 |
| The UN General Assembly Hall in New York City, where this month's map vote took place. Unlike the smaller UN Security Council, the General Assembly has little power to enforce decisions on countries, and instead exists more for building international consensus, setting goals, and overseeing projects. Photo by PolGeoNow, from November 2019 (contact us for permission to use it). |
UN Map Debate: The truth about the US and Ukrainian arguments, and what other countries said
As you might have heard, the United Nations (UN) held a vote early this month about maps, discouraging the use of the mapmaking method known as the Mercator projection, which produces world maps that hugely exaggerate the size of places far from the equator (like northern Europe, Siberia, Canada, and Antarctica). The idea is that this is unfair to countries like those in Africa, which look smaller than they really are compared to countries in more-powerful Europe. The Equal Earth projection was promoted as a good alternative, because it perfectly preserves relative sizes (while introducing other kinds of distortion).
Unfortunately, even major news media got key details wrong – for example, the UN didn’t officially “adopt” or “replace” any map or projection. For the truth about what it really did, check out our separate article on six things most people misunderstood about the UN decision. If you have opinions about map projections, you should definitely read that first! But if you're looking for the details on which countries said what, you're already in the right place...
 |
| A comparison of three well-known map projections, and how they affect the size and shape of Africa on the map. For the full-size map and credits, visit our article on myths about the UN's map vote. |
There was one aspect of the story that got more attention in some news outlets than others: The political opposition to the UN’s “resolution” (a sort of an official statement of what most of the world’s countries want).
Most notably, the United States (US) was the only country in the world to vote against the resolution, though some others also “abstained” (officially refused to make a decision). Most reports that mentioned the abstainers focused on Ukraine, whose representative participated most in the debate.
However, Ukraine wasn’t the only country that abstained, and there were also quite a few countries that didn’t participate at all in the vote. Beyond that, there’s been a lot of confusion online about the details of why the US and Ukraine opposed the “yes” vote.
To help clear that up, we watched the whole debate and vote, and have gathered all the real details of what happened. We combined that with our own geography expertise, and came up with a few things we think you should know: about why the US and Ukraine raised objections, and about what positions other countries took. Read on for answers you won't find anywhere else!
The United States cast the only “no” vote
As most news media correctly reported, the United States of America (US) was the only country to vote against the map resolution at the UN. US diplomat Yaryna Ferencevych delivered a passionately worded call (in vain) for other countries to also vote “no”, arguing that the resolution “mocks the work and purpose” of the UN.
Was it about claims that the UN wastes its time on unimportant things?
One thread of the US’s argument was that the UN shouldn’t be wasting time arguing about maps: “Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace, prosperity, or good relations,” Ferencevych said, “this body is debating map projects from the 16th century” (the Mercator projection was invented in 1569). Judging from social media discussions, that part of the argument resonated with some people in the US, where there’s an especially big political gap between those who feel good about the UN and those who feel bad about it. A majority of people in the US also consider the UN to be ineffective, and commonly believe it “should be doing more” or doesn’t “take enough action”.
Whether good or bad, the UN does a lot more than most people realize. The central parts of the organization preside over a lot of the world’s top-level international coordination, and its connected agencies do even more, managing crucial aspects of how our interconnected world functions. People who say the UN is ineffective might be thinking specifically of the UN Security Council, which can take military and economic action when major world powers agree, but has been restricted for decades by deadlock between the US, China, and Russia, who each have the power to veto its decisions.
 |
| The UN General Assembly building in New York City, seen in November 2019. The Assembly Hall is located under the dome at the center. Photo by PolGeoNow (contact us for permission to use it). |
But the UN's General Assembly, where this month's vote happened, doesn’t have much power to take concrete action outside the UN itself. Designed for every country to have exactly one vote, it's mainly a discussion forum for countries to debate world issues, issue shared recommendations and opinions when they agree, and oversee the UN’s own internal operations.
A quick glance over what else the General Assembly has done recently shows that the map resolution wasn’t especially out of place. While something more obviously consequential comes along once in a while – like a “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects” – more typical resolutions cover things like “Merger of the United Nations System Staff College into the United Nations Institute for Training and Research”, or proclaiming 2028 the “Year of International Law”.
