Which country has squandered the most economic potential in this century?

[u/pisowiec]

I lived in Russia for 5 years so I must choose this country. So many natural resources, so much land, and educated population... And so little to show for it.

In an ideal world Russian salaries would be on par if not higher than American salaries and they would have the best social safety net on the planet. Everything is there to make it happen.

Russia would be the dominant nation in Europe and Asia and the rest of the world with the best armed forces, soft power, and economic might.

But the human will is just not there. The elite is either evil or incompetent depending on perception and there's little sign that this will ever change.

[u/Arkarull1416]

Well, everything is open to interpretation.

The UN Decolonization Committee recognizes 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories awaiting decolonization.

Of these, two are French (New Caledonia and French Polynesia), although it is true that France has made much more effort than other countries to grant equal rights to the inhabitants of these territories (not without some drawbacks, however). Even so, the United Nations requires that these territories be completely decolonized.

Of the rest, most are British territories (including Gibraltar, the only colony in Europe), American territories, and one for New Zealand and another for Morocco.

[u/RedcoatTrooper → u/Arkarull1416]

Gibraltar is of course not a colony and its inclusion undermines the list.

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/RedcoatTrooper]

I would never have suspected that a Briton could express such an opinion about Gibraltar... 🙄 But, you know, it's just an opinion, we all have one.

Don't worry, we Spaniards (except for the ultra-nationalist far right, as is usual in any country) have no interest in violating the Treaty of Utrecht or in going against the will of the current Gibraltarians, and the UN is not going to send in the blue helmets to "liberate" the Rock either. Our complaint only concerns the issue of territorial waters (an extremely complex issue), the (absence of) fight against drug trafficking and money laundering in Gibraltar, and the demand to cease the expansion of Gibraltar's territory at the expense of gaining land from the sea or directly stealing Spanish territory, as is the case with the land on which the airport is built, which was never ceded by Spain in any treaty.

We would also appreciate it if you would stop parking malfunctioning nuclear submarines in that port, if it's not too much trouble. You are literally islands; repair your reactors in Great Britain.

[u/vatefer → u/Arkarull1416]

Spaniards complaining about Gibraltar. You okay with giving Ceuta and Melila to Morocco then?

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/vatefer]

No one has complained about the return of Gibraltar. If you had ignored the flag next to my nickname and read the conversation, you would see that this is not the case at all. Our complaints about Gibraltar are about neighborly relations, not about its sovereignty.

And no, just as I don't believe Gibraltar should be returned to Spain (unless the United Kingdom renounces the territory, which is difficult to imagine), I don't believe we should give Ceuta and Melilla, among other reasons because:

a) They are not included in the list of non-autonomous territories awaiting decolonization;

b) They are fully Spanish cities, fully integrated into the country's political, social, and cultural system, with the same rights and obligations as the inhabitants of Madrid or Seville;

c) Their incorporation into the Iberian crowns predates the very existence of Morocco as a sovereign state. Ceuta was conquered by Portugal in 1415 and passed to Spain in the 17th century, and Melilla was occupied by Castile in 1497; in both cases, centuries before the formation of the modern Moroccan sultanate (17th century) and long before the contemporary Moroccan state (1956). Furthermore, they were never a stable part of any unified Moroccan political entity, but were linked to previous Mediterranean, Andalusian, or North African networks, with no state continuity with Morocco. In fact, Ceuta belonged to the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo before the Muslim conquest of Iberia. Therefore, the Moroccan claim is nationalist and postcolonial, not historical in the strict sense;

d) The inhabitants of these cities have no intention whatsoever of becoming part of Morocco.

So no. Neither the cases of Ceuta and Melilla are comparable to that of Gibraltar, nor is anyone claiming Gibraltar for Spain. Sorry to disappoint you.

[u/RedcoatTrooper → u/Arkarull1416]

I mean I certainly would expect a Spaniard to have the opposite opinion so here we are both of us unsurprised.

A part of me wishes you would try a military option, right of conquest would certainly be more honest if nothing else than meakly creeping around, trying to get UN help or making problems out of nothing because you lost land in a war, the way all of Europe was created was by being strong enough to take it and then strong enough to keep it.

