryweapons research and development (R&D) programs exist in Russia, other major arms suppliers arecurrently more advanced in the process of developing and producing weaponry than in existingRussian R&D programs. Despite these potential difficulties, Russia continues to have important arms developmentand sales programs involving India and China, which should provide it with sustained businessthroughout this decade. Through agreements concluded in the mid-1990s, Russia has sold majorcombat fighter aircraft, and main battle tanks to India, and has provided other major weaponssystems though lease or licensed production. It continues to provide support services and items forthese various weapons systems. Sales of advanced weaponry in South Asia by Russia have been amatter of ongoing concern to the United States because of long-standing tensions between India andPakistan. When India acquires a new weapon system this typically leads Pakistan to seek comparableweapons or those with offsetting capabilities. A key U.S. policy objective is keeping a potentiallydestabilizing arms race in this region within check. (1) China has been Russia's other key arms client in Asia, especially for advanced aircraft andnaval systems. Since 1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft and agreed to licensedproduction 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 636submarines. Russia has also sold the Chinese a variety of other weapons systems and missiles. In2005, Russia agreed to sell China 30 IL-76TD military transport aircraft and 8 IL-78M aerialrefueling tanker aircraft for more than $1 billion. Russia also signed new arms transfer agreementswith China for a number of AL-31F military aircraft engines for $1 billion, and agreed to sell jetengines for China's FC-1 fighter aircraft at a cost in excess of $250 million. Chinese armsacquisitions are apparently aimed at enhancing its military projection capabilities in Asia, and itsability to influence events throughout the region. These acquisitions continue to be monitored byU.S. policymakers. The U.S. policy interest is, among other things, ensuring that it providesappropriate military equipment to U.S. allies and friendly states in Asia to help offset any prospectivethreat China may pose to such nations, while keeping the U.S. military aware of any threat it mayface in any confrontation with China. (2) In 2007 there were no especially large Chinese arms agreementswith Russia, possibly because the Chinese military is focused on absorbing and integrating previousarms purchases from Russia into its force structure. Among the most significant arms transfer deals Russia made in 2007 were with India. Theseagreements included the sale of 347 T-90 main battle tanks, 40 Su-30MKI combat fighter aircraftand a number of MiG-29 fighter aircraft. Also concluded was an agreement for the production ofjet aircraft engines and one for long term defense production cooperation. An important portion ofRussia'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 threeSu-30MK2 fighter aircraft for $355 million, and for Mi-17 and Mi35M helicopters for over $100million. Iran contracted with Russia for five batteries of the S-300PMU1 air defense system, andSyria purchased the Buk-M1-2 air defense system. China. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s providedChina with the opportunity to become an important supplier of less expensive weapons to certaindeveloping nations. During that conflict China demonstrated that it was willing to provide arms toboth combatants in the war, in quantity and without conditions. Since that time China's arms saleshave been more regional and targeted. From 2004-2007, the value of China's arms transferagreements with developing nations averaged about $2.3 billion annually. During the period of thisreport, the value of China's arms transfer agreements with developing nations were highest in 2007at $3.8 billion. A significant portion of that total can be attributed to a significant contract withPakistan associated with the production of the J-17 fighter aircraft. Generally, China's sales figuresreflect several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the Near East, rather than one ortwo 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 soughtto purchase Chinese military equipment during the eight-year period of this report, because mostChinese weapons for export are less advanced and sophisticated than weaponry available fromWestern suppliers or Russia. China, consequently, does not appear likely to be a key supplier ofmajor conventional weapons in the international arms market for the foreseeable future. China'slikely client base could be states in Asia and Africa seeking quantities of small arms and lightweapons, rather than major combat systems. At the same time, China has been an important sourceof missiles in the developing world arms market. China supplied Silkworm anti-ship missiles toIran. Credible reports persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-surface missilesto Pakistan, a long-standing and important client. Iran and North Korea have also reportedlyreceived Chinese missile technology, which may have increased their capabilities to threaten othercountries in their respective neighborhoods. The continued reporting of such activities by crediblesources raise important questions about China's stated commitment to the restrictions on missiletransfers set out in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including its pledge not toassist others in building missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. Since China has some militaryproducts -- particularly missiles -- that some developing countries would like to acquire, it canpresent an obstacle to efforts to stem proliferation of advanced missile systems to some areas of thedeveloping world where political and military tensions are significant, and where some nations areseeking to develop asymmetric military capabilities. (3) China, among others, has been a key source of a variety of small arms and light weaponstransferred to African states. Although the prospects for significant revenue earnings from thesearms sales are limited, China may view such sales as one means of enhancing its status as aninternational