The underdeveloped state of Ireland's political debate on military neutrality has been sharply exposed by the agreement between France and Britain last week on European security and defence. In a major shift of policy, Mr Tony Blair has decided that his country's interests in the European Union are best served by the development of a common defence policy, the potential framework for which was agreed in the Treaty of Amsterdam. By throwing in his lot with France, he has ensured maximum political attention for this new policy and sent out a clear message that, despite Britain's non-participation in the first wave of the common currency, he means what he says when he talks about putting Britain at the centre of Europe.
This is high politics by the two most powerful military states in the EU. At their meeting in St Malo, Mr Blair and President Chirac were careful to insist that enhanced European co-operation would not be at the expense of their collective defence obligations in NATO and to say that "the reinforcement of European solidarity must take into account the various positions of the European states." This is a reference to the distinctive position of France within that alliance and to the four neutral members of the EU - Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland. Now that Britain has made this shift, the political pace of the European discussion of defence will pick up rapidly. Mr Blair made reference to the need to resolve disagreements about these matters in time for the NATO summit in Washington next year.
Ireland's policy towards European security and defence has been predicated on the assumption that Britain would remain committed to its special military relationship with Washington through NATO. The Maastricht Treaty contained legal and constitutional safeguards for Ireland's neutrality, which were maintained in the Treaty of Amsterdam. They protect this State from any decision taken over its head or against its wishes to develop an EU defence capability. But the political assumption on which they were based has now changed, possibly in a fundamental fashion. While it is true that France and Britain will have to persuade their EU colleagues to proceed as they propose, it should be recognised that a common assessment of European foreign policy, security and defence needs, Britain's own need to avoid isolation and the apparent readiness of the Clinton administration to go along with a stronger European defence role, all make it likely that the issue will come speedily towards the top of the EU agenda.
Ireland is ill-prepared for this debate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr David Andrews, has launched a much-needed discussion on whether this State should join the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace (PfP), as all our neutral EU partners have done. They have thereby enhanced their peace-keeping capacities and put themselves in a better position than Ireland to make choices about their security interests. While it is true that Austria and Finland may decide to join NATO for fear of being strategically isolated as that alliance enlarges, there is no legal compulsion whatsoever to do so as a result of joining PfP.
The Government should take the lead in this debate, in favour of joining PfP, so as to raise the public profile of the issues at stake in European security and defence. This is not to abandon neutrality but to make it more relevant now that the Cold War is at an end and a new set of security risks is presented to EU states committed to greater solidarity and co-operation.