Rapid change is occurring in the defence and security policies of the European Union and, correspondingly, in those of Ireland.

For example, an Irish Army officer sits on a newly created EU military committee, and, by 2003, the EU aims to be in a position to deploy a 60,000-strong military force drawn from member-state armies. Ireland might be expected to contribute approximately 1,000 troops to such a force.

This emerging EU defence policy will, in some way, be linked to NATO. In December 1999, EU leaders at the Helsinki Summit agreed to improve "consultation, co-operation and transparency" between the EU and NATO. Proposals to be discussed at the summit in Portugal envisage developing this linkage considerably by allowing the NATO Secretary General to attend EU summits and meetings of ministers, and NATO officers to attend EU military staff meetings.

Developing closer links with NATO should be a cause for concern at a time when Amnesty International has accused that organisation of committing war crimes during its bombing campaign against Serbia. But the problem with NATO is not just a tendency towards the making of occasional "mistakes".

Nor is it even the willingness to deploy nuclear weapons, and to use cancer-causing weapons containing depleted uranium, appalling as those matters are.

At the heart of the problem is the close and well-established linkage between NATO and armaments companies - the sponsors of NATO's 50th anniversary celebrations in 1999 included Lockheed Martin (makers of the Stealth bomber), Raytheon (makers of laser-guided missiles), United Technologies (makers of Sikorsky helicopters) and Boeing (makers of F-15 and other fighter aircraft).

The massive military upgrading currently being carried out by new NATO members represents a bonanza for these companies.

For example, British Aerospace and Boeing are competing vigorously to supply $2 billion worth of fighter aircraft to Poland, and similar contract battles loom in the cases of the Czech Republic and Hungary. The chairman of the Committee to Expand NATO, a US advocacy organisation, is, not surprisingly, also the chairman of Lockheed.

NATO policy is, in large part, subordinated to the imperative of discovering ways to justify massive "defence" expenditure.

Given the shaping influences upon it, NATO actions routinely generate insecurity rather than security. A recent example is the decision of the Ukrainian parliament to pursue nuclear rearmament, justified on the basis that the Kosovo war rendered invalid previous security guarantees. Thus, NATO actions themselves generate "threats" that are then used to justify further EU-NATO military co-operation, and a vicious circle of accelerating insecurity is initiated.

Even if the emerging EU arrangements were to be placed on a more independent basis, as France in particular appears to wish, the creation of a rival European alliance to the US, equally driven by considerations of militarism and commercialism, would do little better to promote international peace and security.

The real challenge is to promote an alternative vision that is genuinely distinct from the aggressive and rapacious model currently exemplified by NATO, not to replicate that model at a European level.

The Irish Government routinely dismisses claims that the decisions now being made are significant, on the grounds that the "traditional" policy of military neutrality is unaffected.

This is entirely beside the point. For Ireland to ally itself further with a nuclear-armed and commercially-driven military alliance is a hugely significant step, and one that merits a far more wide-ranging national debate than it has had so far.

Even leaving aside the wider global implications, there are important financial and other implications here at home. The Government is to invest £250 million in equipment and infrastructure for the Defence Forces over the coming years.

According to the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith: "The Defence Forces must have the training and equipment to integrate as seamlessly as possible into multinational support operations dominated by contingents with highly capable and technologically advanced forces" (The Irish Times, April 26th, 2000).

Why is such integration so desirable? Is this the most effective use of taxpayers' money? Cannot Ireland make a contribution to international peace and security through means that do not involve integration with technologically advanced armies that have shown themselves most likely to be promoters of war and insecurity?

AFrI believes that Ireland could make its most useful contribution to international peace and security through lower-cost and more labour-intensive actions.

These might include the promotion of non-violent conflict prevention and resolution actions through a range of forums, including non-governmental organisations and intergovernmental bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations. This in turn demands a commitment to serious reform of those organisations to ensure that they function with greater effectiveness than heretofore.

Irish diplomatic skills, already well established, as well as those peacekeeping skills already honed by Irish soldiers, would be drawn upon for these purposes rather than a military prowess that can only be attained at considerable cost and deployed to possibly destructive ends.

Between now and the EU Summit at Nice in December 2000, Ireland faces major choices and challenges. We can continue to follow current policies, albeit barely articulated, and drift further into an increasingly militaristic and dangerous EU-US alliance. Or we can promote an alternative concept of security.

Ireland itself is emerging from 30 years of civil conflict and moving tentatively towards demilitarisation. We should extend that movement outwards to our defence and security policies - demilitarisation, not entanglement in military alliances, should be the wave of the future.

Andy Storey is chairman of the justice and human rights organisation Action from Ireland, AFrI. This is an edited version of the AFrI position paper, Towards Real Security, a contribution to the debate on Irish defence and security policy.