Exocet - the Effects of a different Falklands

[Nevran]

Ruslan Khasbulatov, elected President of a Russia free from Soviet influence, knew the challenges that lied ahead. After the shocking death of Yeltsin and the chaos of the August Coup, Khasbulatov believed that Russia needed a pluralist government to better serve the divided and dividing nation. In this vein, Khasbulatov sought to govern Russia as a unifier under the Democratic Russia banner, inviting ideological allies and foes to work together.

He extended this tradition to international relations, working closely with the West and America. After extensive negotiations between Khasbulatov and President Thompson, both men negotiated a large aid and economic development package, akin to the Marshall Plan (called the Cheney Plan after Secretary of State Cheney) to help Russia re-orientate itself away from a command economy and become better able to enter global markets. This allowed Khasbulatov some room for manoeuvre in order avoid the worst excesses of economic liberalisation. In a particularly poignant clause of the Cheney Plan, Russia (for a considerable amount of aid) Russia would initiate a unilateral reduction of its nuclear weapons and capacity, unthinkable 10 years before.

Khasbulatov a native Chechian, took special interest in the conflict in Chechnya, who advocated for the nation to remain a member of the Russian Federation, albeit able to act autonomously. His visit to Grozny in 1994 was meant to be the first step in negotiations between the republics, but was cut short by a deadly truck bomb, killing 47 and injuring Khasbulatov. While peace talks were shelved, Khasbulatov ordered that Russian troops remained out of Chechnya, unless used to displace terror cells, for fear of an escalation of the conflict.

Khasbulatov, an economist, was heavily critical of some of the “shock therapy” employed by other Soviet and Eastern Bloc nations and instead more-or-less, continued government spending and state support. Whilst these policies proved popular with the Russian people, the economy soon begun to overheat, with inflation becoming a continual problem. It would culminate in the Spiralling Recession of 1994.

The Spiralling Recession would begin when this inflation would eventually be classified as hyperinflation and after a badly worded statement from Khasbulatov, he inadvertently triggered a run on the Russian financial and banking sector as savings became worthless. To international investors (such as those in America) the crisis also highlighted the threat that Russia could default on its foreign loans and wouldn’t be able to pay back its substantial debts. Subsequently, this led to a crash of the rouble on foreign exchange markets, which meant that Russian imports of oil and gas (by far its greatest source of revenue) became almost worthless overnight, exacerbating the situation.

Khasbulatov in response, was forced to undo most of his economic policies by replacing the Rouble (RUR) with the New Rouble (RUB), which while ending hyperinflation, led to crippling poverty for millions. Both the U-turn and his subsequent actions crippled Khasbulatov’s reputation and popularity. This led to an impeachment vote by the Russian Parliament (Congress of People's Deputies), led by Homeland – Our Russia, the party of business interests and capitalists. Barely surviving the impeachment charge, Khasbulatov was forced to defer to the hostile legislature for the remainder of his presidency.

So, by 1996 and after many trials and tribulations, the Russian economy had integrated into the world market. The New Rouble had stablished after a Western and IMF bailout, but the terms of the bailout saw the break-up of government monopolies and state industries. This led to mass unemployment and poverty and accelerated rise of kleptocrats like Gazprom owner Viktor Chernomyrdin and NTV owner Vladimir Gusinsky. These kleptocrats, with the help of the media and their many subsidiaries, proved fatal to Khasbulatov’s government, acting as prominent critics of the government, funding millions into anti-government protests and propaganda.

Khasbulatov had during his term made enemies of the right-wing, military, and capitalist interests. These group would (uneasily) rally behind the Mayor of St Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak, a prominent figure in the early democratic movement and a liberal reformer who had led St Petersburg to economic prosperity. The Communists chose anti-Gorbachev (and pro-August Coup) Gennady Zyuganov, who railed against the liberal excess of Khasbulatov and promised to “stand up for Russia” and return it to the glory days of its Communist past. Khasbulatov was thus sandwiched between one extremist and one who had the support of the media and kleptocrats, who clearly favoured Sobchak. And so, the first round saw the incumbent lose out to a second round showing (wherein polling indicates he would’ve been defeated in a landslide by either of the other candidates) by 0.3%.

In the race against the “unpredictable and dangerous” Zyuganov, according to the NTV, the result was both easy to predict and clear in its result. In a greater landslide than even Khasbulatov received in 1992, Anatoly Sobchak was elected as Russia’s third President.

​

 

[Nevran]

President Tommy Thompson was the next Ronald Reagan. Or at least that was the image that his spin-doctors and likeminded ideological allies in the media tried to portray. A charming, tax-cutting, pro-American (anti-communist didn’t work anymore with the end of communism), his administration would undo the damage done by his Democratic predecessor and see a nation returned to prosperity.

An ambitious agenda (led by House Speaker Bob Michel and Treasury Secretary Alan Greenspan) of tax cuts, deregulation and welfare reform, complemented by the first Republican trifecta since the 1950s was employed to combat the early 1990s recession. The signing of NAFTZ (North American Free Trade Zone), in 1994 and the Cheney Plan of economic loans to Russia were also part of the economic reforms embraced by the Thompson Administration. America needed to embrace globalisation and free trade or else it would ‘lose’ the decade and the next millennium. Whether these policies were responsible for the economic boom of the late 1990s or whether it was because of the rise of ‘intelitech’, a pseudonym for intelligent information technology, Thompson and the nation enjoyed a real sense of economic prosperity not felt since the highs of the Reagan Administration.

Thompson, however, is remember more for his foreign policy actions and the rise of neoconservatism, exemplified by hawks such as Secretary of State Dick Cheney, NSA Advisor Paul Wolfowitz and Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld. In the aftermath of the Cold War, America had assumed the role as the world’s policeman, intervening in Eritrea, Yugoslavia and Rwanda whilst negotiating disarmament and arms limitations treaties in Russia and overseeing the successful disarmament of South Africa.

Dick Cheney, the most effective and powerful Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger, co-ordinated and organised NATO’s response to the Noël Attack, with a joint intervention in Algeria, later expanded to civil war-stricken Libya. This intervention was designed to stabilise both regimes and fight terrorists as an opportunity to spread democracy and deepen American ties. Further, alleged American interference in Russia’s 1996 presidential election saw noted Western-sympathiser Anatoly Sobchak elected. Sobchak’s victory opened up new markets for American companies to enter Russia, the most famous expansion being the Halliburton joint-partnership with Gazprom. Whilst corruption or malpractice has never been proven, the merger occurred when both former chairmen of the respective energy conglomerates (Cheney and Chernomyrdin) had positions of power in their respective governments. However, these interventions (which saw rising costs in both American treasure and lives) ran counter to the inward-looking American public, who polling showed to experiencing a period of retrenchment, in order to enjoy the spoils supposedly gained through the end of the Cold War.

Democrats, having lost the White House (with both its two living presidents one-termers and deeply unpopular) and Congress, descended into a period of ideological warfare. The ‘New Ideas’ wing, moderate and economically conservative, blamed Hart’s loss not on Hart himself but due to the difficult economic circumstances of the time and the 1989 Omnibus Budget Bill, which cemented the party to trapped in a ‘tax-and-spend’ paradigm. The ‘Old Democrat’ wing, representing the more liberal wing, meanwhile, blamed the loss of 1992 at Hart and his because of Ross Perot (who stole anti-Republicans and the working class) and a failure to motivate the party’s voter bases of the party due to Hart’s failure to pass healthcare legislation. The 1994 Midterms which kept Republican majorities in Congress exacerbated these divisions, which seemingly showed the party on course for a defeat akin in 1984.

In this light, many prominent Democrats like Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton, and Dick Gephardt stood 1996 out, believing Thompson to be a shoo-in for re-election. The front-runner was Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran, who received the Medal of Honor from Nixon, on top of being a well-liked and well-respected Senator from Nebraska. However, a scandal about him committing potential war crimes against a Viet Cong village in Thong Phang and his cool response to the alleged crimes, saw his campaign collapse and subsequent withdrawal, winning only his home state of Nebraska.

In the resulting aftermath of the Thong Phang Scandal, the Democratic race was blown wide-open. To the surprise of the party and the country, it would be former Senator Henry Cisneros of Texas, first elected in 1989, to replace incoming Vice President Lloyd Bentsen, before narrowly losing re-election in 1994 against Joe Barton, who picked up the wreckage of the Democratic primary. Cisneros represented (another) new form of Democrat, with a winning smile and looks and youth to boot. Bilingual, optimistic, charismatic, his campaign seemed to represent a breath of fresh air, more so than Hart or Thompson ever did. Using his strident opposition to the welfare reform enacted by Thompson, he gained the support of the liberal wing. To win the support of the party elite and moderates, (outside of welfare reform) Cisneros positioned himself as a moderate ‘New Ideas’ Democrat, referring back to his time as San Antonio mayor and the connections made whilst a Senator. And so, against a scattered field of former Cabinet members and bland Senators, Cisneros had history on his side to become the Democratic nominee.

​

Cisneros’ selection of Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard as his running mate, meant to appeal to blue-collar voters and keep unions onside, was well-received by the party and was meant to plug a gap in polling that saw Cisneros struggle to win white blue-collar voters. It was polling showing Cisneros, relatively unknown to the public, catching up to Thompson as more voters heard him, which sent the Republican campaign into a frenzy.

This frenzy consisted of Republican surrogates ran a highly negative campaign against Cisneros and the Democratic Party as a whole. Employing wedge issues like crime, race, and (for the first time) immigration as ‘dog-whistles’ against the Cisneros campaign, Republican strategists attempted to peel away both white voters and black voters, many of whom were unenthused about Cisneros candidacy. Attacks on Cisneros' character in light of his admitted marital affair and the ever-present corruption scandals which haunted Texas would become key talking points by Republican surrogates. Further attacks would be made at Cisneros voting record as Senator, including backing both the Omnibus Bill and his votes against the welfare reforms instituted by Thompson, to tar Cisneros. It would be the infamous ‘Macarena Ad’ which would come to epitomise the Republican campaign. Interspersed with clips from the Democratic National Convention of party grandees dancing the Macarena, an ominous voice portrayed Cisneros, and the Democrats as a whole, were untested, inexperienced, and unsuited to White House. The ad had clear racial undertones behind it, the undertones of which were heard by those who wanted to hear it.

This negative campaign, however, could not fully stop Cisneros or his momentum. A debate blowout against Thompson in the first presidential debate, liberal anger at the Thompson Administration, alongside voters who disliked the foreign policy ‘adventurism’ seen, was enough to keep the race nail-bitingly close. Cisneros seemed to offer change, and with the next presidential term to be the one of the new millennium, change was in the air. When polls opened, no-one was really sure who would come out on top.

However, and by a narrower than expected margin from the outset of the campaign, Thompson won re-election. Whilst Cisneros was the underdog, his confident and change message resonated with voters, but a series of factors including; African-American apathy toward Cisneros; a concerted effort to reach out to blue collar ‘Reagan Democrats’ by Thompson (and inherent racism caused by Cisneros' historic campaign) and a strong conservative showing had given Thompson just enough of an advantage in just enough states to win a second term.

 

[Nevran]

A.N. Sorry for the delay, but this is the biggest update of the TL yet, so hopefully that counts for something. Updates might be a bit spotty, got a lot going on IRL but I’m still committed to this TL and have got some big plans for it. Hope you enjoy the update!

The Cold War seemed to predict an end to the decades of conflict which had plagued the 20th century. America was the undisputed hegemon, globalism and free trade made war less profitable and the rise of democracy across the globe made war far less likely. Yet, the Nineties featured many other violent conflicts, including those fought in Africa and Europe, but such wars lacked an ideological component, often fought against religious or ethnic violence, rather than ideological reasons. However, one war stands as an exception, the Second Korean War.

The Korean Wars represented the first and last war of the Cold War and the Second began with Kim Il-Sung’s death in the mid-1990s. The exact date of his death has been lost to history, with multiple clashing accounts between doctors, experts and testimonies stating he died in either October 1995 or February 1996. Yet, what is known, is that Il-Sung, who was morbidly obese and had suffered from many health problems throughout his life, suffered a severe health episode in 1994 (again, records are conflicting whether he suffered a heart attack or a stroke) which had left him paralysed, needing a wheelchair, and with severe difficulties speaking.

Il-Sung’s son and the heir apparent, Kim Jong-Il attempted to use his father’s health scare to replace his father and become the next leader. Military officials and bureaucratic leaders resisted this, fearing Il-Sung would recover and to maintain the illusion of stable leadership. Jong-Il, who was seen internally as overly autocratic, even more so than his father, had also grown increasingly unpopular among North Korean elites, who were organised by Kim Yong-ju and Hwang Jang-yop. Yong-Ju, Il-Sung’s younger brother, was an internal opponent of the cult of personality which had grown around his brother and instead sought a return to more traditional Marxism. Yong-Ju, already prominent in North Korea, used his brothers’ health episode to reconcile with him (caused by his demotion in favour of Jong-Il) and used this time wisely, slowly gained influence in the backrooms. Jong-Il's attempt to seize power, with his father still alive, was a major blow to Jong-Il's reputation and seemingly proved the fears of the military and bureaucratic elite.

