"Confucius say Minister who shoot himself in foot with other foot in mouth have no leg to stand on."

The comment from a senior Department of Foreign Affairs official about a particular Minister was intended mainly to raise a laugh over its cleverness. But it also displayed an attitude that experienced foreign-policy specialists have had towards some ministers who have spent time in Iveagh House.

Ministers know their officials do not always accept their notions uncritically. One former minister, paying tribute to the late Sean MacBride at an internal departmental function said: "I'm sure many of you here worked with him, and I'm sure some of you worked against him."

One Fianna Fail minister on his first day in Iveagh House remarked to an alarmed official: "I know this place is full of Blueshirts, you know. Well, I'm going to root them out."

Some Fianna Fail Ministers have regarded the Department of Foreign Affairs with suspicion, seeing many of its officials as politically and culturally alien. The Department does, for example, have a higher than average proportion of Trinity College Dublin graduates and of Clongowes boys.

Since Garret FitzGerald's tenure there in the 1970s, Fianna Fail politicians will tell you Iveagh House contains a high proportion of Fine Gael-leaning individuals. The 1973-1977 Fine Gael-Labour coalition saw the portrayal of the State's position abroad in relation to the Northern conflict as of critical importance. That government was challenging traditional assumptions about nationalism as it cracked down on violent republicanism. Meanwhile, the IRA's violent campaign continued relentlessly.

Dr FitzGerald was minister for foreign affairs during this period, and he promoted many people of a Fine Gael outlook on the North, while many of a Fianna Fail view felt unfairly passed over. The Fianna Fail minister was right: the place did have a higher than average proportion of "Blueshirts".

Charles Haughey as Taoiseach in the early 1980s failed in an attempt to shift from his post the then ambassador to Washington, Sean Donlon. Mr Haughey regarded Mr Donlon - who later went to work as programme manager to Mr John Bruton while he was Taoiseach - as leaning towards Fine Gael and as unsympathetic to Haughey's line on the North.

The politicisation of the appointment process in the 1970s and some of the 1980s has become somewhat less pronounced in recent years. The current dispute between the Minister and Secretary-General is not about competing visions of foreign policy. Indeed Mr Andrews and Mr MacKernan share an instinctive, somewhat left-of-centre outlook on many foreign-policy questions and would not differ on major issues.

While people within the Department now say they can identify "factions" formed around particular individuals, they insist that most diplomats simply try to get on with their jobs without joining caucuses. Such factions as are there cannot simply be given party political labels: they are as much about personal loyalties and self-interest as they are about political outlook.

"People from known party political backgrounds have worked in sensitive positions such as private secretary with ministers of a different party, and there have been no problems," says one diplomat. "Up to now there were very few people who would be seen unambiguously as being in one particular camp."

There is no guarantee that that situation will not change. In the Dail this week, Mr Andrews fuelled the bitterness within the Department by some remarkably sneering references to the secretary general.

Mr MacKernan, said the Minister, had advised him to "run off and see the Taoiseach and be a good boy . . ." In fact, Mr MacKernan, had "respectfully" requested Mr Andrews to inform the Taoiseach, with whom he would be discussing promotions, of the reactions of those diplomats who had learned they were to be transferred to places they did not wish to go.

Mr Andrews is utterly unapologetic about what he did. He is not a rubber stamp, he said. He might well do it again if it suits him, he asserts. He knew two of the officials he personally promoted and thought them to be very good. anaiste Ms Mary Harney knew the third, and also thought highly of him.

Mr Andrews's stance can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting that during his tenure, having a cabinet minister as a sponsor will be a major advantage for First Secretaries seeking promotion to Counsellor level.

It is a stark contrast to the traditional promotion process in the Department. On June 19th last the Department's Management Advisory Committee (MAC) devoted 12 hours to just one topic: who should be appointed to four available positions of Counsellor.

Before each person at the meeting was a list of all 110 serving First Secretaries and Assistant Principal Officers. Because of the huge numbers involved, the eight heads of division present had to concentrate on the 68 most senior officers in the grade. Thirty-four of these had been in their positions for over 15 years, 16 for 10 to 15 years and 18 for six to 10 years.

Having thus brought the numbers under consideration down from 110 to 68, the meeting quickly whittled this down to 40 for detailed discussions. A second list of 22 emerged from this process. These were all "regarded as having strongly displayed the competencies required for the Counsellor grade."

Detailed consideration of each of the 22 took place against a list of criteria which had been drawn up for the purpose. Each member of the MAC was then asked to identify the six candidates they believed were the strongest. Thirteen received votes, ranging from one candidate who received endorsement from seven of the eight MAC members present down to four who received one vote each.

