It will, perhaps, come as a shock to John Bruton to hear that he has in recent times started to sound like one of the most eloquent exponents of Irish neutrality. The element of surprise might arise from the fact that Mr Bruton and his party, Fine Gael, have for a long time been to the fore in pushing or dragging Ireland into various forms of alliance with the military power blocs, all the time seeking to undermine Irish neutrality to soften us up for such mergers.
However, last week, and again in this newspaper yesterday, Mr Bruton did Ireland's tradition of military neutrality a great service by his criticisms of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
Mr Bruton's remarks about the predictability of the exodus from Kosovo and his attack on the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, for saying that the refugee crisis could not have been foreseen were courageous and well observed. His call for a cessation of the bombing over the Orthodox Easter, to allow for talks, was sensible.
This was a long way from the conventional image of Irish neutrality - as portrayed by its opponents - of the slinking, mealy-mouthed fence-sitter, dispensing blessings in scrupulously equal measure on both sides of a conflict, regardless of relative strength or objective morality.
THE irony is that if his party had already won the argument about neutrality, Mr Bruton would be less free to make such statements. A sense of that contradiction may explain his subsequent assertion that if Ireland had not been "sitting on the sidelines" when the decisions about military action in Yugoslavia were being made it would have had a greater opportunity to counter the "simplistic view" which led to the NATO decision to intervene.
If Mr Bruton were Taoiseach of an Ireland with full membership of NATO he would have had to bite his tongue and acquiesce in the dropping of hell from the heavens over Yugoslavia. He would not have been in any position to criticise our military partners, still less accuse them of telling untruths.
This highlights something which for a long time should have been obvious but which the disingenuousness of those seeking to sell out on Irish neutrality has served to conceal: being neutral does not mean standing idly by.
It is true that Irish neutrality has been the source of much cant and hypocrisy in the distant and recent past but that does not mean it is no longer valuable or worthy of retention. It is true, for example, that both Fianna Fail and the Labour Party have for years treated Irish neutrality as something to be, in opposition, paraded as a virtue and, in government, offered for sale.
The present Government's efforts to present as a moral issue its proposal to enlist Ireland in the NATO-sponsored Partnership For Peace, for example, are threadbare and morally bankrupt. Such immorality is nowhere as visible as in the lack of integrity of those politicians who have suddenly been "persuaded" that the changing nature of international affairs now calls on them to renege on every principle previously articulated.
Three years ago, speaking as leader of the opposition in a Dail debate on the PFP, Mr Bertie Ahern said any attempt to join without a referendum would be "a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic". More recently, as Taoiseach, Mr Ahern announced his intention to renege on this and other previous commitments.
As usual, what debate there has been about this has followed the line of maximum cynicism. I noticed a letter on the Letters to the Editor page last week from a prospective Labour Party candidate berating Fianna Fail for its lack of principle. Yet Labour Party activists would do well to keep their guns in their holsters when it comes to pointing up U-turns on this issue. For the former Labour Party leader, Mr Dick Spring, has won in perpetuity the T-shirt for this form of two-timing.
The Labour Party was once among the most passionate upholders of Irish neutrality. The party's constitution states that "the Labour Party's commitment to peace means that we will seek to solve disputes through peaceful means, turn our backs on the barbarism of war, and strengthen our position as a militarily neutral nation outside all military alliances".
In its manifesto for the 1992 election, the party pledged to take "all steps necessary", including seeking a constitutional affirmation, to defend Irish neutrality, claiming that it was obvious that "other Irish political parties are prepared to make very major concessions on the status of our neutrality in response to the views of other political forces within the NATO/WEU ambit".
In government between 1993 and 1997, Mr Spring was the most active ever advocate of Ireland's membership of the PFP, leaving Mr Ahern's Government with a difficult act to follow when it came to crawling before the world's military superpowers.
To its credit, Fine Gael has been consistent on this issue for a long time, maintaining that Ireland had a moral duty to participate in the military life of its allies in Europe. For all that one might disagree, this position cannot be faulted on the basis that it is dishonest or cynical.
Where I would find fault with this stance is on the basis that it is mistaken, a knee-jerk response to the guilt engendered by dishonest and misplaced criticism, and an unnecessary sellingout of an important freedom to interests over which we would afterwards have less rather than more influence.
EVERYONE knows that the PFP was established by NATO as part of its strategy of enlargement, to facilitate military co-operation between existing NATO members, neutral states and the emerging democracies of eastern Europe.
The only purpose of Ireland's joining would be to provide a fait accompli to be presented later to the electorate as evidence that we had already lost our virginity and should now go all the way.
As previously with European integration, the electorate is being forced to yield another slice of salami under the pretence that it represents a minor development of the existing position. The next slice will be fatal to Irish neutrality, but it will be levied in the same way and by the same logic.
There is, therefore, an urgent need to re-examine the fundamentals of our stance, but without assuming in advance that the outcome of such discussions will be stronger links with military alliances, as opposed to clarification of the principles of Irish neutrality with a view to enhancing our independence.
The word "neutral" may itself be a problem. Perhaps a more accurate description of Ireland's position would be a word like "uncommitted", conveying a sense that, while we are prepared to participate on the side of good against evil, we are not about to sign up uncritically to one side regardless of future circumstances.
Just because we do not want to sell our souls does not mean we cannot point out the difference between right and wrong.