I don't really understand US terms, but the man concerned is a Cabinet Minister, not a diplomat.

(A cabinit minister is the equivalent of if you had a high-up Senator who was in charge of overseeing policy in a sector, I guess).

So it's very much an elected leadership role.

Historically when we have had members of a majority in charge of Government portfolios/policy sectors that mainly affect minorities, I don't think you can credibly argue that was somehow "better for" under-represented people than being able to participate directly in leadership roles themselves.

Deciding which policies will benefit women in leadership roles is arguably of more direct benefit to the lived realities of women, than helping decide where/how to help arm soldiers in a war somewhere else in the world.