Students Again

The European Union Papers

 

Maastricht Treaty: Political Union and Ratification

 

I. Introduction

The negotiations of the Maastricht Treaty (a.k.a. Treaty on European Union) addressed many important concerns for better, worse, or indifference. Negotiation at Maastricht was an undertaking that required delicacy. These negotiations revolved around creating the structure of a European Union. Once this structure was conceptualized many more detailed issues needed attention. By addressing these core issues a foundation for political union was formed. Maastricht was a feat of great negotiation that produced political union; however, ratification remained the final obstacle to be overcome for a true multi-country European Union to be realized.

 

II. Political Union

 

Political union covered a large number of institutional and policy issues. These issues ranged from the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council, to the role of Parliament, to social policy, to the transformation of European political cooperation into the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The positions of member states varied widely on these issues. One of the biggest concerns centered on what kind of entity the European Union (EU) would form. The most contentious point being whether it would be described as a federation; a concept Britain vehemently opposed. The phrase “federal goal” was dropped from the draft treaty in exchange for British concessions in key policy areas. Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission) held the opinion, “what does the word matter, as long as we have the actual thing.”[1]

 

A topic that dominated most of the mid-1991 conference (Luxembourg summit) was the structure of the EU. It was proposed that the EU consist of three pillars. This was largely due to the determination of the British and Danish to restrict the CFSP and cooperation on justice and home affairs to intergovernmental decision making. The proposed three pillars were: 1) revising the Rome Treaty, 2) the CFSP, and 3) justice and home affairs. Member states were divided on the issue. Most member states wanted CFSP and justice and home affairs to operate on an intergovernmental foundation, but believed that the EU should have a unitary structure. The Belgian foreign minister called it a “tree with branches” rather than a “temple with pillars.”[2] The Rome Treaty, which already included a number of decision making mechanisms, could integrate the CFSP and justice and home affairs. Delors played a huge role in the discussion about the EU structure. He believed that the proposed pillar system would disconnect the Commission and the Parliament from the CFSP and justice and home affairs. This is exactly what some member states wanted.[3]

 

Disregarding the agreement at the Luxembourg summit, the new Dutch presidency attempted to restore the EU’s unitary structure. John Major (the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) warned the Dutch to stay in line with the Luxembourg agreement. Many other member states sympathized with the Dutch position, but were not willing to battle with Britain over the EU’s structure. The Dutch produced a new draft treaty with a unitary structure anyway. Only Belgium and the Commission supported the new Dutch text. This was a setback for the Dutch presidency and its supporters. This put an end to the debate over the EU’s structure and made certain that the treaty agreed to in Maastricht would include the three pillars structure.

 

III. The First Pillar: Revising the Rome Treaty

The Maastricht Treaty included many important revisions of the Rome Treaty under the EU’s first pillar. The treaty’s main institutional reforms included an extension of QMV in the Council and an extension of the Parliament’s legislative authority. This was expected to increase the effectiveness of decision making and the democratic legitimacy of the European Community. Member states were aware that the Single European Act (SEA)[4] had increased the democratic deficit[5] in spite of the extension of the Parliament’s role under the cooperation procedure. Even with this knowledge, the Parliament and its supporters (Belgium, Germany, and Italy) advocated for the increase of legislative power of the Parliament.

 

Concern over the increase of democratic deficit diluted the resistance of member states. Some of the member states opposed to the extension of Parliamentary power included Britain (for reasons of national sovereignty) and Ireland (because of the country’s small representation). After prolonged negotiations, member states agreed to extend the Parliament’s power significantly. Of course, it was not extended as much as the Parliament had wanted. The Maastricht Treaty changed the decision making foundation on a number of policy areas from consultation[6] to cooperation[7]. It also switched some others from cooperation to the new co-decision procedure[8]. As a result, cooperation became the EU’s most important procedure in legislative decision making even though co-decision was the most extensive to Parliamentary power. The co-decision procedure nearly made the Parliament a legislative equal to the Council.

 

The conference benefited the Parliament in other ways. The Maastricht Treaty extended the assent procedure[9] to all international agreements that set up institutions or had important financial implications. The Parliament made use of this enhanced power to play a role in the conduct of CFSP. The Maastricht Treaty also introduced the assent procedure into many of the EU’s internal affairs, such as the creation of a uniform election procedure for elections to the Parliament, adoption of provisions for EU citizenship, residency rights, and the use of structural funds. The treaty also extended the Parliament’s oversight role. This gave the Parliament the right of inquiry, the right of petition, and the right to appoint an ombudsman to attend to complaints regarding the EU’s institutions. The treaty also forced the member states to consult Parliament before nominating a new Commission president.

 

Aside from institutional concerns, member states added provisions to alleviate popular concerns. One of the main provisions was the clause containing the principle of subsidiarity. This principle stated that the EU should only involve itself with issues best dealt with at the European rather than national level.