The North Korean public were largely unaware of these backroom troubles, with Il-Sung’s heart attack and the severity of it being heavily censored by the North Korean media with his subsequent ‘recovery’ being trumpeted with multiple stories and videos featuring a healthy Il-Sung being fabricated. Those who owned TVs saw a healthy and vital leader, whilst those didn't continued on as they did before. Il-Sung also, whether due to his heart attack and health issues following, (through evidence uncovered during North Korean reconstruction) grew increasingly paranoid and angry, believing his heart attack to have been orchestrated by a foreign agent, or worse, by his own overly ambitious son.

As with most documents immediately preceding the North Korean Civil War, multiple conflicting accounts exist of the military takeover and a timeline has been impossible to verify. However, the widely accepted view is that when North Korean TV announced that Kim Il-Sung had died peacefully in his sleep in February 1996, and that an ‘emergency transition council’ had been established in the aftermath, marked the beginning of the 13-month-long North Korean Civil War. Jong-Il, who had been banished from father's company after his heath episode and on the backfoot, had found himself frozen out.

Jong-Il was undeterred however, collecting a loyal cadre of military officers and figures and launched a military coup against the emergency transition council. The year-long civil war afterwards (again it is unknown when Jong-Il was killed, with the best evidence pointing to April 1997) tore apart the nation and killed millions and exacerbated the deliberate northern famine of 1993-1997. The West looked on in shock and horror. South Korea began to prepare for a flood of refugees. China, having undergone a shift towards the West and Western values since the Tiananmen Protests, withdrew diplomatic and military support from the burning nation.

What escalated the North Korean Civil War into the Second Korean War was when a faction of North Korean troops loyal to Jong-Il, attacked and overran the Joint Security Area and the House of Peace on the 5 March 1997. Both buildings were housing refugees and political dissidents who were fleeing from violence. The likely target of the siege was Hwang Jang-yop, a prominent government official, who had criticised both Kim and the emergency government and attempt to defect to South Korea. The attack, dramatized in the opening scene of the Oscar winning film Parallel, represented an act of war against both South Korea and the international peacekeepers guarding the refugees. So began the Second Korean War.

The US, largely organised through the leadership of Secretary of State Dick Cheney, who was both the most powerful and prominent figure in the Thompson Administration and would go on to become the longest serving Secretary of State since Cordell Hull, immediately retaliated to the flagrant breach of international law and the clear violation of the 1953 ceasefire. Launching air strikes against military positions in North Korea, US forces in tandem with South Korea who begun a rapid mobilisation of its troops, began to remilitarised the DMZ . The opening gambit was clear. The US attempted to destroy the offensive capabilities of the North to attack the South, whilst South Korea took the longer process of mobilising troops for an eventual retaliation to the 15 March siege.

The North Korean ‘emergency transition council’, which controlled most military positions close to the DMZ, ordered a retaliation to this mobilisation. From previously secret positions, North Korean troops begun the now infamous, “Days of Death”. In barbaric and unthinkable ways, South Korea saw multiple chemical weapons attacks and bombings of Seoul and Incheon, which killed well over 200,000 civilians. South Korea, alongside the US, managed to destroy the artillery, missile sites and rocket launchers on the border at great cost, and managed to stop the worst of the attacks after two days. The losses were astronomical on all sides, but it represented a turning point in favour of the South and US.

The US sent a total of 160,000 troops to fight alongside South Korea, who mobilised 1,000,000 troops in response. By May 1997, with Britain, France, and Russia offering military, diplomatic and logistical support, the so-called “Freedom Coalition” crossed the DMZ and landed troops on the beaches near Chongjin. By July 1997, US and South Korean military troops had occupied the capital city of Pyongyang. Fighting against a suboptimal and fractured Korean People’s Army, the predictions of a drawn out and deadly slog were largely overestimated. Outside the “Days of Death” and the siege of Pyongyang, casualties were minimal (or within expected parameters). The reason for this was, simply, the bulk of what remained of the North Korean People’s Army was woefully underprepared for conflict, with at least 70% of its troops malnourished and most missing equipment like bullets, guns and in some cases shoes.

As images were broadcast of the destruction, death, and famine on the Korean Peninsula, both in the North and South, calls grew louder for action to alleviate the suffering. Of particular focus of Bob Geldof, the founder of Live Aid in 1985, was the man-made famine created in North and the seeming ambivalence of Coalition forces, who were focused on fighting and securing military supply lines. So, to raise further awareness of the suffering created by the wars, it was decided that Live Aid would return, this time as a series of charity concerts in multiple cities, broadcast simultaneously, live, across the globe. Live Aid 2 ran for four days across eleven cities, with its proceeds being given to the South Korean government, NGOs, and relief agencies to help fund reconstruction efforts.

After the Fall of Pyongyang in August 1997, US and South Korean transitioned from invasion to occupation. Troops began anti-insurgency campaigns against Kim loyalists, in the rural north, who had received aid from the Chinese government. Outside of these insurgents, North Koreans, despite their seeming fanaticism towards the Kim regime, were largely peaceful and accepted the change in government. Most (North) Koreans saw their standards of living dramatically improve by the turn of millennium thanks to the end of the civil war, UN aid packages and charity.

South Korea, now formally known as Korea, was resistant to an immediate annexation of the North, fearing the cost and effort needed. Instead South Korea sought international support to administer the North. To gain this, and to provide the government with international legitimacy and recognition, the UN was authorised (begrudgingly by China, who ultimately preferred the UN to having the US or South Korea directly administer its neighbour) to form a protectorate in the region, which would last for 11 years. Kofi Annan became the administrator of the UN protectorate, and reconstruction began.

The UN protectorate forces and peacekeepers were mostly compromised of Chinese and Korean personnel, believed to be more capable of administering the province than the US. However, US troops still were prominent on the peninsula and acted outside of the UNnprotectorate, to fight insurgents, demilitarise the remaining North Korean army, militias, and loyalists, and provide material aid to the South for both rebuilding and for the eventual integration.

US troops would, from 1999, be gradually reduced by Thompson and his successor, before fully withdrawing in 2005, whilst (South) Korean troops would take over operational security in the former North the same year. In 2008, the protectorate was dissolved, and the North was fully integrated into the Republic of Korea.

 

[Nevran]

A.N. After a long hiatus, I’m bringing Exocet back from the dead. While I’ve not been active on the site or for this TL during Summer, I’m back now and I’ve taken some time to think about Exocet’s future and rewrote a fair bit of it. I’ve also been experimenting with new styles for the TL too to try and make it a bit more different, which hopefully you'll see in the next post. I'm planning at least one update a week but I might post more if I've got stuff ready. Thanks as well for waiting and for reading, and hope you enjoy, if you’re still here that is!

So, with that here's, and a recap of sorts, Exocet’s version of Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” List from 1980 to 1998. It’s both the year when the TL was paused and the last time “Man of the Year” was used before Time changed it to “Person of the Year". Totally planned.

 

[Nevran]

1998 saw Britain hold both the presidency of the European Council and chair the newly created G8, which saw Russia become a permanent member of the G7, after the election of the more western friendly Anatoly Sobchak. So, with the influx of European and global leaders, along with the ability to set the discussion during these summits, British soft power was far greater than what would usually be expected. Alongside negotiating large packages of aid for Korea and the former nations of Yugoslavia during the G8, British diplomats and Treasury officials finally agreed both a date for the planned introduction of the European common currency (ecu) and which city would host the European Central Bank (ECB).

Cook who was the Dean of the European Council, having been the longest continuous serving European leader, had worked closely with EU diplomats to pursue favourable terms for Britain. Hand-in-hand with Foreign Secretary Tony Blair, Cook argued that British entry into the ecu meant London should host the headquarters of the ECB, primarily on the merits that London would be the largest financial centre in the potential European Currency Union (E.C.U). The economic advantages of having the ECB in London, as well as the potential benefits diplomatically of this, saw Cook and the Foreign Office lobbying extensively in London's favour.

These negotiations directly challenged Frankfurt’s ambitions to host the ECB. Germany being the largest economy in Europe, with the Deutsche Mark being the currency all others were pegged to in the E.E.R.M, and by being a founding member of the EEC, gave the nation a legitimate claim to host the ECB. British diplomats had already got agreements in favour of London being the host city from government and economic officials from euroskeptic nations, like Norway, Sweden and Ireland who feared a German dominated economic union. France would prove the last hurdle to clear, and it would be in side rooms at the Birmingham G8 Summit that saw finally saw an agreement met.

Cook and Blair negotiated with French officials including President Delors and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin to support London’s bid to host the ECB. With Britain still wavering on joining the currency union, it seemed as if an incentive on the scale of hosting the ECB would tip the scale in Europe’s favour. An agreement that Britain would back France to formally become the only host of the European Parliament at Strasbourg sealed the deal. Experts argued that French diplomats, and Delors himself, believed an ECB based in London would lock Britain into the EU and agreed to support London’s bid based on this. German Chancellor Rudolf Scharping’s reluctance to embrace the ecu and give up the Deutsche Mark also contributed to Frankfurt losing the initiative.

Cook and his fellow European leaders left the G8 summit, and it was during the British Presidency of the European Council that London’s bid to host the ECB would be agreed and ratified by European leaders. It would also be during this period that Cook, realising his own limited political capital, would have to call a referendum on joining the ecu.

Helmut Kohl, Commission President of the EU, also finalized a date for the introduction of the common currency, January 1, 2002. Germany also demanded that now the location of the ECB would be in London, Britain had to fully commit to entering the E.C.U and would have to do so before 2000. Whilst not agreed at Birmingham, this would become known as the “Birmingham Agreement” which finally ended the years of political gridlock and delay towards the introduction of a European common currency.

The G8 Summit, unfortunately would be not remembered for the Birmingham Agreement or the steps made towards providing aid to war-torn regions, but for Anatoly Sobchak’s tragic and shocking death. Sobchak, who had never been in the best of health and had been suffering from the stress of his office suffered a fatal heart attack as his aircraft took off from Birmingham Airport. In the twelve minutes it took for the plane to make an emergency landing, the onboard doctors were unable to revive the President.

Whilst Russia had an orderly transfer of power, with Vice President Chernomyrdin becoming President, the death of the Russian president on foreign soil led to false accusations that he had been assassinated, poisoned by British and/or the American secret services. While Chernomyrdin would not engage in these falsehoods about Sobchak’s death, it would be Chernomyrdin's successor who would fan the flames and use them for his own political advantage.

 

[Nevran]

 

[Nevran]

In the late 90s and early 00s in Britain, the spectre of the common currency often overshadowed the local, regional, and national elections. Finally ending years of speculation, Cook promised to hold a referendum in 1999, which also ended the speculation of whether a general election would be held in 1999. After such a crucial and probably divisive vote, pundits believed that Westminster and the nation would need time to ‘settle down’ before launching into another highly divisive campaign.

It was believed that the referendum would be held at the same time as the 1999 European Parliament election scheduled for June, but instead, a May date for the referendum was chosen. With local elections held on the 5 May, along with the Scottish Assembly elections, Cook and Labour instead chose to hold the referendum on the 13 May. So, the ecu referendum would be held on the same day as the second-round mayoral election in London. The reasons for this date were largely because Labour and Cook hoped that by holding the referendum at the same time as the London mayoral election, that a Labour candidate would win against the euroskeptic Michael Portillo, and that the left-wing urbanites of London would turn out at a higher level for the referendum and vote more in favour of adopting the ecu).

But firstly, the Scottish Assembly had reached the end of its first term.

Labour’s (or more specifically, the Labour-Alliance coalition’s) record in Holyrood had complemented the work of Cook’s government in Westminster, introducing incremental yet progressive changes to health, education including an ambitious reform of council tax. While these policies were superficially popular, many Scots felt that they didn’t go far enough, especially among nationalists and socialists. Further, as Cook became more unpopular nationwide, so did First Minister Donald Dewar. Once seen as the father of the Scottish Assembly, a term in power had seen hid become a ‘sleepy’ figure, especially in contrast to his more notable opponents on the SNP and Conservative benches. Dewar announcing that he would be seeking a second term as First Minister thus, did little to enthuse voters.

The Conservatives meanwhile took the opposite tact and instead chose the ‘boy wonder’ Michael Gove as their leader in 1998. Gove, an ambitious man, who had become a Conservative while at Oxford University, despite coming from a Labour supporting family. Struggling in London, Gove moved back home to Aberdeen and became a prominent right-wing pundit in Scottish media and journalism. Seeking a seat for the Scottish Assembly in 1995, he quickly became a rising star of the party and won the leadership on a pledge of renewal. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, during the election campaign, shocking revelations against Gove including cocaine use while at university and past statements in which he decried ‘appeasement’ with Northern Irish ‘terrorists’ poisoned his campaign.

The Alliance, meanwhile, despite positive achievements in government, struggled after David Steel’s retirement. His replacement, Malcolm Bruce, a former MP who lost his seat in 1991 was forced to fight off accusations of carpet-bagging after he was caught off-the-cuff admitting he would rather be in Westminster than in Holyrood.

