Through security at the gate of the sprawling NATO Brussels compound, into the heart of the beast, and then turn right to walk a couple of hundred yards to the drab, grey Manfred Worner building where the "partners" have their offices. More security, then the lift to the upper floors.
The third floor is for the two biggest delegations, Finland and Sweden. Below them, as the little flags beside the lift buttons indicate, there are the offices of the 24 other states in Partnership for Peace (PfP), ranging from the arch-neutralist Swiss to the republics of the former Soviet Union. On the ground floor, Russia, though the offices are unoccupied.
In a few weeks, an Irish flag will probably join them, yet Ireland's agonising on the issue is most puzzling to those likely to be closest to us inside PfP, neutrals and nonaligned such as the Swiss and Finns. Both countries have become very active participants with relatively little domestic fuss and see their involvement as an intensely practical necessity, rather than an ideological statement.
Both insist in the "presentation document" that their fundamental security doctrines are unchanged and unthreatened: "Through participation . . . Finland is not seeking a new defence solution. Fin land pursues a policy of military non-alliance and independent defence."
The Swiss are even more categorical. Participation is based on the recognition that it is "unreservedly compatible with Swiss neutrality". "If PfP should - contrary to the documents on which it is based - assume an alliance-like character, Switzerland would have to reserve the option to terminate its participation in the Partnership in order to safeguard the integrity of its neutrality," the presentation document continues.
Diplomats from both countries insist PfP is not about joining NATO but co-operating with it in an agreed bilateral framework to strengthen involvement in peacekeeping operations - in the Finnish case, part of a decades-long tradition, and for the Swiss, a move to amend laws prohibiting troops from involvement in missions abroad.
Elina Kalkku, deputy head of the 23-strong Finnish mission to NATO, admits there are those in central Europe who see PfP as a step towards NATO membership and are involved in membership action plans.
Not us, she says, nor indeed a majority of partners, arguing that Finland sees PfP as enhancing its ability to participate in operations like Kfor in Kosovo through developing inter-operability in the multinational forces that are inevitably going to be a feature of peacekeeping operations.
That is done through common training for crisis management, the harmonisation of technical resources so that, for example, units can communicate with each other, and the familiarisation of each with the command and control doctrines which are crucial to collaboration in the field.
The Planning and Review Process (PARP) also allows participants to evaluate what each state can contribute to future and current operations and, hence, the rational pooling of resources, she argues. The Finns have listed in PARP one engineering and two infantry battalions as available for crisis management deployment.
The Swiss, like the Finns, see the principle of "self-differentiation" as critical to the partnerships. Each country sets out the limits to its own involvement. In both their cases, it is strictly peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks.
Martin Dahinden, deputy head of the smaller Swiss mission, cites the Swiss experience over Kosovo where, in a radical departure from tradition, they contributed an unarmed logistics unit. "There was no formal request to do so," he says. "We did so because we were really affected by the 170,000 Kosovan refugees in our country."
Heavily involved in the civilian reconstruction programme, the Swiss feel it is important and logical to contribute to military stabilisation. Their involvement in PfP means close and continuous access to briefing and awareness of the needs on the ground.
While firmly maintaining their distance from the early bombing campaign because of concerns about the lack of UN mandate, the Swiss nevertheless found PfP an important channel through which they could provide NATO with details of the refugee movements they were helping to co-ordinate with the UNHCR.
Mr Dahindin admits that the issue of the use of Swiss troops abroad had raised concerns at home, "but PfP has not been a focus of that debate", he insists. While Switzerland's application to join in 1996 caused many of the same concerns that are raised in Ireland, PfP has since been the subject of little debate.
Finland signed up without controversy and PfP does not feature in the debate about the possibility of NATO membership.
Last year the Finns participated in some 250 PfP activities, the Swiss, 180. It is not a one-way process. Partners contribute their expertise to NATO. In the Swiss case such things as security policy education, information technology, the dissemination of international humanitarian law and experience in civil-military emergency planning.
The Finns, and the Irish, if we join, bring a wealth of experience of peacekeeping which is in heavy demand. After all, as one diplomat remarked: "Europe is still a net importer of peacekeeping."
