Our politicians and diplomats rescued the EU Constitution, but Ireland fell short of its own target on Third World aid, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.
During the first six months of 2004, Ireland was centre-stage in Brussels on what was probably the last opportunity for this country to be the sole occupant of the European presidency.
Every schoolchild now knows that the prospect of agreement among the member-states on the European constitution was extremely dim when Ireland took over from the Italians in January. Having previously impressed foreign observers with its economic performance, Ireland now proved that it was not lacking in political or diplomatic capacity either.
Our politicians and officials tied up a deal which could have major long-term implications for the unity and cohesion of an enlarged European Union, provided that the document is ratified by the peoples or parliaments of the member-states.
Although Ireland's EU presidency had many aspects, the UN dimension was not forgotten. As the EU began to flex its military muscles, Ireland sought to channel that capacity in the direction of the UN. This was broadly in line with the so-called "triple-lock" mechanism required for Irish military activity overseas, which cannot be authorised without a Government decision, Dáil approval and a UN mandate.
In addition, the Irish presidency secured an agreed EU contribution on UN reform, which was submitted to the high-level panel on the issue established by Kofi Annan. This panel's report came out at the beginning of December: the Secretary-General will give his own views in March and world leaders will make decisions on the matter in September. However, on the crucial issue of Security Council reform, Ireland has yet to show its hand in detail. There is no Irish public position on the claims of different countries to council membership. Brazil, Germany, India and Japan are campaigning hard, for example, but the Government is conscious of the fact that there are other countries in the same regions which would be uncomfortable if their neighbours got a promotion. Ireland also has a longstanding commitment to making Africa more prominent on the world stage. However, no final position will have to be taken until next September's special summit in New York.
The other main development in foreign affairs was the replacement of Brian Cowen by Dermot Ahern. By the end of his four years as foreign minister, Cowen had won the respect of counterparts from much larger and more powerful countries with bigger and better-resourced foreign ministries. He was able to hold his own with the likes of Colin Powell, Jack Straw or Joschka Fischer. Cowen's style in Iveagh House gave a foretaste of his approach in the Department of Finance, and wherever else his political destiny might lead him: clear and direct about his intentions, wary of the media spotlight and not given to high-profile innovations, but a solid and safe pair of hands.
One issue on which both Cowen and the Taoiseach took a "forward" position was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where they stood firmly by the right of the late Yasser Arafat to be treated with the respect due to an elected president.
The EU foreign ministers' meeting in Tullamore coincided with a statement by President Bush, following talks with Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, that it was "unrealistic" to expect Israel to pull out from all land captured in the 1967 war. The initial response of the Irish presidency to this development was seen as feeble and opposition spokesmen immediately accused the Minister of being "weak-willed".
Nevertheless, the Tullamore Declaration, adopted at the meeting, specified that agreement between the two sides was necessary for any border changes in the region. This was considered a strong document which took a firm and even-handed approach to the conflict.
The Irish had some success in pushing Africa up the scale of EU priorities, and persuading Russia to extend the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with the EU to the new member-states was an important step.
Critics would have liked the Government to take a clearer public stand on certain human rights issues. Thus, the decision to open diplomatic relations with the military regime in Myanmar/Burma caused surprise. Given the continuing detention of the Nobel Prizewinning opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, there was a feeling in some quarters, particularly the Burma Action Ireland group, that this decision was premature. The exchange of ambassadors has now been put on hold.
Relations with China continued to improve, in line with the Government's Asia Strategy, which has been working well since its inception in 1998. But there seemed to be an unduly compliant approach regarding the wishes of visiting Chinese dignitaries, who managed to avoid media questioning about such issues as the human rights situation in their country.
Dermot Ahern had barely put his feet under his desk at Iveagh House, focusing his attention on Northern Ireland, when the biggest foreign affairs controversy of the year blew up. This came about when his junior minister, Conor Lenihan, suggested it was unrealistic to expect the Government to fulfil its promise to achieve the UN target of allocating 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product in overseas aid by the end of 2007. This commitment had been made by the Taoiseach at the UN Millennium Summit in New York in September 2000 and had helped to garner votes in Ireland's successful bid for membership of the Security Council the following month.
The Taoiseach's promise has now become an albatross around his neck. The excuse being offered for back-tracking is, in essence, that our growth rate is higher than anticipated, leading some critics to suggest that we are pleading excessive wealth for our inability to pay.
Ireland's term on the Security Council may be receding into the past - it concluded in 2002 - but the more recent EU presidency still generates a warm glow. The challenge now, in terms of Government policy, is to win the referendum on the EU constitution. There are other challenges facing Irish foreign policy, not the least of which is adjusting to being an ordinary member-state of the EU and the UN after the heady experience of being at the top of both these major international bodies.
Irish diplomats have shown definitively that they have the skills to perform just about any job required of them. Now there is an opportunity to focus more on the content of foreign policy and reflect more clearly the feelings of many ordinary Irish people about the need to publicly challenge oppression, poverty and human rights abuses around the world. There are always going to be constraints on a small country which is highly dependent on inward investment, but the challenge is to prove that, in gaining prosperity, Ireland has not lost her soul.