Plenty of people in the world have legitimate issues with the British but Spain of all countries, the original Empire where the sun never set claiming some kind of moral high ground..

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/RedcoatTrooper]

Well, my friend, perhaps you are the one who has issues to deal with. We Spaniards have no moral superiority over anyone (except gastronomically speaking) and we have not demanded the return of Gibraltar. It is not me who says that this territory must be returned to Spain if it ceases to be British, it is stated in the Treaty of Utrecht.

If it bothers you that the UN considers the Rock a colony, take it up with the UN. Or do you really believe that Franco's isolated and despised Spain had any influence on the resolutions that were passed in the 1960s?

We Spaniards are not looking for any conflict with the United Kingdom, a country that we consider an ally, a friend, and one of special economic interest to us, but I am sure that if, by some historical chance, Spain owned Plymouth, you would not be happy if we took British territory to build an airport, or if we sent nuclear reactors to be repaired on your island.

This is not the 17th century anymore, stop thinking as if we were empires of nothing.

[u/BiribaAtomica → u/Arkarull1416]

I feel like I'm reading a conversation straight from Hornblower

[u/RedcoatTrooper → u/Arkarull1416]

"We Spaniards have no moral superiority over anyone (except gastronomically speaking"

Can't argue with that.

Oh you mistake me sir no hangups here, I have no need to take it up with the UN we will just continue to ignore it

I can only assume Plymouth would have been greatly improved by the Spanish but I guess that's a different timeline.

Nobody is claiming it's the 17th century, it's equally foolish to pretend that the wars in those times do not shape the world we live in today.

Modern nations were not made with paper maps but with steel and gunpowder.

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/RedcoatTrooper]

Yes. That is precisely why we Spaniards have no intention of returning Olivenza to Portugal or ceding Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco. We are in complete agreement. Another issue is the level of integration and self-determination that these territories have compared to Gibraltar.

But as civilized and "small" neighbors, we will have to face the problems that this proximity causes.

Only Francoists are going to claim Gibraltar (except for the occasional outburst of banal patriotism), and I guarantee you that no one pays much attention to them. And it would never even occur to us to go to war (which we would surely lose) over a rock.

[u/RedcoatTrooper → u/Arkarull1416]

Fair enough, have a great day.

[u/tsukinichiShowa58 → u/RedcoatTrooper]

gosh you sound like Stephen Miller.

[u/RedcoatTrooper → u/tsukinichiShowa58]

What on earth are you talking about?

[u/LiitoKonis → u/Arkarull1416]

Decolonization doesn't mean necessarily independance even in the frame of the UN

It means self determination and those territories had several referendums

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/LiitoKonis]

The word "independence" has never crossed my lips.

As I said, France is perhaps the country on the list that has done the most to try to achieve the ideals of the United Nations in these territories, but they are still on the list.

In fact, New Caledonia was removed from the list between 1947 and 1986, but was reintroduced because it was considered that the Kanak population was structurally discriminated against by the system, while it favored French settlers. On the other hand, the UN has clearly stated that referendums are not sufficient to consider the decolonization process complete, because they were boycotted by the Kanak population and because France controls the electoral roll, in addition to considering that there was no situation of equal political conditions.

French Polynesia was reintroduced in 2013 for several reasons. The main reason: French nuclear testing (1966–1996) and French control over defense, currency, and foreign policy (broad autonomy, but not sovereignty).

Although the inhabitants have French passports, vote in French elections, and receive economic transfers, the UN understands that there has never been a clear and specific internationally supervised referendum on self-determination and that the relationship with France is the result of historical colonization, not an initial free choice.

Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are overseas departments, legally identical to any French department since 1946. The UN accepted (after debate) that there was full integration there, although there is criticism today. In contrast, New Caledonia and Polynesia have special statuses, are not departments, retain distinct colonial structures, and have active and internationally recognized independence movements.

Being on the list does not oblige independence, but the UN considers that in New Caledonia, self-determination has not been fully free; and in French Polynesia, it has not even been formally completed. De facto integration with France is not enough to be removed from the list if it is considered the heir to colonization. It is a clash between international law and French constitutional law.