 

Felipe González (Prime Minister of Spain) included the concept of EU citizenship into the Maastricht treaty. In appeal to ordinary people, the treaty also redefined or expanded a number of policy areas, such as education, culture, the environment, and consumer protection. González also advocated the clause of cohesion. This argued that heading towards European Monetary Union (EMU) justified a redistribution of money to poorer member states.

 

Social policy was the final major negotiation of the Maastricht summit. Delors and eleven national leaders wanted to extend QMV giving a greater role to employers and employees representatives. Major argued against this provision which almost disrupted the conference. In the end a provision was attached allowing the use of EU institutions and decision making procedures to develop social policy without British participation.

 

IV. The Second Pillar: Common Foreign and Security Policy

The CFSP was one of the most difficult of the conference. Foreign and security policy was considered to be the heart of national sovereignty. There was no driving factor for member states to share sovereignty and have a truly common CFSP or defense policy.

 

The best that could be hoped for was a high level of coordination. The European Council could not agree on the scope, content, or procedure of a CFSP. However, after much debate, the Maastricht Treaty allowed for “the eventual framing of a common defense policy, which might in time lead to common defense.”[10]

 

The section of the Maastricht Treaty regarding foreign and security policy was limited. It outlined the policy’s objectives which called for systematic cooperation between member states and joint action[11] by the EU in foreign and security policy. The treaty allowed for the implementation of joint actions via majority voting, but only if governments first agreed on the principle of joint actions via unanimity. This agreement remained rather incomplete. So, while negotiating Maastricht they agreed to hold an intergovernmental conference in five years’ time to review the progress of foreign, security, and defense policy cooperation.

 

As a result of the shortcomings of the Maastricht Treaty regarding CFSP another intergovernmental conference was held during 1996 – 1997. This intergovernmental conference resulted in the Amsterdam Treaty which did implement significant changes to CFSP.[12]

 

There were a few important changes that Maastricht formed which paved the way for the significant changes made in Amsterdam. The Maastricht Treaty established two CFSP instruments: common positions and joint actions. Common positions “are adopted in the Council by unanimity and require the member states to implement national policies that comply with the position defined by the EU on a particular issue.”[13] Joint actions are the actions to implement common positions which may be adopted by QMV following a decision by unanimity that QMV can be used. This was the first instance of a treaty allowing the use of QMV in foreign policy issues. In addition, the Maastricht Treat raised the issue of defense policy for the first time in relation to the EU.[14] Although Maastricht can be seen as a starting point for CFSP and Amsterdam furthering the concept significantly it should be noted that CFSP remains a difficult issue. There is evidence that this lingering difficulty may be due to national partisan constraints.[15]

V. The Third Pillar: Justice and Home Affairs

One of the top agenda items of the conference that produced the Maastricht Treaty was centered on the free movement of people. This included issues, such as immigration, asylum, and control of cross-border crime. The movement of people was an issue that member states had already been addressing in a number of ways.

 

In 1985, at the beginning of the Single Market Program the original member states (except Italy) reached an agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg. The agreement was on steps to expedite the removal of border checkpoints.[16] This would eventually lead to the elimination of barriers to cross-border travel within the European Community. This agreement covered a number of issues like police cooperation, fiscal fraud, and the rights of guest workers.[17]

 

The conference on Maastricht gave governments the opportunity to revisit these issues. The treaty’s third pillar “established asylum policy, the crossing of external frontiers, immigration policy and policy towards third-country nationals as areas of common interest to the member states... the Maastricht Treaty lumped together immigration policies and police and judicial cooperation, which ensured that these issues [would continue] to be addressed as security questions.”[18] Given the importance of these issues in relation to economic integration, the treaty included a provision making it possible to move some of these issues to the first pillar.

 

VI. The Outcome of Maastricht

The treaty conceived at the Maastricht summit was a great achievement. European Monetary Union reemerged as the main objective of the new European Union. The treaty represented continuity. The treaty increased the scope of QMV, expanded the cooperation procedure, and introduced the co-decision procedure. In addition, new policy instruments were created and issues were introduced that were never officially discussed in an EU context in the past. All of these outcomes had major implications for the European Union. The European level of governance now included the Council and Parliament playing key legislative roles.

 

The treaty also allowed for integration by parts (differentiated integration)[19]: Britain would opt-out of social policy provisions, not every member state would participate in Stage Three (Introducing the Euro as the single currency) of European Economic Union, etc. For the first time, member states could choose to be obligated to core activities or not. This conference did not produce any clear winners or losers. The final agreement allowed individual member states to claim victory even though no single member state got everything that it wanted.

 

VII. Ratification of Maastricht

Monetary union was the main concern of the Maastricht Treaty for most people. Many Europeans were uncomfortable with losing their national currency. However, national governments were confident that ratification of the treaty would be completed effortlessly. The treaty was signed in Maastricht in February 1992 and the foreign ministers predicted that ratification would be competed by January 1993.[20]

 

The first vote was held by the Danes in June of 1992. The Danes were known to be unsure about the European Community.[21] Regardless of this knowledge, everyone assumed the result would be in favor of ratification. However, ratification failed in the Danish referendum. The EU leadership was facing a serious problem; unless all member states ratified the treaty it could not be implemented.

 

The next vote was in Ireland. The turnout of the referendum was small by Irish standards. But, the vote for ratification succeeded. If the vote had not succeeded, Ireland stood to lose the billions it would gain under cohesion. Even though ratification did succeed many Irish voters either abstained or voted against the treaty.

 

Towards the end of June 1992, the European Communities leaders met in Lisbon. Their goal was to set the Danes at ease. To do so, they attempted to clarify the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission dropped a number of proposals that were not necessary to be legislated at the European level. They also made an effort to make the EU’s operations more open, available, and understandable.[22]

 

In September of 1992 France held a referendum on the treaty. This was seen as the final test as to the survival of the treaty. The result was another narrow victory. Now, there was no doubt about the public dissatisfaction with the treaty.

 

There was a great political effort to resolve this ratification crisis.[23] The public’s perception of democratic deficit and confusion about subsidiarity seemed to be the main issues. It was not until May 1993 before the Danish government convinced a majority to ratify the treaty. Ratification proceeded smoothly in most other member states. The exception was Germany where questions of constitutionality delayed ratification.  The United Kingdom also had misgivings regarding a speedy integration and many core issues.[24] Once German courts ruled that the treaty was compatible with German law and the British Parliament passed ratification legislation the problems of the treaty’s implementation were largely resolved.

 

VIII. Conclusion

Maastricht was a feat of great negotiation that produced political union; however, ratification remained the final obstacle to be overcome for a true multi-country European Union to be realized. After the pillar structure of that European Union had been negotiated many policy issues within each pillar were discussed. At that time many new concepts would come to fruition. These new concepts shaped power distribution, legitimacy, and participation. All of the negotiating parties amazingly worked through differences to form a political union. In reaching this agreement, the foreign ministers mistakenly believed the difficult part was over. Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty proved to be just a complicated. The newly formed political union would be tested throughout the member states. The test mainly centered on the presence of a public union. This was a test that required further political cooperation to rally a union of the public. The treaty finally came into effect in November 1993. From that point on the name “European Union” would quickly become commonplace.

 

Bibliography

 

Dinan, Desmond. Europe Recast: A History of European Union. Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2004.

Friis, Lykke. “EU and Legitimacy – The Challenge of Compatibility: A Danish Case Study.” Cooperation and Conflict 34.3 (1999): 243 – 271.

Gold, Michael. “Social Policy: The UK and Maastricht.” National Institute Economic Review 139 (1992): 95 – 102.

Goodey, Jo. “Migration, Crime and Victimhood: Responses to Sex Trafficking in the EU.” Punishment & Society 5 (2003): 415.

Hix, Simon. The Political System of the European Union. New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Jensen, Christen B. et al. “Who Calls for a Common EU Foreign Security Policy?: Partisan Constraints on CFSP Reform.” European Union Politics (EUP) 8.3 (2007): 387 – 410.

Kersbergen, Kees Van and Bertjan Verbeek. “The Politics of International Norms: Subsidiarity and the Imperfect Competence Regime of the European Union.” European Journal of International Relations (EJIR) 13.2 (2007): 217 – 236.

König, Thomas and Simon Hug, “Ratifying Maastricht: Parliamentary Votes on International Treaties and Theoretical Solution Concepts.” European Union Politics (EUP) 1.1 (2000): 93 – 124.

Matthews, Duncan and David G. Mayes. “The 1992 UK Presidency of the Council of Ministers.” National Institute Economic Review 141 (1992): 71 – 80.

Neumayer, Eric. “Asylum Destination Choice: What Makes Some Western European Countries More Attractive Than Others?” European Union Politics (EUP) 5.2 (2004): 155 - 180.

 

 

Global Futures Papers

 

Drivers of Change: The Future of the United States

 

 

I. Introduction. 2

II. Demographic Change. 2

A. Differential Growth. 2

B. Population Aging. 2

C. Population Growth. 2

III. Constraints of Nature. 2

A. Water. 2

B. Fossil Fuels. 2

C. Climate Change. 2

IV. Technological Innovation. 2

A. Internet 2

B. Surveillance. 2

C. Nanotechnology. 2

V. Implications Related to Demographic Change. 2

VI. Implications Related to Constraints of Nature. 2

VIII. Implications Related to Technological Innovation. 2

IX. Conclusion. 2

Bibliography. 2

 

 

I. Introduction

What does the future hold for the United States? Of course, this question is unfair because no one has a definitive grasp of future circumstances. However, by recognizing what drives change and analyzing a subject, such as the United States, in relation to those drivers it is possible to make an educated projection. So, what are the components that do drive change? The main drivers of change are demographics, nature, and technology. These main drivers have many aspects to analyze for the purpose of visualizing a trend toward the future. During the analysis of demographic change it may be prudent to research population aging, population growth, and/or differential growth. When attempting to visualize a trend related to nature for making a projection, water, fossil fuels, and/or the climate change may be important to research. Research on technological innovation may involve the study of surveillance, the internet, and/or nanotechnology. For each main driver of change there are limitless topics that could be researched. After completing the appropriate research a trend for each driver begins to develop. This trend helps to for an educated opinion, or projection, as to the circumstances of the future. To be sure, this conceptualized trend excludes any events that would have a low probability of occurring, but would have a tremendous impact if the event did actually occur. These events are referred to as wildcards. An example of a wildcard might be a disease that dramatically reduces a population due to mass causalities. After determining and analyzing the drivers of change, conceptualizing a trend, and making a projection it is necessary to determine the possible implications of the projection. What benefit can be obtained from an educated projection if that projection is derailed by an unforeseen event or has undesirable implications? As for wildcard events there is not much that can be done because of the inability to project their occurrence. The only comfort related to a wildcard event is that it has a low probability of occurring. However, there is a possibly more rewarding benefit if an educated projection includes trends that have undesirable implications to technology, norms, or institutions. The benefit is the practice of anticipatory thinking and using that anticipatory thinking to prepare for a preferred future that ultimately cannot be projected with one-hundred percent accuracy. If an educated projection shows an undesirable trend, it is possible determine the chain of events necessary to shape a desired future. After an analysis of the three main drivers of change and some of the main attributes within those drivers it will be clear that the United States is facing many challenges which are producing many trends that may have negative implications to norms and institutions. Therefore, at this point in time, it is extremely necessary for the United States to embrace anticipatory thinking and attempt to shape a preferred future.

 

II. Demographic Change

Demographic change is an important driver of change worldwide. Due to the slow change of fertility rates and the current existence of the people who will remain over the next thirty years, demographics as a driver of change can be projected with some degree of accuracy[25]. Within demographic change there are many topics that can be researched to identify trends in formulating an educated projection. In relation to the United States a few of the more noteworthy topics are differential growth, population aging, and population decline.

 

A. Differential Growth

Differential growth refers to the change in a population in relation to ethnic groups and sex ratio. Differential growth is a topic that is of great relevance to the future demographics of the United States. As of 2005, there are approximately ninety-four million racially and ethnically diverse people living in the United States and is projected to increase dramatically over the coming decades[26]. It is clear that the makeup of the United States population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. This trend reflects two forces: 1) immigration has been a major influence on the size and age structure of the United States population, and 2) major racial groups are aging at different rates[27]. Another important differential growth topic that is becoming pronounced in the United States is the sex ratio. The sex ratio is the measure of the number of males per one-hundred females. Since the 1790s this ratio has been declining in the United States. During the 1790s there were approximately one-hundred and thirty-five males per one-hundred female. Currently this ratio is approximately ninety-five males per one-hundred females.[28]

 

B. Population Aging

The population of the United States is getting older (also referred to as a graying nation. Prior to the 1950s the United States was considered a relatively young nation. In 1950 the portion of the population over age sixty-five was approximately eight percent. Currently, this percentage has increased to approximately thirteen percent and is projected to reach nearly twenty-one percent by the year 2050.The beginning of this trend occurred during the baby-boom generation (1946 – 1964). The baby-boom generation was the consequence of the simultaneous onset of relatively high fertility, declining infant and childhood mortality, and high rates of immigration. After 1964, birth rates moved downward until the late 1970s. [29] As the baby-boom generation moves through the population pyramid it provides a pronounced bulge. However, with the passing of the baby-boomers the graying of America will continue to be a concern. This is largely attributed to the improvement in survival. This is especially apparent among females which are compounded by the changing sex ratio.

 

C. Population Growth

In addition to aging, differential growth and a shifting sex ratio the United States population is projected to increase. In other words, “the United States is getting bigger, older, and more diverse”[30]. This growth is influenced by some of the other previously mentioned demographic factors - declining mortality rates, fertility levels (close to generational replacement levels), and international migration where more people migrate to the United States than leave. From 1950 to 2000 the United States population nearly doubled. By the year 2050, the United States’ projected population is approximately four-hundred and twenty million people.[31] The sex ratio trend towards increased female population is also projected to magnify. This growth rate is at a significantly slower pace than was 1950 to 2000 period and more dependent on assumptions of mortality rate, fertility rates, and international migration rates. The biggest trend in fertility rate is attributed to the age of new mothers. Women are waiting to an older age before deciding to become mothers. This is making it less attainable for these particular women to have multiple children. Women may be waiting to become mothers, but people are dying at reduced rates and newborns are expected to live longer than ever in the past. Regarding mortality, data has indicated that, when adjusted for age[32], the death rates have been dropping for some time. Life expectancy at birth is reaching all-time highs with an average of approximately seventy-seven and one half years. Immigration has played a significant role in population growth since the inception of the United States. Only short periods of reduced immigration have occurred (e.g. during the Great Depression). The trend of immigration surpassing emigration is projected to continue for many more decades.[33]

 

III. Constraints of Nature

Constraints of nature are drivers of change that are largely uncontrollable. Identifiable constraints of nature, at best, can be delayed from posing a threat. Most constraints of nature have a global impact. However, depending on the particular constrain, some countries may benefit while others do not. Of course, in other cases no country benefits. Many trends attributed to constraints of nature can be identified. Some other the more important constraints of nature in relation to the United States include water supply, fossil fuel supply, and climate change.

