Disagreements involving diplomats normally remain as just that, diplomatic disagreements discussed and resolved in diplomatic terms with a minimum of publicity. But the series of dramatic interventions by Mr David Andrews in promotions and postings has resulted in the spread of a poisonous atmosphere in Iveagh House and now the exposure of dirty diplomatic linen in public.
While the dirty linen has only emerged into public view this week, the atmosphere at the top in Iveagh House has been changing since Mr Andrews's appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs last October. Personal relations between him and the Secretary-General, Mr Padraic MacKernan, were not good from the start.
Mr Andrews has also had differences with a number of other senior officials. Yesterday he repeated his view of himself that he is an independent-minded Minister, not a "rubber stamp" for his officials.
Some officials see the same trait differently, saying he will not stick to Government policy lines as outlined in briefs prepared by officials and is capable of unorthodox gestures, the type that always alarm officials, such as his trip to Algeria late last year after which he warmly praised the Algerian President.
But nothing has upset Iveagh House officials as much as the Minister's involvement in promotions. It is wrong to portray this disagreement as simply a personality clash between a Minister and a Secretary-General. The upset within the Department at recent developments is widespread.
To understand the level of bitterness and upset at Mr Andrews's interventions it is necessary to understand that a career in the diplomatic service is different. A change of job in the Department of Foreign Affairs has more dramatic consequences than a change in any other Department.
It determines, for example, whether a diplomat, possibly with spouse and children, will spend the next four years or so living in New York or New Delhi, Lagos or London, Warsaw or Washington, Kuala Lumpur or Copenhagen, Maputo or Mount Merrion, Dartry or Dar-es-Salaam.
In the long lead-up to a decision on a foreign posting, diplomats therefore live in a state of constant hope and fear concerning their next job. Coupled with this is a major promotional blockage at First Secretary level, with opportunities to rise further relatively few.
It was into this situation that Mr Andrews decided to step on three occasions over the past four months to impose his own decisions on promotion and transfers.
The promotional blockage owes much to the expansion of the Department in the 1970s, when large numbers were recruited at the entry level, Third Secretary. Now, two decades later, dozens of these people are at First Secretary level, stuck under a promotional ceiling through which few can pass. Many have immense experience for their rank, and are regarded as very capable and well qualified for promotion. But there are not enough posts.
There are just over 100 diplomats at First Secretary level, with 55 at the next level up, that of Counsellor. So when two Counsellor posts were filled in July - by Mr Conor O'Riordan and Mr Niall Holohan - by a one-line ministerial memo rather than the traditionally exhaustive meritocratic process, many were furious.
It was seen as part of a pattern. Just two months earlier Mr Andrews announced his decision to intervene directly in a complex set of diplomatic postings that saw new ambassadors appointed to Bonn, Madrid, the Holy See, Lisbon, Nigeria, Pretoria and the UN in New York as well as a number of key senior posts in Dublin and one in Brussels.
Mr Andrews directed that a number of changes be made to the transfers planned by the Secretary-General, Mr MacKernan. The majority of the ambassadors to be moved expressed deep unhappiness as a result.
It was after this intervention by Mr Andrews that Mr MacKernan asked him to inform the Taoiseach of the fact that the majority of the ambassadors to be appointed had expressed "deep unhappiness and concern" at the moves. "It is unprecedented that so many senior officers in this Department should be transferred or appointed unwillingly to positions despite their formal misgivings," Mr MacKernan wrote to Mr Andrews. Unprecedented or not, the moves went ahead.
There was a third intervention by Mr Andrews in promotions. The Management Advisory Council recommended three people for promotion to Assistant Secretary, which is ambassadorial level. But Mr Andrews directed that one of these be dropped and instead chose to promote Mr Brian Nason, who is now head of the Protocol division in the Department.
Defenders of Mr Andrews's actions say he is perfectly entitled to promote whomever he wishes, and that past ministers have also got involved in making decisions about appointments to key posts. It is, however, the level of the Minister's involvement that is unusual. It is considered unprecedented for him to become involved in decisions concerning middle-ranking promotions from First Secretary to Counsellor.
While relations between Mr Andrews and Mr MacKernan are poor, the Minister has forged a close relationship with the Second Secretary in the Department, Mr Dermot Gallagher, who is also head of the Anglo-Irish division and regarded as one of the most able within the Department.
In 1980 Mr Gallagher took the unusual step of moving from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Finance to be Mr Michael O'Kennedy's press officer. He later served as Mr O'Kennedy's deputy chef de cabinet when he was European commissioner.
Mr Andrews has also relied heavily for advice on his private secretary, Mr Conor O'Riordan, whom he recently promoted to Counsellor level and who has just been appointed to the newly-created post of ConsulGeneral in Cardiff.
Civil servants from other departments often suggest that Foreign Affairs officials regard themselves as a cut above the rest. The recruitment process, for example, is more exhaustive than for the general Civil Service. Up to 10,000 holders of first or second-class honours degrees might sit the initial examination, which consists of multiple choice questions in areas including mathematics, linguistics and decision-making ability.
One hundred and fifty are called for a second exam. Thirty come back for an exam and an interview, following which a panel of 15 or so is formed, from which vacancies are filled as they arise.
Meritocracy is at the heart of recruitment, and also at the heart of the exhaustive consideration that the Department's management Advisory Committee (MAC) puts into making promotions decisions. But, according to one former diplomat, meritocracy does not simply involve the promotion of meritorious people. It also requires that the procedures used be seen to be scrupulously fair and free from political or personal favouritism.
"People need to know that their careers will be decided on a predictable, merit basis", he says. "If that system is seen to be threatened by a personality-based reward system you are striking at the heart of morale."