The Finns co-operate with NATO all the time. The Swedes and the Austrians export arms. The Swiss say they can't understand why Ireland is not involved in Partnership for Peace.

And these are Europe's neutrals - although some of them now prefer to be called non-aligned. All have become involved in the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace programme. The concept of neutrality means something different to each of them, and allows for much more international military and security co-operation than it allows in Ireland.

It is geography and history, rather than abstract principle, that influenced mainland Europe's neutrals to adopt their distinctive attitude to international military involvement.

Switzerland, long regarded as the purest of the neutrals, based its stance - which included even remaining outside the UN - on pragmatic considerations.

For centuries, conflicts tended to happen on Switzerland's doorstep, literally within earshot. Switzerland's policy of permanent neutrality was designed to assure the rest of Europe that no matter what conflict raged around it, Switzerland would remain neutral, was therefore not a threat and should be left alone to prosper. In addition, the fact that Switzerland was divided into Catholic and Protestant areas meant that taking sides in external conflict could have created internal division.

For centuries this strategy worked. However, there has been a substantial shift in its attitude since the end of the Cold War.

The Swiss ambassador, Willy Hold, told the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs last July: "As the 20th century draws to an end, the threats to most European countries are non-military yet very serious. They do not recognise borders or neutrality and no European country can eliminate them on its own, even by classic military means."

He included terrorism, civil wars, drugs, mass migrations, environmental disasters and the misuse of means of mass destruction among these threats.

In other words, Switzerland's attitude to European security co-operation is changing. Switzerland has joined Partnership for Peace, with strong political and public support. Through PFP Swiss forces have got involved in civilian and military search and rescue training, arms control and disarmament matters and various seminars and workshops. They have not participated in joint military manoeuvres.

Switzerland intends to remain neutral and does not see PFP as a waiting room of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, whose other members include, crucially, the US. NATO membership, according to the ambassador, would not be compatible with neutrality, as NATO is not a universal and non-partisan body.

However, he added : "In our view the wide membership of Partnership for Peace, including all previous Warsaw Pact members as well as Russia and Ukraine through special arrangements, makes it very difficult for anyone to claim that the partnership is incompatible with neutrality."

Mr Hold was reluctant to comment on Ireland's stance. However, he said: "I am sometimes asked in Switzerland how it is that a country that has been so active in the United Nations for about 40 years and has taken part in so many operations that have seen so many Irish citizens die - more than 70, I believe - in action, seems reluctant to join another organisation where the risks in purely human terms are probably less, where there is much more consensus involved and where Irish interests are more directly touched on . . . I have to admit that sometimes I am asked these questions but I am still working on a convincing, all-embracing answer."

Austria signed a treaty in 1955 under which the Allies left and has followed a strictly neutral position since, although its arms industry continued to produce and export weapons.

The end of the Cold War brought about a fundamental rethink in Austria. Its ambassador to Ireland, Michael Breisky, who also spoke to the Oireachtas committee, said joining PFP came from the imperative "to achieve and improve inter-operability of Austrian peacekeeping forces with other participants in [international peacekeeping] missions, mostly from NATO countries."

Austria signed the framework document for participation in PFP in 1995. The ambassador said it aims to remain capable and ready to contribute to military operations under the UN and/or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE.

He also envisaged the development of "co-operative military relations with NATO for the purpose of joint planning, training and exercises to strengthen the ability of partners to undertake missions in the fields of peacekeeping, search and rescue, humanitarian operations and others as may subsequently be agreed."

Austria also signed an agreement enabling PFP forces - from NATO and non-NATO states - to cross Austrian territory.

There is complete political consensus - "total consensus", the ambassador said - among Austria's political parties that joining was the right thing to do. The Conservative Party in coalition - which has defence and foreign affairs portfolios - is in favour of joining NATO. The larger Social Democratic Party predominantly is not.

Rather than using the word neutrality, Sweden's ambassador, Peter Osvald, defined Sweden's policy as one of "non-participation in military alliances", as a means of safeguarding freedom and independence. But non-participation in military alliances does not "restrict Sweden from fully participating in the emerging multifaceted Euro-Atlantic security co-operation".

Sweden is an arms exporter, though with under 1 per cent of the world arms trade, is not a major supplier. Sweden sees no conflict between military nonalignment and participation in PFP. It decides on the level of involvement. In 1997, for example, Sweden participated in 15 PFP field exercises. It regularly updates its individual partnership programme agreed with NATO.

There is a regular PFP training centre in Sweden. Swedish officers have gone on secondment to NATO, including with the SFOR force in former Yugoslavia. Sweden's ambassador to Belgium is also accredited to NATO and the WEU. Sweden is also involved in the European-Atlantic Partnership Council formed in 1987 to give PFP a political dimension.

The defence of Sweden's territory remains a matter for Sweden, which in turn extends no security guarantees to other states, the ambassador said.

For the Finns, co-operation with NATO is an everyday activity. It is not a member of NATO, but does not rule it out in the future. It is a pragmatic, not a principled decision.

Finland joined PFP in 1994 and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at its inception in 1997. Finland is in the EU, an observer at the Western European Union and an active but non-NATO participant in PFP and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.

The Finnish ambassador, Timo Jalkanen, said PFP allows Finland ensure its forces can operate with those of other European states. It says this is essential in participation in NATO-led missions such as SFOR (although Ireland is involved in SFOR without PFP participation).

Finland sends officers to be involved in joint planning of NATO operations. Mr Jalkanen said Finland's policy was "military non-alliance based on a credible national defence capability".

All appear to accept the view that many modern-day peacekeeping mandates cannot be fulfilled by lightly armed troops in blue berets.