Ireland has been successful in carving out a niche for itself in an increasingly interconnected world. This has been achieved, in large part, by becoming actively involved in the dense web of international organisations and frameworks for co-operation in many fields. However, in one important field - defence co-operation - Ireland has remained curiously isolationist.
With the Cold War long over, a rethinking of Ireland's position is required in order to make a contribution to dealing with threats - of a lower order, but more complex - to European security that exist in today's changed circumstances.
If Ireland is to be listened to on security matters, and if it is to allow its armed forces to play a part in meaningfully implementing its laudable humanitarian foreign policy goals, an end to rigid isolationism in defence matters is necessary. That is why the Government's decision to approve the terms on which Ireland will join the PfP is so welcome. In the Balkans, the alphabet soup of multilateral organisations involved in maintaining peace - the UN, EU, OSCE, Sfor, Kfor, NATO along with PfP - is testament to the complexity of multi-dimensional security challenges. While Ireland has played its part in many of these organisations while remaining aloof from the PfP framework, membership of the PfP allows this State to make a substantial contribution. Put bluntly, PfP is where it is at when it comes to military co-ordination in humanitarian crises in Europe.
Membership of the PfP means that the Defence Forces will no longer be hindered in co-operating with others, because everything from spare parts to communications systems compatibility is PfP-standardised. In addition, the opportunities for acquiring the skills that a modern force requires will become available.
Although widely respected for its professionalism, there are few countries in Europe with an armed force as small and under-resourced as Ireland's. With bilateral training opportunities now limited, the importance of PfP becomes even more evident.
Membership of PfP also allows Ireland to demonstrate that it is not shirking its international responsibilities.
At a time when Ireland's economic miracle has attracted green-eyed glances and amid mutterings that it would have remained an economic laggard without ultra-low company tax rates and EU cash transfers, participation in PfP will send a signal that Ireland is as prepared to contribute to collective security as it is to reap the rewards of co-operation in other fields.
In supporting Ireland's participation, it is as necessary, possibly more necessary, to debunk the myths about defence co-operation (in particular the very existence of NATO) as it is to stress the benefits of PfP, for many of the arguments against participation in PfP rest on flawed assumptions about NATO. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the greatest threat to Western Europe disappeared. So, say some, why not NATO too? While threats to European security have rarely been so few, war has been a constant throughout human history. To take the current peace in Europe (the Balkans excluded) for granted after less than a decade of historically low levels of inter-state conflict would be reckless folly.
THE most obvious and immediate (but not only) potential threat to European security is Russian recidivism. Falling living standards, endemic corruption and, more recently, terrorism have led to growing support for anti-progressive forces in Russia. Indeed, the clamouring by former Soviet satellites for the embrace of NATO membership underlines the continuing Russian threat.
It is not true that PfP will necessarily result in higher spending for Ireland. Excluding the micro-states, the only country in Europe that spends less on defence is fellow neutral - and PfP participant - Austria. Ireland can choose the level of its commitment and equip its military accordingly. If spending does increase it will be to allow the Defence Forces, currently over-stretched and under-funded, to extend their conflict-prevention and humanitarian role. A further suspicion is that as long as NATO exists there will be a temptation to use its military capacity offensively. Not only does this ignore the fact that NATO has only ever fired shots in anger to prevent ethnic cleansing, it also fails to appreciate the changing way democratic states think about their interests.
Today, in the mature and thoroughly democratic NATO countries, policy - both domestic and foreign - is formulated with the good of the greatest number in mind. That number, educated, assertive and far from unquestioning, would have little truck at election time with any party threatening ill-advised foreign adventures, putting lives, or those of family members, at risk. The domestic political repercussions of even limited casualties, as seen in the Gulf War in the early 1990s for example, has severely curtailed the projection of military power.
But the waning belligerence of democracies owes as much to a sense of injustice as it does to an unwillingness of individuals to die for cause or country.
Ever-increasing anti-war sentiment is not based on self-interest alone. Concern for the welfare of non-nationals is growing - witness the proliferation of groups in rich countries working to relieve debt, speed development and protect the human rights of individuals with whom they share little in common other than that they are fellow human beings. The pressure for intervention in Kosovo and East Timor, where the West's security or economic interests are largely unthreatened, can only be explained in this context.
Apart from doubts in the minds of some about NATO itself, there are concerns that forging any links with NATO will make Ireland complicit in the acts of its member-countries, such as exporting arms to repressive regimes. It is hard to see how Ireland, unilaterally choosing from a menu of humanitarian intervention options, can suddenly be considered complicit in arms sales when it already shares a currency with France, participates in the EU's foreign policy with the UK and enjoys enormous inflows of capital from the US. These three countries are among the world's largest arms exporters.
A further objection to PfP is that by participating Ireland must, ipso facto, distance itself from those uninvolved, thereby undermining the country's relations with the developing world and others. This is to ignore the experiences of other states, most notably the Nordic NATO countries - among the greatest contributors to conflict-resolution internationally.
The Norwegians played a pivotal role in the Middle East peace process - their NATO membership inconsequential to the Palestinians. The Danes were actively involved in the peaceful transition to democracy in Nicaragua - their NATO link an irrelevance for the Sandinistas. Moreover, the Finns, not NATO members but participants in PfP from the outset, were instrumental in ending the West's most serious spat with post-Soviet Russia during NATO's intervention in Kosovo.
It is to be hoped that these arguments will allay the concerns of those who are prepared to take a more measured and objective view of what is a minimalist form of defence co-operation.
Dan O'Brien is Europe editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit in London
