RETAINING Ireland's military neutrality is as traditional a pledge in Irish political parties' election manifestos as a commitment to bringing peace to Northern Ireland and treasuring the national language.
This time, however, two of the six parties represented in Dail Eireann have omitted the customary genuflection to neutrality. Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats say European security structures are changing rapidly, and Ireland must therefore reexamine its noninvolvement in military alliances.
Fianna Fail, Labour, Democratic Left and the Green Party all make a specific commitment in their manifestos to retaining neutrality. None of the six parties advocates Irish membership of a military alliance and all say they want Ireland to continue involvement in international peacekeeping.
But when it comes to deciding how to respond to the changing security structures in Europe in the wake of the Cold War, there are clear divisions within both government blocs on offer to the electorate.
The days when the world was divided into west and east, the capitalist and communist worlds, NATO and the Warsaw Pact made it easier to define Irish neutrality. Ireland was firmly rooted in the western capitalist world, but stood aloof from NATO, the military alliance that represented it.
Now there is agreement among all parties that the end of the Cold War has created a new security situation in Europe, and that Ireland must look at its role in what has become known as the continent's "security architecture" differently than in the past.
As the European Union develops, there is also the distinct possibility that it will move towards developing a defence union. All parties recognise the difficulties Ireland might then face if it wishes to hold on to the traditional concept of neutrality. There the agreement ends, with two views on how Ireland should respond.
One is that as the Warsaw Pact has dissolved and NATO is in transition and actively courting potential east European members, the world is no longer divided into simple partisan alliances. Europe has still to settle into a new security structure, new security bodies have emerged such as the NATO sponsored Partnership for Peace programme and Ireland should consider involvement in these.
The other view is that while the Cold War has gone, NATO as a partisan, nuclear armed military alliance lives on. Proponents of this view say that NATO has resolutely refused to vanish along with its original raison d'etre - the Cold War - but is now taking the opportunity to expand its role and become the dominant force in world security. Ireland should therefore have nothing to do with it or any of its works - including Partnership for Peace, known as PFP and instead support the development of non partisan, non nuclear security structures.
Labour, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats are on the side of greater engagement with European security structures. The attitudes of Fianna Fail, Democratic Left and the Green Party to such engagement range from suspicion to hostility.
Dick Spring - Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour leader has said he personally favours Irish involvement in PFP and that he does not believe it would compromise Irish neutrality. His party's manifesto hedges on the issue, and there are different views within Labour on it.
Fine Gael states no view on neutrality, but notes that the policy cannot be changed without a referendum. The party says: "Fine Gael is committed to Ireland making a full contribution to the security of Europe and the world" but does not spell it out.
It also hedges on PFP: Fine Gael supports Ireland's exploration of the possibility of joining Partnership For Peace," it says.
What appears to have prevented a Government decision to become involved in PFP has been the attitude of Democratic Left. It opposes Irish involvement in PFP, saying that this would tie Ireland into a NATO sponsored body, and therefore compromise neutrality.
This view is shared by Fianna Eli and the Green Party. Both manifestos oppose PFP membership. Fianna Fail's foreign affairs spokesman Ray Burke last month quoted the US ambassador to NATO in his support: "Partnership for Peace, has been described by the American ambassador to NATO as nothing less than second class membership of NATO, and a clear step on the road to full membership of NATO", he said.
Patricia McKenna of the Green Party last week said involvement in PFP meant involvement with NATO, a "Cold War relic" committed to retaining nuclear weapons. Ireland should have nothing to do with it.
The Progressive Democrats manifesto recognises "the need for closer military integration and cooperation with our European partners" and favours "Irish participation in peacekeeping and peace enforcement initiatives, including Partnership For Peace".
PFP is not in itself a military alliance, and signing up does not involve making any commitment to come to the defence of other members, or being obliged to join in any military operation. Participating states negotiate their own agreements with NATO, defining the extent of their involvement.
Ireland could, for example, decide to become involved in joint training operations for peacekeeping missions in places such as Bosnia Herzegovina. Other states can and do try to use PFP as a stepping stone for UN membership.
Those opposing PFP membership suggest that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe should become the pre eminent body in European security. States from what were the eastern and western European blocs are members, as is the US. The OSCE is therefore a nonpartisan body, through which European security issues can best be resolved.
The problem with this is that the most powerful European states - and the United States - do not share the view that the OSCE should develop in this way. The western military powers are firmly committed to operating through NATO. Having allowed a UN force to flounder for four years in Bosnia as an observer of the genocide, the military powers finally acted resolutely through NATO.
Democratic Left's theoretical journal, Times Change, noted this earlier this year. What it termed NATO interests had sabotaged UN, OSCE and EU peace initiatives in Bosnia for over three years. They had placed UN, OSCE and EU defensive, peacekeeping and conflict prevention structures under massive attack". Having done so, they were then putting NATO forward as successful peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Democratic Left agreed recently that Irish troops could be sent to Bosnia Herzegovina to participate in the NATO commanded, UN mandated force, Sfor. Fianna Fail also found no problem with this. Only the Greens objected.
Ireland and other nonaligned EU states can continue to argue that the UN and OSCE be the predominant security bodies, but it seems that the major powers will continue to act through their old, partisan, nuclear armed alliance, NATO.
The question dividing the parties is whether Ireland can become involved in NATO's PFP while retaining complete freedom of action in the security sphere, and not being drawn towards compromise on the old principle of noninvolvement in military alliances. Fianna Fail, Democratic Left and the Green Party still say no.
Our membership of the EU may yet produce the most serious challenge to traditional thinking on military neutrality. Within the EU, France and Germany are proposing a merger of the EU with the Western European Union, which is the European pillar of NATO. All parties oppose such a move, and Mr Spring warned last March that Ireland would veto any such proposal.
All parties except the PDs oppose closer formal relations with the WEU, although all but the Green Party are open to Irish participation in any future WEU peacekeeping missions.
The Amsterdam EU summit next month will not confront Ireland with any tough decisions on European defence. But the issue could yet confront Irish politicians with the most difficult dilemma yet in the neutrality debate.