Russia, the Republic of Ireland, Croatia and Bosnia were the only European countries not at NATO's 50th anniversary summit, but then we were not invited, as we belong neither to NATO nor to Partnership for Peace (PfP).
Russia, which is in the PfP, refused to attend because of its objections to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.
Ireland was invited to join NATO when it was set up 50 years ago but declined because of Partition. Ireland was also invited to become part of Partnership for Peace, introduced in 1994 to allow non-NATO members to co-operate on security matters. Successive governments felt unable to join PfP because of Ireland's neutrality policy although such a full-blooded neutral as Switzerland did so. The present Government plans to join PfP after scrapping plans to hold a referendum on membership.
The 19 full alliance members and the 25 PfP countries come together regularly in Brussels in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which met in Washington last weekend as part of the 50th anniversary summit.
How Ireland is in a position that it was not involved in a gathering of 44 countries which included the other European neutral states really needs some explaining. And, of course, there was no Irish presence at the summit to answer queries about our isolated position which were being addressed to the NATO press office.
Despite our absence, decisions were approved which affect us as members of the EU and will affect us if we join PfP. The Washington summit agreed a number of initiatives to make PfP "more operational and ensure greater partner involvement in appropriate decision-making and planning", according to the communique.
The basic divide remains, however, between the NATO alliance itself, where the 19 members are bound together by a mutual defence treaty and obliged to regard an at tack on any member as an attack on them all, and the 25 PfP countries, which enter into co-operation arrangements with NATO and have no obligations on mutual defence.
NATO agreed, however, at the summit in its new "strategic concept" to consult any active PfP member if it "perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence or security". Albania and Macedonia are examples of such countries at present.
The summit agreed to strengthen co-operation in NATO-led PfP operations in the "Euro-Atlantic" area, which has not been precisely defined but does not extend to the Middle East and Iraq. Political guidance, planning and deeper military co-operation, "with the goal of improving the ability of partner forces and capabilities to operate with the alliance", are listed. These kind of activities are taking place in Bosnia at present.
Kosovo may be a future area for PfP members to operate if a peaceful solution is found. As the region is outside NATO territory, any operations there by the alliance are not governed by the mutual defence clause laid down in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty but are supposed to be covered by an appropriate UN Security Council resolution.
The summit, however, left this question of UN cover for non-NATO territory operations ambiguous. President Chirac called the summit a "diplomatic triumph" because it laid down that these non-Article 5 operations must have UN Security Council approval but US officials scoffed at this interpretation.
The NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia outside NATO territory, for example, are not sanctioned by a UN resolution. Russia would certainly have vetoed such a resolution.
The summit communique says the NATO members "recognise the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security", but there is no indication that the council has to authorise all future NATO operations.
Ireland is directly involved in the summit's decisions concerning the European Security Defence Initiative because it envisages a role for the EU in security operations where the US will not be in action. These operations would be essentially crisis management, peace-keeping and humanitarian.
The summit's decision here is in line with what was agreed in Berlin in 1996 about the "European Pillar" in NATO. In Berlin it was agreed that the revived Western European Union, an alliance which comprises some EU and NATO members, could conduct operations using NATO assets but without direct US involvement.
Since Berlin, the EU has taken steps which could lead to the WEU being absorbed into the enlarged Community as it moves towards a "common defence". This movement was reinforced by the recent St Malo Franco-British declaration on developing a European defence system.
The US has kept a close eye on this "European Pillar" concept, first articulated by President Kennedy in the early 1960s, and it is clear that Washington will continue to exercise some control. What was interesting in the summit communique was how the WEU role as spelled out in Berlin three years ago has now been replaced by that of the EU itself.
Thus, after acknowledging the "resolve of the EU to have the capacity for autonomous action so that it can take decisions and approve military action where the alliance as a whole is not engaged", NATO goes on to say: "We therefore stand ready to define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of the alliance."
There are further references to "assured EU access to NATO planning capabilities able to contribute to military planning for EU-led operations". Britain and France, as leading members of NATO, would have had strong influence in the wording of this section, which virtually presupposes that their plan to absorb WEU into the EU will eventually come about.
The US is favourable to such a development but on condition that it respects the "three Ds" laid down by Secretary of State Ms Madeleine Albright - "no de-coupling, duplication or discrimination". In other words, NATO must have a say (no European caucus), no duplication of military structures and no discrimination against non-EU members such as Turkey.
Kosovo is seen as a defining moment for the future of European security. NATO came out of its week end summit insisting it would prevail in bringing the refugees back to their shattered homeland and strengthening the Balkans with economic as well as military aid.
The EU will have a primary role in the economic aspect, but in a future European crisis, NATO may let the EU take over the security role as well. That is what the summit foresees, whether Ireland likes it or not.