What did the UN General Assembly’s African led, nonbinding “Correct the Map” resolution—adopted 164–1 with six abstentions, opposed only by the United States—seek to change about the continued use of the Mercator projection, why does it promote Equal Earth and other equal area ma

The resolution did not ban Mercator. It urged governments, schools, international organizations, and technology companies to use Equal Earth or other equal-area projections when depicting comparative continental and national size—especially in educational and public-facing maps. It passed 164–1 with six abstentions; the United States cast the sole no vote. 613

• Rationale: Mercator is conformal: it preserves local angles and directions, making it valuable for navigation, but it increasingly enlarges area toward the poles. Thus Greenland can look comparable to Africa on a Mercator world map even though Africa is vastly larger. Equal-area projections preserve relative area, so advocates regard their use as “cognitive justice”: correcting learned visual assumptions that have made Africa and much of the Global South appear smaller and less central. 67

• “Memorial reparation” is a political and cultural argument, not a technical cartographic term. Supporters connect the correction to the enduring symbolic effects of colonial-era knowledge systems and representations. The resolution’s practical claim is narrower: a map intended to compare size should not systematically distort size. 56

• Support and reservations: Togo led the initiative under an African Union mandate, and the AU formally endorsed the Correct the Map of Africa initiative. The Bahamas joined African Union member states in advancing the draft; reporting also identified France and the United Kingdom among the 164 supporters. 581416 The United States opposed the text; six states abstained. 13

• France and Eckert IV: France’s announced move away from Mercator for official representation was meant to adopt a map that better reflects the relative scale of countries and continents, including reducing the visual enlargement of France, the United States, and Russia. 7 I could not verify from the available reporting a definitive official French explanation specifically for choosing Eckert IV rather than Equal Earth; the reported rationale is the broader equal-area objective.

• Ukraine’s concern: The principle is understandable: changing projections or generalized basemaps must not blur internationally recognized borders, alter depictions of occupied territory, or turn an occupation into a “disputed” status. Maps are politically consequential in Ukraine’s case, where some map products have labeled occupied Ukrainian areas as Russian or disputed. 3 However, the available sources do not substantiate a specific Ukrainian statement in the General Assembly debate, so that attribution should be treated cautiously.

• Expected implementation: Togo’s immediate role was diplomatic—seeking member-state adoption and wider use of a map reflecting Africa’s actual scale. 45 The AU’s initiative envisages continent-wide advocacy and consultation around more accurate public cartography. 8 The UN resolution explicitly calls on schools, governments, and technology companies to shift appropriate public and educational map products toward equal-area alternatives. 1315 I could not independently verify specific UNESCO implementation commitments or named technology-company rollout plans from the available evidence.

• Important limit: No projection is “the true map” in every respect; putting a sphere on a flat surface necessarily trades off area, shape, distance, or direction. The resolution therefore favors a fit-for-purpose norm: Equal Earth/Eckert-type equal-area maps for relative size and public education, while Mercator remains appropriate for navigation and some specialized geospatial uses.