For some, neutrality denotes a lack of priorities, principles and responsibility and has become associated with lazy pragmatism, writes Rory Keane.
In reflecting on the recent presidency of the EU, it is evident that Ireland's sense of neutrality is becoming less relevant. Irrespective of the historical precedent, that neutrality today resides more comfortably in the annals of history, rather than in the present.
While historical precedent explains Ireland's much-vaunted neutrality stance, there is in fact no reference in the Constitution to neutrality. Article 28.3.1 simply states that "war shall not be declared, and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann", while Article 29.4.9 enables Ireland to opt out of the common defence clause.
Thus, in constitutional terms, Ireland obliges itself not to go to war. However, this obligation does not amount to neutrality as such. On the contrary, in Irish foreign policy terms decisions are taken based on strategic interest and pragmatism (witness the vague response to the US invasion of Iraq).
In addition, with the accelerated development of EU foreign policy, the pretence of Irish neutrality has been even further diluted.
For example, the EU Presidency Conclusions of June 18th, 2004, as steered and crafted by the Irish presidency, prepare the ground for the EU to send 7,000 soldiers to Bosnia later this year, marking the EU's biggest military mission to date.
Also, as outlined in the EU constitution, member-states will appoint a first-ever EU foreign minister and a foreign service in the coming years. Elsewhere, the 2003 European Security Strategy has given impetus to EU foreign policy, of which Ireland is an integral part.
What does this mean for Ireland, an island that has traditionally resided awkwardly in the arena of international affairs, with benign support for UN peacekeeping operations the only exception to an otherwise piecemeal approach?
While it may seem surprising to those who laud neutrality, actually Ireland appears increasingly comfortable in the arena of EU foreign policy-making and implementation.
It is also worth noting that Ireland did not object to the creation of a new EU foreign minister post or EU external service as part of the EU constitution, while a quick glance at the EU Presidency Conclusions manifests that the country is capable of steering quite ambitious EU foreign policy priorities.
In searching for reasons official Ireland has discarded - in practice if not in theory - hitherto worshipped neutrality, both mentality and practical reasoning hold true. In mentality terms, it would seem that Ireland progressively no longer sees itself as an island, but rather as a part of the global governance network.
More than anything else, the collapse of the Twin Towers spelt the end for the so-called Western world of isolated, disengaged and inward foreign policy, as it became evident that security threats know no borders.
A new discourse, including buzz words like "conflict prevention", "preventive diplomacy", "anti-terrorism measures", "international engagement" and "peace support efforts" signalled Ireland's new international approach post-9/11.
In fact, this new approach can be traced back to the dawning of the post-Cold War era. Framed within the 1999 EU European Security and Defence Policy and the 2003 European Security Strategy, Ireland has set about developing a "security community", not only within its borders - as was its traditional approach to foreign policy - but also to assist in creating such a community outside, in Europe and the wider world.
Ireland also perhaps feels more comfortable as part of EU foreign policy, because it is clearly decoupled from the hard security of "coalitions of the willing" or NATO, which took on a callous face during the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo in 1999.
Unlike NATO, EU foreign policy has a strong civilian crisis management and developmental focus, in addition to a military agenda. The civilian focus sits comfortably with Ireland's traditional foreign policy priorities, while the military focus in couched in the discourse of human security, conflict resolution and peace support efforts.
It would also seem that the Ireland of the 21st century is somewhat less parochial in nature. In this sense the neutrality doctrine is no longer considered by all to be noble, but seen as a "group think" mantra of the past.
For many, Irish neutrality denotes a lack of priorities, principles and responsibility and has become associated with lazy pragmatism.
In any case there is nothing neutral about the June 2004 EU Presidency Conclusions. There is nothing neutral about the prioritisation of Ireland's developmental and humanitarian assistance. There is nothing neutral about US warplanes on the runway at Shannon Airport. Thus, seemingly, neutrality only exists in Ireland's psyche, rather than in its foreign policy prioritisation.
An acceptance that neutrality is more imagined than real would be a positive step, as it would enable Ireland for the first time, perhaps, to have a conversation with itself about where it stands on international affairs.
Such a dialogue is necessary, as it would allow citizens the opportunity to decide on worthy objectives and how best those objectives should be pursued.
Dr Rory Keane is a senior researcher on EU foreign policy at ISIS-Europe, Brussels
rkeane@isis-europe.org