The phrase in question - career diplomat.

Why is career used as a modifier for diplomat? There are men/women that have represented their country in such parleys,even though they have not been professional diplomats. Mr. Carter for one. Their numbers are however, relatively few and they are clearly the exception, not the norm. Should not the usage then be 'non-career diplomat'?

I guess it's just another of those retronyms like 'acoustic (vs. non-electric) guitar' or 'rotary (vs. non-touch-tone) phone.' Easier to say.

I just always thought it meant they had been diplomats for most of their adults lives.

Mebbe a career diplomat is one who has lasted through a regime change.

I believe a "career" diplomat, like "career" politician, is a diplomat who has sought to fashion many terms of appointment into a long-term enterprise.

I just always thought it meant they had been diplomats for most of their adults lives.

That's what I meant. But now there are one-time diplomats, who have other, high-profile careers. Of course I can't think of any names at the moment...

Ho hum, and (reasonably) fresh from a short but interesting career in my country's foreign service, I can provide the rationale for the term "career diplomat". Ta-daaaaa!

Most countries regard some diplomatic posts as more important than others. F'rinstance, New Zealand sees London and Washington DC as top posts which can have an effect on New Zealand's well-being (rightly or wrongly). These posts tend to go to either (a) politicians retiring from parliament who both need a reward and are capable of dealing with the leaders of other countries without tripping over their own tongues, or (b) politicians that the government would much rather weren't underfoot, usually because (i) they are potential contenders for the top job and may develop power bases if they are allowed to remain around or (ii) they are capable people but apt to develop viewpoints at odds with the current government's positions.

Career diplomats, on the other hand, are permanent foreign service employees who work, plot and backstab their way to the top of the pile within the department in the (usually forlorn) hope that they will be made ambassadors, chefs de mission or high commissioners in the less important posts. Which, in Zild's case, is most of 'em.

My last boss at Foreign Affairs was a career diplomat, but she was a little different in that she had proven her worth in a number of fairly sticky situations both as a diplomat and as a general staff member (them being two different career streams within the diplomatic service). She's currently head of IT at Foreign Affairs, but will be eligible to be an ambassador for her next posting. If she wants it. Which she doesn't, I believe!

- Pfranz

Admiral William Crowe, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bacame ambassador to the United Kingdom following his military service--certainly not a career diplomat, but well qualified.
Another Adimral with extensive experience in the Pacific area, Thomas Foley, was given the ambassadorship to Japan, preceding James Baker.
I worked for Admiral Crowe when he was Commander in Chief of the Pacific (around 1985); and much of his efforts in that capacity involved interaction with heads of state throughout the Pacific. So, though neither he nor Foley were career diplomats, they were very carefully groomed to take on such duties.