The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to encourage the use of new world maps which more accurately depict continents with their true sizes. While 164 countries supported the move, the United States opposed it, with US representative Yaryna Ferencevych calling the resolution the reason this institution is losing its credibility. Instead of focusing on genuine problems … this body is debating map projects from the 16th century,
she said. The resolution does not ban the Mercator projection or impose a particular replacement—it merely encourages nations to adopt the Equal Earth version, which was created by three researchers in 2018.
Japan, India, Ukraine: Why some countries are uneasy about
The move followed months of lobbying by the African Union, which itself adopted a new map earlier in February. The Equal Earth projection, endorsed by the UN, seeks to correct the distortions of the Mercator projection, developed in 1569 by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator. The Mercator map, designed during a period when the West was “conquering” new territories, attempts to show a three-dimensional globe on a two-dimensional surface. This results in countries closer to the poles appearing much larger than those at the equator. For decades, map experts have criticized the Mercator projection for disproportionately shrinking the true size of the African continent and other developing regions while making Europe and the U.S. seem larger by comparison. For example, Greenland is shown as roughly the same size as Africa, but, in reality, it could fit into the continent 14 times over. Europe, which is portrayed as bigger than South America, is actually half its size.
Advocates from African countries argued that the Mercator projection reinforces negative perceptions of Africa. They specifically pushed for the Equal Earth projection, which significantly expands Africa and shrinks Europe and the U.S. Experts say while maps are inherently inaccurate due to the constraints of depicting a spherical world on a flat plane, the Equal Earth projection is as close as it gets to accurate representation. The African Union’s adoption of a new map in February underscored the growing global push for more equitable cartographic standards.
Why some countries are uneasy about new UN map
Despite the resolution’s broad support, at least three countries—India, Ukraine, and Japan—voiced concerns about how the Equal Earth projection depicts disputed territories. None explicitly opposed the new projection, but they raised questions about its visual representation of sensitive regions. Ukraine, one of six countries that abstained from the vote, criticized the map’s depiction of the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula. The map shows the peninsula in a lighter shade than mainland Ukraine, a choice Kyiv argues could normalize Russia’s 2014 annexation of the territory. Andrii Melnyk, Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN, stated that the map’s design risks abuse and distortion of geopolitical narratives. It would be a truly fatal mistake for all of us… to seek to correct a historical injustice… by allowing a deeply troubling interpretation of the text, he said. Ukraine had requested adjustments before the vote but received no response, according to Melnyk.
The map uses similar shades for Russian territory and the disputed Kuril Islands, known as the Northern Territories in Japan. The islands, occupied by Russia since 1945, remain a flashpoint in Japan-Russia relations.
Why Some Countries Are Uneasy About the New UN
India, while not explicitly opposing the resolution, expressed concerns about the map’s depiction of disputed regions. The UN has acknowledged feedback from member states and stated it is open to revising the map where necessary.
The controversy highlights the intersection of cartography and diplomacy, where visual choices can carry profound political implications. Maps are not merely geographic tools but symbols of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national identity. The colors used in the new UN map, intended to differentiate countries and regions, have instead raised questions about neutrality and fairness. Experts point out that colors, while often seen as neutral, can have deep-rooted historical and political symbolism. The UN faces a challenging balancing act in ensuring its maps are both visually clear and politically sensitive to avoid unintended controversy. As global politics evolve, the role of maps as subtle instruments of national narratives becomes ever more prominent.
