The decision by the Government in its White Paper on the Amsterdam Treaty to continue holding back from participating in European peace-making tasks was expected by the Defence Forces, but not welcome.

Privately, officers express the view that the Republic has adopted the role of hurler-on-the-ditch in respect of European defence and security policy.

"We take all the money we can from Europe, with both arms, but if it comes to helping out in some operation where all the other EU countries are sending troops, we are not going to be there," one said.

"We will be holding their coats. What will the other countries say then when we go back looking for money after other countries lose soldiers and we are sitting at home?"

Another raised the theoretical prospect of European intervention in, for example, Algeria. If it was decided at EU level to intervene in a country suffering terrible conflict, the member-states participating in a military alliance would send their troops into potentially very dangerous situations as they tried to establish some form of peace.

Under the Republic's current position of non-alignment, its Defence Forces would not participate in any front-line capacity, the officer pointed out.

"We would have to devise some form of role for ourselves, to cover ourselves. But it would be way in the background, a non-military role something like an NGO [non-government organisation such as the Red Cross or Concern], which would be the most embarrassing thing you could imagine for a professional soldier."

One officer pointed to the fact that 65 per cent of the cost of the Naval Service's new fishery protection ship will be paid by the EU. He posed the question: "What would we say to Europe if there was a war and they wanted the ship to help them out? Would we say `No'?"

The Defence Forces already have considerable experience in serving with the United Nations in dangerous operations: Irish military personnel continue to be at risk in south Lebanon.

But it has been known for some time that there may never again be any big UN missions in which the Defence Forces could play a significant role.

Former Soviet and eastern bloc states can provide troops and equipment at considerably less cost than richer west European ones. There are also fewer UN operations.

The future health of the Defence Forces is seen as depending on a substantial foreign peacekeeping commitment. At present this is fulfilled by the battalion-strength participation in UNIFIL.

However, as the Defence Forces' Chief-of-Staff, Lieut Gen Gerry McMahon, pointed out at a military peacekeeping conference in Vienna earlier this week, missions such as UNIFIL are suffering because they have been working for decades in pursuit of unattainable mandates.

UNIFIL's mandate is to secure an Israeli military withdrawal from the so-called security zone it occupies inside Lebanon. There is no prospect of UNIFIL, as it is presently constituted, fulfilling such a mandate.

Lieut Gen McMahon's address to the three-day conference on Defence Policies and Military Doctrines in Vienna revealed the Irish military experience is that there need to be changes in operations involving multinational peacekeeping.

He told the conference that the classical peacekeeping performed by neutral states had diminished. He referred to the "lead nation concept" such as that in former Yugoslavia.

SINCE 1990, Lieut Gen McMahon said, the Defence Forces have been carefully assessing peacekeeping missions "to establish if a proposed mission is appropriate for Ireland and if our Defence Forces are equipped and available to take it on."

He pointed out that the Irish soldier - a full-time professional volunteer who speaks English and is generally acceptable among parties in conflict - is in many ways an ideal peacekeeping soldier.

It is known that senior military figures believe the 40 years' experience in UN peacekeeping missions is the Defence Forces' main achievement and most important area of experience. There has been a concern for several years about the run-down of UN operations.

It was a considerable relief last year when the Government granted permission for the Defence Forces to send a contingent to help in Sfor (Stability Force), the multinational NATO-led peacekeeping force in former Yugoslavia, albeit only with a small military police company.

The way was open for further larger-scale participation. "The foot is in the door," as one officer put it.

The prospect of participation in other peacekeeping missions led by the Western European Union (WEU) - still a somewhat nebulous military alliance compared with NATO - also has more prosaic attractions for the military in the form of better equipment.

If the Defence Forces were in an EU military alliance it would be incumbent on the Government to ensure their equipment met certain standards. It would need to provide the Army, which at present has only two armoured personnel carriers, with more and newer equipment.