The Foreign Service Journal, January 2012

the most innovative elements of the State Department model, says Susie Adams, chief technology officer for Mi- crosoft’s federal practice. “The biggest problem is: You have a finite number of resources, so how do you know what to do first?” she says. State’s programhas limitations, to be sure. It concentrates on fixing known security vulnerabilities, which means that previously unknown modes of computer attack won’t be detected. But security specialists say 80 percent of cyber infiltrations occur through known security gaps. In addition, the program only scans computers that runWindows, and does not yet monitor routers or other net- work equipment that cyberattacks tar- get, according to a July 8, 2011, Government Accountability Office as- sessment ( www.gao.gov ). The GAO report, “Information Se- curity: State Has Taken Steps to Im- plement a Continuous Monitoring Application, but Key Challenges Re- main” (GAO-11-149) , also found that the program didn’t scan all machines every three days, as it is designed to do. State says it plans to expand its mon- itoring to include routers and other de- vices, and is working with the National Security Agency to obtain information about new cyberthreats. But its trans- formation from a laggard to a leader in cybersecurity is already worth celebrat- ing. — Steven Alan Honley, Editor Rolling Up the Welcome Mat? Writing in the Nov. 11 issue of the National Post ( www.nationalpost. com ), a Toronto newspaper, Lee Ber- thiaume reports that the CanadianDe- partment of Foreign Affairs and Inter- national Trade recently instructed over- seas staff not to exceed established standards when it comes to treatment of visiting dignitaries and officials. According to the DFAIT report, “The use of discretion to exceed service standards has resulted in inconsistent service delivery to stakeholders across missions.” This, in turn, purportedly sows confusion and dissatisfaction when those visitors do not receive sim- ilar treatment at other embassies and consulates. In their defense, Canadian diplo- mats told evaluators that a degree of flexibility in applying the standards was necessary, given the different contexts and environments in which they oper- ate around the world. They also noted that smaller diplomatic posts generally get fewer visits from senior officials, so picking dignitaries up at the airport gives the envoys an important opportu- nity to discuss strategic issues. Former Canadian diplomat Daryl Copeland applauds the reminder to en- voys to do the real analytical and intel- ligence-gathering work for which they are sent overseas, not odd jobs like run- ning to the airport, which others can do. “Anything that didn’t fit into some- body else’s job description just got dumped on the [diplomats],” he said. For that reason, he called the memo “overdue and necessary.” Canadian diplomats will soon have an additional incentive to be less lavish in greeting official visitors: DFAIT, like all federal government departments, must submit proposals on how to cut 5 to 10 percent from its budget. Experts expect travel and hospitality funds to be one of the first areas to be hit. — Steven Alan Honley, Editor C Y B E R N O T E S 12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2 T he U.S., Britain, Australia and our other allies did not wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan merely to remove a threat to peace but in the confidence that, given a chance, almost everyone would prefer a life in which you “treated others as you would have them treat you.” The U.S. has led the first army ever to enter Afghanistan to liberate rather than to conquer. Given the history, it’s a monumental task, but it’s vital for the welfare of the Afghan people, the stability of a dangerous region and the safety of the wider world. I know, sir, that the Australian forces serving in Afghanistan are grateful for the American logistical assistance that sustains our commitment. They are proud to be fighting and building alongside their U.S. comrades in the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team. As well, they hope that their mission is continued until their task is done: the establishment of a stable, effective and humane govern- ment, at least by Afghan standards, backed by reliable security forces. They know that victory in Afghanistan won’t resemble the unequivocal reso- lution of World War II. It will be more like success in Northern Ireland. It will in- volve a process as much as an outcome. Our soldiers in Afghanistan also understand that giving up prematurely would be a defeat and no less disastrous for not being sustained on the battlefield. … American world leadership may only truly be appreciated after it’s gone. None of us should want to find out the hard way what a shrunken America might be. — Tony Abbott, Australian opposition leader, addressing Parliament on the occasion of President Barack Obama’s Nov. 17, 2011, visit to Canberra (http://www.tonyabbott.com.au).