CBM 5: Cybersecurity as part of diplomatic training

Background: CBM 5 calls on states to integrate cybersecurity and cyberspace issues into the basic training of diplomats and government officials - particularly within MFAs.221 It addresses two region-specific needs: the ongoing demand for foundational knowledge and capacity building (linked to CBM 4), and, echoing the rationale of CBM 3, the need to firmly establish cybersecurity as a foreign policy priority rather than a purely technical issue. The measure recognizes the cyber domain as a strategic and diplomatic concern, requiring informed engagement across government.222 By embedding cyber diplomacy into official training structures, states can build long-term institutional knowledge, ensure coherence in external messaging, and strengthen their overall foreign policy apparatus. At the same time, it facilitates broader participation in global cyber diplomacy and serves as a “translation mechanism” between international discussions and regional realities.

Practice: This CBM outlines primarily national-level steps, with implementation varying significantly across member states. Some have institutionalized cyber diplomacy by appointing cyber diplomats or ambassadors, like Brazil and the Dominican Republic, and embedding the issue within their national security architectures,223 while others remain at earlier stages - reflecting the region’s diverse levels of cyber maturity. As with CBM 4, this measure is supported by the Cyber Diplomacy Training Program and a range of OAS-led workshops and masterclasses, contributing to its partial implementation.224 The boundaries between CBMs 4 and 5 are intentionally fluid and overlapping. A major current initiative is the development of a standardized regional curriculum for diplomats and officials across MFAs and relevant agencies, designed to establish a consistent knowledge base throughout the region.225 While its mandate is still pending, the curriculum’s launch is a priority for this year, signaling ongoing implementation, but not widely. Support from international partners and more cyber-mature states - particularly Canada and the United States - has also reinforced training and capacity-building efforts. Finally, the annual Working Group Meetings continue to provide a forum for states to exchange updates, best practices, and lessons learned.

• Member states have integrated cybersecurity and cyber diplomacy into government training programmes to varying degrees, including through the appointment of cyber diplomats and the incorporation of cyber issues into foreign policy structures.

• Implementation is supported by OAS-led workshops and masterclasses, exchanges of national experiences during Working Group meetings, and capacity-building assistance from international partners.