IRISH concerns that its neutrality would be threatened by an EU merger with the Western European Union (WEU) were put to rest yesterday, after a long and bitter row.
The new treaty text now refers only to closer links "with a view to the possibility of the later integration of the WEU into the Union should the European Council so decide".
But the leaders agreed to a review of defence provisions in the treaty in five years when the neutrals will certainly come under renewed pressure to accept integration - Austria and Finland may well by then have abandoned their neutral status and joined NATO. Yesterday six countries, the four neutrals, Britain and Denmark opposed the merger.
Yet, while argument raged over the merger with the WEU, the treaty agreement still represents a landmark in the development of the EU - for the first time the EU becomes an organisation with military as well as economic muscle by agreeing to include in its remit the military tasks of humanitarian missions, peacekeeping and even the more controversial role of peace enforcement".
These are collectively known as "Petersberg tasks".
Two aspects of the proposed defence text were of concern to Ireland's group. First and foremost the reference to the "gradual integration of the WEU into the Union" would have to go.
The British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, insisted to fellow leaders that he would not accept "undermining of NATO". The EU, he said, was simply not ready for a merger - "an ill-judged transplant operation", as he put it. "If it cannot do foreign policy it cannot do defence."
The reference to a merger was eventually muted but the majority was still determined to retain an aspiration, if possible stronger than Maastricht, to an eventual defence union.
The Dutch draft treaty sought to replace the current definition of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - "all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence" - with the Irish compromise formula from the 1996 Dublin summit - "all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy in the perspective of a common defence".
Ireland appeared willing, albeit reluctantly, to accept the latter formulation but the British insisted that it still compromised NATO, a problem not of direct concern to the Irish.
A new version, circulated late yesterday, referred to the framing of a common defence policy "in the context of this article which might lead to a common defence".
The British appeared willing to accept this because, they said, it "ring-fenced" the concept of common defence by limiting it to the role referred to in the article in question that is Petersberg tasks and not a broader one involving mutual defence guarantees. On that interpretation accepted by Irish diplomats, the commitment to eventual common defence in the Maastricht Treaty will be significantly weakened by the Amsterdam Treaty.
The new treaty provides a guarantee that those states participating in an EU action carried out on the EU's behalf by the WEU, whether or not they are members of the WEU, will have a full role in the planning and decision taking "on an equal footing".
The leaders also agreed that member states could cooperate voluntarily on armaments.
The leaders approved proposals to strengthen the EU's foreign policy capabilities - a policy and planning unit with a new foreign policy supremo, the Secretary General of the Council of Ministers, and the reform of decision- making to reduce the potential for veto gridlock.
That will include provision for heads of government agreeing by unanimity broad guidelines for policies in particular areas, which can then be implemented by qualified majority by ministers. Member states, however, retain an "emergency brake" veto when implementation decisions threaten vital policy concerns.
Irish proposals for a system of "constructive abstention" in foreign and security policy are also agreed. This will allow states which are unwilling to participate in a particular action to abstain without blocking the action.
The attempt in both cases is to circumvent the effect of veto voting though both require a political willingness to accept the spirit of the changes. That has often not been forthcoming in the past.
Attempts were also being made late last night to strengthen the right of the Commission to represent the EU in trade negotiations. The areas of intellectual property, international services and investment are still the prerogative of the member states.
The Taoiseach is understood to have made a particularly strong appeal to end the anomaly which is regarded by Ireland as a serious weakness in trade policy.
