Obama in Britain

US President Barack Obama's visit to London could be seen as having considerable significance at a time of great turmoil as the world looks for steady leadership from one of its most prominent international partnerships.

However, the current positions of the US and Britain in discussions on the world's flashpoint issues are likely to highlight the divisions in the "special relationship," not the strength of the bond.

Friction over the future of operations in Afghanistan, the lack of consensus and focus in the Libyan intervention, and the broader weaknesses of NATO leadership have increased the importance of Obama's coming discussions with his British counterpart.

An encouraging sign for the future of the relationship comes from President Obama's willingness to form a joint national security body between the US and UK.

The president announced ahead of his visit that a joint National Security Strategy Board will be established, allowing national security advisers on both sides of the Atlantic to keep in regular contact and liaise on long-term challenges rather than only holding emergency meetings when events dictate.

However, analysts believe that this announcment amounts to little more than one of the partnership's usual PR stunts.

"The nature of the special relationship is usually exaggerated and has more to do with shared history and culture than anything else, although there are occasional 'spikes,' such as Blair's support for Bush in the Iraq War," Professor Bill Mitchell, a Transatlantic relations expert at the University of Stirling, told Deutsche Welle.

Testing times

The "special relationship" became a detested phrase in some corners of Britain in the context of the Iraq war, one which many British politicians claim still covers up a huge imbalance between the two countries. The US has been accused of treating Britain not as a partner but as a dogsbody, using its power and leverage for its own ends and undervaluing Britain's role as a key ally.

Britain, meanwhile, is seen in the United States as a nation which has done little to deserve the title of equal partner or reliable ally and one which is too closely situated in location and mindset to the US-skeptics in the European Union.

Britain's focus has certainly turned more toward Europe in recent years just as the US has increasingly prioritized other parts of the world, particularly the Middle East and Far East, over Britain and its European neighbors.

Charles Kupchan, a transatlantic relations expert at the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, says Obama's visit is an attempt to get the US-UK ties back on track.

"Obama's state visit to the UK marks an attempt to rekindle the special relationship. With Atlanticist leaders in Paris and Berlin, Washington was tempted to work more directly with France and Germany - at the expense of its links to London," Kupchan told Deutsche Welle.

"But Sarkozy and Merkel have at times proved to be difficult partners. And on issues ranging from Afghanistan to Libya to development and democratization, the special US-UK link has demonstrated its ongoing relevance."

David Cameron's recent announcement on British troop reductions in Afghanistan has certainly added an extra edge to a debate which has grown increasingly fraught between the United States and its European partners over involvement in the 10-year Afghan campaign.

Rapid Afghanistan exit

The US has spent much of the last five years demanding more commitment from Europe's NATO members without much response, and Cameron's recent order to British commanders to draw up plans to start pulling at least 400 troops out of Afghanistan within weeks has angered the US military which believes it is continually picking up the slack.

Obama wants to make cuts to US forces in Afghanistan by July but his generals are concerned that European NATO partners won't be willing or able to make up the shortfall due to diminishing interest and radical defense cuts. US estimates suggest the Afghan mission needs at least another year to make progress against the Taliban and build up Afghan security forces and that weakened coalition forces will be unable to sustain this.

Senior American military figures have warned Britain that a hasty exit could strain relations between the two countries and that the US would not "bail out" British troops in Afghanistan in a repeat of the situation US commanders claim happened in Iraq.

"Britain and the US certainly share the same big dilemma, not on Afghanistan as Cameron is moving closer to the aspiration of a withdrawal date, but on what to do about Pakistan, which is becoming a failed state and whose security agencies are, to say the least, ambivalent in their relation to the Taliban and al Qaeda," said Professor Mitchell.

Libyan burden

Libya will be another hot topic on the agenda at Downing Street with rumors of a widening rift between the two powers over how the campaign has been handled, the level of involvement and the lack of a comprehensive exit strategy.

Far from engaging in a short humanitarian operation aimed at inspiring a revolution from within, Britain, along with France, now look to have misjudged Colonel Moammar Gadhafi's staying power and have led the UN - and by default the United States - into a war which they are now obliged to win.

With NATO's European members failing to send adequate forces to Libya, it could be argued that Obama has a right to feel aggrieved after becoming involved in a campaign that lacked foresight and strategic planning from the start. Cameron, on the other hand, may claim that the lack of US leadership as NATO's leading military power may have contributed to the initial mission mutating into the complicated situation the alliance now faces.

Transatlantic relations experts, however, believe that while these issues have added to the strains on relations brought on by the intervention, there are positives to be gained from the reactions of both leaders.

"I don't think President Obama got dragged into Libya," James Goldgeier, professor of political science at George Washington University, told Deutsche Welle. "He seems to have decided that preventing a massacre in Benghazi was important. Letting Europe take the lead on Libya is a good precedent for issues arising close to Europe, whether in North Africa or Eastern Europe."

"While Britain and France would have preferred the US to play a more active role in Libya, I think there was general understanding of why Obama chose not to," Professor Mitchell said. "David Cameron is only too aware of the negative pull of the experience in Iraq, but also of the need for European powers to step up to the mark in their own backyard."

Author: Nick Amies

Editor: Rob Mudge