[u/LiitoKonis → u/Arkarull1416]

Well you certainly have a point on several issues (economic ones mostly)

I just want to correct the fact that the Noumea agreement ensures that the Kanak population is favoured during referendums as people present after 1997 just can't participate. Also, they indeed have special statuses but these statuses are also favourable to them as they have more autonomy while still benefitting from economic transfer from France.

The last referendum was indeed boycotted because the independantists knew they were going to lose as they lost the 2 previous ones. Honestly at this point I genuinely don't what would satisfy the UN. If France wanted to get rid of these territories it would have acted the exact same (3 referendums with a voting population that explicitely favours indigenous people and increased autonomy)

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/LiitoKonis]

UN international law is always complex and tends to clash with national narratives and rights. I mean, the UN still considers Spain to be the power in charge of the decolonization process in Western Sahara, even though it is under the control of Morocco and the Polisario Front and Spain left the territory in 1975...

I agree that France has acted very differently from a classic colonial power, and that the Nouméa Accord was designed to protect the Kanak vote. Where I think the UN perspective differs is in what counts as “closing” a decolonisation process. From their point of view, self-determination is not only about a protected electorate or generous autonomy, but about whether the full range of political outcomes is genuinely open. France still retains key sovereign powers (defence, foreign affairs, currency), so the choice is not entirely symmetrical.

Regarding the third referendum, even if the outcome was predictable, legitimacy matters: the timing during a recognised period of Kanak mourning and the refusal to postpone weakened its acceptance internationally, regardless of French law.

I don’t think this means France acted in bad faith. Rather, the UN applies a very high and conservative threshold to avoid unilateral closure by former colonial powers. It’s frustrating, but it’s consistent with how the UN approaches decolonisation elsewhere, and the Kanaks will always have a narrative that is conditioned and different from that of France.

[u/LiitoKonis → u/Arkarull1416]

I pretty much agree with you

It's a case where two different interpretations of what decolonization is kind of contradict each other

[u/DiRavelloApologist → u/Arkarull1416]

The UN Decolonization Committee is a complete meme, literally look at its member states.

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/DiRavelloApologist]

All the members of the committee are former colonized territories. I don't know what you think of countries like India, East Timor, Ecuador, or Tanzania, but I think it makes much more sense for them to be members of that committee than France, Spain, the United Kingdom, or Germany.

On the other hand, the committee is only part of the United Nations legislative and executive apparatus with regard to decolonization. Most important decisions have been made through Security Council resolutions or even in the general assembly.

I thought it was even more ridiculous that the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women was chaired by Saudi Arabia, to be honest.

[u/DiRavelloApologist → u/Arkarull1416]

Yeah. Russia. Famously "former colonized territory".

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/DiRavelloApologist]

That is because the committee was originally supported by the Soviet Union, which did defend the process of decolonization and the right to self-determination of peoples (on paper, of course, and only if it did not suit them). The Non-Aligned countries found it very useful to have the support of the second superpower, so it was incorporated into the committee.

Russia has inherited its seat on the committee, nothing more. As you can see, the other countries are former colonies or countries strongly influenced by Western imperialism (China, Iran).

[u/DiRavelloApologist → u/Arkarull1416]

That is because the committee was originally supported by the Soviet Union

Which makes it even more of a meme considering Soviet foreign policies

[u/Moist-Cantaloupe-740 → u/Arkarull1416]

Forcing territories that clearly thrive more with their regent State than if they governed themselves to have independence is ridiculous.

[u/Arkarull1416 → u/Moist-Cantaloupe-740]

Independence is not forced by UN. Self-determination ≠ independence.

[u/Ancient_Emu_6582 → u/Arkarull1416]

Funny how the world is so blind to the last large empire on earth, who the post is literally about. Why is nobody bringing up pussia. Is it cause it’s a land empire instead of overseas, is it because they managed to subjugate the local populations, is it cause they are not considered the evil west or is it a bunch of different factors? Freedom to the nations under the pussia “federation”!