The Foreign Service Journal, June 2011

J U N E 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 Security for Diplomatic Communications Your March article, “AFSA Mem- bers Speak Out on the WikiLeaks Mess,” was interesting and, more than that, extremely important. Prior to the revelation that a De- fense Department employee allegedly leaked thousands of classified diplo- matic cables, the Foreign Service held a nearly impeccable record of protect- ing its national-security information. This was achieved by carefully con- trolled communications practices, such as diligent attention to communica- tions security procedures and thought- ful use of special captions, markings and channel designators to restrict dissemi- nation of sensitive information. This was all supported by an elite team made up of the very best com- munications professionals working in- side the U.S. government — Foreign Service Information Management Of- ficers and Information Management Technical Specialists. In the post-9/11 operating environ- ment, the call for more integrated in- telligence and information-sharing has been an especially loud one. But the re- quirement to protect our own informa- tion remains. In this context, the Infor- mation Resource Management Bu- reau’s senior management needs to give its information technology programs and strategies a long, serious look. Equally important, our senior lead- ership, from the Office of the Secre- tary to our front-line ambassadors abroad, should bear in mind the trusted communications security ethos central to the commitment of IRM of- ficers: “Leadership which gambles with COMSEC gambles with the lives of the men and women they lead.” Let’s never forget that information is the lifeblood of the Foreign Service. After our people, it’s the single most valuable asset our institution pos- sesses. Timothy C. Lawson Senior FSO, retired Hua Hin, Thailand Experience Matters There was an interesting contrast of opinions in the April letters from C. Robert Dickerman and former Secre- tary of State George P. Shultz. The for- mer Secretary decries the “gigantic waste of talent” when State loses the professional skills of people who must retire, in his opinion, too early. Mr. Dickerman urges a maximum entry age of 31 for career Foreign Service of- ficers, presuming that older officers are not likely to cultivate productive rela- tionships with youth worldwide. I disagree with the latter view, and would urge the State Department to revisit the U.S. Information Agency’s recruiting campaign during the Cold War era. That effort aimed to bring in seasoned professionals with experience in communicating with a diversity of audiences in the field of public, educa- tional and cultural affairs. I came into the Foreign Service at the age of 43 as such a professional, and served at seven posts in the course of a 22-year career, most of them in South Asia and Africa. During that pe- riod, I earned State’s Meritorious Honor Award, USIA’s Superior Honor Award and, ultimately, USIA’s Career Achievement Award. Rather than lowering the maximum entry age for career Foreign Service officers, the State Department would reap the greater benefit by raising the mandatory retirement age. Eddie Deerfield FE-OC, retired Palm Harbor, Fla. Standing Out I read Rochelle Park-Yancy’s article about her Fulbright teaching semester in Armenia (“An African-American Fulbright Scholar in Armenia,” April) with bemused interest. I have had similar experiences (albeit of shorter duration) as an African-American diplomatic courier. Like hers, my most memorable en- counters occurred in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Georgia and Turkmenistan. There were the stops, stares and finger-pointing. Instances of complete strangers coming up to me and — suddenly — draping an arm around my shoulder before snapping photos were, initially, unsettling. But once I saw their curiosity was genuine L ETTERS