political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant naturalresources, especially oil. Controlling the sales of small arms and light weapons to regions ofconflict, 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 achieveconsensus on a path to address it. (4) Major West European Suppliers. Beyond theUnited States and Russia, the four major West European arms suppliers -- France, the UnitedKingdom, Germany, and Italy -- are the nations that can supply a wide variety of more highlysophisticated weapons to would-be purchasers. They can serve as alternative sources of armamentsthat the United States chooses not to supply for policy reasons. The United Kingdom sold majorcombat fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s, when the U.S. chose not to sell acomparable aircraft for policy reasons. These four NATO nations have been allies of the UnitedStates and generally have supported the U.S. position in restricting arms sales to certain nationsduring the Cold War era. In the post-Cold War era, their national defense export policies have notbeen fully coordinated with the United States as likely would have been the case at the Cold War'sheight. These leading European arms supplying states, particularly France, view arms sales foremostas a matter for national decision. France has also frequently used foreign military sales as animportant means for underwriting development and procurement of weapons systems for its ownmilitary forces. So the potential exists for policy differences between the United States and majorWest European supplying states over conventional weapons transfers to specific countries. Such aconflict resulted from an effort led by France and Germany to lift the arms embargo on arms salesto China currently adhered to by members of the European Union. The United States viewed thisas a misguided effort, and vigorously opposed it. The proposal to lift the embargo was ultimatelynot adopted, but it proved to be a source of significant tension between the U.S. and the EuropeanUnion. Thus, arms sales activities of major European suppliers continue to be of interest to U.S.policymakers, given their capability to make sales of advanced military equipment to countries ofconcern 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 agreementswith developing nations between 2006 and 2007. This group's share rose from 18.5% in 2006 to32.2% in 2007. The collective value of this group's arms transfer agreements with developingnations in 2007 was $13.6 billion compared with a total of $7.1 billion in 2006. Of these fournations, the United Kingdom was the leading supplier with $9.8 billion in agreements in 2007, adramatic increase from $4.1 billion in agreements in 2006. A substantial portion of the UnitedKingdom's $9.8 billion agreement total in 2007 is attributable to an order valued in excess of $9billion from Saudi Arabia for 72 Typhoon Eurofighter aircraft. Germany's $1.5 billion in armsagreements in 2007 resulted primarily from an agreement with South Korea for the purchase of anexisting 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 transferagreements with developing nations during 2007. In the period from 2004-2007 they have generallybeen important participants in the developing world arms market. Individual suppliers within themajor West European group have had notable years for arms agreements, especially France in 2000and 2005 ($2.2 billion and $6.8 billion, respectively). The United Kingdom also had largeagreement years in 2004 ($4.5 billion), in 2006 ($4.1 billion), and $9.8 billion in 2007. Germanyconcluded arms agreements totaling nearly $2 billion in 2006, and $1.5 billion in 2007. In the caseof each of these three European nations, large agreement totals in one year have usually reflected theconclusion 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 exportsstrengthened over the years through strong government marketing support for their foreign armssales. As they all can produce both advanced and basic air, ground, and naval weapons systems, thefour major West European suppliers have competed successfully for arms sales contracts withdeveloping nations against both the United States, which has tended to sell to several of the sameclients, and with Russia, which has sold to nations not traditional customers of either the WestEuropeans 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 WestEuropean suppliers to secure, on a sustained basis, large new contracts with developing nations. Continuing strong demand for U.S. defense equipment as well as concern for maintainingtheir market share of the arms trade has led European Union (EU) member states to adopt a new codeof conduct for defense procurement practices. This code was agreed to on November 21, 2005, atthe European Defense Agency's (EA) steering board meeting. Currently voluntary, the EU hopesit will become mandatory, and through its mechanisms foster greater competition within theEuropean defense equipment sector in the awarding of contracts for defense items. The larger hopeis that by fostering greater intra-European cooperation and collaboration in defense contracting, andthe 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 armsmarketplace will be substantially enhanced. A few European arms suppliers have begun to phase out production of certain types ofweapons systems. Such suppliers have increasingly engaged in joint production ventures with otherkey European weapons suppliers or even client countries in an effort to sustain major sectors of theirindividual defense industrial bases -- even if a substantial portion of the weapons produced are fortheir own armed forces. The Eurofighter project is one example; the Eurocopter is another. OtherEuropean suppliers have also adopted the strategy of cooperating in defense production ventures withthe 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 themselvesto share in profits resulting from future sales of this new fighter aircraft. (6) The markets for arms in regions of the developing world have traditionally been dominatedby the Near East and by Asia. Nations in the Latin America and Africa regions, by contrast, havenot been major purchasers of weapons, except on rare occasions. The regional arms agreement