The SNP was led by Roseanna Cunningham, a committed advocate of independence and member of the socialist ‘79 Group. Cunningham drew a clear lie in the sand between her and her predecessor Margaret Ewing’s leadership. Cunningham instead orientated the party to the left of Labour and promised that a SNP government would ‘stand up for Scotland’. Compared to the moderate Ewing faction of the party, she was seen as a breath of fresh air for the party. Further, after Alex Salmond’s expulsion after accusations of inappropriate behaviour from staffers, Cunningham’s quick dismissal of Salmond was seen as a confident move which helped cement her leadership. Salmond, irritated by his dismissal from the SNP and still popular with nationalists, jumped ship and joined Tommy Sheridan’s nascent Scottish Socialist Party to give the SSP a significant boost in polling.

With these local issues bubbling under the surface, it would be the common currency and referendum which dominated the election and divided all the parties to the north of the border. This division was especially prevalent in the Conservative campaign caused by Gove’s ardent opposition to the ecu, even though the Scottish Conservatives were widely seen as favourable to the ecu and Patten’s leadership. The ecu became a flashpoint for the Scottish elections and it seemed as it only the Scottish Socialist Party was benefiting from the debate, being the only left-wing party with a clear policy towards the ecu (being against the ecu).

As Scottish voters cast their ballots, the unionist parties all suffered whilst nationalists and left-wing parties made significant gains. And so, the SNP after weeks of arduous negotiations formed a minority government with support from the SSP and the Greens.

​

A week later, the referendum which had overshadowed the election saw Scotland vote 59 – 41 in favour of adopting the common currency.

 

[Nevran]

Michael Portillo’s term as Mayor of London went far more smoothly than expected after his shock victory over Ken Livingstone in 1995. Unfortunately for the new mayor, the close result of the election meant that the newly created London Assembly maintained a Labour majority, which stymied some of Portillo’s bigger policy ambitions, such as relaxing planning laws and approving the construction of a third runway at Heathrow.

Portillo, instead, appointed a technocratic team behind him and eschewed Conservative dogma. Portillo focused on improving public transport and promoting business and made multiple publicity campaigns in favour of both. When not on trains, buses and riding bikes, Portillo would often be found schmoozing in the city to bankers, stock marketers and insurers. While his frequent champagne and prawn cocktail ‘meetings’ cemented his image as elitist, they often paid economic dividends and it was during some of these meetings that Portillo helped secure private investment for the revitalisation of Greenwich Peninsula. Portillo also spent time arguing for the newly created London Assembly and his mayoral office to be moved from County Hall in Lambeth to a different location, in order to draw ‘a clear line in the sand’ from the much-maligned Greater London Council, which had also been based in County Hall.

Portillo was a highly prolific mayor and would often claim to be the most popular politician in the country, thanks to his direct mandate from the hundreds of thousands of people who voted him in. Portillo harnessed his media presence and mandate to pester and challenge Cook’s government and became in the process of one of the leading critics of Robin Cook and his Chancellor, Margaret Beckett. Portillo’s criticism would be targeted at the government’s economic policies and their approach to European integration.

The biggest row between Cook and Portillo, however, was a public spat about the location of the planned millennium celebrations. Portillo favoured a large event in London, as planned by Michael Heseltine, but Cook and his cabinet voted to hold the event in Birmingham instead. Portillo soon after made speeches and gave multiple interviews saying that Cook had ‘snubbed’ the capital because of Cook’s political bias towards Portillo. Cook denied the accusations that he was playing favourites but the relationship between the two men would only worsen afterwards.

Labour, both nationally and in the capital, began to openly attack Portillo and so party officials selected Glenda Jackson, a former actress turned Labour MP over Ken Livingstone, who they believed would have more cross-over appeal in the second round of voting to better beat Portillo. Livingstone, furious, launched an independent campaign for the office, hoping to knock Labour and Jackson out of the second round.

The first round was held a week before the ecu referendum, with the second round held the day of. London was widely seen as the most pro-common currency areas in the UK and so the capital was blanketed by campaigners from both sides trying to boost turnout. Portillo, perhaps wisely, chose to distance himself from the ‘Keep Sterling’ campaign, which was led by "crackpots and has-beens", according to Tony Blair. He would, however, benefit from the tensions created by the referendum and delighted in internal Labour party squabbling, highlighting during the mayoral election Livingstone’s and Jackson’s attacks on the other for their opposite positions on the ecu.

Livingstone’s bruising independent campaign meant that Portillo was guaranteed a place in the second round, with left-wingers divided. Whilst Jackson beat Livingstone to reach the second round, Portillo was able to use his charisma and the national unpopularity of Cook (and the local unpopularity of Jackson), to win a second term as Mayor.

And so, as London backed the adoption of the ecu, Michael Portillo was victorious. In the aftermath of the referendum, he would cement himself as one of the Conservative party’s greatest assets for the upcoming general election.

 

[Nevran]

The common currency debate was more than a debate over economics, more than a debate over free trade and more than a debate over the loss of an independent monetary policy. The common currency represented, as the EEC once had represented in 1975, either the promise and potential of a modern and distinctly European future, or a trap constructed by elite tastemakers and globalists which would see British sovereignty, democracy and identity being drained away. Such divisions had convulsed every single government since Harold Macmillan’s and often it would be through either brute political force, or by consulting the British people, be it through an election or referendum, that saw impasses broken.

The potential economic benefits of joining first a trade bloc, then a customs union, then being integrated into a single market and finally a monetary union proved too beneficial for policy makers to turn down or ignore, especially as Britain’s empire was winding down whether it was peacefully (‘Winds of Change’) or violently (the Falklands Conflict).

Both major parties when in opposition have succumbed to their respective euroskeptics wings (Foot 1980–⁠1983 and Hurd 1993–⁠1995) before governing as distinctly pro-European (Heath 1970–⁠1974, Heseltine 1984–⁠1993 and Cook 1993–⁠). As the end of the millennium approached a decision was finally required on whether the UK would join the European Currency Union and the respectively named ecu. The Birmingham Agreement had seen European leaders finally agree a date for formal introduction of the common currency and Cook had negotiated for London to host the ECB upon entry.

Labour’s 1993 and 1995 manifestos were (unsurprisingly) light on the matter of the common currency but promised that if re-elected Labour would both remain in the E.E.R.M and would support the creation of a European Currency Union (E.C.U). Cook had hoped that this vague promise of ‘eventual entry’ would allow him breathing room to hopefully approve via parliament. His sacking of Gordon Brown in 1996 gave him much needed Treasury support for his Europe policy as did the diplomatic prowess of Tony Blair, at the Foreign Commonwealth Office.

Yet, with Labour divided between Rocks (RObin CooK’s supporters who favoured soft-left policies), Mods/Modernisers (represented now by Blair after Brown’s sacking from Cabinet) and smaller factions like the Brownites and Socialist Campaign Group. Labour whips, knowing the divided situation in the parliamentary party, told Downing Street attempts to adopt the ecu unilaterally would ‘break’ the party. Any measure would require Conservative votes to pass and if Labour couldn’t rely on its 60 seat majority, then it would mark the end of effective government. And so, during a speech to the European Council, Cook announced he would be holding a referendum before 2000 and would campaign in favour of the common currency.

However, despite the potential for voters to reject the common currency, government policy prior to the referendum followed the Beckett rule, (named after Chancellor and europhile Margaret Beckett), in that it continued the long-term policy of preparing for the eventual adoption of a common currency. This rule was much derided in Europe in the leadup to the referendum but compared to the vacillation of the German Chancellor Scharping on the common currency, was mostly forgotten in the aftermath of the referendum.

So, with the support of the Patten-led Conservative Party (itself wracked with divisions and seeing a referendum as a way to neutralise the issue for good) and the Alliance Party, Parliament supported Cook’s motion and a referendum was called for May 13. The question posed to British voters was simple: “Should the United Kingdom adopt the proposed European currency, the ecu, or should it keep the pound?”

The ‘Adopt’ campaign was led by the ‘establishment’ supported by mainstream political figures and business leaders, including Cook, Patten, Alliance Leader Simon Hughes and former PM Michael Heseltine. Cross-party support was extensive for the Keep campaign as was business and industry support for the ecu, with both the CBI and TUC backing the campaign.

The ‘Keep’ was led by controversial figures such as former Conservative MPs and government ministers such as Norman Tebbitt, Norman Lamont and Peter Lilley. The Keep campaign was bankrolled by Sir James Goldsmith of the Referendum Party (ironically the referendum asked for by Goldsmith’s party was on membership of the European Union as a whole, not one for ecu). Left-wing euroskeptics such as Tony Benn and Kate Hoey despite being strong campaigners, found themselves excluded from the Keep campaign, which led to Blair’s famous “crackpots and has-beens” description of the Keep campaign.

Gordon Brown and Michael Portillo, two of the biggest figures against the ecu, both chose not to associate with the Keep campaign and would surprisingly offer little commentary on the matter fearing the political ramifications of clearly choosing a side. Both men were ambitious, and both saw Keep as an anchor to these ambitions.

The right-wing media meanwhile launched a brutal campaign against entry with The Sun launching the ‘Countdown Clock’ to ‘Save Britain’, a stark reversal of their previous support of the EEC in the 1975 referendum. Newspapers like the Daily Mirror, Guardian and Daily Express all backed the ecu, with editorials arguing that both the economic potential (a powerful argument, especially when considering the sluggish growth seen in the UK since the 1980s) of the ecu and the ability for the UK to cement itself within Europe was too good to ignore. In the multiple debates held by the BBC, BSkyB and ITN, the campaigns often argued reductive and divisive commentary with their respective messages being ‘New Millennium, New Britain’ vs Keep Control’. The difference was clear.

And in the end, the result was clear too. By 52–⁠48, the British people chose the ecu and voted in favour of the common currency. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland strongly backed adoption, while the urban and Conservative shires of the UK voted in favour as well. London overwhelmingly backed the ecu and was largely seen as the driving region in favour of adoption. The east and north England proved the most resistant to the ecu but failed to stop the tide in favour of the common currency.

Cook spoke to the nation on the morning after the result promising that ‘Keep’ voters wouldn’t be forgotten, nor would Britain lose her identity in Europe. Cook promised that now the issue of the common currency had been solved, that his government would focus on "building up Britain", especially in deprived areas, most of which backed Keep. Cook promised British sovereignty would be "respected and protected" in Europe and powerfully, that Britain's diplomatic and soft power would be amplified by the result. Britain would be a "leader among equals" in Europe and would define the new millennium just as Britain had done in the last one.

 

[Nevran]

In the immediate aftermath of the European Currency referendum, it appeared that Cook would call a snap election sometime in the summer, to capitalise on Labour’s upswing in the polls (albeit a minor upswing to where Labour was level with the Conservatives). Further the country seemed to be in an optimistic spirit originating from the oncoming millennium and the upcoming 2000 Manchester Olympics. Further, the official confirmation from the EU Council that the ECB would indeed be headquartered in London was met with jubilation in Downing Street and to the City of London. As expected, almost immediately after ‘Adopt’ won, investment banks from multiple European nations pledged to expand their offices, relocate staff, and provide millions in investment for London and the UK, vindicating government policy both on the common currency and its lobbying effort for the ECB.

However, with Cook still averaging mediocre approval ratings, Labour’s internal polling showed that there was a real risk of Labour losing its majority if a snap election was to be held. Cook decided to defer the decision on whether to call the election until after the European Parliament elections and would use this campaign as a test of government popularity for a late-summer/early-autumn election.

Unlike the previous European Parliament election held in 1994, a major change had occurred. The UK changed to a proportional system of allocating seats and MEPs, giving smaller parties a fairer shot at winning seats. This change was necessary to follow EU election regulations and laws, which demanded an aspect of proportionality in such elections. Ironically, this change would see the rise of an openly euroskeptic party which likely wouldn’t have enjoyed the same level of success it did without this more proportional system. ‘Keep UK’, was this euroskeptic party.

Funded and fronted by David Campbell Bannerman, a businessman with an illustrious name and one of the main figures of the Keep campaign, the party was an extension of the Keep campaign in the referendum. Campbell Bannerman, in an effort to gain clout and present a single voice in future elections, consolidated various other euroskeptic parties under the Keep UK banner such as the Anti-Federalist League, the Referendum Party and Sterling1999. Originally a loose alliance created for the sole purpose of this European election, Keep UK would later reform into the stable and more coherent ‘Union’ to contest future elections.

Keep UK was vague on policy but strong on rhetoric, proclaiming it would stand up to Europe, stand up to the E.C.U, stand up to Kohl, to Delors to Cook, to Patten and so on and so forth. Campbell Bannerman argued that a strong result in this election would mean momentum for the upcoming general election and further declared that his party rejected the results of the ‘rigged referendum’ and would give a voice to those who voted ‘Keep’ in the referendum.

Voters, still enthused by the referendum, turned out in large numbers (for an EP election at least). However, despite all the hype and press attention towards Keep UK, the alliance would only win 12 seats and alongside the DUP's single seat, euroskeptic parties failed to win over the now fabled 48%. Most of the energy and the votes won by Keep dispersed with regular electoral issues returning to voters’ minds.