 

A. Water

The scarcity of fresh water is becoming a phenomena the world over. The United States is already being presented with indicators that it too is threatened by fresh water shortages. The main indicators for the United States stem from climate change in conjunction with a growing population and increased water consumption. Due to these indicators, “water availability, quality, and allocation are likely to undergo profound changes between 2006 and 2025”[34]:

 

In 2006, the National Science and Technology Council reported that abundant supplies of clean, fresh water can no longer be taken for granted," Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said in announcing the [multi-agency Water for America] initiative. "Water wars have spread to the Midwest, East, and South. Competition for water is increasing because of rapid population growth and burgeoning environmental and energy needs," said Kempthorne, whose responsibilities include overseeing major Interior water storage and distribution projects in the West and serving as Water Master for the Lower Colorado River. “As this competition escalates during a time of chronic drought and changing climate," the Secretary noted, "water conflicts are occurring within states, among states, between states and the Federal government and among environmentalists and state and Federal agencies.”[35]

Water will become a strategic resource in the future. The challenges that the United States will face are compounded. These challenges are grounded in the fact that the United States shares many basins along their boarder with Canada (e.g. the Great Lakes). Also, regarding groundwater, the United States shares many aquifers with Mexico.[36]

 

B. Fossil Fuels

The United States is heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas to power the economy and the lifestyle of its population. Fossil fuels currently provide more than eight-five percent of all of the energy consumed within the United States.[37] The most consumptive uses of fossil fuels include electricity, heating and cooling, and transportation. The United States, consisting of five percent of the world population, consumes approximately one-third of the world’s total energy output.[38] The danger of this level of reliance on fossil fuels lies in the limitations of the resource. Fossil fuels require millions of years under extreme conditions to develop; therefore, they are considered to be nonrenewable. This is of great concern to the interest of the United States considering her level of reliance on fossil fuels. According to estimates fossil fuel reserves (recoverable at no more than twice of today’s unit cost) will likely be depleted by 2050[39]. Oil and natural gas are projected to be among the first to deplete and then coal. Nuclear fuels have been suggested as a viable alternative, but they do not have the ability to be used in small machines (e.g. cars).[40] In addition, fossil fuels have been linked to a number of environmental impacts such as climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion.[41] As this trend continues the United States will increasingly face issues of availability, affordability, and sustainability.

 

C. Climate Change

Through long-term scientific observation it has been confirm that the climate is changing rapidly. During the 20th century the average annual United States temperature has increased by nearly 1°F. In addition to the average temperature rise, the average precipitation rate has increased in the United States between five percent and ten percent. This has been attributed to the increase in heavy rainfalls. These trends have become most noticeable over the past few decades. Scientific research indicates that the rate of warming in the twenty-first century will be significantly higher than the increase of the twentieth century. Without a mass movement to reduce the continued growth of world greenhouse gas emissions it is projected that the average temperatures will continue to rise. In the United States the temperature rise will likely increase between 5 and 9°F over the next 100 years. This increase is higher than the projected global temperature increase. It is also very likely that the rise in temperature will be coupled with intensified precipitation. This will include faster evaporation of water leading to greater regularity of both very wet and very dry conditions.[42]

 

IV. Technological Innovation

Technological innovation as a driver of change can be seen in a positive and negative context to a greater extent that other drivers. In other words “Things are getting better and better and worse and worse, faster and faster”[43]. Another characteristic of technological innovation, that is different from the other two drivers, is that it brings an acceleration of history as noted by the “faster and faster” portion of the previous quote. Technological innovation is far-reaching; it is a global phenomenon, comes in contact with nearly every aspect of life, and shapes economies, etcetera. The United States, being a leader in technological innovation, benefits and deteriorates faster and faster. In the United States, the technological innovations that illustrates benefits, deterioration, and an acceleration of history include the internet, surveillance, and nanotechnology.

 

A. Internet

From the perspective of general public use, the internet was first implemented in the early 1990s. The basic goal was to create a shared information space in which people, as well as machines, could communicate. Currently, the internet has grown to become an important aspect of life.  The internet has allowed the development resources of companies and universities to be applied to the exploitation and extension of the web. The inception and current control of the internet is the doing of the United States. From the year 2000 to 2007 the usage of the internet in the United States grew from forty-four percent to seventy-one percent of the total population[44]. The internet is used for a number of reasons: to find general information, to access hard-to-find information, to correspond with anyone in the world, to meet people, to participate in discussions of common interest, for entertainment, to learn, to access news, to find software, to shop, etcetera. Conversely, data is placed on the internet for a number of reasons: to advertise, to sell products, to make money, to share knowledge, etcetera. The internet has truly grown since its inception. Due to the rapid growth of the internet, the future of the internet is widely speculated. By the year 2020, many scenarios have been promulgated. Many believe that a world-wide low cost network may be developed in which people will be directly interconnected. Another belief involves a leveled world into one big political, social, and economic space. Yet, others believe that virtual reality will become the norm.[45] Whatever the future of the internet will be, there is a consensus that it will approach quickly. To be sure, give the United States’ involvement with the internet it will likely feel the effects the most, whatever they may be.

