UN redesigns world map according to woke ideology

While the world is engulfed in war, on 4 September the UN General Assembly found time to pass the 'Correct the Map' resolution, which aims to redraw the world's land boundaries. Tabled by Togo on behalf of the African Union, the resolution aims to ‘correct the map’ of the globe, as current maps make Latin America and Africa appear smaller than they actually are. The resolution received 164 'yes' votes and just one 'no' vote, from the United States (six countries abstained).

The issue is complex and has long been debated. The crux of the matter is this: it is impossible to accurately represent a spherical surface, such as that of the Earth, on a flat surface. It is akin to trying to flatten an orange peel without breaking it. Various solutions have been adopted over time, all of which are ultimately compromises because they all involve approximations to some extent. One of the most widely used solutions is the Mercator projection, which was developed in 1569. Its popularity stems from its usefulness for navigation, but like many other maps, it has certain flaws, including surface distortion. For example, on a Mercator map, Greenland, with an area of 2.2 million km², appears to be the same size as Africa, with an area of 30.4 million km². Similarly, Europe and North America also appear larger than they actually are. Map distortion means that areas appear larger the closer you get to the poles and smaller the closer you get to the equator.

There are several other projections besides the Mercator projection, such as the Gall–Peters, Robinson and Mollweide projections. The UN has proposed adopting the Equal Earth projection, developed in 2018, as it appears to be more accurate; however, even this projection is not immune to distortion. On this website, you can see the striking differences between the Mercator and Equal Earth projections. In short, the issue seems far from definitively resolved from a scientific point of view.

The UN resolution is of interest not only from a cartographic perspective, but also, and above all, from a political one. As previously mentioned, the United States was the only country to vote against the resolution, branding it a 'radical ideological project'. Furthermore, it denounced a kind of 'woke' persecution directed against it, and with good reason.

Last March, the UN passed a resolution defining the transatlantic slave trade from Africa to the colonial powers, particularly the United States, which took place between the early 17th century and the late 19th century, as 'the gravest crime against humanity'. The resolution calls on the relevant states to issue a formal apology and establish a fund to compensate for the harm caused. Unsurprisingly, the US also voted against it on that occasion. In response, at the end of August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination pointed out that signatory states to the 1965 anti-discrimination treaty (including the US) are legally obliged to pursue restorative justice measures. Setting aside the merits of the issue, which warrant extensive analysis, let us return to the political aspect that links this March 2026 resolution to the more recent one concerning inaccurate geographical maps.

The African Union, which has lobbied the UN for a change to the map, describes this as an important step towards overcoming 'geographical colonialism'. The current graphical representation of the globe was devised by the 16th century Flemish cartographer Gerhard Kremer, also known by his latinised name Gerardus Mercator, who was a proponent of Western culture. This map is said to reflect the worldview of the colonial powers. The argument underlying the decision to move beyond the Mercator projection is therefore as follows: if the US and Europe appear larger than Latin America and Africa on maps, these misleading dimensions could lead to the United States and Europe being regarded as more important than other nations in the Global South, politically, socially, and even historically. Cartographic superiority could encourage a sense of moral superiority that is unjustly attributed to these nations and continents. Hence the idea of a map that is not necessarily more accurate — we'll leave that to the experts — but more inclusive and democratic. More equitable. This is the world according to the UN.

Ultimately, beyond the scientific intentions, the real issue of concern to Africa and the UN appears to be cultural: championing the well-worn narrative that the Global North has exploited the Global South and is therefore indebted to it. Adjusting the sizes of the states would not only bring the map closer to the actual sizes of nations and continents, but also partially settle a debt of gratitude towards Africa and Latin America, which have been stripped of their resources and populations for centuries. In terms of history, politics and culture, Africa is as important as, if not more important than, the United States and Europe. Altering the map's dimensions would help to change people's perceptions in this regard. We must therefore break free from white colonialism, which imposes a misleading view of the world on us. Ultimately, it is a 'woke' battle: the aim is to downplay the significance of certain nations, just as there have been attempts to downplay the influence of authors such as Shakespeare, Homer and Virgil.

We must therefore modify, level out and temper greatness, dimensions, heights and pinnacles, and erase them if necessary, not to standardise or make everything the same, but to create new heights, new pinnacles and new records. After all, being a woman is better than being a man, being gay is better than being heterosexual, and in this case, being Black is better than being white.