Imagine you are a member of a committee, whether a school board, sporting body or union executive. You are one of 10 elected members who serve a maximum of two years but there are five others who are there for life and each of them has a veto over all substantive motions.
That's the position in which Ireland finds itself on the United Nations Security Council. Five victorious powers in the second World War, known as the Permanent Five ("P5"), have the veto: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA.
An old UN hand commented that the non-permanent members in reality have only "observer status".
That is probably putting it too bleakly, although a diplomat with experience on both sides of the Atlantic said Ireland's ability to influence decisions was considerably greater in the European Union than on the Security Council.
If a non-permanent Security Council member wishes to be effective, there are basically two avenues: one is to lobby quietly behind the scenes, particularly with the P5; the other, to take high-profile public positions which challenge the big powers.
By and large, Ireland has chosen the more discreet route. Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen has shown little appetite for what some officials call "grandstanding". Some elements of domestic opinion would prefer if Ireland regularly challenged the big powers, especially the US, but this is neither the Minister's style nor inclination.
The presidency of the Council rotates on a monthly basis in alphabetical order and thus it was that Ireland found itself in the hot seat in the very month the US launched its bombing campaign in Afghanistan. Practically from the moment the jets flew into the World Trade Centre, the Government came out four-square behind what it saw as the US right to protect itself under international law and offered airspace and landing facilities for US military aircraft. Cowen said any actions taken would have to be "proportionate and targeted", but he accepted the US right to defend itself against "regimes" (the plural was potentially significant) which sheltered terrorists.
Thus the broad parameters of policy were set down for the Irish diplomats at the Security Council. Ireland was only a week into the presidency when US started bombing Afghanistan. The Government sets great store by the role the Irish presidency played in ensuring the US would come before the Council to outline what it had done and why. There were consultations involving Cowen, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Ireland's UN Ambassador, Richard Ryan, and senior US officials.
Government sources claim it was of considerable importance to copperfasten the UN-US link at such a critical time and to ensure that the primacy of the Security Council in matters of international peace and security was acknowledged in this way. Big deal, say the critics, adding that, if anything, the US appearance at the Council lent an aura of UN approval to an operation which was not explicitly authorised by the 15-member body.
Government sources also highlight the role Ireland has played in maintaining a focus on the humanitarian and human rights situation in Afghanistan and the need for the international community to support efforts at "nation-building" in the aftermath of the war.
This isn't sufficient for those who opposed the war in the first place and favoured a legal and judicial, rather than military, approach to apprehending Osama bin Laden and his supporters. In this view, the problem should have been dealt with through international legal procedures rather than bombing the rubble of Afghanistan into still smaller pieces.
It is probably no exaggeration to say that the Government has put its faith in the comparatively measured approach associated with the likes of Colin Powell. If a more right-wing, adventurist approach were to take hold in Washington's corridors of power, Ireland and other relatively compliant UN states would have a major problem which might well have to be dealt with through the Security Council.
On another major issue of the day, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ireland has again tended to adopt the approach of quiet but active diplomacy. Our diplomats have been very involved in this issue and there was considerable satisfaction when, under the Irish presidency, Council members - including the US - agreed a press statement on October 25th calling for an end to an Israeli military incursion into a number of West Bank towns.
Earlier in the year, Ireland declined to support a motion calling for a UN observer force to monitor clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian demonstrators. As the Government saw it, there was no point in pushing the issue if it was going to run into a US veto: which is exactly what happened.
More recently, on December 15th, Ireland decided to support a further resolution which favoured a monitoring mechanism, although this in turn was vetoed by the US. Among the European members, France voted with Ireland whereas the UK and Norway abstained.
On Iraq, Ireland has supported US and British proposals for the introduction of targeted sanctions. There is an active domestic lobby which seeks an end to all sanctions; for its part, the Government has sought to ease the pressure on the Iraqi economy by urging that curbs on foreign investment be lifted.
African member-states voted overwhelmingly for Ireland's candidacy in the election to the Council. By way of payback, but also reflecting traditional Irish concerns, Ireland has fought to keep African issues in the foreground as much as possible, as well as other issues of Irish interest such as East Timor.
The Frank Aiken era, when Ireland resisted US and right-wing Catholic opinion to press for the right of UN members at least to discuss the admission of "Red" China to UN membership, showed how even a small country could play a significant role.
Today there is more caution and, as an EU member, Ireland tends to take a multilateral, rather than unilateral, approach to foreign policy. At one point the Taoiseach offered to put the skills and experience developed in the Good Friday talks at the disposal of the international community. Ireland has a modest but growing profile on the Middle East: perhaps some Good Friday-style diplomacy might be possible here also.
The verdict on Ireland's first year on the Security Council? Low-key but not ineffective. A more reserved approach at the political level to the US-led war effort might have blunted some of the criticisms back home. Cowen's team deserves an "A" for professionalism and efficiency but this Government's political approach to foreign policy is workmanlike rather than inspiring.