Blogs
Politics of scale: Africa in a changing global order
A UN-backed push for a world map that reflects Africa’s true scale raises the question of whether the continent can translate its scale and growing strategic importance into greater global influence, writes Beatrice Mujuni.
Beatrice Mujuni. (Courtesy)
By: Admin ., Journalist @New Vision
_________________
OPINION
By Beatrice Mujuni
For many of us, our earliest understanding of the world came from a map hanging somewhere on a classroom wall. We learnt the names of oceans, traced continents with crayons, and tried to locate our own countries on what seemed like a straightforward picture of the planet.
A map was simply a map, and there was little reason to imagine it could reflect anything beyond geographical fact.
Turning a spherical planet into a flat image requires choices about what to preserve and what to distort. Those choices began as technical decisions, with one version reproduced for generations, and quietly shaped how the world is understood.
On September 4, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly supported a resolution encouraging the use of world maps that represent the relative sizes of countries and continents more accurately. Led by Togo on behalf of the African Union and supported by The Bahamas, the resolution received 164 votes in favour. Six countries abstained, while the US cast the only vote against it.
The decision challenges the continued dominance of the Mercator projection, developed by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It was created primarily for navigation and allowed sailors to plot constant compass bearings across the sea. For that purpose, it was enormously useful, however, it was not without distortions.
In the Mercator projection, territories in Europe and North America appear much larger than they are in relation to countries closer to the equator. This is why Greenland can appear almost comparable in size to Africa. In reality, Africa is approximately 14 times larger. At about 30.3 million square kilometres, it is the world’s second-largest continent and can accommodate the US, China, India and much of Europe within its landmass. The Equal Earth projection promoted through the ‘Correct the Map’ campaign offers a different approach. Developed in 2018, it preserves the relative area of countries and continents more accurately while keeping their shapes broadly recognisable.
Let’s switch lanes for a moment and look into the relationship between representation and power. How a country, community or issue is repeatedly presented influences people’s understanding of its significance. I would argue that representation, therefore, establishes the framework through which those political and economic outcomes are discussed.
A picture is worth 1,000 words, they say, so what is repeatedly placed at the centre begins to feel central, and what is made to look smaller can gradually be imagined as less consequential.
That visual impression of Africa has shaped narratives of Africa as peripheral rather than central and dependent rather than influential. And no, a map did not create these narratives; colonialism, conflict, governance failures, and the concentration of global political and media power have played far more direct roles.
Challenges to the Mercator projection are not new. The Gall-Peters projection attracted considerable attention in the 1970s because it represented land masses according to their relative area. In 2017, Boston Public Schools introduced Gall-Peters maps into classrooms, reviving debate about how conventional maps influence children’s understanding of the world.
National Geographic has also changed its preferred world map over time, adopting the Winkel Tripel projection in the late 1990s to reduce some of the distortions found in earlier maps. The Equal Earth projection was itself developed partly in response to the renewed debate following the decision in Boston.
The world has reconsidered its maps before. What is different now is that the question has moved beyond cartographers, educational institutions and advocacy organisations. It has become the subject of an African-led resolution at the UN. And what strategic timing for content. Africa is attracting renewed international attention. Europe is reassessing its relationship with the continent. China has spent years expanding its commercial and infrastructure presence. Gulf states are investing in ports, agriculture, energy and logistics. The US is showing greater interest in critical minerals and strategic corridors, while India, Turkey and other emerging powers are deepening their engagement.
European commissioner for international partnerships Jozef Síkela recently stated that strengthening Africa is an investment in Europe’s future. The language used in matters related to Africa has shifted from that of a recipient of development assistance. Africa is now increasingly being discussed as a continent whose resources, growth and stability will shape the future of other regions. Trade between Africa and the European Union (EU) was valued at about euro 355b in 2024. The EU has committed an Africa-Europe investment package of at least euro 150b through its Global Gateway initiative. According to UN Trade and Development, foreign direct investment into Africa reached approximately $70b in 2025, with strategic industries and infrastructure attracting particular attention.
On that note, we need to caution that more investment does not automatically produce decent employment, stronger domestic industries or lasting value for local communities. International attention can also sharpen competition for African minerals, land, energy and markets. Nevertheless, the shift in how Africa is being discussed is quite difficult to ignore, especially since for decades the narrative was dominated by poverty, conflict, disease, and humanitarian aid. Now, as global actors look towards Africa for geopolitical partnerships, realities that were previously overlooked are coming to light; Africa’s physical scale matters.
Interest has a way of revealing realities that were always present. It can encourage governments to collect better data, persuade businesses to examine markets they once ignored and compel international institutions to reconsider old assumptions. Perhaps that is partly what we are witnessing. The map is being reconsidered at the same time that the world is recalculating Africa’s strategic value. The responsibility of African leaders is to convert that interest into bargaining power, productive investment, knowledge transfer and opportunities that can be felt beyond government statements.