But there’s another reason to think the US delegation’s vote wasn’t mainly about scolding a useless UN: The country’s own statement made clear that political beliefs were a bigger issue…
The bigger issue: “Radical” politics, and a dubious link to “reparations”
It's clear from the US statement that even if they did feel time was being wasted, the much bigger issue was what they saw as the resolution’s “woke” message (though they didn't use that exact word). This was clear from early in Ferencevych's speech, when she said the map resolution “cannot be separated from the much larger and more radical ideological project it belongs to”.
She went on to protest that the UN resolution was not just dwelling on old maps, but was saying they had a “role in promoting reparations and ‘cognitive justice.’” This is a reference to a particular passage in the text of the UN resolution, which says it’s “Convinced that correcting cartographic distortions of continental sizes constitutes an act of cognitive justice and memorial reparation.”
The US, currently under the leadership of President Donald Trump, probably wanted to imply that the resolution’s use of the words “cognitive justice” sounds like academic talk linked to leftist critical theory or “postmodernism”. The phrase is often used by researchers to mean allowing traditional and scientific knowledge systems to coexist with equal respect. But in this case it seems more like they just meant fixing unfair things about the way we think ("cognitive" means related to thinking).
The other half of the US claim is more surprising: It seems to be suggesting a connection between the phrase “act of memorial reparation” and the contentious “reparations” movement in the US. "Reparations" usually means the idea that descendants of enslaved people should be compensated with money for the property, rights, and opportunities stolen from their families. On the other hand, "memorial reparation", as in "fixing with memory", usually means correcting past wrongs by remembering them accurately.
These two uses of the word “reparation” do both have ties to the study of transitional justice, which looks for the best ways to heal society’s damage from past human rights violations. And the UN really has debated international monetary reparations for slavery, which the US government has also opposed. But it should be pretty clear that the UN's map resolution is talking about something very different from paying back money. After all, it presents “memorial reparation” as something you can do for free, just by switching which map you use.
Some geographers have argued that the US position here is actually pretty ironic, since lately President Trump himself seems very concerned with how things are shown on maps, ordering US government offices to replace the names of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario with "Gulf of America" and "Lake America". The reason: Some symbolic pushback to what he says is unfair treatment from Mexico and Canada (which has a province called Ontario). You might even call it "cognitive justice".
The UN really did make questionable claims about the power of maps – but no other country objected
That said, US accusations of a “radical ideological project” probably didn’t come just from the “memorial reparation” and “cognitive justice” bits. The UN resolution really does outline a kind of geopolitical agenda, and not one that prioritizes "making America great again". On the contrary, the arguments in the UN document seem mostly rooted in the theory of decoloniality – the idea that for all people and countries to be equal, we need to keep pushing back against systems and worldviews that have been forced on everyone by Europe and the US.
Specifically, the UN resolution claims that map projections like the Mercator have led to “symbolic minimization of Africa in collective imaginations and knowledge systems” by magnifying the visual size of Europe and North America, also arguing that “cartographic distortions of continental sizes inherited from history have cognitive, educational, cultural, geopolitical and socioeconomic impacts and constitute historical biases”. Doubling down with more specifics, the resolution also claims that Mercator map distortions “contribute to minimizing the extent of socioeconomic realities, infrastructure needs, development potential and prosperity in the Southern regions” and “can fuel prejudices in the environmental, geopolitical and security fields”.
The original #CorrectTheMap campaign, which inspired the UN resolution, and got shout-outs in both the resolution’s title and its text, has used even more loaded language. Prior to an update made after the UN vote, the front page of the #CorrectTheMap website said its mission was “dismantling a colonial legacy”, calling Mercator maps part of a “false narrative”. (The update has replaced those words with a much milder explanation.)
These concerns about the real-world impact of Mercator distortions are common, including among geographers and mapmakers. But surprisingly, the available evidence suggests this might be based on a completely wrong assumption. Despite a whole genre of social media posts about startling country-size comparisons, researchers have so far mostly failed to find any “Mercator effect” on people’s perceptions of real-world country sizes. A 2022 review study concluded that even though the quality of existing research isn't great, there's now “a solid body of evidence against this theorized ‘Mercator effect.’” That doesn’t necessarily rule out effects in more specific contexts, but it does challenge the UN resolution's claims about a widespread threat to the world's well-being. (There's also an argument that the Mercator's supposed role in imperialism is a distraction, since there are much better ways to be racist with maps than choosing a bad projection.)
Compared with the activist slogans of the #CorrectTheMap campaign, the UN resolution actually shows a lot of professional expertise and thoughtful consideration in its recommendations, even if it doubles down on questionable claims about their importance. And for what it’s worth, the African delegate who introduced the resolution insisted it wasn't “directed against any nation, any civilization, or any cartographic tradition".