​

And it proved to be Labour which had the most to lose. The party suffered greatly, with voters abandoning the party in its sixth year in office. Geoff Hoon himself, the leader of the Labour grouping in Strasbourg, came narrowly close to losing his own seat in the East Midlands, holding off a challenged by a few thousand votes. Cook rightly saw the results as an omen and postponed the next election until the end of the parliamentary term in 2000.

Wales saw, for the first time in its history, Plaid Cymru win the vote outright. This dramatic result was largely on the basis of nationalist anger with Labour, which announced that it would not be creating a Welsh Assembly, nor would it be holding another referendum for the foreseeable future, having been burnt one too many times by Welsh voters.

The Conservatives, led by party grandee Geoffrey Howe, a prominent member of both Thatcher’s and Heseltine’s governments, remained steady with its 1994 result. The change in the voting system arguably saw the Conservative lose out on a landslide with FPTP constituencies, but the result regardless made the party optimistic prior to the next general election.

Europe-wide, the EPP continued to gain ground as the PES continued to slip. Smaller parties would also see gains, albeit marginal ones. As incumbent left-wing governments faced difficulties in Germany, France and Spain, the PES suffered as a result. In Germany, a landslide for the CDU/CSU was a precursor to Scharping’s humiliating defeat in the 1999 election and the election of Edmund Stoiber as Chancellor. Same in Spain, where the long-running PSOE government would lose in a landslide in 2000 to the centre-right People's Party.

Italy, however, proved the most shocking of results for Europe. Italy saw the hard-right National Alliance led by Gianfranco Fini polling first, ahead of all its rivals, (even if only narrowly). This result set a worrying historical precedent for Europe, with Italy’s EP election being the first time that a hard-right party with links to fascism won a national election since WWII. While still supportive of Mario Segni’s liberal government, the result propelled the National Alliance to withdraw parliamentary confidence, leading to technocrat Carlo Scognamiglio Pasini becoming caretaker while elections were organised and held.

With all this political chaos unfolding and governments falling, it was quickly decided by European leaders that Helmut Kohl, who had served admirably as Commission President, should be renominated to serve another term. After accepting, Kohl's second term would arguably be one of the most consequential of any Commission President. Not only would it see the creation of the ecuzone but also the expansion of the EU eastwards and the beginnings of a Europe-wide constitution.

 

[Nevran]

Paul Martin had returned the Liberals to government after 8 years in the opposition and achieved a historic feat of leap-frogging the official opposition to go from the third biggest party in Parliament to forming a majority government. But, despite the jubilation in Liberal HQ, Martin soon was faced with upcoming Quebec independence referendum, and the potential to see Canada break apart.

Martin who represented the Quebec seat of LaSalle—Émard was personally invested in the campaign, with constitutional questions being raised about his position if Quebec would go independent. Regardless, if Quebec would vote for independence, Martin’s position would be untenable, and his premiership would end before it even started. The first three months were especially anxious for the Liberals, with opinion polling showing a narrow majority of Quebecers wanting independence. Led by the charismatic Lucien Bouchard, the ‘Yes’ campaign performed well while the ‘No’ campaign struggled with leadership issues. With Martin, former PMs Jean Charest and Jean Chrétien and former Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson Jr. all jockeying with each other for leadership and prominence.

The result was a nail-biter, with the official result left unconfirmed for a full day after polling stations closed. By 0.2%, and by only 9,000 votes, Quebec had voted by the narrowest of margins, to stay with Canada. Rather than jubilation and celebrations, the referendum result saw recriminations, protests, and in extreme cases, riots in strongly sovereigntist communities.

Quebec’s Premier and sovereigntist, Jacques Parizeau would do little to calm the tensions. In a belligerent speech (he was widely assumed to be drunk) Parizeau attacked Quebec’s ethnic minorities and ‘big money’ for rigging the referendum against the Francophone majority. Reports later emerged that Parizeau unofficially tried to contact the recently elected French President Jacques Delors’ and reached out to members of the French Socialist Party to get them to offer diplomatic support for Quebec, which was rebuffed. Lucien Bouchard, a prominent member of the BQ (PQ’s parliamentary branch) and sovereigntist forced a party coup to remove the provocative Parizeau and would assume the role of Quebec Premier to help stabilise the situation in Quebec. Bouchard would leave Parliament in the aftermath of the referendum, being replaced by Francine Lalonde as BQ’s parliamentary leader.

The fevered pitch would reach a tragic culmination in the middle of the morning on the 5th of November. Paul Martin and his wife, Shelia woke up to a man with gloves standing above their bed armed with a pocketknife in his hand. Martin told his wife to stay in bed and stood up to try and reason with the intruder. When Shelia Martin grabbed a bedside clock to brandish as a weapon, the intruder would snap and stabbed Paul Martin in the gut. Upon realising what he had done, the intruder screamed and ran out of the bedroom. The attacker was soon caught by the RMP, and was identified as André Dallaire, a Quebecer who suffered from mental illness, and confessed that he believed that by assassinating Martin he would avenge the sovereigntist movement.

Martin would be unable to return to office for a month while recovering from the attempt on his life and would be left with life-altering injuries from the attack. In the interim, Liberal Deputy Leader Allan Rock took charge of the party and country, styling himself as an ‘Acting Prime Minister’ until Martin had recovered. When Martin returned, he received a standing ovation in Parliament and would use the goodwill to try and unite Canada and heal the fractured nation. First of, his mission was to balance the books.

Focusing on fixing the budget, Martin with his right-hand and finance minister Ralph Goodale, undertook a painful but necessary process. Slashing government spending and investment to 1951 levels and raising certain taxes (like the GST introduced by Crosbie), by 1999 and thanks to the prosperous global economy, Canada registered one of only three balanced budgets in 36 years.

Canada also became far more involved in global affairs than under previous governments, with Canadian troops at the forefront of peacekeeping missions in Rwanda, North Korea and Yugoslavia. Combining a generous foreign aid programme with boots-on-the-ground saw Canada hitting above its weight in foreign affairs and becoming a diplomatic heavyweight by the turn of the century. An achievement for the Canadian government in foreign affairs was the successful nomination of Jean Chrétien to become NATO secretary general in 1995 who became one of the leading figures in the New War. Chrétien would help co-ordinate NATO interventions in Yugoslavia and Northern Africa and would be an avid supporter of the common defence bloc's expansion into the nations of the former Eastern Bloc. He would personally oversee Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary joining NATO and initiated negotiations for the Baltic states and other nations in the Balkans to join but would not serve to see these negotiations successfully concluded.

Returning to constitutional affairs, Martin, in response to the ongoing constitutional court case deciding on whether Quebec had the ability to hold a self-organised referendum, passed the Clarity Act in 1999. Whilst the Clarity Act offered federal legitimation for a province to leave Canada, the Clarity Act would stop any self-organised future independence referendums being held. To hold a referendum would require the explicit approval of Ottawa and thus in practical sense would neutralise any other potential constitutional headaches. The BQ’s fiercely attacked the bill as expected and surprisingly as did Reform, which saw the bill as a continuation of the government’s focus on Quebec, rather than other provinces, like those to the West.

The federal election, called shortly after the passage of the Clarity Act continued the trends of the past decade, with the Liberals losing support to nationalists in Quebec, Reform continuing to consolidate the Progressive Conservative and right-wing voters (even if the Liberals stayed roughly level in the West compared to 1995) and most concerningly for the Liberals, the NDP maintaining a sizeable caucus.

Among the newly elected MPs, was former USAMIR commander Romeo Dallaire entering parliament as a Liberal for Mount Royal. Martin had aggressively courted the former general to enter national politics, hoping to appoint him either as a Senator or Governor-General, in a high-profile but ultimately relatively apolitical role. Dallaire, who had been deeply influenced by the Rwandan war and US intervention instead sought a seat in Parliament to better serve his country. Shortly after his election he was promoted to the position of Minister of Defence and was immediately seen a rising star in the Liberal party and a future PM.

With the government winning the election by the narrowest of margins, the Liberals were in with a reckoning. Because of the Liberal Speaker of the Commons Herb Grey and with by-elections and troublesome MPs, the government fell almost immediately into minority territory and its leader still acted as if he had a comfortable majority. Plots against Martin's leadership grew within the Liberal Party, especially from ambitious politicians who were overlooked by Martin and left in the cold such as Shelia Copps and Stéphane Dion. These leadership plots and rumours where emboldened by the continually churning rumours of Martin's health after the assassination attempt.

It also became clear to Reform that the only way to get rid of the Liberals from government would first need a unification of the right, under one leader and one party. With Perrin Beatty’s defeat in the election, losing his own seat of Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, the PCs found themselves facing this question far earlier than expected. The subsequent PC leadership election which would decide the fate of the party and the wider conservative movement.

 

[Nevran]

Kim Beazley, now Prime Minister, was determined to stay as Prime Minister. As the economy continued to grow and the deficit decreased, Beazley and Labor introduced a series of popular measures to increasing funding for public services, including boosting Medicaid and reducing co-payments for those vulnerable and out-of-work.

Beazley’s first term however would be dominated by foreign affairs more than domestic ones. Supporting the NATO intervention in Northern Africa and sending Australia troops to North Korea, Beazley cemented his ‘Bomber Beazley’ reputation to the public at large. As these hard-power interventions proved popular with voters, what didn’t prove popular was the wave of people arriving on Australian shores; both economic migrants, displaced by the severe Asian financial crisis and political refugees, including those fleeing persecution, war and famine from war-torn regions like North Korea and East Timor.

Yet, as Beazley signed environmental treaties such as Kyoto and attended G20 summits, he gained himself a reputation of being an effective statesman and in a globally challenging time, voters approved of Beazley. Accordingly, Beazley proved popular and polled well against Liberal leader Peter Costello, a protégé of John Hewson, who began to suffer as a result.

As the Coalition languished in the polls and Costello himself was bracketed with internal Liberal divisions from his right (led by Bronwyn Bishop) and from his coalition partners, the Nationals. Since Hewson’s brutal sacking in 1995 by John Howard, the Liberals had been consumed by strife and internal party divisions. These divisions finally reached their climax when Bronwyn Bishop challenged Costello for the leadership in a December 1997 leadership spill. A brutal period followed, with insults hurled especially with regards to Costello’s support towards Beazley's foreign and constitutional agenda, and Bishop seemed set to win the leadership. Then, John Howard announced he would run for the leadership as well, a former Prime Minister, who had been roundly defeated in 1996.

Howard blamed his defeat on Hewson, both privately and publicly, and said that he was still by far the most effective communicator the Liberal party had, and was the only man best placed to unite the fractious party and win in 1999. Bishop, the change candidate, found her support flow to Howard and was eliminated in the first round. Costello defended his leadership, but the party moved against him. Howard found himself victorious, in a comeback story rivalling Helmut Kohl’s or Jacques Delors’.

Editorials and images of Howard’s triumphant (and completely unexpected return) dominated press headlines and political discourse for the remainder of the political term. Howard managed to successfully unify the party and gave Costello, much aggrieved by the power play, the position of shadow Finance Minister, while Bishop shadowed Foreign Affairs.

Beazley, overconfident, believed Howard to pose a minimal threat to his premiership and Labor’s hold on power. Voters, however, were not ready to reward Beazley with an increased mandate, from the admittedly high bar set by his 1996 landslide. Howard ran hard on trying to fix past mistakes and made frequent allusions to his repeal of the GST. Further, he attacked Beazley for focusing too much on foreign affairs and attacked the government’s lax immigration policies. While Howard made some good points, most voters approved of Beazley, the economy and the strong response to international crises. Beazley was re-elected, by a larger margin than predicted, and Howard was left humbled. His triumphant return had seen another defeat, and he was forced to stand down, for good this time.

After the election, all eyes turned to the scheduled referendum on whether Australia would become a republic.

And, contrary to popular belief, the referendum was a boring affair, with large scale political agreement. The question asked first was rather than having Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, the legislature would appoint a head of state (a president), after a closed vote of its members. Quickly this became the biggest issue of the referendum campaign, with those in favour of a republic split with the anti-democratic nature of the appointment of the head of state.

To rectify this issue, a compromise was reached between the PM Beazley and the Coalition leader Peter Costello (who returned as leader after Howard resigned again) who both favoured a republic. Similar to Ireland, a presidential candidate would be elected by the popular vote but would only be eligible to become a candidate if they received significant support from political actors from state, federal and local authorities. Such would mean that a candidate would have to be consensual, well-supported and politically moderate/neutral. With this change, prior to the referendum campaign, Australia moved to vote on whether it would become a Republic.

The political establishment rallied behind the ‘Yes’ campaign. Both Prime Minister (Beazley), opposition leader (Peter Costello) and five former PMs (Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Hewson) all supported the establishment of a Republic. The Labor Party was overwhelmingly in favour of a republic, whilst the Liberals were more divided, with heavyweights like Howard and Bishop being monarchists even if the groundswell of Liberals supported the 'Yes' campaign. Also, the media was supportive, with Rupert Murdoch and his aligned press in favour of the move towards an elected head of state, believing the Queen to be an antiquated figure head of a by-gone age.

