The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted to encourage wider use of world maps that represent the relative sizes of continents more accurately. The “Correct the Map” resolution secured 164 votes in favour, with six abstentions and one vote against. Although its goal is worthwhile, the objections raised by the six abstaining countries and the country that voted against it point to important weaknesses in the draft.
Sponsored by Togo and supported by the African Union, the resolution contains several important facts. One of its main points is that people should know that no single map can perfectly show the curved surface of the Earth on a flat page. It also says that different maps are useful for different purposes.
For example, when comparing the sizes of countries and continents, an “equal-area map” is more accurate than the traditional “Mercator” map. That’s because any two areas on these equal-area maps have the same proportional relationship to one another as they do in reality. Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland, yet they appear to be roughly the same size on traditional maps. This may contribute to people underestimating Africa’s true size, although the extent of this effect is still a matter of research.
Going through the resolution reminded me of an unusual map displayed in the international student office of the university where I did my graduate studies. It was an upside-down map – although there is no objective “up” or “down” in space. The map was rotated 180 degrees, while the text remained upright. A caption explained that the map was meant to make people question the conventions that put Europe near the centre, the Arctic at the top and Antarctica at the bottom. It made the point effectively: many of the world maps we are familiar with are based on convention, not geography.
It’s important to point out that the resolution does acknowledge that the Mercator map – created in the 16th century – was designed to make navigation easier rather than to promote any political or social agenda that would diminish the standing of certain regions. In other words, the fact that European mapmakers made Europe look bigger and Africa relatively smaller was a coincidence, even though it fits the narrative of European colonial exploitation.
It is easy to imagine that the countries that did not vote in favour of the resolution last week were making a politically motivated decision. But a closer inspection of the reasons stated by some of them points to genuine flaws in the way that resolution was drafted.
The abstainers seem to have been concerned that the resolution might be seen as supporting certain “Equal Earth” maps found online. The problem with these particular equal-area maps is they tend to sacrifice true distances between landmasses in order to show their correct relative sizes. They also show political boundaries in ways that some of those countries might consider unacceptable. Not all six countries explained their decision.
The resolution does not include or officially support any political map. It supports a way of showing the globe on a flat surface, without taking a position on political boundaries. Nevertheless, repeatedly using the term “Equal Earth” created unnecessary confusion. This could have been avoided by clearly stating that the resolution did not affect sovereignty, territorial status or internationally recognised borders.
Another justification offered was that the issue was frivolous and constituted a waste of the General Assembly’s time, especially given the existence of more urgent issues that merit the global community’s attention. One can disagree with this objection while still acknowledging a critical weakness it reveals in the resolution: the sponsors should have done a better job explaining some of the stronger claims they advanced.
These claims concern the supposed effects of cartographic distortions. The resolution says they affect how people think, learn and understand culture, and that they have geopolitical and socioeconomic consequences. It also says that correcting these distortions is a form of “cognitive justice and memorial reparation”.
However, the resolution provides no evidence for these claims. It moves from the demonstrable fact that Mercator distorts relative sizes of countries and continents, to the much bigger claim that this distortion produces cognitive, socioeconomic and geopolitical harm.
This isn’t to say that studies haven’t been done on this subject, but in that case the sponsors should have cited that evidence. The alternative would have been to present the claims as possibilities and make a call for further research. The resolution, as drafted, invites criticism from those who accept that Mercator may distort people’s recollection of the size of countries and continents, yet are unconvinced that it causes wider economic or geopolitical harm.
For example, how would the resolution’s sponsors respond if Australia argued that its customary placement near the lower-right margin of world maps creates persistent biases against it, extending beyond jokes about Australians being upside down, and consequently demanded that maps place Australia at their centre? The reasonable response would be that Australia provide sound evidence that this placement causes harm. The same standard should apply to claims made on behalf of Africa or any other region.
Correcting the world map is a worthwhile objective, but the reasoning behind it also needs to be sound. A better resolution would clearly separate map projections from political boundaries, distinguish established facts from speculation and call for rigorous research before treating possible harms as proven facts.
