Luckily, perhaps, the document adopted at the Brussels Summit is vague on specifics , writes Deaglán de Bréadún, Foreign Affairs Correspondent.
They say that diplomacy without weapons is like music without instruments. Joseph Stalin put it another way when he inquired, "How many divisions has the Pope?" The European Union has built itself up into a powerful economic bloc, responsible for one-quarter of the world's Gross Domestic Product.
It has double the population of the United States. With 10 new member-states about to join, it occupies a substantial proportion of the planet and will soon have immediate borders with Russia and the Ukraine.
The former European Economic Community was sold to the Irish electorate, particularly the farmers, as an economic El Dorado.
Despite some early sacrifices, few would now dispute the financial advantages of membership and its role in the economic boom.
But it was never going to stop there. The federalists, for example, have always dreamt of a Europe that would be essentially one country made up of interdependent states, not unlike the US.
Others are more pragmatic and best described as "à la carte Europeans", but everyone is choosing from the same menu these days.
It was inevitable that the question of combined military action by EU member-states would come onto the agenda.
There have been significant developments in this respect in the Balkans, where EU forces are playing a key role in peacekeeping and policing duties.
Another major development was the agreement to set up a Rapid Reaction Force, with Ireland contributing 850 troops, which would be ready to carry out a range of peacekeeping and "crisis management" duties known as the Petersberg Tasks.
Most member-states are already in NATO and the development of an exclusively European military entity, however modest its beginnings, has caused some controversy.
The US, in particular, is anxious that there should be no EU command-and-control headquarters that would be separate from NATO.
In Ireland, questions have been raised about the compatibility of all these developments with our traditional policy of military neutrality.
There are three answers to the question: Does the EU threaten our military neutrality?
The far left say: Yes and let's put some distance between ourselves and the EU. Voices on the right say: Yes and let's ditch neutrality. Meanwhile, the answer from the centre is: We can become part of these arrangements without losing our right to opt out on a case-by-case basis.
Senior EU figures are full of bland reassurance about current tentative steps towards forging a new European military identity.
Like it or not, they say, the EU is a big player on the world stage and it cannot take the ostrich position, burying its head in the sand and pretending bad things aren't taking place on its borders or in other places.
"It is not only a matter of choice, it is a moral obligation." But didn't the EU's disarray over Iraq prove that a coherent foreign policy, and consequently joint military action on a broad scale, were a mere pipedream?
No, they say. It was not just a question of differences between countries, there were also internal divisions, in Britain, Spain and not least in the US. The EU has common positions on other issues, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are holding up well.
The EU adopted a security strategy at the Brussels Summit and it is Ireland's role in the presidency over the next six months to start implementing its provisions. Luckily, perhaps, the document is vague on specifics but well-endowed with motherhood and apple pie.
We are not a NATO member and, to some, our official neutrality makes us seem an odd bedfellow with such nuclear-armed states as France and Britain. But top EU officials say this is not a problem and can even be an advantage as it gives Ireland an aura of impartiality in debates between the big powers.
The great buzzword in EU foreign policy circles is "multilateralism". Nobody can match the US in terms of military might but every effort should be made to persuade the White House and the US administration of the benefits of acting multilaterally at all times.
America going it alone and launching pre-emptive strikes, such as took place in Iraq, is not the way forward for most Europeans.
The rise of the hard right to a position of great influence in the Bush administration has caused concern in Europe, leading to intensified efforts to draw the Americans into the multilateral web where precipitate action threatening the peace of the world would be less likely.
While Ireland, in the popular phrase, "punches above its weight" in the EU, it is still a small country with an export-oriented economy that is heavily dependent on the goodwill of larger neighbours, whether in Europe or across the Atlantic. It is a cliche that every European country, and probably most countries in the world, claims a special relationship with the US.
But as well as speaking the same language, Ireland has the added boon of close blood ties with millions of American citizens. Interestingly, a senior EU official said in Dublin last week that perhaps we do not fully appreciate or utilise these special advantages in our dealings with the US. A Taoiseach can pick up the phone and get through to major players in Washington with greater ease than, say, the prime minister of Portugal.
Later this week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, makes another visit to Israel and Egypt in an effort to revive the Middle East peace process which has been covered with gloom in recent months.
One of the few sources of hope is that senior figures from both sides are meeting discreetly at the Glencree reconciliation centre in Co Wicklow today and will be travelling to Northern Ireland later in the week. There is no talk of any military role for the EU, although the idea of an international peacekeeping force acting as a kind of buffer between Israel and the Palestinian territories, mainly to watch for potential suicide bombers and prevent human rights abuses, was mooted some time ago.
There are differences between the Europeans and Israel over the role of Yasser Arafat and, when I asked a senior EU figure if the Palestinian leader was part of the problem or part of the solution, he gave me the blunt reply: "Both." Probably the main reason the Nice Treaty was defeated in the first referendum here in 2001, was because voters were worried about the neutrality issue. Door-to-door canvassers got a ready hearing for claims that, the way Europe was developing, their children could end up being conscripted into a NATO or European army to risk their lives in some foreign adventure.
These fears have been allayed, to some extent, by the new constitutional provision that there will be no Irish participation in a common European defence without a further referendum. But there are still fears and anxieties that go very deep and have not been addressed.