United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

The Copy of Internet Edition (Last updated on 17 July 1997) Original location http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/cda/register/register.htm

United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS
Composite table of replies of Governments
Notes verbales received from Governments
INDEX OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1995
Annex. Views received from Governments

INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS
Information received from Governments is presented in this section of the report as follows: (a) a composite table listing all the replies received by the Secretary-General, and (b) individual replies of Governments. Where appropriate, the relevant parts of notes verbales are also reproduced.
As regards the information contained in the table, it should be noted that a "yes" denotes a submission of data regarding imports and/or exports in relation to the seven categories of arms covered by the Register, during the reporting period. For the purpose of uniform tabulation, responses by Governments that contained either "nil", "none", "0", a dash (-), or which otherwise indicated that no exports and/or imports in the categories covered by the Register had taken place are reflected in the table as "nil" reports. A blank space under data on imports and/or exports in the composite table indicates that no information was provided. In some cases, however, an explanation can be found in the note verbale of the country in question, as indicated above.

Composite table of replies of Governments

State	Data on exports	Data on imports	Explanation submitted in note verbale	Background information
Albania	nil			no
Andorra	nil	nil	yes	no
Argentina	yes	yes		yes
Armenia	nil	nil		yes
Australia	nil	yes		no
Austria	nil	yes		yes
Azerbaijan	nil	nil		yes
Bahamas	nil	nil		no
Barbados	nil	nil		no
Belarus		yes		yes
Belgium	yes	nil		yes
Bhutan	nil	nil		no
Brazil	nil	yes		yes
Bulgaria	nil	nil		yes
Burkina Faso	nil	nil		no
Canada	yes	nil		yes
Central African Republic		nil		no
Chile	nil	yes		no
China	yes	yes		no
Cuba	nil	nil		no
Cyprus	nil	yes		no
Czech Republic	yes	nil		yes
Denmark	nil	nil		yes
Dominica	nil	nil		no
Estonia	nil	nil		no
Ethiopia	nil	nil	yes	no
Fiji	nil	nil		no
Finland	yes	yes		yes
France	yes	nil		yes
Gabon	nil	nil		no
Germany	yes	nil		yes
Greece		yes		yes
Hungary	nil	yes		no
Honduras	nil	nil		no
Iceland	nil	nil		no
India		yes		no
Indonesia		yes		no
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	nil	yes		no
Ireland	nil	nil		yes
Israel	yes	yes		no
Italy	yes	yes		yes
Jamaica	nil	nil		no
Japan	nil	yes		yes
Jordan	nil	nil		no
Kazakstan	yes	yes		no
Kyrgyzstan	nil	nil	yes	no
Latvia	nil	yes		no
Liechtenstein	nil	nil		no
Lithuania	nil	yes		no
Luxembourg	nil	nil		no
Madagascar	nil	nil		no
Malaysia		yes		no
Maldives	nil	nil		no
Malta	nil	nil		no
Mauritius	nil	nil		no
Mexico	nil	yes		yes
Monaco	nil	nil		no
Mongolia	nil	nil		no
Namibia	nil	nil		no
Nepal	nil	nil	yes	no
Netherlands	yes	yes		yes
New Zealand	nil	nil		yes
Norway	nil	yes		no
Pakistan		yes		no
Papua New Guinea	nil	nil	yes	no
Peru	nil	yes		no
Philippines	nil	yes		no
Poland	yes	yes		yes
Portugal	nil	yes		yes
Republic of Korea	yes	yes		yes
Republic of Moldova	nil	yes		no
Romania	yes	nil		no
Russian Federation	yes	yes		no
Saint Kitts and Nevis	nil	nil		no
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	nil	nil		no
Samoa	nil	nil		no
Singapore	nil	yes		no
Slovakia	yes	yes		no
Slovenia	nil	nil		no
South Africa	yes	nil		yes
Spain	nil	yes		yes
Sri Lanka		yes		no
Sweden	nil	yes		yes
Switzerland	yes	nil		yes
Tajikistan	nil	nil		no
Thailand		yes		no
Trinidad and Tobago	nil	nil		no
Turkey	nil	yes		yes
Turkmenistan	nil	nil		no
Ukraine	yes	nil		no
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	yes	yes		yes
United Republic of Tanzania	nil	nil		no
United States of America	yes	yes	yes	yes
Vanuatu	nil	nil		no
Viet Nam	nil	yes		no