datatables in this report demonstrate this. United States policymakers have placed emphasis on helpingto maintain stability throughout the regions of the developing world. Thus, the United States hasmade and supported arms sales and transfers it has believed would advance that goal, whilediscouraging significant sales by other suppliers to states and regions where military threats tonations in the area are minimal. Other arms suppliers do not necessarily share the U.S. perspectiveon what constitutes an appropriate arms sale. For in some instances the financial benefit of the saleto the supplier trumps other considerations. The regional and country specific arms-transfer data inthis report provide an indication of where various arms suppliers are focusing their attention and whotheir principal clients are. By reviewing these data, policymakers can identify potentialdevelopments which may be of concern, and use this information to assist their review of optionsthey may choose to consider given the circumstances. What follows below is a review of data onarms-transfer agreement activities in the two regions that lead in arms acquisitions, the Near Eastand Asia. This is followed, in turn, by a review of data regarding the leading arms purchasers in thedeveloping world. Near East. (7) The primary catalyst for newweapons procurements in the Near East region in the last decade was the Persian Gulf crisis ofAugust 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 weaponssystems. Subsequently, major concerns over the growing strategic threat from Iran has become theprincipal driver of GCC states' arms purchases. Because GCC states do not share a land border withIran, their weapons purchases have focused primarily on air, naval, and missile defense systems. Egypt and Israel, meanwhile, have continued their military modernization programs, increasing theirarms purchases from the United States. (8) Most recently, the position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the Persian Gulfregion has been re-established. In the period from 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia's total arms agreementswere 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 currentdollars), 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 transferagreements ($33.3 billion in current dollars), ranking it second behind Asia which was first with46.9% of these agreements ($35.2 billion in current dollars). But, during 2004-2007, the Near Eastregion accounted for 46.3% of all such agreements ($63.1 billion in current dollars), again placingit first in arms agreements with the developing world. The Asia region ranked second in 2004-2007with $57.6 billion in agreements or 42.3% ( Tables 1C and 1D ). The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East during the2000-2003 period with 73.6% of their total value ($24.5 billion in current dollars). Russia wassecond during these years with 9.3% ($3.1 billion in current dollars). Recently, from 2004-2007, theUnited States accounted for 32.8% of arms agreements with this region ($20.7 billion in currentdollars), while the United Kingdom accounted for 27.9% of the region's agreements ($17.6 billionin 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 inAsia have been focused on upgrading and modernizing defense forces, and this has led to newconventional weapons sales in that region. Since the mid-1990s, Russia has become the principalsupplier of advanced conventional weaponry to China -- selling fighters, submarines, destroyers, andmissiles -- while maintaining its position as principal arms supplier to India. Russian arms sales tothese two countries have been primarily responsible for the increase in Asia's overall share of thearms market in the developing world. Russia has expanded its client base in Asia, receiving aircraftorders 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 $3.5billion. In 2007, India made major purchases from Russia of T-90 main battle tanks, Su-30 MKIfighter aircraft, and MiG-29 fighter aircraft. The United States made a multi-billion dollar sale toPakistan in 2006 of new F-16 fighter aircraft, weapons, and aircraft upgrades, while Sweden soldit a SAAB-2000 based AWACS airborne radar system for over a billion dollars. In 2007, Pakistancontracted with China for production of J-17 fighter aircraft. These transactions have placedPakistan among the leading major Asian arms buyers of recent years. The data on regionalarms-transfer agreements from 2000-2007 continue to reflect that Near East and Asian nations arethe 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 withdeveloping nations ($57.6 billion in current dollars). Yet in the earlier period, 2000-2003, the regionranked first, accounting for 46.9% of all such agreements ($35.2 billion in current dollars) ( Tables1C and 1D ). In the earlier period (2000-2003), Russia ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreementswith Asia with 49.8% ($17.5 billion in current dollars). The United States ranked second with19.8% ($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 inAsian agreements with 35.9% ($20.7 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combataircraft, 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% ofthis region's agreements in 2004-2007. ( Chart 6 )( Table 1E ). India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 2000-2007, making armstransfer agreements totaling $31.9 billion during these years (in current dollars). In the 2000-2003period, China ranked first in arms transfer agreements at $10.1 billion (in current dollars). In2004-2007 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 thecontinuation of a military modernization effort by India, underway since the 1990s, based primarilyon major arms agreements with Russia. The total value of all arms transfer agreements withdeveloping nations from 2000-2007 was $217.6 billion in current dollars. Thus India aloneaccounted for 14.7% of all developing-world arms-transfer agreements during these eight years. Inthe 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 duringthese four years ($136 billion in current dollars). Saudi Arabia ranked second in arms transferagreements during 2004-2007 with $23.2 billion (in current dollars), or 17.1% of