The ‘No’ campaign had no clear leader, and no prominent political backers. Attempts to secure either Howard or Bishop’s support failed, with both keeping their noses clean of the ‘No’ campaign. Deprived of oxygen, and the greatest asset of the ‘No’ campaign neutralised (the unelected President), the campaign highlighted the role of the monarchy to Australia and the potential of losing what little ties Australia had left with the UK as a result. With the UK sliding more and more into Europe, this argument of the monarchy’s staying power seemed redundant.

When the results came in, however, the No campaign almost did the impossible. While a solid majority (54%) of Aussies supported republicanism, thanks to the ‘double majority’ clause, which required a majority of states to back the change (4 out of 6 states), republicanism came within 5,000 votes of failing. Western Australia only barely backed the change.

​

Yet, regardless of how close the result was, Australia had voted in favour of becoming a republic. With the embarrassment of the Falklands, the handover of Hong Kong and Australia becoming a Republic, what remained of the British Empire seemed smaller every day.

 

[Nevran]

A.N. This post is dedicated to @SultanArda, who encouraged me to and helped me make this update on Turkey. They helped me plan, write, re-write and check it over before I put it up. So, thanks Sultan for helping me and hope you enjoy the update!

Turkey, a nation at the crossroads of the world, has struggled with its identity its inception from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The leading figure of Turkey, and the man who defined the nation, was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a nationalist and secularist who launched wide-scale reforms to modernize Turkey and secure its independence. His legacy was profound (the Turkish parliament granted him the surname ‘Atatürk’, which means “father of turks” in 1937) but his commitment to secularism created profound rifts, which continue to this day, for Turkey.

The military, perhaps the strongest force in modern day Turkey, has continually interfered with domestic politics, ostensibly to ‘safeguard’ the nation. When elected politicians failed to control violence, govern effectively or became overtly Islamic in nature, the military would intervene. In 1979, fearing the rising wave of Islamic politics seen in the once-secular Iran, martial law was extended across Turkey by the military. This was a precursor to a military coup, which saw General Kenan Evren sworn in as President and depose prime minister Süleyman Demirel from office.

To secure stability the military and its allies proposed a new constitution which was controversially approved by voters in a 1982 referendum. As part of this new constitution reforms, strict limits were placed on unions, political parties and political figures and new elections were held. Part of these reforms, to solidify the military-backed political theatre and the new status quo, was the so-called "temporary article", Article 4. This article of the constitution forbid 242 people, the once prominent politicians of the now banned political parties, including former prime minister Demirel, from holding public office.

The subsequent election was won by the Motherland Party (ANAP) over the military’s favoured centre-right (NDP) and centre-left (PP) political vehicles. The ANAP, a catch-all party comprising of liberal, nationalist, social democrats and Islamic groupings was a sign of both the public’s unwillingness to subscribed fully to the military’s designs for Turkey and the popularity of the ANAP’s leader Turgut Özal, a well-renowned economist. After the ANAP’s victory, Turkey experienced strong economic growth under Özal’s premiership, which helped to calm tensions from the crises of the early 1980s.

However, opposition parties continued to push for constitutional changes and a return to the political liberties which had been lost with the 1982 constitution. An agreement between the governing ANAP and the opposition parties saw a referendum scheduled in 1987 to readmit the banned public figures back into politics. A divisive campaign followed with the ANAP supporting “No” and almost all the opposition parties backing “Yes”. It would be a short public address by President Evren warning Turks of the risks of political change and hinting at the potential for a military incursion that swayed enough voters to vote No and keep the ten-year ban on political figures in place.

The subsequent election campaign in 1987 validated the ANAP’s opportunistic reasons for backing ‘No’. The incumbent ANAP won the election in a landslide, thanks to its strong economic record but won additional support from supporters of the now-banned True Path Party. True Path had found itself disqualified for the 1987 election after True Path’s de-facto party leader (and former prime minister) Demriel openly criticised the result of the referendum claiming the ‘No’ result to be fraudulent. With the party subsequently banned by the Turkish Constitutional Court, most its members and voters joined the ANAP for the election. While this secured a landslide for the party in 1987, it also contributed to the ANAP’s drift rightwards.

In October 1989, Özal was elected president succeeding Evren, and succeeding Özal was his lackey Yıldırım Akbulut became Prime Minister. Akbulut was seen as a continuation of Özal’s policies, but without the charisma or the competence. The economy crashed in 1989 and corruption scandals became to plague the government. Voter disenchantment grew with Akbulut and seemed set to bring down the AKAP. Özal, still in charge, cut his losses with his protégé and organised an internal party coup against Akbulut. This coup took place in 1991, just prior to the upcoming parliament election, with Adnan Kahveci winning the leadership contest after.

Kahveci, the former finance minister and mastermind of the Turkish economic growth seen before the downturn in the late-1980s was another close ally of Özal but had kept his distance from the President. Kahveci was well known for having a ‘maverick’ persona and was well regarded by both voters and by the military.

Kahveci also proved a highly effective campaigner and would often make arguments based on his own personal experiences. Having been born into poverty in a peasant community in Trabzon, Kahveci worked as a tea seller during high school to support his family and succeeded thanks to a hard-earned scholarship. As the Turksih economy stuttered Kahveci was able to effectively communicate with the voters and proved able to turn around the ailing ANAP. And so, despite the political scandals, corruption and ever-present threat of the military, the ANAP was able to win again in 1991.

Meanwhile, whilst Turkish politics seemed to be stabilising, the situation with Kurdistan was getting worse. The Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) reached its armed peak in the early 1990s with over 15,000 and 20,000 guerrillas operating in the countryside in the south-eastern regions of Turkey. This war between the government and Kurds seemed to be unending and needlessly violent, so steps were taken to agree a peace deal.

As expected, the military was resistant to any form of peace deal or ceasefire. However, with the military having been appeased by the 1987 referendum and the continued domination of the ANAP in the political scene, Özal and Kahveci organised a “Kurdish Opening” and negotiated a ceasefire with the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan. This ceasefire would remain in effect until 1998 and marked the first step on the long road of reconciliation between the people.

The 1995 elections, the first in the 242 political figures banned in 1982 were allowed to run for and hold public offices, saw the AKAP lose in a landslide, with the Welfare Party, led by Necmettin Erbakan winning a solid plurality of the seats. Erbakan, the former deputy prime minister under Demriel, formed a government with Demriel and his centre-right Democratic Party. Rumours of a potential coup against the newly elected Islamist government were misplaced despite the military fearing the influence of the newly formed government on the secular constitution. The military, instead of direct action against the government, organised civil campaign of resistance, which focused on challenging the legitimacy of Welfare through the judiciary, constitutional debates and in media campaigns.

At the same time as the new government was formed, the ceasefire between the PKK collapsed and soon violence return to the countryside. In fact, it is believed that the Turkish military, always opposed to the ceasefire, held off on destabilising the coalition government (such as by issuing a military memorandum) as a way to try and (successfully) end the ceasefire.

It would be the presidential election in 1998 to succeed Özal which forced the military’s hand. With Özal retiring, incumbent PM Necmettin Erbakan announced he would run for President and had the support of parliament (thanks to the coalition deal between him and Demriel) to become President. The election was held on the 26 October 1998 which saw Erbakan become President. On the 15th November, the military acted.

And so began the November coup. Military higher-ups and generals, now confronted with an Islamic government controlling both the executive and legislature, organised action.

Military troops stormed government buildings and arrested key members of the government, including high-ranking members of Welfare and the Democratic Party. Erbakan himself was captured and arrested, accused of sedition and for violating the constitution. Prime Minister Demirel fled the nation, finding refuge in the United Arab Emirates, following him were many Islamic activists and prominent opposition and democratic figures.

General Çevik Bir the organiser of the November coup took the position of President, once held by Erbakan and took the title of “Emergency President”. Bir appointed Opposition Leader and ANAP leader Mesut Yılmaz as Demirel’s successor. A controversial vote held by parliament in November 1999 acclaimed Bir as President for a full term of his own. The coup had succeeded. The legacy of Atatürk would be respected and protected.

 

[Nevran]

Anatoly Sobchak’s election as President of Russia in 1996 was widely regarded as a victory for the West and for liberal capitalism. Sobchak, a democratic activist in the dying days of the Soviet Union, and the first directly elected Mayor of St Petersburg was widely perceived as being supportive of Western liberal values. With tacit western support and backing from kleptocrats (the men and women who earned billions from both the ruble crash and the liberalisations of the economy), Sobchak was easily elected President of Russia, beating the incumbent Khasbulatov and communist Zyuganov.

The West was jubilant with his election, with politicians and media alike showering the newly elected President with praise, including Time Magazine naming Sobchak its "Person of the Year” in 1996. Almost immediately after entering office Sobchak embarked on a radical program of economic liberalisation (organised by his Vice President Viktor Chernomyrdin and his first Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar), undoing the protectionist measures of Khasbulatov. Immediately, the economy contracted as public spending was slashed, which caused the economy to crash in 1998. This crash prolonged the economic crisis started under Khasbulatov and meant that, from 1992, GDP and economic output fell for six continuous years and by around 45 per cent. The public recoiled at the measures, even though the kleptocrats made billions more from the economic turmoil and further liberalisations of the economy. With their support, Sobchak’s political will and the power of the presidency, saw this economic course continuing until 2000.

Russia also aligned itself diplomatically with Western ambitions, such as providing diplomatic and logistical efforts to the Americans in the North Korean Civil War and the Second Korean War. Russia also became a global actor, working multilaterally within international organisations and supporting controversial UN resolutions, such as establishing a protectorate in North Korea. As a reward, the West welcomed Russia into the decision room with it joining the G7, a diplomatic coup for Sobchak and a sign of the changing times.

Of course, it would be during the inaugural G8 in Birmingham that Anatoly Sobchak died on the plane coming home. Unlike in the times of the Soviet Union, the succession did not see deadly power struggles or political displacement, but instead an orderly transition with Vice President Viktor Chernomyrdin peacefully assuming the office of the presidency and becoming Russia’s fourth president.

Chernomyrdin, rather than being known for taking advantage of Russia’s new position would instead become associated with the terrible Chechen War. After the Grozny truck bombing in 1995 against Khasbulatov, who had tried to negotiate a peace settlement, Chechnya fell into anarchy.
Violence escalated in the region, despite Russia’s military withdrawal organised by Khasbulatov in 1996. The intervening years and the internal strife Chechnya faced left the region economically devasted, with half a million people (roughly 40% of Chechnya’s pre-war population) internally displaced. Warlords ruled devasted countryside and terrorism was common. The first president of Chechnya (who attempted to negotiate a peace agreement between himself and President Khasbulatov) Dzhokhar Dudayev was assassinated by a poisoned letter, arranged by the FSB, leading to a presidential election in 1998.

Experts predicted that the election would be unable to be held, due to the near anarchic state of Chechnya. However, Western influence saw the successful running of the 1998 Chechen presidential election. It was through the influence of American communication giant AT&T, which donated $670,000, ensuring that election observers were present, which meant the election could be held.

The election and its results escalated the Chechen War to a new phase, one of open conflict between the Chechen government and Russian troops. The frontrunner was Shamil Basayev who was hated by Moscow, for leading a raid on the Russian town of Butennovsk in 1995 which killed more than a hundred people. Basayev however was very popular with Chechen youth and his actions, horrific to Moscow, were highly popular in Chechnya.

Basayev’s narrow victory over the more moderate Aslan Maskhadov, (even though all 13 candidates who ran pledged independence from Russia) inflamed tensions between Grozny and Moscow. Along with the junking of preliminary negotiations between the government and Russia, Chechen militias invading the neighbouring Dagestan saw the Chechen War begin. Russian troops fought difficult battles in the countryside and in Dagestan to secure regions, and soon violence spread to Russian urban and ethnic centres. Soon after a deadly terrorist attack in Moscow, Chernomyrdin dismissed his Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov and called for a greater push, into Chechnya itself to win the war.

Replacing Nemtsov was Nikolay Bordyuzha, a former member of the KGB and general who became a close ally of Chernomyrdin. Bordyuzha would later be asked to serve as Chernomyrdin’s running mate in 2000, a symbol of their close relationship. Bordyuzha would oversee planning for a major Russian incursion into Chechnya, which culminated in the Battle of Grozny, which killed Basayev and ended the offensive capabilities of the Chechen government. This operation would also cripple the terrorist network which plagued Russia around the millennium. Unfortunately for Chernomyrdin, it would be his successor who gained credit for ending the Chechen War.

Corruption has been a pervasive problem throughout Russian history. Thanks to the free media and the economic inequalities which grew during the late 1990s, it was during Chernomyrdin’s government that it seemed to finally impact on the public scene. With the robust system of checks and balances created by the liberal 1996 constitution, investigations by the Supreme Soviet (the legislative body), led by former presidential candidate Alexander Rutskoy, uncovered a series of government payouts and illegal practices orchestrated by the executive branch. Partisan fights raged between parties within the legislature, fights between the legislature and the executive, and internal fighting in all areas of government, saw legislation grind to a halt and gridlock descend on Russia. It seemed to many as if Russia and its experiment with democracy had seen the nation collapse into an ungovernable mess.

