Yet the old traditional methods of doing business are still as evident as they were during the Cold War days: summits expose all the idiosyncrasies and internal bickerings that make this military and political organisation complex, difficult to manage and often tiresome.

All the leaders agreed that the mission in Afghanistan must succeed. The credibility of the alliance was at stake, Tony Blair reiterated today. So why was it so difficult to persuade each member state of the importance of helping each other out in Afghanistan and providing all the required military capabilities?

Nato now has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan - a huge operation - but until last night over dinner there were 50 separate national caveats in existence, under which individual alliance countries reserved the right to limit their troops geographically and operationally.

Today it emerged that some of these caveats have now been lifted.

This means that countries like France, Germany, Spain and Italy, all of whom have a significant presence in Afghanistan but are located in more benign areas than the British, Canadian, Dutch and American soldiers are, will now be prepared to leave their locations to provide reinforcements elsewhere when required in an emergency.

The concession has been hailed as a significant change in mood within the alliance, and will give Lieutenant-General David Richards, the British commander of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), more flexibility when deciding what troops to deploy at short notice to reinforce alliance comrades under attack.

Whether the agreement over dinner between the 26 Nato leaders will make a marked difference on the ground in Afghanistan can only be tested when the next emergency arises.

No one has clearly defined what an emergency would be, but President Chirac of France stated that French troops could be deployed out of their area of responsibility, which is Kabul, the Afghan capital, if called upon by the Isaf commander.

Nato is using the phrase "in extremis" as a defining yardstick, but does that mean the French, German, Spanish and Italian troops will only be allowed into a combat zone if, say, the British are facing a Rorke’s Drift scenario in Helmand province or the Canadians are taking heavy casualties in neighbouring Kandahar?

Still, progress has been made in Riga, if only because the political leaders have conceded that while all have soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, some are engaged in wholesale combat, while others are having a pretty quiet time.

The Canadians, in particular, have been laying down the law about other Nato members sharing more of the risks. Canada has suffered a large number of casualties, even more than the British in Helmand, and resent it when alliance members have failed to come to their aid when facing relentless attacks by the Taleban.

Lifting of some of the 50 caveats will release another 2,000 troops for Afghanistan-wide deployments, according to General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato Secretary-General, claimed that 26,000 of the 32,000 alliance troops in Afghanistan would now be available for deployment throughout the country. While this might seem a boost for General Richards, it’s a fairly meaningless figure.

What General Richards really wants is a reserve force ready to go anywhere. He has been waiting for one ever since he took over the command of Isaf in January, and he will have handed over his job to a four-star American general before the proposed unit is formed. It will consist of one Polish battalion and three American battalions.

As the summit came to an end today, Mr de Hoop Scheffer reached the traditional conclusion that it had been a success and had met all his expectations.

But apart from the moves over national caveats, only a handful of member states offered more troops and equipment for Afghanistan, enough to reduce the present 15 per cent shortfall in capability to ten per cent.

General Jones said that a shortfall in capability in a peacekeeping mission was one thing, but a capability gap in an operation where soldiers were being killed in combat was potentially more dangerous.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Afghanistan News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Experts baffled by vanishing sea lions
• CIA caught in a dirty and secretive war
• Double life of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab