"Ireland pursues a policy of military neutrality, and does not intend to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Ireland's decision to participate in PfP is in full accordance with Ireland's policy of military neutrality."

So says Ireland's "presentation document" to Partnership for Peace. So there's no problem?

Well, it all depends on what you mean by neutrality.

For those who say that neutrality consists in having nothing to do with NATO, an imperialist alliance, then clearly the Government is simply not telling the truth. And the Swiss government, the Finns, the Austrians and the Swedes, fellow neutrals, are also deluding their people.

And what of the Russians, whose PfP participation is admittedly on hold, or the Uzbeks and Georgians, Kazakhs and Armenians? Are they now in effect part of the NATO war machine as "partners" in PfP?

True, Ireland will have diplomats and military personnel working inside the NATO headquarters in Brussels and Mons for the first time, but will they really be part of the organisation?

And will their presence undermine the most commonly-agreed definition of neutrality, that used by the Government - an unwillingness to give undertakings automatically to come to the defence of fellow members of an alliance?

It is that commitment, expressed in Article Five of both the NATO and Western European Union treaties, which has been the uncrossable line in the sand for Irish diplomacy in recent years.

PfP is not an organisation in the sense that NATO is, but instead a framework for co-operation between NATO and non-NATO states, a series of "self-differentiated", individually-tailored agreements, all under the one roof of a common declaration committing all partners to shared democratic values.

It is true that some see PfP as a stepping stone to NATO membership. But a majority of the 26 partners do not, notably the neutral and non-aligned, and former republics of the Soviet Union.

Indeed the PfP framework had its origins precisely in an attempt by the US to come up with a diplomatic way of staving off demands for immediate membership of NATO from states in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

They wanted the security of a territorial defence guarantee, but did not get it because the NATO powers were concerned that the blow to Russia's prestige might have been terminal in its effects on the internal reform process.

PfP involves no Article Five commitment, nor indeed - as the Swiss, Finns and Austrians made very clear along with the Russians during the bombing of Kosovo - does it imply any automatic support for NATO operations.

Moreover, the Irish document makes it clear that the purpose of Irish involvement is strictly limited to peacekeeping, crisis management, search-and-rescue and humanitarian missions, and is intended precisely to strengthen its capacity to get involved in "UN-mandated operations". And it reiterates the State's "commitment to fulfil the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations."

Diplomats insist that Ireland's foreign policy emphasis on collective security, legitimised by the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, is unaffected. Our diplomacy is not based, they argue, on hostility to NATO and such alliances, but on a view of peace-building based on "mutual reinforcing co-operation" between multinational organisations which each have a separate role to play.

The Government's case, very much mirroring that of the Swiss and Finns, is that the increasingly complex nature of multinational peacekeeping requires intensive collaboration between armies to work at all. Radios must speak to each other. Tyres on vehicles must be interchangeable. Command structures must be mutually understood. Economies of effort require common supply and logistics.

Best practice in peacekeeping, natural disasters or civilian evacuation needs to be exchanged. If PfP did not exist as PfP, NATO would have to find other bilateral means to conduct such discussions with potential allies in peacekeeping operations.

"Ireland," the document says, "will seek to acquire the necessary training, techniques, operational procedures and peacekeeping doctrines which are essential prerequisites for the new style of peacekeeping and crisis management missions mandated by the UN in recent years."

AND IN that sense the subtext of the discussion facing the Dail about Irish involvement in PfP will in reality not be about neutrality but about Ireland's willingness to collaborate in a practical way with international peacekeeping.

The presentation document insists that the offer of Irish military assets to PfP activities will be "subject to national decisions in each case".

The document also makes it clear that the Government sees PfP as the logical extension of its involvement in the evolving European Common Foreign and Security Policy.

In that context, following the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, work is under way to incorporate into the EU the elements of the WEU which are concerned with peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, the so-called "Petersberg Tasks". Such missions will be conducted largely using NATO assets and planning co-ordinated through PfP.

It is worth noting that the decision to sign up to Partnership for Peace will also give Ireland observer access for the first time to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the ministerial council of NATO members and PfP partners.

It has been involved in debating regional security issues including arms control, emergency planning, and scientific and environmental matters.

Of particular interest to Ireland is its potential in de-mining operations and in control of small arms.