NATO's fiftieth anniversary will be marked in Washington this weekend by fewer celebrations than originally envisaged and a greater emphasis on the alliance's future role in European security, as a result of the Kosovo crisis. This is no bad thing. It is all too easy to take NATO for granted when, in fact, there are profound questions about its structures and operations and future relations between North America and Europe that urgently require discussion and decision. Nearly all European States are involved in the Washington meeting, either as full NATO members or associated with it through the Partnership for Peace (PfP) organisation. Ireland is conspicuously absent from the gathering - the only EU member-State not in attendance and, aside from a number of microStates, the only European State not involved. Irrespective of what one makes of NATO and its future, or of the Kosovo bombing campaign, Ireland's absence from the summit is regrettable and ill-advised.
Had the Government's decision to join PfP been implemented (it is now expected in the autumn) this State would have been in a better position to be informed of - and possibly to influence - decisions that will affect its security and defence interests for years to come. The summit will consider the Kosovo crisis and whether to use ground troops against Serbia, the future shape of a European defence identity that would allow the EU to use NATO facilities in pursuit of its own security initiatives, relations with Russia and obtaining mandates from the United Nations.
Undoubtedly much effort will be devoted to ensuring a display of unity in the midst of the Kosovo war, reinforced by the powerful position of the US hosts on the gathering. But this should not disguise the often divergent interests and policies of the member states. While this State continues to stand aloof from proceedings, others see fit to participate, either in NATO or in PfP, so as to keep informed of the relevant arguments, as the new face of European security in the post Cold War era is shaped. In this context, Ireland's nonparticipation signifies a lack of influence rather than moral superiority - that is the reality of today's world.
This is the case irrespective of whether one believes NATO should be enlarged and adapted to the new circumstances of transatlantic relations or scrapped and succeeded by a new European alliance and security architecture. The same applies to the arguments over Kosovo - on whether the bombing should be continued or stopped, whether ground troops should be used and whether diplomacy involving Russia and the UN should be brought immediately to the centre of the search for a settlement.
All of these positions will be represented at the Washington summit and in subsequent negotiations in NATO forums and those of the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other organisations where these issues are decided. This lesson about the need for involvement still needs to be learned in the underdeveloped Irish political debate on security and defence affairs. But at least it is, at last, being placed prominently on the political agenda here.