In the end, that was enough for most of the world's countries: 164 of them voted in favor of the resolution (85% of all UN members, and 96% of those who participated in the vote). That included most countries in Europe, plus wealthy, Mercator-enlarged Canada, none of whom seemed offended at the resolution’s criticisms of their own global privilege. There were a few more countries who refused to support the resolution, but they did it for different reasons than the US…
Ukraine, Equal Earth, and Crimea: A Misunderstanding?
Some news outlets also reported on Ukraine abstaining from the UN vote because of how Crimea – an area now controlled and claimed by Russia, but internationally considered part of Ukraine – was shown on one map. That part is true, but some key facts got lost in the public discussions. In particular: The UN resolution actually didn't say a thing about any specific map of the world's countries.
Dive Deeper: PolGeoNow’s map-illustrated history of the Ukraine war (2014-2024)
 |
| The Russian-language version of the free Equal Earth Wall Map series - which was not directly endorsed by the UN - appears to color Crimea as part of Russia. The note attached to Crimea translates as "Under Russian administration; sovereignty disputed by Ukraine." See later in this article for the English version of the map. |
The real story is a bit more complicated: Ukraine was understood to be talking about a set of maps from a series called the “Equal Earth Political Wall Map”. These maps are provided for free at equal-earth.com, the website of one of the Equal Earth projection’s inventors.
The English-language versions of these maps show Crimea in neutral gray compared to Ukraine’s blue-green and Russia’s yellow, while the Russian-language versions show Crimea in the same yellow color as Russia, with a note that it’s controlled by Russia but claimed by Ukraine.
The UN resolution does (gently) recommend the Equal Earth projection – the method used for making those maps – but it doesn’t say anything about the actual maps at equal-earth.com. Still, as mentioned above, it also praises the #CorrectTheMap campaign, whose website enthusiastically promotes the equal-earth.com maps, sometimes talking as if the maps and the projection were the same thing.
This indirect connection might have already seemed like a big enough problem from Ukraine’s perspective, even if its delegates did understand the difference. And while Ukraine said it had tried to negotiate for changes to the resolution, it seems other countries weren’t willing to go as far as condemning the equal-earth.com maps – maybe because they really are seen as a key tool in efforts to reduce the use of Mercator world maps.
So did the Ukrainian delegation understand the distinction between the method and the map? Probably, but they didn't make that super clear. In the UN debate, Ukrainian ambassador Andriy Melnyk first mentioned the projection, then afterwards criticized “the Equal Earth maps”, without going out of his way to make a firm distinction. He might have been glossing over the difference on purpose, hoping his argument would hit harder that way. But other delegates definitely did understand…
Other countries' responses to Ukraine’s accusations
Ahead of the vote, an Irish delegate, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), followed Ukraine’s statement with a very specific point about how the resolution didn’t mention or endorse equal-earth.com. The country of Togo, which spoke on behalf of all African countries in the UN, had also argued when introducing the resolution that it had nothing to do with any country’s borders.
Speaking out with the same message after the vote were New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, as well as Liechtenstein, Norway, and Iceland (three European countries that are partnered with, but not part of, the EU). Mexico gave a more general statement that the resolution’s mapmaking goals shouldn’t be “politicized” (apparently a vague rebuke to Ukraine’s Crimea complaint).
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), which holds one of the most powerful seats at the UN, became the only country to speak out at the debate in direct support of Ukraine. Still, it too said it had voted "yes", being satisfied enough that the resolution didn’t directly affect Crimea. And as detailed later in this article, three or four countries quietly abstained in solidarity with Ukraine.
The Philippines offered a unique justification for its own “yes” vote: That the equal-earth.com website had already thought of the Crimea issue, and posted a good enough disclaimer. The disclaimer on the website at that time read:
Dear users: Geo-political issues are contentious. If you do not agree with any of the map content, you are free to make changes using the editable Illustrator files below.
In the weeks since the UN debate, as the maps' creator has come under pressure to adjust them, the disclaimer has been made even clearer:
These maps created by independent cartographer, Tom Patterson, do not necessarily reflect UN, EU, or US policies. If you do not agree with the map content, you can make changes using the free Illustrator files available here.
