MND MacKay blasts (un-named) NATO members

Strong stuff by Canadian standards, and with good reason:

NATO given call to arms
MacKay says mission in Afghanistan faces failure unless all members of alliance pull their weight

LONDON – The struggling effort to defeat the Taliban and bring security to Afghanistan means it is time for a "frank discussion" about the future of NATO, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday.

In comments likely to aggravate some NATO partners, MacKay told an audience in London that all alliance members needed to pull their weight otherwise the 60-year-old security pact faced a crisis.

"We need to have a frank discussion about the future of NATO," MacKay told the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, while underlining that Canada remains committed to the organization.

"The U.S. re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan – with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy – has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance," he said, suggesting some saw it as a chance to sit back and say, "It's okay, the Americans will handle it."

"As the United States says, its contribution is designed to reinforce, not to replace. ... We all need to maintain our collective effort so that we maximize the official contribution from the United States."

NATO defence ministers are due to meet in Krakow, Poland, for informal meetings later this week. MacKay said he would use the meeting to stress the importance of all 26 members fulfilling their obligations to the organization.

In the past, criticism like MacKay's has been a veiled reference to the need for Germany, France and other major NATO states to step up contributions, bringing them into line with those made by Britain, Italy, Canada and the United States.

MacKay did not name names, however, merely saying that unless there was a more unified, co-ordinated response across the alliance, the eight-year operation in Afghanistan risked failure...

I do suspect though that blasts from the UK defence secretary, such as this one a month ago, may carry more weight.

Update: The Italians have already announced a continuing troop increase, and their forces may just be able to do more:

Italy is to raise troop levels in Afghanistan in response to a call from the United States, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said on a visit to Sierra Leone Thursday.

Troop levels will be raised from some 2,300 to 2,800 and their deployment will be more flexible, he said.

Italy would also step up its work in training Afghan police, ''something which is very close to (US) President (Barack) Obama's heart because it will strengthen security in the country''.

Frattini said it was time for other major European Union countries to ''play their part'' given that Italy already had the third-biggest contingent in the Asian country...

The Germans are now making a move, but to me it looks like just a gesture:

Germany plans to send 600 more soldiers to Afghanistan to help provide security for presidential elections in August, a NATO diplomat said.

The troops, who add to around 3,500 German personnel already in Afghanistan, will arrive six weeks before the polls and remain until after any possible second round of voting is held in September, the diplomat said...

Germany, which has been criticised for not sending troops to those regions, has its personnel deployed in the relatively quiet north of the country...

Last month, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer appealed for 10,000 more soldiers to bolster security for the elections.

Good luck to the SecGen in finding those troops in continental Europe.

Upperdate: Paul Wells of Maclean's on the ball (more so than the MND it might seem):

Fun with consistency; or, maybe it’s not NATO that Afghanistan is testing

Peter MacKay, yesterday:

“Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context. If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?”

Peter MacKay, Feb. 8:

“In spite of the challenges, I would suggest that, if Afghanistan was a litmus test for NATO, the Alliance has already passed.”