The renewed attention to Africa’s continental size raises another, more complicated question. If we are insisting that the outline of Africa must be represented accurately, what are we saying about the borders within it? Many of those borders carry a deeply contested history. The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 established rules that accelerated European occupation of Africa, although it is inaccurate to suggest that every African border was literally drawn around a single table in Berlin. Many boundaries were negotiated, imposed and adjusted by colonial powers over the decades that followed, often with little regard for the communities, cultures and economic relationships they divided. At independence, African leaders inherited a difficult choice. They could attempt to redraw the continent’s borders or accept them, however imperfect, to avoid opening almost every new state to territorial disputes.
In July 1964, the Organisation of African Unity adopted the Cairo Resolution under which member states committed to respect the borders that existed when they attained independence. It was a pragmatic decision. Attempting to renegotiate the entire political map could have produced even greater conflict. The decision helped protect the territorial integrity of newly independent states, but it did not remove the consequences of borders that divided families, communities and old trading routes.
That visual impression of Africa has shaped narratives of Africa as peripheral rather than central and dependent rather than influential. And no, a map did not create these narratives; colonialism, conflict, governance failures, and the concentration of global political and media power have played far more direct roles.
Challenges to the Mercator projection are not new. The Gall-Peters projection attracted considerable attention in the 1970s because it represented land masses according to their relative area. In 2017, Boston Public Schools introduced Gall-Peters maps into classrooms, reviving debate about how conventional maps influence children’s understanding of the world.
National Geographic has also changed its preferred world map over time, adopting the Winkel Tripel projection in the late 1990s to reduce some of the distortions found in earlier maps. The Equal Earth projection was itself developed partly in response to the renewed debate following the decision in Boston.
The world has reconsidered its maps before. What is different now is that the question has moved beyond cartographers, educational institutions and advocacy organisations. It has become the subject of an African-led resolution at the UN. And what strategic timing for content. Africa is attracting renewed international attention. Europe is reassessing its relationship with the continent. China has spent years expanding its commercial and infrastructure presence. Gulf states are investing in ports, agriculture, energy and logistics. The US is showing greater interest in critical minerals and strategic corridors, while India, Turkey and other emerging powers are deepening their engagement.
European commissioner for international partnerships Jozef Síkela recently stated that strengthening Africa is an investment in Europe’s future. The language used in matters related to Africa has shifted from that of a recipient of development assistance. Africa is now increasingly being discussed as a continent whose resources, growth and stability will shape the future of other regions. Trade between Africa and the European Union (EU) was valued at about euro 355b in 2024. The EU has committed an Africa-Europe investment package of at least euro 150b through its Global Gateway initiative. According to UN Trade and Development, foreign direct investment into Africa reached approximately $70b in 2025, with strategic industries and infrastructure attracting particular attention.
On that note, we need to caution that more investment does not automatically produce decent employment, stronger domestic industries or lasting value for local communities. International attention can also sharpen competition for African minerals, land, energy and markets. Nevertheless, the shift in how Africa is being discussed is quite difficult to ignore, especially since for decades the narrative was dominated by poverty, conflict, disease, and humanitarian aid. Now, as global actors look towards Africa for geopolitical partnerships, realities that were previously overlooked are coming to light; Africa’s physical scale matters.
Interest has a way of revealing realities that were always present. It can encourage governments to collect better data, persuade businesses to examine markets they once ignored and compel international institutions to reconsider old assumptions. Perhaps that is partly what we are witnessing. The map is being reconsidered at the same time that the world is recalculating Africa’s strategic value. The responsibility of African leaders is to convert that interest into bargaining power, productive investment, knowledge transfer and opportunities that can be felt beyond government statements.
The renewed attention to Africa’s continental size raises another, more complicated question. If we are insisting that the outline of Africa must be represented accurately, what are we saying about the borders within it? Many of those borders carry a deeply contested history. The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 established rules that accelerated European occupation of Africa, although it is inaccurate to suggest that every African border was literally drawn around a single table in Berlin. Many boundaries were negotiated, imposed and adjusted by colonial powers over the decades that followed, often with little regard for the communities, cultures and economic relationships they divided. At independence, African leaders inherited a difficult choice. They could attempt to redraw the continent’s borders or accept them, however imperfect, to avoid opening almost every new state to territorial disputes.
In July 1964, the Organisation of African Unity adopted the Cairo Resolution under which member states committed to respect the borders that existed when they attained independence. It was a pragmatic decision. Attempting to renegotiate the entire political map could have produced even greater conflict. The decision helped protect the territorial integrity of newly independent states, but it did not remove the consequences of borders that divided families, communities and old trading routes.
More than six decades later, Africa is still negotiating that tension. Governments defend their territorial sovereignty while continental initiatives attempt to make the same borders less restrictive. The African Continental Free Trade Area is based on the recognition that Africa’s economic potential will remain constrained if its market continues to operate as dozens of fragmented national spaces. What an apparent paradox! Africa is asking the world to recognise its continental boundary more accurately while trying to reduce the economic importance of the boundaries inside it.
