The framework documentation to enable Ireland to join the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace in the autumn is almost complete, according to senior NATO sources.
These sources have told The Irish Times that Ireland is expected to become involved in 90 per cent of the actions performed by PfP. The Government is currently examining a wide range of "voluntary" options, including peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and humanitarian support missions.
According to senior NATO sources the framework documentation will be ready to go before the Dail when it resumes in September.
As far back as last March, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, signalled that the State was ready to join the co-ordinating peacekeeping force. Since then the Government has been involved in talks with NATO about the extent of Irish involvement, and that process is now virtually finished.
The Dail this week approved the sending of an Irish contingent of some 100 troops and 32 vehicles to the Kfor force in Kosovo. Sources point out that joining Partnership for Peace will allow these and other similar troops to undergo more varied training to ensure that the Irish troops work effectively with their Finnish, Swedish and other counterparts when operating abroad.
Ireland is currently the only European state of any size not in Partnership for Peace. There are 24 countries in the group, including the other neutral or non-aligned countries in Europe, such as Finland, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. The presence of these other neutral states has changed the focus of the partnership, which was previously seen as a kind of club to include former Warsaw Pact countries. NATO officials now insist that PfP is not in any way a fast track into the alliance.
There is a suggestion that the process is often used as a means of keeping the Baltic states happy that they have some form of involvement without having to risk letting them have full membership, with the consequent damage to NATO's relationship with Russia. The presence of neutral states in the partnership may also be seen by NATO as underlining its claim not to be recruiting across the globe.
US officials also insist that Ireland would not be best served by full membership of the alliance. They point to difficulties Ireland is likely to have on nuclear issues as well as the sensitivities surrounding possible use of British troops on the Republic's soil.
They also point to Ireland's peacekeeping experience and say it would be very valuable to help in the training of other troops. They are impressed by the use of unarmed police forces. The Swedes have already set up training camps for peacekeeping, a role which sources in NATO's Brussels headquarters believe could also be played by the Irish.
The key motivation behind setting up PfP is to create a mechanism for controlling local conflicts. The UN has already agreed to devolve such operations to regional organisations, and in Europe that is NATO.
NATO spokesmen repeatedly point to agreements between various eastern European and central Asian states on issues from nuclear reactors to territorial disputes which have been resolved by using PfP. They point to improving relations between Romania and Hungary as well as Hungary and Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania.
Joining Partnership for Peace gives the Government greater access to the unfolding debate on developing a common security policy in Europe. There is a suggestion by NATO sources that it would suit non-aligned or neutral states for all hard defence matters to be handled by NATO, which Ireland can opt out of, rather than the European Union, which it is part of.
It should also give Ireland more involvement in European defence including peace-making as well as peacekeeping, access to information and involvement in consultation.
Another key advantage is interoperability of forces across Europe, allowing them to be able to work together. This would involve joint training exercises between Irish and other PfP country forces as well as NATO forces. Systems would be harmonised to some extent, and joint training provided. As one senior official said, it is rather like being in a simulator, before entering into peacekeeping in a situation such as Kosovo.
It is not yet clear to what extent Ireland is going to be involved, although senior NATO sources say about 90 per cent of what is on offer will probably be taken up. The Government is currently examining a wide range of options which are almost like an a la carte menu with all options voluntary.
Items on the menu include air defence, civil emergency planning, defence planning and budgeting, medical services, meteorological support as well as planning organisation and management. Broadly, this means Ireland would sign up for peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and humanitarian support missions.
The area of crisis response operation, which includes peace-making, may be more unlikely, as is the training using armed forces. Areas the Government is likely to have more problems with include deploying rapid response units and armaments co-operation, as well as some possible reservations on electronic warfare.
Other sources stress that sensitivities about the possibility of British troops arriving in the State would also be addressed. That would not happen without the consent of the Government.
Given these restrictions, it is likely that Ireland will opt for an approach broadly similar to the Finns rather than the far more minimalist Swiss. The main item the Finns have opted out of is providing aircraft. As a result no matter how many Finnish troops are committed to Kfor a Finnish F16 will never be in the skies in the region.
Overall, the Finns believe that joining the partnership has been positive, although there were some protests over the Kosovo conflict. However, they warn that they may have made a mistake in introducing primary legislation which very tightly laid down the conditions of deployment with very little room for manoeuvre.