When NTV uncovered that former President Sobchak, a noted purveyor of the arts and culture, (especially Western art), had been using his office to fund this interest, it didn’t take long for Chernomyrdin to become caught up in the scandal. The public anger, rather than focused on the dead Sobchak (who held far more responsibility for the scandal) fell on Chernomyrdin instead. An embarrassing incident came when a painting in Chernomyrdin’s presidential office was found to have been bought by illegal funds and coerced from a private collector through blackmail and threats of government action.

By September 1999, Chernomyrdin was averaging an 8% approval rating and seemed set for defeat in the upcoming election. The upcoming presidential election sent shivers down the spines of the kleptocrats and Westerners. Polling showed the likely successor was communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov, Sobchak’s runner up in 1996. Rabidly anti-western, a fierce opponent of the liberal reforms undertaken by both Khasbulatov (human and democratic rights) and Chernomyrdin (economic), and openly calling for a restoration of Soviet pride, Zyuganov seemed set to return to a Cold War mentality. Only one candidate had the name recognition, polling stats and charisma to beat Zyuganov. That candidate was, Alexander Lebed.

A war hero, both in resisting the Soviet Coup and attempting to end the Chechen war, Lebed was the most popular public figure in Russia, according to opinion polls. Lebed had always made his intentions clear, that he wanted to be President, but had backed Ruslan Khasbulatov (a close ally and personal friend) in 1996, instead of making the leap for the office in 1996. When Khasbulatov ruled himself out of running for a second non-consecutive term, (preferring the lecture circuit to cleaning up Chernomyrdin’s mess), Lebed announced he was running and ran as an independent, avoiding the political partisanship which had consumed the Supreme Soviet.

Voters gravitated towards Lebed, who held confident and patriotic rallies, blasting the ‘enemies within’ and the ‘disruptors of the state’. His oratory skills, and with support from big beasts like Khasbulatov, Rutskoy and his running mate Sergei Stepashin, opened doors from Siberian village town halls to kleptocrat mansions in Saint Petersburg.

Lebed ran hard against Chernomyrdin for corruption and elitism, while praising the martyred Sobchak and appearing at campaign rallies with Sobchak’s widow and his two daughters. Lebed attacked the Zyuganov, especially for his support for the August Coup, saying he had been the man who stood with Yeltsin and the Russian people. Lebed also got the unofficial backing and support of the Russian military-industrial complex both because of his uncompromising stance towards Chechnya and his own military background.

When Lebed became the frontrunner, Western interests and kleptocrats once supportive of Chernomyrdin jumped ship and supported Lebed, seeing him as a winner. While trying to curry favour with the likely to be new President, they sealed Chernomyrdin’s chances of re-election. Lebed didn’t even need a second round to win the election. Zyuganov, like in 1996 before, was defeated. The candidate who had the support and money of the kleptocrats lost. Chernomyrdin received only 11% of the vote, a humiliation for the incumbent President. Lebed would get his chance to change history.

 

[Nevran]

A.N. Probably classifies as Manchester-wank but when your drunk friend decides to lie down on the tram lines and refuses to get up, you wish you were Underground.

Manchester, the home of the Industrial Revolution, had won the right to host the 2000 Summer Olympics thanks to a slick PR campaign and intense political lobbying by both Michael Heseltine’s and Robin Cook’s governments. The slick PR campaign, which gained celebrity endorsements from British sporting stars, groundswells of public support, pledges towards promoting the Olympic Games’ legacy and sustainability, and Manchester’s own Coronation Street, one of the most popular British TV soap’s backing the move and getting its audience to back the bid as well, Manchester gained enough support to beat both Sydney and Rome for the right to host the games. Heseltine had laid the groundwork and done the planning for the bid, but it would be Robin Cook’s government which won the bid and began building for the Games.

Cook’s government largely continued the plans of Heseltine’s government but soon found the project bogged down by bureaucracy and far more costly than the predicted cost of £1.5bn. While this £1.5bn had been pledged by private sources, the project soon incurred additional costs of £1bn, which was all funded by the taxpayer. The widely mocked slogan “The Spirit of Friendship - United in Diversity” and the logo, of a flame with the Olympic colours were negatively received by the public, especially as the tax burden continued to rise. The Games seemed not to be a celebration of Britain, sport and the millennium, but a costly national embarrassment.

So much so, the laborious process to prepare the games inspired a BBC mockumentary “Y2K”, which poked fun at the often overbearing and difficult process of hosting the Olympic Games. The show, part comedy (devised mostly by the Mancunians Caroline Aherne and Craig Cash), part satire (with Armando Iannucci being drafted in to craft the political side) and part farce, proved wildly popular with British viewers. Y2K, named after a computer virus which itself proved to be widely overstated, became a blueprint for future comedies and was later re-adapted for American and Australian television for their respective Olympic games.

A legacy of the games was the modernisation of Manchester, in part because of the horrific 1996 IRA bombing. The bombing, which destroyed the city centre and caused millions in damage, luckily killed no-one but almost stalled the Games completely.

The attack, rather than scare the citizens of Manchester, empowered the city. With the bomb destroying most of the city centre, the reconstruction efforts saw the city centre rapidly modernise and with the construction of stadiums and accommodations Manchester would become one of the most economically active areas in England from the late 1990s onwards. Major urban renewal took place in almost every corner of the city thanks to both private and public investment. The Olympics also became part of Cook’s pledge to reduce regional inequalities between London and the rest. Brown’s first budget pledged massive amounts of public money to invest in Manchester, for the Olympics.

This money would be used to invest and saw the regeneration and gentrification of the West of Manchester, centred around a joint public-private investment to create the Millennium Stadium, which would eventually be used by Manchester City F.C. as its home. A key part of this investment, an idea which was championed by Cook and a sizeable contingent on Northern Labour MPs, was to upgrade the sorely lacking transportation infrastructure around Manchester.

Historically, Manchester’s infrastructure was highly outdated, with most of its infrastructure built in the Victorian times. This meant the region was full of canals to transport goods like cotton and coal around but lacking in railways and other facilities. Manchester’s rail network was also poorly constructed. Thanks to two rival companies building and finance the rail network in the 19th and 20th century’s, Manchester had two rail nexuses, Victoria, and Piccadilly. Both stations, however, were unconnected to each other, thanks to this rivalry, and were on the outskirts of Manchester’s city centre, making it difficult to get people were they needed to go.

Since the 1920s, Manchester has attempted on six times to build a rail network beneath the city (an Underground) and join London, Glasgow, and Newcastle as one of only four cities in the UK to enjoy this. Of these plans, the closest Manchester came to an underground was in the 1970s , prior to the millennium, with the Picc-Vic “Futuroute”. The aptly named route would connect Piccadilly and Victoria station by an underground network, with multiple stops in between. This plan almost came to fruition after changes to local authority and government funding was approved. But, as with most infrastructure works during the 1970s, the plan was placed on indefinite hold until a time in which Manchester would justify the expense. That time came finally came with Manchester hosting the Games.

Due to the time constraints and planning permissions required, the inaugural line, the ‘Olympic Line’, was an extension of the 1970s ‘Picc-Vic’ route, which was extended to the Millennium Stadium, to transport people. With only 7 stations approved by time construction began, with most of these plans originating from the Futuroute. Ground was broken in 1995 and thanks to some good fortune, including the discovery of the Arndale Void, a literal hole-in-the-ground beneath the main shopping centre, left intentionally empty for the Futuroute, the work progressed quickly. An important supporter of this rail network was Rupert Murdoch, who as of 1999, became the owner of Manchester United F.C. His support for the underground, and the support of his media outlets, proved critical to its construction. The Olympic Line was officially opened in March 2000 and became one of the main legacies of the 2000 Summer Olympics, when compared to Britain’s middling 7th place showing.

The Manchester Underground proved popular and profitable, so much so that by 2004 Manchester Mayor Tony Lloyd officially petitioned the government for additional funding to build a second line, to connect Salford and both Old Trafford stadiums (Manchester United FC and a cricket stadium) to the network. Further, the connection of Salford Central and Oxford Road to the Underground connected both the third and fourth busiest rail stations to the network. The plan had clear economic benefits and with the political capital and will there (with an upcoming election), the plan was approved quickly. And so, the “Jubilee Line” was opened in 2012, named in celebration of the Queen’s 2012 jubilee.

​

The third and most recent line, the “Turing Line”, was opened in 2022. Named after Alan Turing, the line and its construction was a key campaign pledge of the Manchester Metro Mayor Paul Mason. The line connected the educational facilities of Manchester (like the two universities) and the Royal Infirmary to the Underground, with plans to extend the line to Manchester Airport (MAN) being considered for a future date.

Spoiler: Map of the Manchester Underground

 

[Nevran]

Robin Cook saw the new millennium and with it a new opportunity for his government. Perhaps the most controversial issue, Europe and Britain’s place in Europe, had been successfully concluded in the government’s favour. Preparations to join the ecu accelerated at the Treasury and it seemed as if the next parliamentary term would she dominated by the ecu's adoption. With Chancellor Margaret Beckett and Shadow Chancellor Stephen Dorrell almost in-sync with one another and with both in-line with Treasury orthodoxy on the matter, it seemed as if the laggard growth (averaging 0.9%) wouldn’t be used as a weapon of attack. Also of opportunity for Cook’s Labour was the rise of the right-wing Union (formerly known as KeepUK) and the potential for the party to split the right-wing vote. With the party preforming best in the South of England, with euroskeptic voters, the potential for Labour to win re-election grew as the Union polled at 15% in the Spring of 2000.

Further, Labour had achieved significant and progressive changes during its term in office. The final legislative act just prior to the calling of the election, was the legalisation of civil unions between gay couples, which was warmly welcomed by social liberals and progressive voters. A success of Labour, turned into hopes that the vote would divide the Conservatives, just prior to the election.

Robin Cook called an election for the 4 May. Outside of Downing Street, Cook, with his Cabinet behind him, spoke to the nation and asked them to renew his and Labour’s mandate. He hailed the social progress seen under his watch, Britain’s new role in Europe and the progressive changes introduced to the tax code and credit systems. Things seemed optimistic for Labour in the early days of April and the party began to hope that under Cook it could finally win a second (full) consecutive term in Number 10.

It’s become a misnomer in British politics that ‘Secretarygate’ saw Labour lost the 2000 election. Secretarygate, the name coined by the tabloid News of the World, which first reported the story three weeks before the election, heavily damaged the Prime Minister personally and professionally. The News of the World revealed that Robin Cook was having an extra-marital affair with his secretary Gaynor Reagan and that the affair had been ongoing for multiple years, which had led his wife to file for divorce. Tabloid rumours became salacious, especially after his wife Margaret withdrew from public life and leaks from Number 10 pointed to Cook engaging in multiple affairs with multiple different staffers. Further damaging (and potentially libellous) accusations from The Sun implied that Cook was an alcoholic and had repeatedly turned up to Cabinet meetings drunk. The flood of rumours saw Cook disappear of the campaign trail for three days and skip a leader's debate the night after the affair was revealed.

The coverage of these affairs and accusations led to a quick downturn in Cook’s personal ratings and dominated the campaign thereafter. The media criticised Cook’s character and began to accuse that PM wasn't in the right state of mind and health to deserve another term. Conservative supporting papers and tabloids used Secretarygate to draw a distinction between Cook and Patten. They would highlight the Conservative’s campaign focus on ‘family values’ and ‘personal responsibility’, lines agreed prior to the election. And so, with the media’s influence, Patten and the Conservatives seemed both like a tonic to those disheartened by the social change and Cook's behaviour, yet inoffensive enough to those shocked by the media’s scrutiny and the salacious gossip of Cook’s personal life.

But the long-term trends indicated that Labour was always set to lose the 2000 election. Labour’s 7-year stint in government had achieved a lot, but it had come at a cost to its electability. The economy, never truly experiencing the highs that was seen under the Thatcher and Heseltine governments (thanks to Britain’s high interest rates in the E.E.R.M), was not a strong issue for the party of government. Further, if Labour had won in 2000, the economy even saw a slight downturn in the early 2000s both as the .web bubble burst and the costs of switching to the ecu were fully processed. While the 2000s economic expansion would be far greater than predicted at the turn of the millennium, Labour governed as the foundations for growth were laid, and the fruits of which were enjoyed by successive governments.

It had also seemed that the government had placed for more attention on foreign affairs than domestic issues. The larger-than-life Foreign Secretary Tony Blair had become the second most well-known face in government often been seen at summits, in warzones and mediating diplomatic conundrums. British troops in North Africa and in Korea, even if a sign of Britain’s dedication to an “Ethical Foreign Policy”, began to weigh on voters’ minds as the costs and implications of their presence on foreign soil grew. Voters, inherently concerned more about domestic challenges than foreign ones, wanted a different approach in government. Labour canvassers would often hear on the doorstep similar attitudes and views.

