Despite living in one of the world's most globalised economies, Irish people spend very little time thinking about their place in the international scheme of things, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.
One of the surest ways to close down any conversation in a pub or restaurant is to start talking about the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, the situation in Afghanistan or the tensions between India and Pakistan. Generally people feel these are faraway places or remote, impenetrable institutions which have little to do with their daily lives. They are much more at home talking about Roy Keane and Mick McCarthy or, more recently, the Football Association of Ireland's match deal with Sky television.
I am sure the people in the World Trade Centre on September 11th thought very little about Afghanistan and much less about the possibility that the failed Asian state was providing a base for a fanatical sect that was about to launch a terrorist attack at their place of work.
Likewise the fact that two nuclear states, Pakistan and India, recently came close to war impinged surprisingly little on public consciousness. The crisis came and went, and we moved on to other things.
Happily we did not have the horrific spectacle of atom bombs dropping on Islamabad and New Delhi. That would have caught our attention and woken us from the complacency induced by the ending of the Cold War. Tensions may have eased significantly between the US and Russia but, gradually, more and more states are acquiring nuclear weapons and, when they do, they tend to keep them.
It was a point made to me in Dublin recently by a man whose job it is to worry about these things, the UN Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala. The former Sri Lankan diplomat used a striking phrase when explaining why states like to retain their "nukes". They were, he said, part of the "currency of power".
It is a sobering experience to meet someone like Dhanapala. In calm, matter-of-fact tones he describes a world that is weighed down with weapons. When I suggested nuclear war was unthinkable, he replied: "As long as there are nuclear weapons, there is a danger they will be used."
Readers over a certain age will remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, when hardened atheists were queueing at the confession boxes. Dhanapala says it was "sheer luck" that we avoided nuclear conflagration at the time.
An experienced international military analyst I spoke to separately told me there were "four families of threats out there" in the world. The first was the potential for nuclear war. This had decreased, he conceded, "but not for long". He reiterated Dhanapala's point that there were few instances "where somebody had a nuke and gave it up".
Then there were traditional military conflicts, "force on force", and standing armies had to be maintained to deal with them. A third threat comes under the heading of "security operations" ranging from, say, the Balkans to Lebanon, to the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, to Rwanda.
A fourth threat, which has come sharply into focus since September 11th, is terrorism carried out by individuals or groups. An Arab commentator said "9/11" was "the first day of history for Americans". This is true in the sense that they lost their feeling of sanctuary.
WHERE does Ireland fit into all this? What is our contribution to world security? The Irish commitment to UN peacekeeping is well known, whether in the Congo, Lebanon or, currently, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ireland's diplomatic role in campaigning to reduce the nuclear threat is less well publicised.
Ireland is also a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace, seen by some as a halfway house to full NATO membership, whereas others insist there are no such implications. A NATO official I met in Brussels recently expressed understanding of Ireland's wariness of that organisation on account of "your bloodstained history". I would add that there is also an extreme reluctance to join a mutual defence pact with leading nuclear powers. Hence the potency of the slogan, "No to NATO, No to Nice", in the last referendum campaign on the Nice Treaty.
Security issues are not the major feature of Nice, but there is clearly a feeling in some sectors of public opinion that the two referendums on the treaty provide an opportunity to shout "Stop"; and halt the drift into a supposed European superstate, a Rapid Reaction Force and, ultimately, NATO.
What a pity we did not have the promised referendum on joining the PfP, where issues of this kind could have been fully discussed.
The NATO people in Brussels appeared to be impressed by the Petersberg Tasks, which form the menu for the RRF. These range from traditional UN-style peacekeeping to more robust activities labelled "tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making".
The latter is known in diplomatic parlance as "high-end" peacekeeping. It is a new dimension to Ireland's military activities abroad and it is not low-risk. It may be a little melodramatic to envisage body bags at Baldonnel, but clearly Ireland is dipping its toe further and further into the choppy waters of international security. Some would say we have no other choice, but no doubt all would agree that a debate is needed on the issues. It could well turn out to be more important than the dispute between Roy and Mick.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times