 

B. Surveillance

The current role of surveillance has increased as a result of the attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001. The REAL-ID Act[46] and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures. Extensive data-sharing programs across the federal government and the private sector (e.g. data mining companies). The use of Closed-Circuit Television is spreading (e.g. New York and San Francisco). Congress approved a presidential program for spying on foreign communications over United States networks (e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, and others) and is now considering immunity for telephone companies that cooperated. The United States is the world leader in border surveillance which mandates trans-border data flows. The United States government plans to create 'rings of steel'[47] around cities to monitor the movement of individuals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is working to create the largest world-wide biometric database which is not protected by a strong privacy law. The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have future brushes with the law. In the coming years, law enforcement authorities will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars, and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk.[48] There are also a number of other surveillance technologies currently under development such as small flying surveillance devices, cyborg insects, Radio-frequency Identification, unmanned aerial vehicles, etcetera.

 

C. Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is an emerging field of science which controls matter at the level of individual molecules. The United States is currently the world leader in nanotechnology. The United States government has implemented a multi-agency (twenty-three total agencies) National Nanotechnology Initiative. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is aimed at organizing federal nanotechnology research and creating a strong research infrastructure. Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules. Nanotechnology deals with devices that are smaller than one-hundred nanometers (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter). This technology is expected to make a significant contribution to computer storage, semiconductors, biotechnology, manufacturing and energy.[49] At this time in the United States nanotechnology already employs a number of uses. Some of the more common implementations of nanotechnology include: anti-bacterial wound dressings using nanoscale silver, nanoscale dry powder to neutralize chemical spills, increased power batteries for tools, pharmaceutical drug delivery, nanofilms (e.g. eyeglasses, computer screens, etcetera), nanotubes (e.g. car parts, tennis rackets, etcetera), solar plastics, and water filtration[50]. It is projected that the enhanced ability to manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels will provide bevy of significant change in technologies over the next fifty years. During the next fifty years, major breakthroughs in many fields including medicine, communications, computers, energy, and robotics. These changes are likely to create enormous amounts of wealth and force changes in existing markets and institutions.[51]

V. Implications Related to Demographic Change

Differential growth certainly has major implications for the United States. Particularly, it is likely to have a profound impact on immigration policy. Immigration has historically made a large contribution to the United States’ population. This is projected to continue into the distant future as immigration reform remains to encourage permanent residence admissions under certain conditions. However, post- 11 September 2001 security has become a concern. This concern has driven a number of identification laws. Another implication for the future of the United States involves the changing of color lines. The United States population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. As a result, a number of challenges will be faced over the next several decades: assimilation is likely to become more difficult as language barriers increase, income disparities will intensify as waves of low-income first generation immigrants face insurmountable hurdles, and racial minorities will continue to be disproportionately represented in the poverty rate placing further strain on welfare systems[52].

 

The historical rise in the change of the sex ratio is also likely to have great implications for the Unites States. As females continue to offset the ratio the trend will have implications on the institution of marriage, control of wealth, and politics. Over the next several decades the institution of marriage will likely continue to deteriorate as divorce rates remain high and the sex ratio gap widens. The control over wealth is also likely to shift to women. This is a direct result of the sex ratio. More women will be receiving inheritances as surviving heirs. The survival rate of women being higher than men is also trending towards a shift in wealth. As the sex ratio gap continues to widen the trend of women entering and attaining key political roles is likely to slope upward.

 

The aging population of the United States will have a huge impact on the current makeup of institutions within the United States. Some of the biggest implications include work, retirement, and pensions. The financial pressure of public pension systems (e.g. Social Security) is in direct correlation to an aging society. Another implication is interlinked with the public pension system as a result of population aging. This interlinked issue is the decreasing labor force which contributes to the financial imbalance within such a system. An aging population also imposes great strain on the healthcare system of the United States. As the population continues to age, the social and economic demands of individuals, families, communities, and the government will grow.[53] This trend will have a profound impact on the state of the healthcare system as it currently stands as well as the general cost of healthcare.

