Why does the UN want to change the world map and the US said no?
Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.
The United Nations General Assembly approved, by 164 votes to 1, a resolution encouraging the adoption of a new way of representing the world on maps. The only vote against it came from the United States. The target of the resolution is the predominance of the Mercator projection, created in 1569 by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator. It is important to recognize that its creation was not intended to diminish Africa or favor certain regions. The projection was developed mainly to facilitate navigation, preserving certain relationships of direction that were essential for navigators. The problem lies in its subsequent use as a general representation of the planet. By transforming a spherical surface into a flat map, the projection distorts the size of territories, making regions near the poles appear much larger than they actually are.
Why does the UN want to change the world map and the US said no?
The answer begins with the way we perceive the size of territories. The consequence of this distortion can be observed quite clearly when comparing Greenland with Africa. On a Mercator map, Greenland may appear close in size to the African continent, when, in reality, Africa has approximately 14 times the area of Greenland. The same principle affects other regions near the equator, such as Latin America and parts of Asia. This does not mean that those who use Mercator are consciously reproducing a misguided view of the world, but it does mean that millions of people have learned for decades to visualize territories through a representation that does not preserve their actual proportions.
The new proposal encourages the use of equal-area projections, especially Equal Earth, developed in 2018 by cartographers Tom Patterson, Bernhard Jenny, and Bojan Šavrič. Unlike Mercator, Equal Earth seeks to preserve the relative proportions of land areas. The visual result is significant. Africa appears much larger, Greenland loses the disproportionate appearance it acquired on many traditional maps, and countries such as Brazil visually occupy a dimension closer to their actual area. There are, naturally, other distortions, particularly in the shapes of territories, because there is no way to perfectly represent a sphere on a flat surface.
The resolution recognizes that cartographic representation also has a political and cultural dimension. For a long time, Africa was presented to the international public through narratives external to the continent itself, often associated with poverty, conflicts, dependence, and underdevelopment. The way the continent appears on maps does not explain these perceptions, obviously, but neither is it irrelevant. When a region that has more than 30 million square kilometers appears visually close in size to Greenland, there is a considerable difference between what the map shows and what geography actually represents.
That is precisely why I consider the General Assembly's decision positive. The resolution does not require the entire planet to immediately abandon the Mercator projection, nor does it have the legal force to compel governments, schools, or private companies to replace it. Its significance lies in the political and symbolic guidance for international organizations, educational institutions, governments, and digital platforms to consider alternatives capable of better representing territorial proportions.
The reaction of the United States also adds an interesting dimension to the episode. Washington was the only country to vote against the resolution, arguing that the General Assembly should focus its efforts on issues more relevant to peace, prosperity, and international relations. It is a criticism that deserves consideration, especially because the UN faces concrete and urgent problems that will not be solved by a change in cartographic projection. However, turning the debate into a choice between maps and real problems creates a false opposition. An international organization can discuss security, development, and conflicts and, at the same time, question tools that have been used for centuries to represent the world.
The adoption of a more proportional projection should also not be interpreted as an attempt to rewrite history or attribute political intentions to Gerardus Mercator that do not correspond to the context of his work. A tool created in the 16th century for a specific purpose does not need to remain the absolute standard in the 21st century simply because it has become familiar. If there are cartographic technologies and methodologies capable of better representing the proportions of the planet for certain purposes, using them is a natural evolution, not a denial of the past.
Africa, in turn, has legitimate reasons to support this change. The continent is not only geographically much larger than the traditional representation may suggest. It is also a space of enormous demographic, economic, strategic, and diplomatic weight, with natural resources, consumer markets, expanding infrastructure, and growing relevance in the disputes between great powers. The accurate representation of its territory will not solve any of these challenges, but it contributes to correcting a visual perception that has underestimated its size for generations.
In the end, changing a map does not change reality. Africa will continue to have the same territories, the same challenges, and the same opportunities regardless of the projection used. But the way we represent reality influences what we learn about it. If the goal is to build a more accurate understanding of the international system, it also makes sense to start with the basic tools through which we teach future generations to see it.
Comments