The amount of deals in the international arms market has dropped drastically in the aftermath of the financial crisis. A new report has concluded that the value of worldwide arms deals in 2009 was $57.5 billion, a drop of 8.5 percent from 2008.
The major arms suppliers worldwide are the US, Russia and Germany, the three countries alone accounting for close to 60 percent of all deliveries.
The figures come from a recent report of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a division of the Library of Congress, that was submitted to the US Congress.
The CRS report, authored by international security expert Richard F Grimmett, said, “The general decline in new weapons sales world-wide in 2009 is partially explained by the decision of some purchasing nations to defer the purchase of major systems due to budgetary considerations given the severe international recession that accelerated from the summer of 2008 onwards. Some nations chose to focus on completing the integration into their militaries of major weapons systems they had already purchased. Others limited their contracts to training and support services, as well as to selective upgrades of existing weapons systems.”
The clear decline in all arms orders collectively in 2009 reflects, in part, the effect of the international recession, the report pointed out.
In 2009, the US led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, with agreements valued at $22.6 billion (39.3 percent of all such agreements), dropping from $38.1 billion in 2008. Russia was next with $10.4 billion (18.1 percent), up from $5.5 billion in 2008. France ranked third; its arms transfer agreements worldwide were $7.4 billion in 2009, up from $3.2 billion in 2008. These three countries collectively made agreements in 2009 worth $40.4 billion, 70.3 percent of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers.
The total value of all international arms transfer agreements registered an increase of 29.5 percent in the period 2006-09, up from $172.4 billion in 2002-05 to $244.5 billion. During 2002-05, developing nations accounted for 61.8 percent of the value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. This rose to 72.8 percent in 2006-09. In 2009 alone, developing nations accounted for 78.4 percent of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide.
The US is still the biggest arms supplier in the world for the eighth year in a row. In 2009, its value of all arms deliveries worldwide was nearly $14.4 billion (41 percent of the market). Russia is second, making $3.7 billion in arms deliveries. Germany was next with $2.8 billion. The three countries collectively delivered $20.9 billion, 59.5 percent of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in 2009.
Developing nations during the 2006-09 period accounted for 55.5 percent of the value of all international arms deliveries. In 2002-2005, these countries represented 66.7 percent of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2009, however, developing nations collectively accounted for only 48.5 percent of international arms deliveries.
Worldwide weapons orders fell in 2009. The total of $57.5 billion, was a decrease from $62.8 billion in 2008 (8.5 percent). Yet for the United States, the decline in its value and share of worldwide United States weapons agreements total in 2009 was ($22.6 billion or 39.3 percent) falling from $38.1 billion (60.1 percent) in 2008. The CRS report attributed the decrease to the number of high value arms transfer agreements signed in 2008. Russia and France, however, made new high value sales in 2009.
In 2009, Brazil ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $7.2 billion in such agreements. Venezuela ranked second with $6.4 billion in such agreements. Saudi Arabia was third with $4.3 billion.
“Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in the 21st century in response to changing political, military and economic circumstances,” the report concluded. “Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic considerations.”