Notes verbales received from Governments ANDORRA [Andorra also provided a "nil" report for 1994 in its submission for 1995. With the submission of Andorra, the total number of replies received from Governments for calendar year 1994 has increased to 95.]
[Original: English] [10 June 1996]
For information purposes, the Permanent Mission of the Principality of Andorra to the United Nations wishes to report that, during 1995, 10 automatic rifles Heckler & Koch, model 33, caliber 223 Remington, were acquired for the National Police Service. ETHIOPIA [Original: English]
[17 April 1996]
It is to be remembered that Ethiopia used to spend billions of dollars on arms during the past regime. Defence used to account for more than 50 per cent of the national budget. However, the picture has changed drastically since peace has prevailed and the country is actively engaged in economic reconstruction. Defence now accounts for 7 per cent of the national budget and this has been the case for the last five years.
Moreover, no arms have been imported after the downfall of the past regime. The arms Ethiopia possesses at the moment are only those which were purchased by the former Government. The bulk of them are now in fact junk and hence hardly of any use. Ethiopia keeps the rest only for defence purposes. KYRGYZSTAN [Original: Russian]
[8 August 1996]
The Ministry of Defence of the Kyrgyz Republic states that, although aeroplanes and helicopters were exported in 1995, none of them falls within the category of "combat aircraft" or "attack helicopters" since they relate to the category of training and combat-training aviation equipment.
The types of combat equipment referred to in the annex have not been imported during the period in which the Armed Forces of the Kyrgyz Republic have been in existence. Accordingly, Kyrgyzstan did not export or import shipments of conventional weapons in 1995. NEPAL [Original: English]
[15 May 1996]
The Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Nepal to the United Nations has the honour to inform the United Nations Secretary-General that the following reply has been received from the Ministry of Defence of His Majesty's Government of Nepal regarding resolution 50/70 D entitled "Transparency in armaments":
1) There is not any research organization or specialist in Nepal regarding disarmament issues.
2) The arms which are mentioned in the "Transparency in armaments" appendix are not transferred in Nepal.
3) Under "Measures to curb the illicit transfer and like of conventional arms", Nepal has not purchased or transferred any such kind of arms. PAPUA NEW GUINEA [Original: English]
[30 October 1995]
The Permanent Mission of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations would like to inform the Secretary-General that Papua New Guinea does not have in its inventory any of the following weapons systems:
Battle tanks
Armoured combat vehicles
Large calibre artillery systems
Combat aircraft
Attack helicopters
Warships
Missiles and missile launchers

The Permanent Mission of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations wishes to further reiterate that the Papua New Guinea Defence Force is relatively lightly armed compared to other regional countries with large and sophisticated weapons systems. Furthermore, Papua New Guinea does not manufacture, let alone export such lethal weapons.
The Permanent Mission of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations therefore would like to advise the Secretary-General that Papua New Guinea is submitting a NIL RETURN for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [Original: English]
[30 April 1996]
Each year, the United States provides background information regarding relevant United States policies, legislation and administrative procedures. The 1996 United States submission includes updates to this material.
It is possible that there will be discrepancies in the numbers of transferred arms as reported by exporting and importing States, due to differences in recorded dates of transfer and in what each country determines to constitute a reportable transfer.
The United States considers that its transfers of military equipment occur at the time ownership title for the equipment is transferred between the United States and another country. The 1996 submission therefore includes equipment whose title was transferred during the 1995 calendar year.
INDEX OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1995

