Switzerland's position is instructive in the debate on military neutrality

Where stands Ireland's military neutrality after the events of September 11th? According to Brian Cowen, although we are not members of a military alliance, there can be no neutrality between terrorism and its victims.

He invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defence and the Security Council resolution on terrorism passed 36 hours following the US atrocities to justify the Government's offer of landing facilities at Shannon and overflight clearance to US military aircraft. The decision was copper-fastened last week by a strong statement of support for the US by EU foreign ministers, with Ireland's approval.

His critics say the resolution does not mandate the use of force and that constitutionally the Oireachtas, not the Government, should have approved Ireland's participation in a war. Opinion polls show solid majorities approve of the Government's decision. But much will depend on whether this week's US-led riposte against Afghanistan is indeed targeted, proportionate and accompanied by massive humanitarian aid in the coming weeks. Opinion here, as elsewhere, could shift if it is not.

Introducing the Bill to join the United Nations in 1946 Eamon de Valera said the Charter obligations for collective security, involving the use of force and sanctions, override neutrality. That has been the case since Ireland was admitted to the UN in 1955. It is mitigated, however, by Article 43 of the Charter, which says participation in military sanctions is subject to ratification according to constitutional processes.

Such considerations led Switzerland to reject UN membership in 1945, a decision confirmed overwhelmingly in a referendum in 1986. It will be put to the Swiss people again next year. According to the Swiss Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Joseph Deiss, the current crisis is likely to encourage its people to join the UN.

Switzerland has had a traumatic month, with the mass shootings in Zug and then the collapse of Swissair. The resulting popular fury against the banks and airline managers contrasts with the country's image of quiet normality and corporate power.

Swiss officials believe the crisis will reveal to its citizens just how inter-dependent with its neighbours the country is, and the pitfalls of virtuous isolation. In the longer term, they expect this will be followed by an acknowledgement of how Europeanised the country has become, sufficient to reopen the question of joining the EU.

The Swiss comparison is instructive for Ireland.

In both countries neutrality symbolises national sovereignty, independence and identity for many citizens. Swiss neutrality is much more ancient than Ireland's and legally much the strictest among European neutrals. But in both states there is a debate between those who believe international political and economic integration is the best way for a small state to influence the world and those who prefer to protect national sovereignty.

That debate underlies much of the concern about military neutrality in this crisis. It is also to be found in Austria, Sweden and Finland, the other neutral states, with varying attitudes on joining NATO and participating in the EU's Rapid Reaction Force.

In Austria and Finland neutrality derives from post-war treaties or agreements reached in the mid-1950s. It would require a two-thirds majority in the Austrian parliament to join NATO; since the Socialist Party remains committed to neutrality as a symbol of national identity, that is not possible.

Attitudes are more pragmatic in Finland; but since September 11th opinion polls show a fall-off in support for joining NATO. In Sweden the Social Democrats have altered their vocabulary, preferring to describe their policy as military non-alignment.

Neutrality has changed for all these states since the end of the Cold War. Ireland has been slow to adapt compared to the others, but is now more in the mainstream. Consistently, opinion polls show Irish voters, by more than two-thirds majorities, want to maintain neutrality, although there is no great consensus on precisely what it means.

Most voters think it is compatible with participation in the EU's Rapid Reaction Force and associated political structures, which they support. These are increasingly tied in with NATO through the Partnership for Peace and Balkan peacekeeping exercises. Ireland has just withdrawn from UNIFIL in Lebanon to free troops for the Rapid Reaction Force and is currently re-equipping with Swiss-made armoured personnel carriers. This makes it difficult for the Government to seek a Danish-type protocol exempting Ireland from these new security and military structures following rejection of the Nice treaty last June.

There have been a few voices advocating that Ireland join NATO: if it is fair to ask who Ireland is neutral against after the Cold War, it is also fair to ask who NATO is allied against.

There is a certain parallelism in the evolution of neutral and allied postures. Both relate to the possible transformation of NATO from a collective security alliance to the core component of an inclusive continental security system in Europe.

That would involve a simultaneous change in the United Nations' capacity to provide legitimacy for new security arrangements. Kofi Annan's efforts to do this was recognised by the Nobel committee yesterday. Ireland is centrally involved in it this month in its chair of the Security Council.

It looks as if the anti-terrorism campaign will displace the Cold War as the focus of international security. How that is managed will determine the new shape of world politics. That deserves close attention from Irish people and the media as the crisis unfolds.