Patten also ran a strong campaign. Unlike Heseltine, who had to defend his government, and Hurd who was both a symbol and an eventual victim of Tory infighting, Patten was able to present the Conservatives in a new light. Patten was thus able to soothe the splits between Tory MPs and members and right-wing voters on the issue of Europe, by saying that while Conservatives would respect the referendum result, they would ‘stand up’ for British interests in the bloc and the currency union. Patten also, if in rhetoric more than action, distinguished himself as a "New Conservative", taking the line from London mayor Michael Portillo.

With the FPTP voting system, Union struggled to effectively target seats, and with only a few Tory MPs jumping ship, struggled to gain the advantages of incumbency. Under David Campbell Bannerman, the party micro-targeted seats and placed its most prominent figures in winnable seats. Campbell Bannerman ran for Clacton, one of the most Keep supporting seats in England, and won, while other prominent Union figures, like David Bellamy (elected for St Ives) and political scion Zac Goldsmith (lost in North East Norfolk). Union got 6.3% of the vote, an incredible result for a party only a year after its formation.

The Alliance under Simon Hughes had been struggling since Menzies Campbell retired in 1998. The party had been squeezed by a centrist Conservative Party and without the distinguished presence of Menzies Campbell, failed to show itself to be a party which could effectively hold the balance of power in a potential hung parliament. Hughes’ admission that the Alliance would prefer a Labour government to a Conservative one, saw its middle class and rural voters flock to the Conservative Party. Further, Simon Hughes faced accusations of being homophobic, stemming from the 1982 Bermondsey by-election where he beat Peter Tatchell. His official apology for the by-election and smears of it only drew attention to Hughes and damaged the Alliance. The Alliance saw a dramatic fall in the seat share (if not the popular vote), losing almost all its representation in the South East of England, outside of Paddy Ashdown’s Yeovil seat, with almost every lost seat going to Patten’s Conservatives.

The BBC/ITN and BSkyB exit poll predicted a comfortable Conservative majority. As battleground seats up and down the country turned blue, with both the Alliance and Labour losing out, this prediction soon turned into reality. Robin Cook would make a short statement at his Livingston count where he announced that he would be stepping down as Labour leader effective noon tomorrow, after he tendered his resignation as PM to the Queen. In an emotional and passionate concession speech Cook thanked voters, both in his constituency and in the nation at-large, for placing their trust in him and went on to congratulate Patten for his victory.

And so, Patten found himself Prime Minister, with a majority government. The 'natural party of government' was back where it belonged.

 

[Nevran]

By 2000, President Tommy Thompson found himself and his Administration's approval ratings underwater, despite the strong economy enjoyed by Americans powered by the rise of intelitech. Thompson’s close re-election against Henry Cisneros’ defeat did little to buoy his approval ratings or his administration. Scandals affecting prominent Cabinet members like Treasury Secretary Tom DeLay, House Majority Whip Dennis Hastert, and the White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, while unrelated turned into a toxic combination for Thompson.

As war broke out on the Korean peninsula, the Thompson Administration, found itself trapped in the quagmire of Korea. Action, popular to begin with, soon began to further drag down Thompson’s approval ratings as the American casualties mounted. Further, with the prominent rise of neo-conservatives, like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld (until his resignation at least) created by the Second Korean War, isolationists grew increasingly angry at Thompson and expressed this anger by backing other candidates.

The 1998 Midterms which saw David Bonior become Speaker and Willie Brown become Senate Majority Leader, furthered this crisis of confidence in Thompson, because of the gridlock which began after the midterms. Whilst bi-partisan legislation such as the New Copyright Act, reforms to the banking and financial sector and a much maligned (by the right) immigration reform package, were signed by the President, legislatively, the Thompson Administration was at the end of its road.

Further, US national debt continued to grow, which split the Republican Party even more. The fiscal conservatives within the party who supported a constrained federal government and a balanced budget, saw deficit after deficit after deficit, in part due to the neo-conservative wing. Democrats, largely united on domestic policy and against Thompson, plagued the administration with votes designed to split the Republican Party.

This, alongside a rising apathy towards the once much vaunted, “New World Order” saw the Thompson Administration face growing pressure to reduce American commitments in Rwanda, North Africa and Korea. Whilst the war(s) had been won, the peace was unwinnable in these war-torn countries and regions. Whilst the creation of a U.N. protectorate in former North Korea was a relief for some in the Thompson administration, U.N. commanders simply commandeered the US troops on the ground. The troops would remain until South Korean administrators could effectively run and secure the former North, far after Thompson would leave office.

Meanwhile the mounting death tolls in the sands of North Africa, for little reward, and the clumsy intervention into Rwanda (dramatized by Kathryn Bigelow in ”Shock and Awe” for which she would win an Oscar) kept the Administration in disrepute. The peace promised by the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was a lie, to many voters. American money and lives had been spent in seemingly futile conflicts in far-flung regions with no benefit for the 'world’s policeman'.

Enter Elizabeth Holtzman, New York Senator, who had made a name for herself as a “tough-on-abuse” prosecutor, both in Watergate and as New York state’s Attorney General. A leading liberal politician, in a party increasingly dominated by newer Democrats, Holtzman was seemingly an anachronism, if not a widely well regarded one. As a Senator, elected in 1988, Holtzman would use the bully pulpit to make often powerful speeches against the “reckless abandon” of the Thompson Administration and its indifference towards the poor, ethnic and social minorities of America.

Winning her supporters was her calls and plans for a universal healthcare system got her attention from the press and policy wonks in the Democratic Party. Alongside this, Holtzman had proven herself to a be a cutting prosecutor in the Senate, with her stand-out performance when questioning Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas who had been nominated by Thompson to replace Harry Blackmun in 1997, was largely seen to have discredited by Holtzman, with her defence of Anita Hill. Thompson was forced to withdraw Thomas’s nomination, replacing him with Edith Jones.

When Holtzman announced she was running for President in 2000, it was unthinkable she could win the Democratic primary. The reasons for this overconfidence were simple. The party had move to the centre since Hart, Cisneros was popular and unbeatable as the nominee-in-waiting, and the different wings of the party would never accept Holtzman as a credible candidate.

However, a large subsection of Americans, and especially Democrats, (mostly liberals and minorities) despised the Thompson administration. It was Holtzman who appealed to them most. Further Holtzman’s time as a Senator had gained her the links and networking needed for endorsements, union support and activist groups (like EMILY’s List and the Human Rights Campaign). Holtzman with the attention given to her, soon managed to keep this attention.

With frontrunner and former nominee Henry Cisneros’ campaign being derailed after claims of another extra-marital affair, started during the long nights of the 1996 campaign. Cisneros, now branded as a 'serial adulterer' by conservative pundits and newspapers, went on the offensive. Cisneros refused to leave the race, knowing to do so would be an admission of guilt and would destroy his reputation. Another fault of Cisneros was his overconfidence that 2000 was his year, and his arrogant campaigning rubbed influential donors and Democratic party-brokers the wrong way. Cisneros found that his campaign was buckling under the weight of the allegations and without the support of the party.

After a photo-finish in Iowa and with Holtzman's stunning victory in New Hampshire, by a wider margin than polls predicted, Cisneros was no longer the frontrunner. Holtzman had gained momentum and didn’t look back. Despite attempts by moderates and New Democrats to support another candidate over Cisneros, such as former Ohio Governor Dick Celeste or Illinois Senator Jesse Jackson Jr., Holtzman’s lead over a divided field grew unassailable. She had captured the hearts and minds of liberals and had enough goodwill with the rest to propel her to a stunning and historic victory.

The Republicans. meanwhile, saw a boring competition, for a boring nominee, with Vice President Alexander sailing to the nomination and choosing New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg to be his running mate. While the Republican primaries lacked the energy seen on the Democratic side, Alexander consolidated the fiscal and neo-conservative wing behind him. Thompson’s thumping endorsement of his Vice President at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, it was as clear as it could be that Alexander was running for ‘Thompson’s third term’.

It was only after the two conventions and primaries that the presidential race would find its feet. Shortly after he RNC, Pat Buchanan, an isolationist and right-wing gadfly, announced he could not and would not support Alexander's campaign. Buchanan claimed that Thompson and Alexander had betrayed America, and the he placed the two men in a long list of culprits for the " carnage" America had become mired in. To represent the silent majority, Buchanan announced that he would be running for President and as an independent. He promised he would "fight for America" and "not make America fight" [for him], and wouldn't betray the American people, like Thompson had done. Running on a populist and neo-isolationist ticket, with New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith who himself had defected from the Republican ranks in 1999, Buchanan grabbed the attention of right-wing and isolationist in America. With such support and several big backers, like Ross Perot, Buchanan managed to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states and into the planned presidential debates.

With Buchanan on the ballot, Holtzman and Thompson were neck-and-neck. It was all to play for.

 

[Nevran]

The 2000 Labour leadership election was a battle for the soul for the party. Robin Cook, defeated in 2000, a mixture of both his record and Secretarygate chose to bow out of politics and set up a leadership battle for the party. Dropping to 255 seats, its worst result since 1987, Labour was demoralised, and this demoralisation led the party to a return of the factional warfare which continually consumed the party.

Like 1970 before, the party had lost its landslide majority in the blink of an eye and found itself consigned to the opposition benches. Cook’s resignation as party leader was not joined however, by his Deputy’s, with Jack Straw remaining in post but not choosing to run for the leadership. Straw served as Acting Leader for the interim after Cook resigned as Labour leader on election morning and would organise the leadership contest and offer opposition to the Conservative pledges during the 2000 Summer. An agreement was made that the party would not hold its leadership contest during this summer, with the Olympics and summer recess meaning that a period of reflection could begin, without the vitriol of a leadership contest.

It was during this time that Gordon Brown, who had recently become head of the IMF and who had stood down as an MP just before the last election, chose not to jump back into the leadership. Brown cared and enjoyed power, and likely; it would take a while for Labour to get power again. Brown still had considerable influence and sway in the party, despite his new position as IMF head, and his supporters still held sway in the party.

The frontrunners were two of the big beasts of Cabinet, Margaret Beckett the former Chancellor, and Tony Blair the former Foreign Secretary. Beckett, from the soft left of the party, had shed her ‘matronly’ image as Chancellor and had performed admirably as Chancellor. Working hand-in-hand with Cook both in terms of Europe and in accelerating Brown’s plans (rising the top rate of tax in 1998 and creating a Winter Fuel benefit), Beckett had gained good will in the party. Despite replacing Brown as Chancellor, Beckett also enjoyed widespread support from the party and was seen as a unifier. She largely avoided the party squabbles and kept in Brown’s good graces despite his demotion, with Beckett often keeping Brown supporters close and meeting with the former Chancellor on regular occasions. Despite these advantages, attacks from the press were continually brutal against her, which meant that Beckett was one of the more unpopular members of the Cabinet, and a spluttering leadership launch did little to assuage the doubts of her electability.

Tony Blair, meanwhile, was by far the most polished candidate in the field. Having served admirably as Foreign Secretary since 1995, he had been instrumental in Labour’s approach to dealing with both the interventions in Africa, North Korea and Yugoslavia and helped negotiate Britain’s deepening relationship with Europe. Blair was a moderniser within the party, often speaking of the need for Labour to embrace the centre of British politics and focus the party on the future.

However, Blair had gained a reputation for elitism during his time at the FCO. Blair, more comfortable at an EU summit meeting than in a union meeting, did little to endear himself to the unions or voters who perceived Blair to be a “champagne socialist”, attacking him for supposed hypocrisy. The media also saw Blair as a threat, based on his charisma and his proven diplomatic attributes, with the right-wing press holding a grudge against him for his work in bringing deeper Britain into Europe. His pledges to ‘modernize Labour’ like Brown had made before him, worried the party establishment and the unions, who saw such pledges as an attempt to distance Labour from its working-class roots and voters.

In a especially wide field thank to reforms in the Labour constitution, saw the historic candidacy of Bill Morris (who ran on a Brownite agenda and was highly critical of Blair's actions and decisions placing Britain in Europe), alongside Lynne Jones, as the candidate of the left of the party and Alan Milburn running almost exclusively as an exercise in publicity.

The first round saw Blair win a strong plurality of the vote, with most of this support coming from Labour party members. As the candidates were eliminated, their support began to drift towards the two frontrunners Beckett and Blair. As the votes were counted it soon became clear that Blair wasn’t winning enough support from the unions. With Morris and Jones eliminated, most of the unions backed Beckett, who had taken the time to cultivate links as Chancellor and as a candidate. With their support Beckett was able to pip Blair to the post of leader. In a remarkably close election, with Blair and Beckett almost tied among MPs, the unions backed Beckett to become the Labour' first female leader.

Beckett after winning undertook a ruthless cabinet reshuffle which saw Bill Morris become Shadow Chancellor, an olive branch to the Brownites and euroskeptics in the party, alongside her own allies like Chris Smith (who became Shadow Home Secretary) and Peter Hain (Shadow Foreign Secretary) getting big promotions to prominent positions. Beckett in a snub to Blair, demoted the former Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House, alongside shadowing Stephen Milligan as Minister for Europe, which Blair reluctantly accepted.