 

VI. Implications Related to Constraints of Nature

Water control presents a great challenge to the future of the United States. International water policy is primarily rooted in decentralized state laws in the United States. As a result the United States will have limited jurisdiction over water control issues. [54] The United States will be forced to overcome the bureaucratic challenges posed different political systems and legal regimes of North America. It will be important for the United States to gain a better understanding of projected trends in the global and North American hydrologic cycles to think more strategically about this resource. The potential consequence for inaction is likely to be dire. The current trend in the use of fossil fuels within the United States brings about a number of implications. The most important of these implications are concerning the environment and economics. In regards to the environment, if humans do not curb use of fossil fuels, the planet will warm fourteen and one-half degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2300. The polar ice caps will disappear and oceans will rise 23 feet.[55] While this particular implication is stated in global terms, the portion of responsibility and impact to the United States will likely be disproportionately substantial. As related to the economy, new discoveries of oil are not keeping up with demand. As demand continues to exceed supply, prices will continue to rise. In the not too distant future, the price of oil could outweigh its motivation for use. However, given the level of dependence in the United States a double-edged sword has been created. The high and increasing cost of oil is responsible for most of the U.S. trade imbalance which is costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year. In addition, an increasing percentage of the oil the United States uses comes from the most volatile parts of the world. The world's largest known oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. Instead of gaining independence on such nations, we are increasing their wealth and power.[56]

 

The implications of climate change are far-reaching. An increasing in average temperature could further permafrost thawing threatening damage to infrastructure. Biodiversity is essential to the health of the ecosystem of the United States. Climate change will likely cause specie extinction due to the inability of some species to adapt. Increased average temperature also imposed a strain on water a supply that is already experiencing difficulty. Climate change raises concern over extreme events such as flash flooding which particularly threaten coastal communities. The implications of this issue are of dire consequence if the United States neglects to adequately make an effort to reverse the current trend.

 

VIII. Implications Related to Technological Innovation

As the birthplace of the internet and having the most control, the United States will endure the implications of an internet-based world the most. There is a widespread expectation that people will wittingly or unwittingly disclose more information about themselves In exchange for the gaining of some benefits they will, in the process, lose some additional privacy. By 2020 transparency of people and institutions will become commonplace due to the internet. The internet also raises moral implications. Those who are connected online will likely devote more time to compelling and unrealistic content by the year 2020. While this will increase productivity and be an advantage to many, it could lead to addiction problems for some.[57]

 

The possibility of a surveillance society is of concern in the United States and is attached to many implications. There is definitely a benefit to surveillance, namely security. However, there is risk of large-scale surveillance systems that are ripe for corruption. The potential for a waning of democracy could loom near in such a society. In such a system, a minor error such as a misplaced keystroke may impose irreparable harm to the citizens of the United States. Surveillance also has implications related to singling out people. This is a practice that has been proved a reprehensible in the past (e.g. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II). Corporations might use surveillance technology to an extent of choosing customers purely for the purpose of increasing profitability. Of course, those people not chosen to be clients will not benefit. It can be realized that the social implications of surveillance technology is huge. The biggest implication may just be a society living in a country in which they know that they are really not trusted.[58]

 

Nanotechnology is fairly new to scientific research. However, there are a few possible implications that are known. Of course, with the United States leading in the development of nanotechnology it is likely to endure these implications to a higher degree. Some of these implications include health issues, environmental issues, possible military applications, intellectual property issues.[59]

 

IX. Conclusion

After an analysis of the three main drivers of change and some of the main attributes within those drivers it is clear that the United States is facing many challenges. Many trends may have negative implications to the society and institutions of the United States. Therefore, it is extremely necessary for the United States to embrace anticipatory thinking and attempt to shape a preferred future. Demographic trends in differential growth, population aging, and population growth have a host of concerns that require immediate attention. The constraints of nature are more difficult with which to deal. However there are some policies the United States could implement to help lessen the possible implications of water supply, fossil fuel dependence, and acceleration of climate change. Technology has accelerated history to an alarming rate. It is projected to become even more alarming in the future. The internet, surveillance technology, and nanotechnology should be of particular concern to the United States. There are a number of other issues that could still be explored in relation to the drivers of change and the United States. It would benefit, control the extent of damage, or at the very least create an era of responsible progress if the United States would assess and address some of the concerns mentioned in this text and beyond this text.

 

Bibliography

“A Report on the Surveillance Society.” Surveillance Studies network. 6 May 2006 <http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application surveillance_society_summary_06.pdf>.

“Applications and Products: Putting Technology to Use.” National Nanotechnology Initiative. 6 May 2008 < http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/nanoapplicationsandproducts.html>.

“Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.” U.S. Global Change Research Program. 6 May 2008 < http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overview.htm>.

“Dire Future If Fossil Fuels Are Not Curbed, Scientists Say.” Live Science. 6 May 2008, < http://www.livescience.com/environment/051101_global_warming.html>.

“Factors Driving Change.” Council of Science and Technology Advisors. 6 May 2008 < http://www.csta-cest.ca/index.php?ID=424&Lang=EN>.

“Fossil Fuels.” U.S. Department of Energy. 6 May 2008 < http://www.energy.gov/energysources/fossilfuels.htm>.

“Fossil Fuels.” Iowa Public Television. 6 May 2008. < http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/energy/profiles/fossil_fuels.cfm>.

“Many Reasons To Reduce Fossil Fuel Emissions.” Contra Costa Times. 6 May 2008 < http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_9048496?nclick_check=1>.

