This article questions the notion of emergence, as applied to Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Most importantly, this emergence is economic as these countries experience high GDP and external trade growth rates. Their economic successes are nevertheless uneven: for instance, Brazil stands out remarkably above the others. And this superiority is not restrained to economics but is also seen in politics and diplomacy. Thus, while these three countries are gaining influence, Argentina and Mexico have smaller roles than Brazil, who is now a real actor and not just a spectator. The contrasted success of these three countries leads to a discussion of the very idea of emergence, which appears to conceal a few disparities.

The American war against Iraq, launched in March 2003 as part of the global war on terrorism, led to the displacement of over 4 million people, of which nearly 1.5 million were from Syria. This massive inflow of refugees has had a heavy impact on the Syrian economy and society. Nevertheless, the country seems to have been able to make profit of the presence of Iraqi refugees, which has turned out to be a real political issue. On the international stage, Damascus managed to make the most of the warm welcome given to the refugees, in order to break its diplomatic isolation, to expand its sphere of influence in the Arab world and to attract international assistance so as to foster Syria’s economic and social development.

The concept of “African ownership” has become an all-purpose formula. Initiatives such as the NEPAD or the Africa-European Union strategy make it a condition of the stability and the development of Africa. Now, Africa is still far from mastering its fate, particularly in the field of the preservation of peace and security. There are many obstacles to the implementation of africanization and, moreover, to the more qualitative notion of African ownership. The analysis of the motivations that prompt the African and non-African actors to privilege the “African solutions” for the management of certain crises brings into light the selective and instrumental nature of the support that is brought to the principle of the African ownership.

The April 2009 Bern declaration seems to have launched a normalization process between Turkey and Armenia. This voluntary rapprochement is linked to diverse elements, whether they are economic (the opening up of Armenia) or political (negotiations with the EU, the development of eastern provinces...). Still, tensions remain strong, and in both countries, opinions diverge on a potential defreeze of bilateral relations. Neighbouring countries also stay suspicious about such a bridge-building between Turkey and Armenia, as this could trigger political and economic problems. However, behind this process lies a more important power struggle between the United States and Russia, who both want to play a major role in this highly strategic region.

The western world is mainly a geopolitical notion and it brings together actors sharing a common base of values, and who would have the same interests to defend themselves in front of the same threats. These values, based on capitalism and also the Renaissance, led the western world to a deep contradiction: on the one hand, it preaches universal values of humanism, freedom, equality, but on the other hand it tries to establish a hegemonic place above the rest of the world. This situation led to a deep existential crisis within the western world which, while wanting to keep its dominant position, violates the principles it says it wants to defend. For the time being, it becomes a necessity not to save the western model but to change it, drawing teachings from past mistakes.

In a context of symbolic, economic and military resources redistribution, the hegemony of the Western world is at stake. The Western countries are worried about their values being threatened. However, it appears to be the arbitrary application of these values rather than the values themselves that is put into question. The Westerners are on the wrong track when thinking that the threat is exterior, embodied by the Islamic fundamentalists. Indeed, Islam’s values are similar to ours, and it is possible to find a common humanist base to all civilisations. Identity clashes and tensions in Western societies thus lead to a dead end. On the contrary, it is by abandoning their condescension towards others civilisations, and by establishing a reciprocal and just communication with them that Western cultures will survive.

While the West has a strong advantage in terms of growing concentrations of wealth and means of power in the face of the Muslim world, the “Islamic threat” is deliberately exaggerated. Some ideologists make up a new enemy and seem to amalgamate Islamism and the spiritual practice of the Muslim religion. This confusion is linked to a need of hegemony and to a movement of rupture within the western societies, where religion loses its place to instrumental reason. We assist then in the spread of a strategy of domination coupled with an intolerant atheism, generators of tension and contributing to the globalisation of insecurity. The responsibility is shared; the western societies and the Muslim countries must go in for a symbiosis and not a clash of civilisation.

Historically the west settled as a conceptworld, advancing the universality of its values, into which it integrated human rights, thus justifying its messianism. Now, the migratory flows led to an ethnic, cultural and religious growing diversity of western societies, at the origin of a deep identity crisis of the west, unable to conceive the construction of coexistence in multicultural states. This process of identity reconstruction, perceived as a danger, is a carrier of tension and violence, the forehead of intellectuals justifying the “defence of the national identity”, threatened by an enemy who is not any more in its periphery but rather inside the societies. Nevertheless, a new geopolitical and cultural world is emerging that the old name of “The West” will not be able to define any more.

During the Cold War, the West gained a common geopolitical dimension. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the transatlantic relationship has lost its strength and meaning: indeed, the disappearance of the ideological confrontation has removed the “glue” which cemented the West. Western unity now exclusively rests on shared liberal values. The emergence of a new unifying enemy is unlikely: neither international terrorism nor authoritarian capitalism pose such a threat to the West. Furthermore, shifting demographics — low birthrates and strong immigration — erode the common historical identity of the West and generate new forms of nationalism. Rethinking the West and providing it with a renewed cultural and civilisationnel dimension, is necessary in order for it to continue to be capable of global leadership.