 

[Nevran]

​

Elizabeth Holtzman left the Democratic convention with momentum. Having captured the energy of the neglected left in the primary, Holtzman had turned heads and grabbed the attention of the American public. Her often-polarising opinions on issues such as healthcare, gay rights, the economy, and America’s place in world became the themes of the campaign. Holtzman herself became an international sensation for this effort, with the interweb making the 2000 election global.

However, despite Holtzman’s natural charisma and her thought-provoking candidacy, Vice President Lamar Alexander seemed to be more ‘in-tune’ with the American public. Republican attack ads which painted Holtzman as a weak and ‘soft’ candidate, attacks resonated with swing voters. Pat Buchanan, running as a populist independent, was by far the loudest critic, claiming that a Holtzman victory would usher in the end of “traditional picket-fence America”, fearing the rise of once excluded minorities to high political office. Further, Holtzman’s stance in favour of gay civil unions and her time as a DA for Brooklyn were used as a further example of her weak and so-called ‘soft’ politics and values.

Holtzman also suffered from sexist and derogatory attacks from pundits and commentators, who would often mock her voice, appearance, and even her height. Questions over her sexuality, who would host foreign dignitaries at the White House, with Holtzman being single and even how people would address a potential "Madam President" poisoned the well further. Such attacks, unfortunately, would make a lasting impression on voters and soured the public mood towards Holtzman.

So much so, Holtzman, who was initially polling level with Alexander, soon saw her negative ratings rise as swing voters turned away from her campaign. These issues meant that by late September, most pundits predicted that she would lose the election, with both opinion polling and likeability ratings concurring with the punditry’s analyses. Swing state voters in Ohio, Missouri and Iowa were not ready to back a liberal, Jewish women for higher office. Put simply, America had never backed such a candidate before, and it seemed as if 2000 was 'too early' for it to be "The Year of the Woman".

Two major events changed the course of history.

It was a decision by the impartial Commission of Presidential Debates which struck the first body blow to Alexander’s campaign. Buchanan who had polled at 10% during his campaign inception had managed to get enough support to be placed on the ballot in every state and despite slumping in the polls as Alexander consolidated the right, was still a prominent player. The Commission on Presidential Debates announced that Buchanan and by extension his running mate Bob Smith were allowed to appear in the first presidential and vice-presidential debates.

​

Alexander, expecting a straight fight with Holtzman was ill prepared for Buchanan’s appearance beside him on stage. Holtzman was jubilant that Buchanan was present, leading to a possibility a strong performance from Buchanan could split the right even more. Buchanan, saw the opportunity for what it was, and grabbed the debate by its lapels. In a fiery and ill-tempered debate, with moderator Jim Lehrer unable to assert control, Buchanan savaged the Thompson/Alexander Administration for abandoning its domestic agenda of welfare reform, tax cuts and balanced budgets and sending “American boys to die in the mountains of Korea and in the Sahara desert”.

Holtzman, using her skills as a prosecutor in Brooklyn and her experience of her days during Watergate and in the Senate savaged Alexander for “standing back and standing by” as income inequality and government borrowing through the budget deficit remaining high.

And so, with both, candidates turned their ire on Alexander, Alexander who was visibly uncomfortable on stage and, quoting former President Gary Hart, “melted under the stage lights”. Polls from the debate overwhelming found Holtzman to be the winner, which bolstered her campaign at a critical time. Further, Buchanan’s rowdy appearance kept him both in the opinion polls and in the presidential debates, a continual drain on Alexander.

Shortly after the first presidential debate, the second hammer blow hit the incumbents. The economy, which had been growing continuously and dramatically since 1994 crashed. The double-edged sword of both the Asian economic crisis which had been exacerbated and prolonged by the Second Korean War and the .web bubble saw fit to the economic growth which had so far defined Thompson’s term. With the bubble bursting, what followed was a run-on tech companies and intelitech firms which saw some very prominent and often idealized firms, like pets.co and amazon.us collapsing and with it, millions in investment and consumer confidence.

As Nasdaq registered a 32% fall in the last months of 2000, the economy suddenly entered an unexpected downturn. Congress acted quickly debating and passing a generous bail-out package to rescue tech firms, particularly vulnerable to the dotweb crash and still in their infancy but which had great potential for the future.

This panic however, infected one of the biggest companies in America, Enron, which was a major donor to both the Republican party and the Alexander campaign. The New York Times reported that Thompson and prominent Republican congressmen had been lobbied extensively for Enron to be included in the bailout. Soon after, further media investigation found Enron to be a ticking time bomb of debt, corruption and bad accounting practices, which much of its wealth a lie. As this was exposed to the public, Enron collapsed.

Enron filed for the then, largest Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2000, after systemic corruption was discovered and highlighted within the firm. The almost overnight collapse of Enron, (one of the largest energy conglomerates in America and often ranked as one of the most ‘innovative’ American companies) was a profound shock and resulted in over $11 billion in shareholder losses. Fears of energy shortages over winter became a pressing concern for many swing voters, and most blamed the Republicans for this.

This panic and collapse of multiple promising and innovative companies culminated at the worst possible time for the incumbents. The 2000 crash put the wind in the sails of Holtzman’s campaign, with her long-standing criticisms of the “wealth of the few” seemed tailor-made for the dotweb bubble bursting and Enron’s duplicity.

The third debate wasn’t particularly moving, but the SNL skit captured the public mood. Lamar Alexander was mocked remorseless on SNL, including this sketch, with the candidate (played by Will Ferrell) asleep at the podium, though waking occasionally to yell obscenities at Julia Louis-Dreyfuss’ ‘geeky’ Holtzman, whilst Pat Buchanan (also played by Will Ferrell) was show to rabid, foam in the mouth and all by the end of the sketch. These caricatures seemed to epitomise voters’ perceptions of the candidates and with election day close, they had stuck.

And so, on election night, and by a narrow margin, Holtzman beat Alexander in just the right places, juicing turnout amongst liberals, Jews and women whilst holding steady with minority and working-class voters. Holtzman wouldn’t win a majority of the popular vote, luckily for her, neither would her opponents. Pat Buchanan, gaining 5.2% of the vote undoubtedly spoiled the election for Alexander, and admitted so in his ‘victory’ speech on election night, a sign of the little love lost between the two. However, despite the vitriol Lamar Alexander conceded graciously the morning after election night, when Florida was called for Holtzman. America had elected its first female President and its most liberal since FDR. It was time for a change.

 

[Nevran]

The Gulf War, which saw Iraq’s defeat after a failed invasion of Kuwait, concluded with the imposition of UN sanctions designed to bring down Saddam Hussein and his regime. These sanctions proved crippling to Iraq, with its economy and people becoming mired with hyperinflation, widespread poverty, and malnutrition. These economic problems hit regular Iraqis hard, especially middle-class families who had grown wealthy thanks in part to the generous welfare state created by the Ba’ath party. Many soon found themselves impoverished and unemployed as said welfare system collapsed under the pressure of international sanctions. Grim indicators including rising infant mortality, falling life expectancy rates, and Iraq declining from 76th to 126th on the Human Development Index (between 1990 and 2000) highlighted the suffering faced by Iraqis.

However, despite these brutal sanctions, there was seemingly no effect on Saddam’s grasp on power. In fact, Saddam’s regime worsened the suffering of Iraqi’s, by both refusing to import goods which hadn’t been sanctioned such as baby formula and by exporting foodstuffs from Iraq as the nation suffered from malnourishment. Because of this corruption and in stark contrast to most, Saddam and regime loyalists were thriving. Saddam, in the 1990s, spent over $2 billion on construction of new presidential palaces, completed with man-made waterfalls, lakes and gold-plated taps.

The US, despite a vested interest in the region, had more pressing concerns and conflicts. Whilst Thompson and Cheney managed to impose harsher sanctions on Iraq than under Hart, forbidding some forms of specialist medical equipment being exported to Iraq, they flowed the course set by Hart in the region. A mooted plan for airstrikes in 1998 against military targets was rejected by Thompson, with his Administration fearing another entanglement in a hostile region.

The election of President Holtzman in 2000, someone widely believed to be more willing to engage in diplomacy and committed to placing human rights at the forefront of foreign policy, seemed to usher in hope for a change in direction. Whether that would be a loosening of sanctions on Iraq or a refocusing of attention towards Iraq and away from Korea and North Africa, it remained unknown. Holtzman and her new Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proposed moving towards “smart sanctions”, which would ease the overall burden on Iraqi and would instead target them specifically at military and weapons technology. Her inauguration however would come too late for Iraq.

News began to filter out from Iraq in late 2000 that Saddam Hussein was suffering from lymph cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. These unconfirmed reports, as the news was heavily censored and only a small cadre of doctors, advisors and elites in Iraq knew the full extent of Saddam’s health, painted an image of Saddam on his deathbed from September 2000 and that his two sons’, Uday and Qusay Hussein preparing for the inevitable and for the succession. Despite Saddam making a slight recovery in his health in December, a severe stroke in January 2001, blamed on his chemotherapy treatment, was the beginning of the end. Saddam Hussein was dead by February. His two sons moved to act.

Spoiler: Saddam Hussein - BIG image

Uday, Saddam’s oldest son, was widely regarded as the most feared individual in Iraq. Uday, who was accused of being both a rapist and serial killer by multiple defectors, had been portrayed both by analysts in the West and within Iraq as being evil and sociopathic. Uday was also well known for multiple acts of sadistic cruelty. One of these acts was when Uday was the head of the Iraqi football federation, and he forced under-performing players to kick a concrete ball around the field, as punishment for their underperformance.

Saddam’s second oldest son, Qusay, who had been appointed as his father's heir apparent in 2000, was widely regarded as an enigma, with little concrete known about his behaviour or his personality. Some Iraqi defectors claimed that Qusay was smart and cunning, whilst others saw him to be a drunk and incredibly dull. However, his enigmatic personality aside, Qusay’s actions spoke far louder and worried analysts. Qusay had consolidated power in Iraq by becoming the head of the Iraqi intelligence and secret services, which routinely committed human rights abuses on prisoners. Reports that Qusay would personally authorise torture and executions were unverifiable but pointed to a dangerous and unstable individual.

Since Uday’s brush with death after a failed assassination attempt in 1996, Saddam had begun to favour his second youngest son, Qusay, to succeed him. Alongside promoting Qusay in the military, Saddam had named him as the caretaker of the presidency should Saddam be incapacitated, which is what happened in February 2001.

Saddam died at 11:58PM on February 21 and accordingly, Qusay automatically became the caretaker president. Both brothers were beside their father’s bedside when he died. Reports from high level sources within Iraq said that after Saddam’s death Qusay told Uday that he would be appointed PM, after Qusay was announced as the caretaker President in the morning. Qusay did this, both in recognition of Uday’s membership of the National Assembly and in an attempt to reach out and co-opt his brother.

Uday, however, refused to relinquish his claim to the Presidency and his perceived birthright. Ever since his father began favouring Qusay over him as his successor, Uday had undertaken a publicity campaign using the media (which was under his control) to boost his favourability. This campaign included Uday converting from Sunni to Shi’a Islam, (the majority religion in Iraq) seeking and winning ‘election’ to the National Assembly and engaging in acts of charity with members of the public.

Outside of this media campaign Uday had also formed a paramilitary organisation, 30,000 strong, called “Saddam’s Martyrs” and when ‘elected’ to the National Assembly, had spent his time cultivating links with elites in the legislature and promising them patronage, if they backed him.

On February 22, Qusay was appointed as President and made a speech to the nation from the presidential palace proclaiming that his beloved father had died, and that he would be acting as caretaker until his father’s state funeral would be held and the mourning period was over. However, unbeknownst to Qusay during this speech, the media never broadcast Qusay’s speech. Despite the intelligence services informing Qusay on his brother’s deception, in the hours between Saddam’s death and Qusay’s speech, Uday had managed to secure strongholds and weapons, and effectively had seized the capital city.

The military, never completely favourable to Qusay, evidenced by their leaders fighting against his appointment as Commander of the “Army of the Mother of All Battles” refused to take up arms against Uday’s paramilitary organisation as the city was ‘secured’. Qusay, shocked and appalled by the coup, managed to flee from Baghdad to Tikrit (the brother’s hometown and an area in which Qusay had once governed militarily) with the help of the intelligence services. Rallying support from the army and his loyalists, Qusay proclaimed his intention to fight against his brother.

Less than 24 hours after Saddam Hussein’s death, Iraq was in a state of civil war. The so-called “Brothers War” would see Iraq become split between religious groups, on ethnographic lines and by allegiances as central government authority disappeared overnight, and families were forced to choose to the Uday or Qusay cliques and allegiances.

The UN, in Security Resolution 1343, implored an end to the violence, established a no-fly zone over the nation and saw aid workers enter Iraq to secure both Kurdistan and the Iraqi-Kuwait border, which became flooded with refugees.

The war would last for 4 years, and devastated Iraq in the process. Qusay would eventually win, but at the cost of his country, his health (having been shot during an assassination attempt in 2003), his mental wellbeing (having grown paranoid during the course of the war) and his family, with Uday eventually being executed in 2005 for his crimes. Until then, the world could only watch on as Iraq continued in its suffering.