“PHR2006 – United State s.” Privacy international. 6 May 2008 < http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559478>.

Pirages, Dennis. “Demographic Change Lecture.” Global Futures. UNLV. Las Vegas, Nevada. 25 March 2008.

Scommegna, Paola. “U.S. growing bigger, older, and more diverse.” 6 May 2008. Population Reference

Bureau, Apr. 2004, <http://www.prb.org/>.

Stanford, Neil. “Admiral Rickover: The Future of Fossil Fuels.” Christian Science Monitor. 26 Nov. 2006. 6 May 2008. < http://www.energybulletin.net/22890.html>.

“The Future of the internet.” PEW Internet & American Life Project. 6 May 2008 <http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Future_of_Internet_2006.pdf>.

“The Sex Ratio.” Western Washington university. 6 May 2008 < http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Animation/sexratios.html>.

United States. Domestic Social Policy Division. “The Changing Demographic policy of the united States.” CRS Report for Cingress. 5 May 2006

“U.S. Population Could Reach 438 Million by 2050, and Immigration Is Key.” Population Reference Bureau. 6 May 2008 < http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/pewprojections.aspx>.

United States. Center for Strategic and International Studies. “North American Future 2025 Project.” Washington D.C. 30 September 2007.

“United States Leads Globe in Nanotechnology Research, Report Says.” Dept. of State: Bureau of International Information. 6 May 2008 < http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/May/20050523152217lcnirellep0.8238794.html>.

United States. Joint Economic Committee. “Nanotechnology: The Future Is Coming Sooner Than You Think.” A Joint Economic Committee Study. Mar. 2007.

“Water for America.” U.S. Department of interior. 6 May 2008 < http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/water.html>.

 

 

World Politics Papers

Global Warming

 

Global warming is an increase in the earth's average temperature that causes changes in climate. There seems to be little debate over the notion that global warming is a real phenomenon. However, many scientists, scholars, and politicians have varying opinions as to the cause of global warming. Considering the confusion caused by the difference of opinion by many experts, the world is not acting in an expedient manner. What should be done in an effort to minimize or eliminate the effects that global warming may have on humankind? The world's leaders should unite to thwart any potential threat as a result of global warming without regard to the correct theory of causation.

 

In relation to global warming there are two schools of thought. The first school believes that global warming is linked to human influence. In this line of thinking, global warming is a pressing issue and is moments away from a disaster of the highest proportions. The second school of though on global warming is skeptical about human causation. It is believed that global warming is a natural phenomenon.

 

Experts that agree with the theory that global warming is linked with human interaction argue that the emission of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxides – are to blame. The overuse of greenhouse gas emitting practices contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is atmospheric warming as a result of the trapping of solar radiation due to a concentrated presence of greenhouse gases.  According to these experts the emission of greenhouse gases through human means is increasing at an alarming rate. This dramatic increase is speeding the process of global warming which will, in fairly short order, result in an uninhabitable earth.

 

Experts that agree with the theory that global warming is a natural occurrence are less prone to be alarmed. These experts claim that the majority of greenhouse gas presence in the earth's atmosphere is a result of water exchange. Given the fact that the majority of the earth's surface consist of water, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by human means are insignificant. Scientist that try to link global warming with human emission of greenhouse gases are wrong because they are missing an essential part of the equation. Without the addition of water to the equation a flawed answer is derived. In this natural school of thought, it is believed that when temperatures rise the presence of greenhouse gases in water also rise. Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are present from the natural cycling of water. It is the rising of the earth's temperature that increases atmospheric greenhouse gas through the water cycle rather than an increase by human interaction. Therefore, the rise in global temperatures can be attributed to the natural cycle of warming and cooling.

 

What is the solution to global warming? The answer to this question is heavily dependent on which of the two schools’ of thought is more highly credited. If the leaders of the world believe that human interaction is responsible for global warming, then a massive effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases should be implemented. However, if the leaders of the world are to believe that global warming is the result of nature then the solution will become apparent during the beginning of the next cooling cycle.

 

In an effort to avoid the potential for disaster the world's leaders should unite regardless of the correct theory of causation. The cause of global warming will not matter to humankind if the world becomes uninhabitable. As a precaution against ill effects of global warming the reduction of human means of emitting greenhouse gases should be enforced globally. If human interaction proves to be the cause of global warming this action may save humankind. If natural occurrence is the cause of global warming, then the reduction of human emittance of greenhouse gases can be observed as an investment in sound environmental policy. Concerning global warming, causation should not be the focus. The reduction of greenhouse gases is a win-win proposition for the collective good regardless of the correct theory of causation in relation to global warming.

 

Source Articles

 

Ohio State Research News. Ed. Robert Essenhigh. 14 June 2001. Ohio State University. 29 Sept. 2007             <http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm>.

Sebenius, James K. “Designing Negotiations Toward a New Regime: The Case of Global Warming.”             International Security 15.4 (1991): 110-48.