After the vote, Russia’s delegate spoke up to object to Ukraine and the UK bringing Crimea into it, arguing that they were hijacking an effort by African countries to speak up for their own needs – but also insisting that Crimea really is part of Russia. Ukraine’s delegate responded in turn, saying Ukraine would take Crimea back soon, and arguing that supporters of the resolution had emboldened Russia's efforts to keep it.
Ukraine and the US didn’t back each other up
It’s important to understand that the US and Ukrainian complaints about the UN resolution were completely separate:
Ukraine, for its part, started out its comments by saying it “does not, in principle, oppose to the core issues” of the UN’s map resolution. It went further to say that it “endorses efforts to address historical distortions in the representation of the sizes of continents”, but just couldn’t support the resolution “in its present form” because of the Crimea issue, and had tried to negotiate a compromise. In other words, it didn’t share the US’s opinion that the resolution as a whole had the wrong political message or was a waste of time.
Meanwhile, the US (unlike its traditional close ally the UK) didn’t say a word about the Crimea issue or Ukraine’s complaints, focusing only on its own message on politics and priorities.
The other five countries that abstained from the map vote
Ukraine was the only abstaining country mentioned in most news reports, probably because it was the only one that took the floor to say exactly why it was abstaining. But it wasn't the only country that refused to take a side. Three more – Estonia, Lithuania, and Moldova – stayed quiet at the debate, but later said they had abstained in support of Ukraine (Estonia’s statement was also the only one we’ve seen that pointed out the Russian-language version of the map, pictured above).
 |
| The English-language version of the free Equal Earth Wall Map series - which was not directly endorsed by the UN - as it appeared at the time of the UN vote. Since then, the name "Turkey" has been changed to "Türkiye", and a note has been added to Crimea reading "Administered by Russia, claimed by Ukraine". Also note the illustrations of Kosovo, the Golan Heights, and Cyprus, which as of writing remain the same on the map's current version. |
A fourth abstainer, Georgia, hasn’t made any statement we could find, but the reason was likely the same. For both it and the other three countries, Russia's control of Crimea hits especially close to home: Like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova consider large proportions of their own countries to be occupied by Russia, whose forces sustain the self-declared republics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria (though these “breakaway states”, which aren't accepted as independent by the UN or most countries, don’t show up even on the Russian-language equal-earth.com maps).
Meanwhile, Estonia and Lithuania were previously taken over by the Russia-led Soviet Union for half a century starting with World War II. Today, they see themselves as potentially next in line again if Russia extends its war beyond Ukraine – even though that seems unlikely for now. (Neighboring Latvia, which shares their circumstances as part of the Baltics bloc, didn’t abstain, instead voting "yes" on the map resolution.)
A fifth country, Serbia, abstained from the vote for a reason not tied to Ukraine. Although it showed a clearer understanding of the map vs. projection issue, its particular complaint was more vague: “Available sources and presentation associated with the Equal Earth,” lamented Serbian diplomat Radomir Ilić, “contain political maps that are not in conformity with the international law, relevant UN resolutions, principles, standards, and guidelines”.
Though he didn’t get any more specific, this had to be a reference to Kosovo, which the UN generally treats as part of Serbia, but the equal-earth.com maps show as an independent country. This also matches the position of the US government, whose maps the cartographer says he used as a reference years ago. Like Ukraine and some of the other abstainers, Serbia clarified that it still supported the general goals of the resolution.
What other countries had to say about disputed territories on the equal-earth.com maps
In a slightly less relaxed tone than the EU’s defense of the UN resolution, Cyprus and Pakistan both made a point of saying that, for the record, they don’t consider the UN resolution to affect any borders. The reason for both countries’ unease is easy to guess: The equal-earth.com maps show a dotted line separating southern and Northern Cyprus, and mark only actual control in disputed Kashmir, rather than showing that the whole area is claimed by both Pakistan and India.
A statement by India sidestepped the issue, arguing that the resolution should have stuck to promoting equal-area type map projections in general, rather than even singling out Equal Earth as a method. Still, India, Pakistan, and Cyprus all voted to pass the resolution.
The Philippines, in its above-mentioned defense of the resolution, also said pointedly that the document doesn’t affect the “legal status of any territorial or maritime area". This was probably inspired by a Chinese-language version of equal-earth.com’s maps, specifically labeled for use in China, that marks that country’s unusual claim to dominion over most of the South China Sea and its islands, many of which are also claimed (and in some cases controlled) by the Philippines.
Beyond complaints about borders on the equal-earth.com maps, Paraguay made a slightly vague statement pushing for the UN resolution’s political mission not to focus too much on just Africa.
