Friday, 17 April 2026
logo
Up-to-the-minute perspectives on defence, security and peace
issues from and for policy makers and opinion leaders.
        



dv-header-dday
     |      View our Twitter page at twitter.com/defenceredbox     |     

By Richard F. Grimmett – Specialist in International Security

Below is a summary of the report published in September 2009 byt the Congressional Research Service. For the full report, click here

This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) transactions. Similar data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by all suppliers, but the principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.


Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 2001-2008, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 64.8% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations constituted 69.2% of all such agreements globally from 2005-2008, and 76.4% of these agreements in 2008.

The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2008 was nearly $42.2 billion. This was a nominal increase from $41.1 billion in 2007. In 2008, the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was nearly $18.3 billion, the lowest total in these deliveries values for the entire 2001-2008 period (in constant 2008 dollars), and only slightly below the 2007 total.

Recently, from 2005-2008, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the developing world, with both nations either ranking first or second for three out of four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2005-2008, Russia made nearly $35.1 billion, 22.9% of all such agreements, expressed in constant 2008 dollars. During this same period, the United States made $56.3 billion in such agreements, 36.7% of all such agreements. Collectively, the United States and Russia made 59.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($91.4 billion (in constant 2008 dollars) during this four-year period.

In 2008, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with $29.6 billion or 70.1% of these agreements, an extraordinary market share for a single year. Far behind in second place was Russia with $3.3 billion or 7.8% of such agreements. France was ranked third with $2.5 billion or 5.9%. In global arms transfer agreements in 2008, the United States also dominated, ranking first with $37.8 billion in such agreements or 68.4% of all such agreements. In 2008, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $7.4 billion, or 40.9% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $5.2 billion or 28.5% of such deliveries.

In 2008, the United Arab Emirates ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $9.7 billion in such agreements. Saudi Arabia ranked second with $8.7 billion in such agreements. Morocco ranked third with $5.4 billion.

Cookies
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Defence Viewpoints website. However, if you would like to, you can modify your browser so that it notifies you when cookies are sent to it or you can refuse cookies altogether. You can also delete cookies that have already been set. You may wish to visit www.aboutcookies.org which contains comprehensive information on how to do this on a wide variety of desktop browsers. Please note that you will lose some features and functionality on this website if you choose to disable cookies. For example, you may not be able to link into our Twitter feed, which gives up to the minute perspectives on defence and security matters.