Several scholars have emphasised the apparent ‘Eurocentricity’ of modern international law and have hence argued that its development has been “a European story”. Is the realm of international law like a play that is being performed, in which the Western or European states are the actors on stage and their colonies, the Third World states, are only the spectators who are affected by what is happening on stage but do not have any real possibility of participating?

Ultimately for a State, the decision to employ a BDM complex does not stem solely from the desire to improve international stability. It instead comes from a desire to improve its own defensive and/or offensive capabilities. Stability has a severe effect on this, but it is up to the leadership of any such nation state to decide whether the costs that come from a destabilised environment outweigh the potential benefits such a capability could provide, both now and in the future.

The 1956-1957 Suez Crises/Tripartite Aggression and the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War each provide a rich insight into the use of propaganda by the British establishment in advancing its national and international aims, but with almost diametrically opposite consequences.

International development is merely another tool in the proverbial toolbox of statesmen and global actors. It is an effective way to create the conditions necessary to best secure one’s interests.

In recent years, the United States has been quietly increasing its presence in West Africa with a variety of declared humanitarian interests. Discussion as to the ‘true’ motivations vary, from the need to shore up its role as global hegemon in the face of Chinese advances, to attempts to neutralise the territory as a base camp or staging ground for terrorists, to the need for new desire for US goods. The most pragmatic of the ‘true’ motivations offered is the need to secure oil supplies.