Correcting the world map is a good idea – but this UN resolution doesn’t make the case

The UN General Assembly recently voted to promote the use of world maps that more accurately represent the sizes of continents. The "Correct the Map" resolution received 164 votes in favor, with six abstentions and one against. While the intention behind the resolution is commendable, the concerns raised by the six abstaining countries and the country that voted against it reveal key weaknesses in its draft.

Sponsored by Togo and supported by the African Union, the resolution emphasizes that no single map can perfectly depict the Earth's curved surface on a flat page and highlights the usefulness of different maps for various purposes. It specifically states that an "equal-area map" is more accurate for comparing the sizes of countries and continents.

However, the resolution's weaknesses become apparent when analyzing the objections. Six countries abstained from voting, while one country voted against the resolution. These objections point to several flaws in the resolution's drafting. Some countries worried that the resolution might inadvertently support specific "Equal Earth" maps found online.

These maps aim to show accurate relative sizes but often distort distances between landmasses and may have political boundaries that some countries find unacceptable. Importantly, the resolution does not endorse or support any political map; it focuses on representing the globe on a flat surface without taking a stance on political boundaries.

Another criticism is that the resolution's term "Equal Earth" caused unnecessary confusion, which could have been avoided by explicitly stating that the resolution doesn't affect sovereignty, territorial status, or internationally recognized borders. Additionally, some argue that the resolution is trivial and a waste of the General Assembly's time when there are more pressing issues that require global attention.

Despite these disagreements, the resolution also faces criticism for its unproven claims about the effects of map distortions. It asserts that such distortions influence people's perceptions, learning, cultural understanding, and even have geopolitical and socioeconomic consequences. However, the resolution fails to provide evidence to back up these claims.

It jumps from the well-established fact that the Mercator projection distorts relative sizes to the much broader assertion that this distortion leads to harmful cognitive, socioeconomic, and geopolitical effects. To strengthen the resolution, the sponsors should have instead presented these claims as possibilities and called for further research instead of treating potential harms as established facts.

While correcting the world map is undoubtedly a worthwhile goal, the resolution's reasoning needs to be more robust. A better resolution would differentiate map projections from political boundaries, distinguish established facts from speculation, and emphasize the need for rigorous research before attributing specific harms to map distortions.