State	Title	Language
Argentina	Informaci�n sobre existencia de material b�lico (diciembre 1995). Inventario de las existencias de material b�lico.	Spanish
Armenia	Defence expenditure in 1995. Technical equipment of the Army.	English
Austria	Military holdings for 1995. Procurement in 1995 through national production.	English
Azerbaijan	Military holdings (as at July 1996).	Russian
Belarus	Information on the policy and legislation of the Republic of Belarus regarding arms transfers.	Russian
Belgium	Dotations globales de chars de bataille, de v�hicules blind�s de combat, de pi�ces d'artillerie, d'avions de combat, d'helicopt�res d'attaque, de navires de guerre et de missiles ou syst�mes de missile (valables le 31 Decembre 1995).	French
Brazil	Military holdings and procurement from the domestic industry, as of December 1995.	English
Bulgaria	Ministry of Defence. Available armaments as of 01/01/1996.	English
Canada	Equipment holdings - Canadian Armed Forces as of 1 April 1996. Procurement in 1995 through national production.	English
Czech Republic	Military holdings as of 1 January 1996. Procurement in 1995 through national production. Decree of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of 12 April 1994.	English
Denmark	Procurement in 1995 through national production. Military holdings ultimo 1995.	English
Finland	Annual exchange of military information on defence planning 1996-2000.	English
France	Informations g�n�rales disponibles sur les dotations militaires, les achats li�s � la production nationale et la politique en mati�re de dotation.	French
Germany	Military holdings as of 31 December 1995. Procurement from national production in 1995. "Yearly Information Exchange on Defence Planning" in Germany, 1996.	English German
Greece	Military holdings and procurement from national production in 1995.	English
Ireland	Military holdings for the year 1995.	English
Italy	Military holdings as of 31 December 1995. Procurement through national production in 1995.	English
Japan	Military holdings as of 31 March 1995. Procurement through national production in 1995. Japan's policies on the control of arms exports and imports.	English
Mexico	Informaci�n general sobre existencias de material b�lico. A�o de informe: 1996. Informaci�n general sobre adquisici�n de material de producci�n nacional. A�o civil: 1996. Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos diciembre 1995.	Spanish
Netherlands	Military holdings for 1995. Procurement in 1995 through national production.	English
New Zealand	1996 Background information note. Procurement through national production for the calendar year to 30 April 1995. Military holdings for the calendar year to 30 April 1995. Definition of "transfers". Annual Report to Parliament of the New Zealand Defence Force for the year ended 30 June 1995. Annual Report to Parliament of the New Zealand Ministry of Defence for the year ended 30 June 1995.	English
Poland	Military holdings as of 1 January 1996. Procurement through national production in 1995.	English
Portugal	Procurement in 1995 through national production. Portuguese arms exports relevant policies. Military holdings as of 31 December 1995.	English
Republic of Korea	Policies of the Republic of Korea on arms imports and exports.	English
South Africa	Technical description of armoured combat vehicles: RG-12; APC Mk-2; Mamba 4x4; NYALA. Export values. Import values. Conventional arms control policy. The guide to the terms of reference of conventional arms control in South Africa.	English
Spain	Existencias de armas convencionales al 31 de diciembre de 1995. Adquisici�n de material de producci�n nacional en el a�o 1995. Pol�ticas pertinentes y procedimientos espa�oles sobre transacciones de material de defensa.	Spanish
Sweden	Annual exchange of military information pursuant to the Vienna Document 1994; valid as of 1 January 1996.	English
Switzerland	Military holdings - reporting year 1996	English
Turkey	The quantities of arms vehicles and equipment produced nationally. The quantity of arms vehicles and equipment.	English
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	United Kingdom defence: equipment procurement, import and export policies. Military holdings as of 31 December 1995. Procurement from national production in 1995. Statement on the defence estimates, 1996.	English
United States of America	Military holdings and procurement through national production in 1995. Address by President Clinton to the United Nations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations (22 October 1995).	English

