When considering the global balance of power, we usually look at a country’s size, economy, alliances and military capabilities. We pay much less attention to how strongly the map itself shapes our worldview.
Originally published in Äripäev (Estonian): Kas uus maailmakaart võib muuta meie maailmavaadet?
A map allows us to explore the world, draw boundaries and see spatial connections. At the same time, it reminds us that diplomacy and security policy are by no means merely abstract concepts, but very often questions of space, distance and geography.
The issue of maps recently returned to the spotlight when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting a change in how the world is commonly represented on maps.
A shrunken Africa
For centuries, most of the world has been accustomed to the Mercator projection, a map dating from 1569 that enlarges the visual size of areas near the poles and reduces the relative size of regions closer to the equator.
This effect is particularly noticeable in the case of Africa and South America. On a Mercator map, Africa appears to be comparable in size to Greenland. In reality, Africa is large enough to contain roughly 14 Greenlands.
It is therefore not surprising that the initiative to “correct the map” came primarily from African countries. The UN resolution, supported by 164 countries and opposed only by the United States, is not binding, but encourages countries and international organisations to use the Equal Earth projection and other equal-area projections that preserve the relative size of continents much more accurately.
The argument put forward by African advocates is not limited to cartographic accuracy. The issue also concerns how the continent has been depicted for centuries, not only on maps but more broadly in political and historical thinking. Correcting the map will not solve Africa’s problems, but it may help correct a deeply ingrained perception.
France’s Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs has already announced that it will abandon the Mercator projection in its diplomatic use, and others may follow.
The question, however, is whether changing the map means anything more than a symbolic gesture.
This is no coincidence
Maps have never been entirely neutral.
They have always had geopolitical and strategic significance as well.
Countries use maps to depict not only their actual territorial extent but sometimes also their desired territorial reach. Official Chinese maps, for example, feature the so-called “nine-dash line”, which Beijing uses in connection with its extensive claims in the South China Sea.
Those claims have been contested internationally. In 2016, an international arbitral tribunal ruled that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the waters encompassed by the nine-dash line beyond the rights provided for under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Many maps of the United States, by contrast, omit its overseas territories. One map may therefore emphasise territorial scope, while another may conceal it.
This is no coincidence. A map helps shape our perception of what is “ours” for a given country, what is “near” and what is “far”.
The scale of the African continent is not merely a visual detail. It also influences how we perceive Africa’s political, economic and strategic importance.
A telling example is the so-called “east-up” map promoted by General Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea. On conventional maps, north is at the top, and South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines can appear relatively distant from one another and from China.
Rotate the map so that east is at the top, and the picture changes considerably. The geographical relationships between these countries and China become much more immediately apparent.
Brunson has argued that some of the most profound strategic insights can arise from a simple shift in perspective. This observation applies far beyond East Asia.
Shifting priorities
Maps also influence how policymakers are able to explain and justify certain choices to the public.
On a standard world map, the United States can appear visually isolated from much of the rest of the world. But if we look at the world through a polar projection centred on the North Pole, the proximity of North America to Russia, Europe and even Japan becomes much more apparent.
A map can therefore alter not only our sense of space but also our political priorities. Arctic security may seem like a much more immediate issue if the map clearly shows how close the northern regions of North America, Russia and Europe are to one another.
Geography itself does not change. What changes is the perspective through which we view geography.
A similar question arises in the context of development cooperation and Africa. If Africa is portrayed simply as one continent among others and as part of a large and somewhat abstract “Global South”, the temptation to treat relations with African countries as secondary may become easier to justify.
On a more accurate map, however, the picture is quite different. Africa’s actual size and its central geographical position become much clearer.
The continent’s scale is not merely a visual detail. It also influences how we perceive Africa’s political, economic and strategic importance.
This becomes particularly important in a world where there is increasing discussion of bottlenecks along sea lanes, the vulnerability of supply chains and the need to find alternative routes to maritime transport. In such a situation, relations with African countries, spanning such a vast landmass, are far from insignificant.
Moky Makura of Africa No Filter, one of the organisations behind the #CorrectTheMap campaign, has raised a simple but important question: if we have been wrong for so long about something as basic as Africa’s actual size, what else about Africa have we simply accepted as true out of habit?
Our view of geography
The controversy over maps also has a deeper historical background.
Cartography played a significant role in the partition of Africa among European colonial powers in the late nineteenth century. Maps from that era often depicted large parts of the continent as so-called “empty spaces”, as if they were ungoverned territories awaiting discovery and conquest.
A map was therefore not merely a neutral tool. It could also become part of the way in which colonisation was understood and justified.
In this sense, the transition towards projections such as Equal Earth can indeed be seen as an attempt to correct a long-standing distortion.
Of course, no map can solve the economic, political or security problems of African countries. Nor does a new projection in itself alter the international balance of power.
It can, however, change the way we perceive those power dynamics.
Geography itself does not change. What changes is the lens through which we view geography.
And sometimes, a change in perspective is enough to notice connections that were previously invisible.
For more analysis on geopolitics and the changing global order, read: