Representing Space: The Geopolitics of Mapse

Translated by Federico Emanuele

On Friday, September 4, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Member States and international institutions to promote cartographic representations that more proportionally reflect the true size of the continents. Even so, an entirely faithful representation cannot be expected.

Cartography is inherently non-neutral, first and foremost for purely technical reasons: because the Earth is spherical, any attempt to project it onto a flat surface inevitably introduces distortions. Yet cartographic distortion is also the product of interpretive processes. The choice of projection, scale, orientation, and featured elements all contribute to constructing a specific perception of space. It is precisely in this sense that cartography takes on geopolitical significance: mapping a territory also means assigning it a position, a scale, and a degree of centrality within the global depiction.

Maps serve markedly different functions depending on their intended purpose. They can be tools for orientation and navigation, as with nautical and aeronautical charts, or instruments of spatial analysis, such as topographic and thematic maps. In military contexts, cartography maps out infrastructure, terrain features, and supply lines. While not exhaustive, this variety demonstrates that a map cannot be considered apart from its function: every representation highlights certain information while omitting other details, bringing specific facets of space into focus while leaving others in the background.

The Mercator projection is one of the clearest examples. Developed in the 16th century primarily to meet the demands of maritime navigation, it preserves angles and directions accurately, but severely distorts surface area, especially at high latitudes. The result is a depiction in which Europe and North America appear visually far larger than their actual size, whereas equatorial regions—including most of Africa—appear significantly reduced.

This does not mean the Mercator projection is simply incorrect or that it was designed solely to reinforce a Eurocentric worldview. Rather, the issue arises when a representation created for a specific technical purpose becomes, through its widespread use in schools and popular culture, one of the most familiar images of the Earth's surface. The Mercator projection is merely one way of depicting space, yet it has inevitably fostered perceptual hierarchies: what appears large, central, or close is perceived as more significant than what appears small, peripheral, or distant.

This intrinsic link between cartography and power is especially evident in colonial history, when maps became essential instruments for surveying, categorizing, and administering territories under European rule. A prime example is the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret 1916 pact between the United Kingdom and France aimed at partitioning the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire ahead of its anticipated collapse. Here, cartographic representation did not merely record politically organized territories; it often defined their structure. Borders were drawn across maps to suit the interests of colonial powers, with little regard for preexisting ethnic, linguistic, cultural, or territorial realities.

Borders, therefore, should not be viewed as inherently natural or immutable features: they are often the outcome of political decisions later formalized and legitimized on paper. A line drawn by external actors can thus materialize as a concrete reality on the ground.

The political role of cartography extends further. During the Cold War, maps reinforced the spatial divide between East and West. Through contrasting colors, delineated blocs, and highlighted spheres of influence, maps made the bipolar structure of the international system immediately legible. Here again, a map did not need to be falsified to shape perceptions; selecting specific data and prioritizing it over other elements was enough. Graphic representations foregrounded military alliances, strategic bases, troop deployments, and expanding spheres of influence.

Viewed in this light, the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly carries significance well beyond technical cartography. The call to promote more accurate depictions of land proportions—and of Africa's true size in particular—can be seen as an effort to challenge long-entrenched perceptual hierarchies. Depicting Africa in truer proportions serves as a reminder that its physical expanse has often been understated in the geographic imagination.

A more accurate map cannot, on its own, alter the material balance of power in the international system. However, it prompts a critical reappraisal of the tools used to visualize that balance. Questioning how maps are made also means questioning how we have learned to see the world. The issue is not merely which map is the most accurate, but who has historically held the power to decide which image of the world becomes dominant.

Mondo Internazionale APS - All Rights Reserved ® 2026