ON THE face of it a decision, to have a small presence in the UN mandated military force trying to protect Bosnia's fragile peace seems uncontroversial. It is not.
The Government will shortly decide whether to place Irish troops under the command of the NATO military alliance for the first time.
Those in favour will argue that, so long as a peacekeeping force has a UN mandate, Irish participation in it has no implications for Irish neutrality. Those against will say that putting Irish troops under NATO, command compromises that neutrality.
Neutrality was a relatively simple thing in the good old Cold War days. Europe was divided between western and eastern militia blocs but neutral states joined neither. Ireland wash therefore a full member of the western political grouping through EU membership, but it stood aloof from, NATO, the western military organisation.
The end of the Cold War threw, European security arrangements into confusion. The end of the east/west military divide posed the question who was NATO defending, and against whom?
With the old European divide gone, east European states were queueing up to join NATO, and the perceived east European military threat was gone.
Neutral and non aligned states, including Ireland, looked to the Organisation for Security and Co operation in Europe (OSCE) as the appropriate body to take a leading role in European security. It had no partisan Cold War baggage, with its 55 state membership including countries from eastern and western Europe as well as the US and Canada.
The reality now, however, is that NATO's memberstates have ensured that NATO remains the primary military body in Europe, and looks set to recruit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to membership later this year.
The United Nations, in line with its policy of "sub contracting" military operations, has asked NATO to run the peace enforcement operation in former Yugoslavia.
WHETHER Irish participation in such a force compromises neutrality depends on what "neutrality is, and there is no political agreement on this. There is no public consensus on it either.
The results of an Irish Times/, MRBI opinion poll published last October showed 69 per cent wanting to maintain Ireland's neutrality. But 77 per cent also favoured, Irish involvement in the NATO sponsored Partnership for Peace programme (PfP), and 68 per cent would support Irish troops' participation in the NATO led military force in Bosnia.
More precisely, 75 per cent of those committed to maintaining neutrality were also in favour of joining PIP. This is a NATO sponsored body which, among other things, conducts joint training exercises for peacekeeping operations.
The White Paper on foreign policy, published last year said the Government would "explore further" the benefits of participating in PfP. The Fine Gael and Labour elements of the Government favour signing up. Democratic Left does not.
The "further exploration" of the "benefits of signing up appears to have been a fudge, but this exploration process is now well and truly over.
Government officials discussed the discussions, they say confirmed that Ireland could become involved in PIP without entering any mutual defence, commitments and therefore without compromising Irish neutrality. Ireland could determine the terms and scope of its participation in the organisation.
Mr Spring told the Dail in October that there was no need for a referendum on participation in PIP as it imposes no treaty obligations of any sort, no mutual defence commitments and has no implications for our policy military neutrality."
The way is now clear for a Government decision to join, followed by a Dail vote to ratify that decision. But Government division on the issue had been expected to postpone a decision, at least until after a general election.
Now the "troops for Bosnia" question has given life to the issue again.
Because if Ireland sends troops to a NATO led farce, why should it not agree to participate in NATO led prior training exercises through IIP?
Conversely, if a party opposes involvement in PIP as Democratic Left does must it not also oppose involvement in a NATO led peacekeeping force?
THE arguments against PfP are put strongly in an editorial in the most recent edition of Times Change, a journal published from Democratic, Left's headquarters and close to the party's thinking.
"NATO interests" had sabotaged UN, OSCE and EU peace initiatives in Bosnia for over three years, says the editorial. They have also placed UN, EU and OSCE defensive, peace keeping and conflict prevention structures under "massive attack". Having done so, NATO was now posing as successful peacekeepers through its force in Bosnia.
PIP, the argument goes on, "involves negotiating a mutual interest treaty with NATO, joint training exercises with NATO forces and discussing with NATO any perceived threats to national sovereignty or security. This, says the editorial, would draw countries into signing mutual treaties with NATO, thus restricting their capacity to oppose future NATO actions.
In the Dail last March, the Democratic Left TD Ms Kathleen Lynch put forward the same argument. Yesterday a spokesman for the Democratic Left Ministers declined to be drawn on sending Irish troops to the NATO NATO force in Bosnia, on the basis that it had not yet been discussed at Government level.
But it appears that it will be, and tough decisions will have to be made.
