YPFP - Young Professionals in Foreign Policy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to fostering the next generation of America's foreign policy leadership. We dedicate ourselves to honest, informed, thoughtful discussion of international affairs, to the professional advancement, intellectual development, and personal growth of our members, to camaraderie within our community, and to public service.

As leaders of the G8 nations discuss the environment and the global financial crisis with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev this week, and EU leaders continue attempts to hammer out a partnership agreement with Moscow, Russian policies are directly undermining western interests in the Caspian region.

The west needs the Caspian. The EU is in the midst of an energy security crisis: increasing percentages of its oil and gas come from Russia, are funneled through Russia, or pass through Russian-controlled infrastructure. The countries of the Caspian region – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan – present the only viable alternative sources with which Europe could diversify away from the dominance of a Kremlin-controlled monopoly. Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves alone rival those of the Gulf states, yet the EU has so far only tentatively discussed direct European access to these resources.

The January 2007 test of an anti-satellite missile was a watershed event in China’s modernization program, because it demonstrated a key military capability of China and a major vulnerability of the United States. There is another element of China’s military transformation that tends to receive much less attention: professional military education (PME). Over the last three decades, China has undertaken significant efforts to enhance the quality of its military education system (China Brief, March 21, 2007). The expansion of non-commissioned officer (NCO) education over the last decade within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) illuminates an important—yet understudied—element of China’s broader military modernization efforts. Washington policymakers should take note of Beijing’s investments in military education as they may yield key insights into Chinese military strategy as well as its grand strategy.

Abstract: Russia’s new president, Dmitry Medvedev should be expected to broadly continue his predecessor Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy toward Turkey and the broader Black Sea region. Analysts that cast Medvedev as a mere Putin puppet or those that forecast a gradual increase in power for the new man in the Kremlin miss the crucial question about decision-making in Russia: how much strength will the siloviki – the current and former security service officers – wield to implement policies based largely on mistrust and calculation? The substance of Russia’s poicies in the Black Sea region will likely change little in substance, but may adopt a more subtle, effective style under Medvedev. Despite recent significantly improved relations with Russia, over time, Turkey may find itself in an uncomfortable position between its Western allies and its new-found friends in Moscow.

America’s unipolar moment was indeed that. A moment. Giddy with a sense of triumph following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Americans quickly realised that they had a window of opportunity when their global power would go unchallenged. The period that followed saw robust American economic growth riding on the high-tech revolution; successful military or diplomatic interventions in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo and Northern Ireland; unfinished endeavours in Palestine, Korea and Afghanistan; and a severe setback in Iraq. Today, not even twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the evolution of a new kind of multi-polar order appears imminent. The American strategic community finds itself unsure about where its next big challenge will lie.

An attempt by a group of Democratic senators to pressure the State Department to intervene in the Iraqi government’s awarding of oil contracts appeared stalled at the starting gate Tuesday.

Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., want the administration to step in and object to contracts soon to be awarded by the Iraqi government to foreign oil companies, because Iraq has failed to complete action on an oil-sharing revenue law.

These Democrats also argue that giving more money to the Iraqi government would feed its corruption and inflame sectarian violence.

Uniting Pakistan the military state and Pakistan the nascent democracy is our generation’s calling.

There are two Pakistans. The first is stuck in an illusion of undisturbed national stability and unity through military management; the second stands on the weak shoulders of a nascent democracy, perpetually insecure and sporadically functional.

For more than sixty years, Pakistan has struggled with its split personality, brought about by its military or political parties. Historically the United States has preferred the first Pakistan – managed by the military and governed by the free market. The challenge for today's generals and politicians is to find a way to merge, secure, and present the country in a way that attracts the better of the two Pakistans, and preserves U.S. support in the war on terror.

Acres of news space in the United States have been devoted to lamenting America’s falling reputation. Americans want desperately to be loved. But the country’s popularity has been steadily decreasing for the better part of this decade, particularly in Europe and Southwest Asia. Moreover, there are indications that blame for a future global economic slowdown may be pinned on its economic policies.

Most Americans believe that the next US president will mark a decisive shift for the better for the US’s worldwide popularity, especially if Democratic candidate Barack Obama is elected in November. Indians, however, appear unconvinced. The Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs, Turks, and Mexicans are among those who seemingly share India’s wariness concerning Obama’s slogan of ‘Change’.

U.S. MILITARY BROKEN, SAYS WHO?
Ben Andruss

With the U.S. military engaged in two countries, senior military officers have been forced to re-write the playbook by restructuring military units and deployments to maintain an appropriate force level. Military analysts, educated but un-experienced in waging war, claim the U.S. military is “broken” without ever defining the term. Various news outlets employ retired military officers to parry with analysts, while enlisted service members, who serve on the front lines, have their voices minimized in the debate.

Military analysts live in think tanks and policy advocacy centers. For example, the Center for American Progress employs 19 people as national security/military senior staff and fellows of which ZERO were enlisted and only THREE have military experience. Indeed, as Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America has noted, “Participating in a heavily secured, carefully orchestrated sight-seeing visit to Iraq does not make you a military expert any more than a trip to Yankee stadium qualifies one to be a baseball broadcaster for ESPN.” With education the primary qualification for employment, highlighting the sources of information and confessing to reliance on second hand knowledge should be a requisite for the working papers produced by these centers. Moreover, while analysts are certainly qualified to speak on policy, assessment on the state of the U.S. military is not a policy issue. Gays in the military, education requirements for enlisted soldiers, and the raising of the maximum age for new recruits are policy issues, and even those require first-hand knowledge of military culture to fully comprehend.