Annex VIEWS RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS ISRAEL [Original: English]
[14 May 1996]
The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations has the honour to present the policy of the Government of Israel.
Israel was among the first countries to support resolution 46/36 L, which established the Register. It was also among the first to send its reports in accordance with this resolution, and has continued to do so annually, including for calendar year 1995.
In Israel's view, the Register is certainly an important part of a long process which aims towards the implementation of global confidence-building measures. While it is not an arms control instrument, the Register is clearly intended to increase confidence among nations, a worthwhile goal in itself.
However, transparency in armaments cannot achieve its goals unless all countries fulfil their international commitment by providing information and data as required by the Register. This is a necessary prerequisite to evaluating its success, and should be taken into account in any review of its further development.
While there continues to be a lack of full participation in the Register, interest exists in its further development, including on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction. It is Israel's view, however, that the Register still has to stand up to the test of time, including full participation, and that the existing categories should be consolidated before further major changes are considered.
This factor is particularly critical in the Middle East, where Israel is the only country which consistently submits a report on a regular, annual basis. While it fulfils its international commitment by reporting its weapons imports and exports, other States in the region - some of which remain in a state of war with Israel - avoid their own responsibility vis-�-vis the Register.
Israel believes that additional countries from the Middle East must join the Register. Until such time as the full participation of the regional States in the Register is achieved, it would be premature to enter into discussions on expanding the categories of the Register beyond those agreed upon by the United Nations.
Transparency in the region must be based on implemented confidence-building measures, mutual openness, and a step-by-step approach. Proceeding too fast is likely to impede the fundamental goals of the Register, and increase security concerns instead of building confidence. ITALY [On behalf of the European Union and of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated with it (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia), as well as of the associated countries Cyprus and Malta.]
[Original: English]
[28 May 1996]
1. With reference to operative paragraph 3 (a) of resolution 50/70 D, the European Union would like to provide its views to the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, its further development and on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction.
2. The indefinite extension of the NPT, and the parallel adoption of the "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament" by the 1995 NPT Conference constitute a significant strengthening of the non-proliferation regime. In the field of the outlawing of chemical and biological weapons there has been made progress as well.
It is time to have a better balance in attention given to weapons of mass destruction and conventional arms control. The uncontrolled spread and the accumulations of conventional arms beyond the need for self-defence have a destabilizing effect in many parts of the world.
3. The increased international attention for, and importance of, transparency of transfers and possession of conventional arms are justified by the fact that these arms are at present only in some parts of the world subject to legal regimes and the fact that are causing serious human suffering in international and internal conflicts.
4. The EU is convinced that transparency in armaments is an important factor in creating a climate of confidence between States, particularly at regional level.
5. In the opinion of the EU the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms is an important mechanism because it provides data on international arms transfers of those categories of conventional arms which can be used particularly for offensive purposes and therefore are potentially destabilizing.
The functioning of the Register so far is encouraging. In the last three years of its existence about 90 States, including all members of the EU, submitted national declarations to the Register. These declarations covered the bulk of the international arms trade.
6. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the Register as a global confidence-building measure, every effort should be made to secure the widest possible participation. The EU encourages all Member States to submit their national data to the Register in the coming years. In this respect the EU wants to emphasize that even "nil reports" are an important contribution to the success of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
7. The EU believes that the inclusion of data on military holdings and procurement through national production will render the Register more complete and useful. Therefore the EU invites Member States to submit such data.
8. In order to ensure that it responds to evolving security needs, it is important that the operation of the Register be reviewed in the future. The EU welcomes the review of the continuing operation of the Register and its further development by the Secretary-General with the assistance of a Group of Governmental Experts in 1997, in accordance with operative paragraph 3 (b) of resolution 50/70 D. The EU expresses the hope that all States will cooperate in the success of this review.
9. In conformity with the request embodied in the resolutions over the years concerning transparency in armaments, the Conference on Disarmament has devoted two sessions to discussing possible ways and means of enhancing transparency in armaments in its Ad Hoc Group on Transparency in Armaments. Although the Conference on Disarmament did not yet reach agreement on specific measures or recommendations for enhancing transparency in armaments, a better understanding of these issues appears to have developed. It is for this reason that the EU attaches considerable importance to the resumption of the work in the Ad Hoc Group on Transparency in Armaments as soon as possible.
10. The member States of the EU would like to emphasize that transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction are of a different nature than transparency measures related to conventional weapons. To enhance confidence and stability, transparency measures with regard to weapons of mass destruction should be an element in the arms control or disarmament process.
11. The objective of the EU is full implementation of the bans on chemical weapons as well as on biological and toxin weapons. Transparency measures can be a step towards that goal. In this respect, reference can be made to the obligations contained in the chemical weapons Convention to declare stocks of chemical weapons and chemical weapon production facilities immediately after entry into force. In the framework of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) the EU supports the work underway in the Ad Hoc Group on Strengthening the Convention. The EU believes the addition of a legally binding verification protocol will increase transparency and strengthen confidence in compliance with the Convention, thus building on the confidence-building measures already agreed.
12. The EU reaffirms its commitment, in conformity with article VI of the NPT, to pursue negotiations in good faith on efficient measures relating to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament, under strict and effective international control. The agreement on a universal and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty by the summer of 1996 would be a concrete step in the implementation of the decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament adopted on 11 May by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC [Original: Arabic]
[9 July 1996]
The Syrian Arab Republic affirms its full support for the universal trend towards the building of an international community free from the use or threat of force and governed by the principles of justice, equality and peace. While affirming its readiness to participate in any bona fide international effort to achieve that end, the Syrian Arab Republic considers that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms does not take into account the fact that Israel possesses the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction and has the capacity to manufacture various advanced weapons and stockpile them locally. Thus, transparency with respect to Israeli armaments seems to be no more than the visible tip of the iceberg.