The MAC agreed to recommend the person with seven votes to the Minister. Another name was dropped from the list and an 11name shortlist remained for the remaining three jobs. After yet more discussions, the names of Sean MacDonald, Oliver Grogan, Declan Kelly and Ray Bassett were agreed for recommendation to the Minister.

On July 2nd Mr Andrews sent a memo to the Secretary-General agreeing to these four promotions. He noted a suggestion from the Secretary-General that promotions procedures be looked at and announced his intention to bring forward his own ideas on this. He also told him the Cabinet had agreed to upgrade the posts of Consul General in Boston, New York, Chicago and San Francisco to Counsellor level.

Mr MacKernan sent a memo back to the Minister saying the decision to upgrade the Consulates in the US was a "most welcome and positive development". He added: "I understand you wish to promote Niall Holohan and Conor O'Riordan. I would like to request a meeting as soon as possible to discuss with you the measures necessary to give effect to this . . ."

But Mr Andrews clearly considered such a meeting unnecessary. He sent a one-line memo to Mr MacKernan: "I direct that Mr Conor O'Riordan and Mr Niall Holohan be promoted to Counsellor rank."

The manner of the decision contrasted extraordinarily with the meticulous procedure used by the MAC for the other promotions. But it was part of a pattern begun by Mr Andrews in May, when he caused consternation to the most senior officials by intervening directly in the transfers of a number of ambassadors.

In May the Secretary-General put together a complex set of diplomatic postings and reassignments that were to see new ambassadors appointed to Bonn, Madrid, the Holy See, Lisbon, Lagos, Pretoria and the UN in New York as well as a number of key senior posts in Dublin and one in Brussels.

But Mr Andrews simply rewrote the list, in some cases sending officials who thought they were heading with their families to one particular location to a different continent for the next four years or so. Several of these senior individuals were deeply unhappy.

It is traditional for a minister to have an involvement in ambassadorial appointments, but the level of his involvement in this particular round of changes was very high.

His final intervention came this month. The MAC put forward three names for promotion to Assistant Secretary rank. Mr Andrews dropped one and substituted that of Mr Brian Nason, who now becomes head of the Protocol division.

The secretary-general - or if he chooses, the minister - has unparalleled power over the lives of those working in the Department. In all employments, individuals can feel unfairly treated in the way their career progresses. But in the Department of Foreign Affairs your superiors can decide not only the speed of your promotion but where and in what conditions you and your family will live.

Diplomats are not simply being precious about their institution when they complain about political interference in promotions. The job puts intense pressure on family life. Spouses find it almost impossible to develop their own careers, children's development is interrupted - often at important stages - by their diplomat parent's assignments, and parents and their children lose contact for lengthy periods with their friends.

As a result, marital difficulties and breakdowns are more common than in other jobs. Some diplomats also talk of the loneliness that can accompany postings abroad, and the higher incidence of alcohol-related problems than in some other careers.

"There is often intense loneliness," says a former diplomat. "You are in another country, you might not speak the language, you move in an entirely artificial social circle where you can be left quite isolated and, in a classic Graham Greene sort of way, people turn to the bottle."

There is a double jeopardy in this regard. As a diplomat, alcohol tends to flow freely wherever a diplomat goes, at no charge to the drinker.

There is a problem of unfulfilled expectations as well. Individuals recruited by the Department are generally of a high academic standard, bright, intelligent, often creative and imaginative people. Yet while some foreign postings are high-powered, some ambassadors posted to states not central to Ireland's interests abroad find themselves underused. Much of their role is representational, attending receptions and national day celebrations, while having a limited amount of intellectually challenging and demanding work.

Promotions and postings, therefore, have an immense bearing on personal happiness and job satisfaction. A Third Secretary, for example, can find him or herself in their mid20s sent to Moscow, Beijing or Washington, where they may have a front-row seat at momentous events. Alternatively, they may find themselves in a dimly lit back office looking at passport applications.

Similarly, an ambassador may find himself or herself running crucial negotiations in Brussels, London or Washington, or may end up in a relatively unimportant, dusty and inhospitable foreign place at a string of receptions.

All of these difficulties come to the fore in people's minds when the issue of promotions arises. In a memo sent by the Secretary-General to the Minister on July 3rd, he stated: "There were problems in filling all the First Secretary posts abroad which were due to be rotated in 1998. A significant number of officers did not wish to be considered for transfer for personal reasons generally associated with either their children's education or serious health problems of family members. In order to address this difficulty a number of officers have agreed to serve an additional year abroad."

Despite all this there are many who love it, although few are happy with the career structure, which has now been opened up to public scrutiny.

One source maintains that despite the media attention on the top level, life goes on largely as normal among the lower ranks. "The tension is out of the ordinary", says one source, "but the Department continues with its work. The danger is that some people would stop doing their jobs and spend their time watching each other, but so far this has not happened."