CIVICUS discusses the global arms market’s role in conflict with Mathew George, director of the Arms Transfers Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI is an independent international institute researching conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides open-source data, analysis and recommendations to policymakers, researchers, media and the public.
Despite civil society advocacy for greater arms controls, conflicts and geopolitical tensions continue to see high demand for weapons, feeding a global trade estimated to stand at around US$138 billion. Amid rising conflict in several parts of the world, there’s an urgent need to reach a global consensus on the principles governing the international arms trade, bridge gaps in the interpretation of international treaties and build confidence in the system.
What’s the size of the global arms market and what are the latest trends?
It’s difficult to calculate the exact size of the arms market. However, it’s possible to make rough estimates based on the limited data released by states and some publicly disclosed financial values for specific transactions. On the basis of available datasets, SIPRI estimates the total value of the global arms trade, meaning the imports and exports of arms between states, to have been at least US$138 billion in 2022, the latest year for which data are available, or about 0.5 per cent of total world trade.
SIPRI’s latest data show a 3.3 per cent decline in global arms transfers for the period between 2019 to 2023, compared to 2014 to 2018. Imports of major weapons by European states increased by 94 per cent during this time, with overall decreases in arms transfers to all other regions. States in Asia, the Middle East and Oceania, however, continued to import arms in much larger quantities than European states.
Armed conflicts and political tensions have driven arms acquisitions and, given the present state of affairs, the current level of demand for major weapons is likely to remain the same or increase. Advanced combat aircraft and missiles, as well as much simpler and cheaper armed uncrewed aircraft and missiles and similar long-range land-attack weapons, continue to account for a significant share of total transfers of major arms.
Who are the main players in this market?
We analyse arms trade data in five-year periods. In our most recent publication, covering 2019 to 2023, we identified 66 states as major arms exporters and 170 states as importers.
The top exporters are the USA, France, Russia, China and Germany, in that order. These four states accounted for 75 per cent of total major arms exports, and the top 25 states accounted for 98 per cent.
The top five importers – India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Ukraine and Pakistan – accounted for 36 per cent of total major arms imports, with Asia and Oceania the largest importing regions.
According to SIPRI data for 2022, the combined revenue of the world’s top 100 arms-producing and military services companies was US$597.2 billion. The market was dominated by 42 US companies, including Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies.
How does the global arms trade contribute to conflicts?
While the links between arms acquisition and conflict or tension among states are quite clear, a direct correlation between the level of imports of major weapons and the level of conflict or tension is not necessarily evident.
What we have found, however, is that arms-exporting states are often directly or indirectly involved in conflicts or tensions affecting the states they supply arms to. This explains why some exporters continue to supply arms, sometimes as military assistance, despite policies and regulations designed to restrict exports to regions or states in active conflict or where there is a risk of escalation of intrastate or interstate tensions.
What is needed to achieve meaningful global arms control?
We need a global consensus to uphold the principles enshrined in existing treaties. This means we need to prioritise the spirit of the treaties, not just the letter. It’s vital to close the gaps in interpretation that have allowed some arms transfers that should not have taken place. Actions that undermine confidence in the international system must also be re-evaluated and corrected to restore trust.
Get in touch with SIPRI through its website or Facebook page, and follow @SIPRIorg and @MathewG1307 on Twitter and @mathewgeorgec on LinkedIn.