the value of alldeveloping-world arms-transfer agreements ( Tables 1, 1I, and 1J ). During 2000-2003, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 66.9% of all developingworld arms transfer agreements. During 2004-2007, the top ten recipients collectively accountedfor 61.6% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing worldrecipients, as a group, totaled $34.1 billion in 2007 or 80.6% of all arms transfer agreements withdeveloping nations in that year. These percentages reflect the continued concentration of major armspurchases 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 inagreements at $5 billion. Pakistan ranked third with $4.2 billion in agreements. Seven of the topten 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 in2007, 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 $11.1billion, or 64.5% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2007. Five of these top ten recipientswere in Asia; three were in the Near East; one was in Latin America, one was in Africa ( Tables 2and 2J ). Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply and type of conventionalweaponry actually transferred to developing nations. Even though the United States, Russia, andthe four major West European suppliers dominate in the delivery of the fourteen classes of weaponsexamined, 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 armamentsto developing nations ( Tables 3-7 ). Weapons deliveries to the Near East , historically the largest purchasing region in thedeveloping world, reflect the quantities and types delivered by both major and lesser suppliers. Thefollowing 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 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 from2004-2007, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, major and minor surfacecombatants, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air defense and anti-ship missiles. The UnitedStates 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, andEuropean suppliers in general were principal suppliers of tanks and self-propelled guns, APCs andarmored 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 andare a large portion of the dollar values of arms deliveries by the United States, Russia, and Europeansuppliers 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 duringthis period had their delivery value totals notably increased due to these transfers. Some of the lessexpensive weapons systems delivered to the Near East are, nonetheless, deadly and can createimportant security threats within the region. In particular, from 2004-2007, the United Statesdelivered 77 anti-ship missiles to the Near East region, China delivered 80, and the four major WestEuropean suppliers delivered 80. The United States delivered six minor surface combatants to theNear East, while the major West European suppliers collectively delivered three major surfacecombatants, 27 minor surface combatants and six guided missile boats. The non-major WestEuropean suppliers collectively delivered 70 anti-ship missiles. Other non-European supplierscollectively delivered 560 APCs and armored cars, 88 minor surface combatants, as well as 30surface-to-surface missiles, a weapons category not delivered by any of the other major weaponssuppliers during this period to any region. Tables 1 through 1J present data on arms transfer agreements with developing nations bymajor suppliers from 2000-2007. These data show the most recent trends in arms contract activityby major suppliers. Delivery data, which reflect implementation of sales decisions taken earlier, areshown in Tables 2 through 2J . Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D provide data on worldwide armstransfer 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 purposesother than assessing general trends in seller/buyer activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can bereadily invalidated by future events -- precise values and comparisons, for example, may change dueto cancellations or modifications of major arms transfer agreements. These data sets reflect the comparative magnitude of arms transactions by arms supplierswith recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise noted. Illustrative pie andbar charts are provided in this section to give the relative market share of individual arms suppliersglobally, to the developing world and to specific regions. Figure 1 provides the value of worldwidearms transfer agreements for 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2007, and the suppliers' share of suchagreements with the developing world. Figure 2 provides the value of worldwide arms deliveriesfor 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2007, and the suppliers' share of such deliveries with the developingworld. Specific content of other individual data tables is described below. Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements to developingnations 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 individualregions of the developing world for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. These values areexpressed in current U.S. dollars. (10) Table 1D , derived from Table 1C , gives the percentagedistribution of each supplier's agreement values within the regions for the two time periods. Table1E , also derived from Table 1C , illustrates what percentage share of each developing world region'stotal arms transfer agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 2000-2003 and2004-2007. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, 2000-2007: LeadingSuppliers Compared Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing nations from2000-2007 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with the developing world for each of threeperiods -- 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-2007. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2007: LeadingSuppliers Compared Table 1G ranks and gives for 2007 the values of arms transfer agreements with developingnations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 2000-2007: Suppliers andRecipients Table 1H gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the Near East nations bysuppliers or categories of suppliers for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. These values areexpressed 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 WithLeading Recipients Table 1I gives the values of arms transfer agreements made by the top ten recipients of armsin the developing world from 2000-2007 with all suppliers collectively. The table ranks recipientson the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers foreach of three periods--2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-2007. Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2007: Agreements With LeadingRecipients 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 respectiveagreements 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 thatthey reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide the data from which Tables 2A (constantdollars) 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 thedeveloping world for the periods 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars. (11) Table2D , derived from Table 2C , gives the percentage distribution of each supplier's deliveries valueswithin the regions for the two time periods. Table 2E , also derived from Table 2C , illustrates whatpercentage share of each developing world region's total arms delivery values was held by specificsuppliers during the years 2000-2003 and 2004-2007. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 2000-2007: Leading SuppliersCompared Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 2000-2007 by thetop eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the total current dollar valuesof 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 SuppliersCompared Table 2G ranks and gives for 2007 the values of arms deliveries to developing nations of thetop ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Arms Deliveries to Near East, 2000-2007: Suppliers andRecipients Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers or categoriesof 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 LeadingRecipients Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of arms in thedeveloping world from 2000-2007 by all suppliers collectively. The table ranks recipients on thebasis of the total current dollar values of their respective deliveries from all suppliers for each ofthree periods -- 2000-2003, 2004-2007, and 2000-2007. Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2007: Agreements With LeadingRecipients 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 respectiveagreements with all suppliers in 2007. Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 2000-2007 Developed and Developing Worlds Compared Source: U.S. Government Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide (supplier percentage of value) Source: U.S. Government Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations (supplier percentageof value) Source: U.S. Government Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier,2000-2007 (billions of constant 2007 dollars) Source: U.S. Government Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements,2000-2007 and Suppliers' Share with Developing World (in millions of constant2007 U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East (supplier percentage ofvalue) Source: U.S. Government Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in Asia (supplierpercentage of value) (excludes Japan, Australia, and New Zealand) Source: U.S. Government Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 2000-2007 Developed and DevelopingWorlds Compared Source: U.S. Government Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier,2000-2007 (in billions of constant 2007 dollars) Source: U.S. Government Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries,2000-2007 and Suppliers' Share with Developing World (in millions of constant2007 U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of currentU.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given exceptfor U. S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Excess Defense Article data which are includedfor the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, militaryassistance, excess defense articles, and training programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data arerounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United ArabEmirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of constant 2007U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (expressed asa percent oftotal, by year) Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 2000-2003 includes a $6.432 billion licensedcommercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. *Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier's Agreements Value by Region, 2000-2007 Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 2000-2007 Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements withDeveloping Nations, 2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of currentU.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. *The United States total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreementwith the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements withDeveloping Nations in 2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of currentU.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East,by Supplier (in millions of current U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals asan aggregate figure. **The United States total for 2000-2003 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercialagreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements withDeveloping Nations, 2000-2007: Agreements by the Leading Recipients (in millionsof current U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with theUnited States in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft. Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements withDeveloping Nations in 2007: Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions ofcurrent U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note : All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: Developing nations category excludes the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. All data are for the calendaryear given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess defense articles, whichare included for the particular fiscal year. Licensed commercial exports are excluded. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weaponsand ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreigncountries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of constant 2007U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (expressed as a percent oftotal, byyear) Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 2000-2007 Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 2000-2007 Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to DevelopingNations, 2000-2007 Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to DevelopingNations in 2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier (inmillions of current U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as anaggregate figure. Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations,2000-2007: The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nationsin 2007: The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Other useful data for assessing arms transfers are those that indicate who hasactually delivered specific numbers of specific classes of military items to a region . These data are relatively "hard" in that they reflect actual transfers of militaryequipment. They have the limitation of not giving detailed information regardingeither the sophistication or the specific name of the equipment delivered. However,these data show relative trends in the delivery of important classes of militaryequipment and indicate who the leading suppliers are from region to region overtime. Data in the following tables set out actual deliveries of fourteen categories ofweaponry 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 asa group, and all other suppliers as a group. The tables show these deliveries data forall of the developing nations collectively, for Asia, for the Near East, for LatinAmerica, and for Africa ( Tables 3-7 ). Care should be taken in using the quantitative data within these specifictables. Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provideprecise indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The historyof recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication ofweapons can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide anindication of the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively theweapons 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 conventionalwarfare than the size of its weapons inventory. Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers to Developing Nations Source: U.S. Government Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan,Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given. *Major West Europeanincludes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Datarelating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates basedon a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries inthese two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive. Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers toAsia and the Pacific Source: U.S. Government Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data arefor calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom,Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface andanti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a variety of sources having awide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons deliverycategories are not necessarily definitive. Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliersto Near East Source: U.S. Government Note: All data for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, UnitedKingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating tosurface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a varietyof sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses twoweapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive. Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Suppliersto Latin America Source: U.S. Government Note: All data for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, UnitedKingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating tosurface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a varietyof sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses twoweapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive. Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Suppliers toAfrica Source: U.S. Government Note: All data are for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, UnitedKingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating tosurface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a varietyof sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these twoweapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive. Ten tables follow. Tables 8, 8A, and 8B and Tables 9, 9A, and 9B , providethe total dollar values for arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwidefor 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 todeveloping nations. Tables 8C, 8D, 9C, and 9D provide a list of the top eleven armssuppliers to the world based on the total values ( in current dollars ) of their armstransfer 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 forarms deliveries to developing nations, respectively. Total Worldwide Arms Transfer AgreementsValues, 2000-2007 Table 8 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreementsworldwide. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are, bythemselves, of limited use. They provide, however, the data from which Tables 8A (constant dollars) and 8B (supplier percentages) are derived. Total Worldwide Delivery Values2000-2007 Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (itemsactually transferred) worldwide by major suppliers from 2000-2007. The utility ofthese data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They provide the datafrom which Tables 9A (constant dollars) and 9B (supplier percentages) are derived. Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S. dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education andTraining), excess defense articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons andammunition, military spare parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The U.S. total in 2000includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft. Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of constant2007 U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (expressed as a percentof total, byyear) Source: U.S. Government Note: Columns may not total due to rounding. *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with theWorld, 2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. *The U.S. total includes a $6.432billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80F-16 aircraft. Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with theWorld in 2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training),excess defense articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. Licensed commercial exports are excluded. All amounts given include the valuesof all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs,and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100million. Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 2000-2007 (in millions of constant 2007 U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government *Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator. Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 2000-2007 (expressed as a percent of total, byyear) Source: U.S. Government *Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy. Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World,2000-2007: Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2007:Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S.dollars) Source: U.S. Government Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded datatotals are the same, the rank order is maintained. Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavytanks; self-propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns. Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocketlaunchers and recoilless rifles -- 100 mm and over; FROG launchers -- 100mm andover. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includespersonnel 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 aircraftdesigned to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1. Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraftdesigned to function operationally at speeds below Mach 1. Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, includingtrainers, 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 defensemissiles. Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missileswithout 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 theHarpoon, Silkworm, Styx and Exocet. ASIA Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh Brunei Burma (Myanmar) China Fiji India Indonesia Japan Cambodia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Laos Malaysia Nepal New Zealand North Korea Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Pitcairn Singapore South Korea Sri Lanka Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam NEAR EAST Algeria Bahrain Egypt Iran Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria Tunisia United Arab Emirates Yemen EUROPE Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia/Herzegovina Bulgaria Belgium Canada Croatia Czechoslovakia/ Czech Republic Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France FYR/Macedonia Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Yugoslavia/Federal Republic(Serbia/Montenegro) AFRICA Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Congo CÃ´te d'Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria RÃ©union Rwanda Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe LATIN AMERICA Antigua Argentina Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Bolivia Brazil British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador French Guiana Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Martinique Mexico Montserrat Netherlands Antilles Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre & Miquelon St. Vincent Suriname Trinidad Turks & Caicos Venezuela

Summary: This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitativedata on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countriesfor the preceding eight calendar years for use in its policy oversight functions. All agreement anddelivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government Foreign MilitarySales (FMS) transactions. Similar data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers byall suppliers, but the principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers tonations in the developing world. Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity byweapons suppliers. During the years 2000-2007, the value of arms transfer agreements withdeveloping nations comprised 66.6% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, armstransfer agreements with developing nations constituted 67.7% of all such agreements globally from2004-2007, and 70.5% of these agreements in 2007. The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2007 was nearly $42.3billion. 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 entire2000-2007 period (in constant 2007 dollars). Recently, from 2004-2007, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms marketin the developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second for 3 out of 4 years in thevalue of arms transfer agreements . From 2004-2007, Russia made nearly $39.3 billion, 27.9% ofall such agreements, expressed in constant 2007 dollars. During this same period, the United Statesmade $34.7 billion in such agreements, 24.6% of all such agreements. Collectively, the UnitedStates and Russia made 52.5% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations during thisfour-year period. In 2007, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nationswith $12.2 billion or 28.8% of these agreements. The United Kingdom was second with $9.8 billionor 23.2% of such agreements. Russia was third with $9.7 billion or 23%. In 2007, the United Statesranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $7.6 billion, or 44.2% of all suchdeliveries. 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 alldeveloping nations weapons purchasers, concluding $10.6 billion in such agreements. India rankedsecond with $5 billion in such agreements. Pakistan ranked third with $4.2 billion.