Countries that could have complained, but didn't
Morocco, which stands out for being sensitive about its claims to the Western Sahara territory (which it does control most of), voted “yes” and didn’t speak up in the debate. The equal-earth.com maps make the uncommon choice of showing Western Sahara as an external territory of Morocco, whereas a more typical choice is to show it neutrally as a disputed territory (though the Moroccan government prefers showing it as a normal part of Morocco).
As mentioned above, the maps’ author says he used a US government map as reference for borders and country labels, with some exceptions. And though he lists Western Sahara as one of the exceptions, his label is also partly consistent with the US officially considering the territory part of Morocco since 2020. And there are other mapping choices that seem likely to have followed US government policy:
For one, the maps show the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights as if they’re fully part of Israel, following US policy since 2019, though most of the world considers them part of Syria. Still, Syria didn't make any fuss, perhaps because its government is trying to keep its head down when possible, eager to be accepted as a normal country despite its new leader’s past as an Al Qaeda commander.
Learn More: Who controls what in the Israel/Palestine area?
Or maybe Syria just didn’t feel the equal-earth.com maps were relevant, as is likely the case with Mauritius. That country also voted “yes” despite the maps showing the Chagos Islands as a UK territory, in conflict with the UN’s own map policy and an international court ruling – both of which say they’re part of Mauritius (again, the equal-earth.com maps were likely following the US government's lead here).
A recent report revealed that the maps' creator was also contacted by Japan about showing the disputed Kuril Islands all in the same color as Russia, with the article also noting that he had changed the name of Turkey to "Türkiye", matching official English usage since 2022. Both Japan and Türkiye voted "yes" on the UN resolution, and the English-language map has since been changed to show the Japan-claimed part of the islands in neutral gray (along with a note about the dispute, already included on the map at the time of the vote).
Four countries at the UN – Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia – could have made the same complaint hinted at by the Philippines, as mentioned earlier, since they also claim islands or seas that the China-friendly version of the map shows as Chinese territory (so does the government of Taiwan, but it’s not a UN member). Despite that possibility, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia all silently voted “yes” on the resolution. The situation with Vietnam, on the other hand, is less clear…
Some countries didn’t even participate in the vote
Though only the US voted against the resolution, and only six countries registered official abstentions from the vote, there were 22 more countries that didn’t participate in voting at all (about 11% of the UN’s 193 total members):
 |
| Readout of the UN voting results for the map resolution, captured from the official video feed of the debate and vote (from UN-copyrighted video, shown here under fair use principles). |
- Afghanistan
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Bolivia
- Dominica
- Fiji
- Grenada
- Honduras
- Iran
- Kiribati
- Malawi
- The Federated States of Micronesia
- Naoero (formerly Nauru)
- Palau
- São Tomé and Príncipe
- Solomon Islands
- South Sudan
- Tonga
- Turkmenistan
- Tuvalu
- Vanuatu
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
It wasn’t clear if any of these countries’ non-participation was related to opinions on the resolution, or if they just couldn’t be bothered to attend or cast a vote.
As mentioned above, one that stands out is Vietnam, which has a known reason to possibly be skeptical, but it's very hard to say what actually happened. What we do know is that Vietnam was present at the meeting, introducing an unrelated resolution of its own immediately after the mapping debate ended. Vietnam could have sat out the vote on purpose, but maybe a more likely explanation is that its delegation was just too busy to vote while preparing its own big moment.
Iran was the only country from the non-voting list that made a comment about the resolution at the meeting: It noted after the vote that it read the resolution to be “solely restricted to scientific and technical methods” and nothing else. The Iran delegate didn't mention why his country hadn't voted, but maybe this comment could have been meant to say that it wasn't because of any objections.
The non-participating list includes a lot of small Pacific Island countries, some of which have been known to side with the US in the past, even when no one else will. But that’s probably not enough to speculate that they skipped voting on purpose this time. In fact, it’s considered normal for countries without many staff to miss a vote because they’re “engaged elsewhere”, and this list also includes similarly small countries from other parts of the world.
Thanks for reading!
If you haven't yet, check out our companion article on six things most people got wrong about the content of the UN's map resolution. And feel free to tag us on social media with any questions you might have about either article, and if you found them useful, please consider buying us a coffee! We spent more than 60 work hours making these two articles, which as always are written by humans (no AI slop). We have no reliable income from free articles like this, and the money PolGeoNow brings in is barely enough for us to get by.