While achieving notable diplomatic success at the United Nations with an international disarmament initiative, the Department of Foreign Affairs received more publicity at home for a less diplomatic incident - an internal row over promotions and a serious rift between the Minister and his Secretary General.
The disarmament initiative marked an unusual move by Ireland from a practice of rarely departing from bland agreed common European Union positions on international issues. Last June David Andrews, together with foreign ministers from Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and South Africa, called for new moves to create a nuclear-free world.
The declaration was followed by a UN resolution sponsored by Ireland and Sweden setting out specific measures to be taken by the five established nuclear weapons states (the US, Britain, France, Russia and China) as well as other states who may be close to developing their own nuclear weapons. Early this month the resolution was adopted in the UN General Assembly, despite intense US lobbying against it as well as opposition from Ireland's nuclear EU colleagues Britain and France.
It is not often Ireland takes a high-profile foreign policy stance without EU consensus, and in the face of US opposition. The initiative would never be adopted as a common position by the 15 EU member-states, two of which (Britain and France) are members of the nuclear club while most others are members of the NATO alliance.
However, Ireland has a history and tradition of involvement in diplomacy towards disarmament. Prior to the 1932 League of Nations Disarmament conference, the then Minister for External Affairs Patrick McGilligan made much in speeches of the Irish reduction in spending on arms.
More significantly in 1961 the so-called Irish Resolution - Resolution 1665 (XVI) - was the first to deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was followed by negotiations which led to the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Minister Frank Aiken's contribution to the process was recognised at the signing ceremony in Moscow at which Ireland's was the first signature. In the subsequent two years Ireland proposed 11 resolutions on the issue.
Mr Andrews's initiative last June was aimed at kick-starting moves towards global nuclear disarmament. A radical declaration, Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda was put forward by the seven signatories.
The initiative was planned before India conducted five nuclear weapons tests with Pakistan conducting six. However, the tests on the Indian sub-continent gave it added impetus. They showed that nuclear non-proliferation without disarmament would not work. States on the threshold of breaking into the nuclear club would continue to try for so long as the nuclear states did not disarm. There was no possibility of standing still: either the nuclear states disarmed or others would join their club.
In the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which came into force in 1970, 182 states committed themselves not to sell nuclear armaments to non-nuclear states. The treaty also obliged the five recognised nuclear powers (the US, Britain, France, Russia and China) to work to negotiate genuine total disarmament. What has actually happened, however, is that the nuclear powers have used the treaty to lecture other states about the need to abandon their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, while refusing to make any serious disarmaments themselves. It is a case of do as I say, not as I do.
Such diplomatic coalition-building skills were not always on show at home in Iveagh House, however. For several months during the year the Department of Foreign Affairs saw a most undiplomatic row about promotions. The row turned out to be just a symptom of the complete breakdown in relations between the Minister and the Secretary General of the department, Mr Padraic McKernan.
In July the Minister, Mr Andrews, personally intervened in the promotions process to order the promotion of two diplomats from First Secretary to Counsellor rank. He was personally friendly with one - Conor O'Riordan who was also his Private Secretary - while Tanaiste Mary Harney was personally friendly with the other - Niall Holohan - and had made representations on his behalf.
In September Mr Andrews intervened again, this time to ensure the promotion of an acquaintance, Brian Nason, to Assistant Secretary level ahead of another who had been recommended through the normal promotions procedure. Nobody cast any aspersions on the competence or ability of those promoted. Diplomats were furious, however, that the normal promotions route had been bypassed in a department where promotional opportunities are relatively scarce in the first place. In addition Mr Andrews took a proposed list of ambassadorial moves prepared by Mr McKernan and changed most of them without consulting him.
Following revelations of the details of the row in this newspaper, Mr Andrews and Mr McKernan agreed to make up in public. They let it be known that they were to meet - the first time they spoke for over three months - in an attempt to restore their working relationship. Following their meeting both said they regretted the controversy, had put it behind them and had agreed to review the promotions procedure.
Significant changes in the diplomatic career structure are now expected to emerge. Middle-ranking diplomats are expected to be allowed to apply for posts elsewhere in the civil service, while other civil servants will be able to apply for some Iveagh House posts. Back in the policy area there was a nuanced but clear shift in Government thinking during the year on whether Ireland should now consider becoming involved in the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. PfP involves NATO and non-NATO members training together for military missions, and Fianna Fail had clearly opposed involvement in the past.
Earlier in the year, however, Mr Andrews's position was that he welcomed debate on the matter but remained to be convinced. Last month he went further, saying he was keeping the question of Irish participation "under active review".
Just a few weeks ago he went even further in an article in this newspaper, saying that PfP involvement would not threaten Irish neutrality, putting forward many arguments in favour of Irish involvement but again saying that more debate was needed. Further evolution of the Government position is likely in the coming months and Ireland's participation in PfP now appears on the horizon.