But perhaps two things can exist: the accurate representation of Africa externally and treating every internal border as an immovable barrier. Africa can assert its collective geographical presence while still making it easier for people, goods, services and ideas to move between its states.
Other regions have faced similar questions; for instance, European countries retained their borders and national identities but gradually reduced the economic significance of those borders through regional integration and a common market.
Europe has not eliminated nationalism, as recent political tensions and the temporary return of some border controls demonstrate. Nor can its experience simply be replicated by Africa. It does show, however, that sovereignty and integration do not always have to cancel each other out. The question becomes even more relevant as economic nationalism returns across the world. Governments are using tariffs, subsidies, and controls over strategic industries to protect domestic production and secure supply chains.
The map campaign contains a clear element of self-assertion, but by describing it simply as African nationalism, we would miss something important. Traditional nationalism places the individual state at the centre. This initiative was pursued collectively through the African Union; its message is not necessarily “Africa against the world,” but “Africa to the world.”
What I see emerging is a stronger understanding that African countries can better defend their interests when they identify common positions and negotiate collectively. Large economies can pursue economic nationalism from a position of significant domestic market power. Most individual African countries do not have that advantage. If the continent responds to global protectionism with 54 separate and competing nationalisms, it could fragment itself further. A more effective response would be to strengthen African productive capacity, deepen continental trade and use the combined size of the African market to negotiate with external partners.
Dare I say that the corrected map is part of a wider change in Africa’s posture. The African Union became a permanent member of the G20 in September 2023. Across negotiations on international taxation, debt, climate finance, trade and reform of multilateral institutions, African governments are increasingly challenging arrangements created when much of the continent was under colonial rule.
If renewed international interest can help the world recognise Africa’s geographical scale, what else might this unfold? Could it strengthen the case for fairer representation in international institutions? Could it lead to more credible assessments of African markets? Could African countries negotiate a greater share of the value from their natural resources?
The responsibility, surely, lies closer to home; the principle behind the map must extend to governance and development of the African continent. Africa’s collective diplomatic weight becomes influential when countries can organise around common interests. A large continental market becomes powerful when businesses can genuinely trade across it, and a young population only becomes an advantage when people have education, decent work and meaningful opportunities.
A corrected map can show the world Africa’s true scale, but only Africa can decide what to do with it.
The writer is an international development and strategic communications specialist who writes on diplomacy, sustainable development and global affairs.
But perhaps two things can exist: the accurate representation of Africa externally and treating every internal border as an immovable barrier. Africa can assert its collective geographical presence while still making it easier for people, goods, services and ideas to move between its states.
Other regions have faced similar questions; for instance, European countries retained their borders and national identities but gradually reduced the economic significance of those borders through regional integration and a common market.
Europe has not eliminated nationalism, as recent political tensions and the temporary return of some border controls demonstrate. Nor can its experience simply be replicated by Africa. It does show, however, that sovereignty and integration do not always have to cancel each other out. The question becomes even more relevant as economic nationalism returns across the world. Governments are using tariffs, subsidies, and controls over strategic industries to protect domestic production and secure supply chains.
The map campaign contains a clear element of self-assertion, but by describing it simply as African nationalism, we would miss something important. Traditional nationalism places the individual state at the centre. This initiative was pursued collectively through the African Union; its message is not necessarily “Africa against the world,” but “Africa to the world.”
What I see emerging is a stronger understanding that African countries can better defend their interests when they identify common positions and negotiate collectively. Large economies can pursue economic nationalism from a position of significant domestic market power. Most individual African countries do not have that advantage. If the continent responds to global protectionism with 54 separate and competing nationalisms, it could fragment itself further. A more effective response would be to strengthen African productive capacity, deepen continental trade and use the combined size of the African market to negotiate with external partners.
Dare I say that the corrected map is part of a wider change in Africa’s posture. The African Union became a permanent member of the G20 in September 2023. Across negotiations on international taxation, debt, climate finance, trade and reform of multilateral institutions, African governments are increasingly challenging arrangements created when much of the continent was under colonial rule.
If renewed international interest can help the world recognise Africa’s geographical scale, what else might this unfold? Could it strengthen the case for fairer representation in international institutions? Could it lead to more credible assessments of African markets? Could African countries negotiate a greater share of the value from their natural resources?
The responsibility, surely, lies closer to home; the principle behind the map must extend to governance and development of the African continent. Africa’s collective diplomatic weight becomes influential when countries can organise around common interests. A large continental market becomes powerful when businesses can genuinely trade across it, and a young population only becomes an advantage when people have education, decent work and meaningful opportunities.
A corrected map can show the world Africa’s true scale, but only Africa can decide what to do with it.
The writer is an international development and strategic communications specialist who writes on diplomacy, sustainable development and global affairs.