Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Iraq’s nautical charts and the northern Gulf power struggle

Photo Credit: The Cradle

From The Craddle by Mawada Iskandar

Baghdad’s deposit of new maritime coordinates at the UN reopens a decades-old boundary file and shifts the balance of power across ports, trade corridors, and energy routes in the northern Persian Gulf.

In the northern Persian Gulf, maritime lines have always carried political weight.
What may appear as technical coordinates on a chart often marks the boundary between access and constraint, leverage and vulnerability.

Iraq’s recent deposit of updated nautical charts with the UN – defining its baselines, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf – has reopened a dispute with Kuwait that traces back to the post-1990 settlement and continues to shape the strategic equilibrium along the Gulf’s northern edge.

On 19 January and 9 February 2026, Iraq formally lodged the coordinates under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), asserting what it describes as its sovereign maritime rights, particularly around Buoy 162 in Khor Abdullah – the narrow artery through which Iraq’s southern ports breathe. The move was framed in Baghdad as long overdue consolidation of national entitlements.

Kuwait responded swiftly, characterizing the step as unilateral and legally contentious, arguing that the Iraqi coordinates intersect with prior arrangements and impinge on Kuwaiti sovereignty in areas including Fasht al-Aij and Fasht al-Qid.
What might appear as cartography has reopened one of the most sensitive files in post-1990 Gulf politics. 
 
Iran-Irak-Kuwait with the GeoGarage platform (UKHO nautical raster chart)

A century-old boundary left unresolved

The maritime dispute between Iraq and Kuwait predates both states in their modern form.
When Kuwait was under British protection following the 1899 agreement, early attempts were made to delineate borders with Ottoman-administered Iraq.
The 1913 Anglo–Ottoman Convention sketched outlines but was never implemented after the outbreak of World War I, leaving Khor Abdullah unresolved.

The 1922 Uqair Conference addressed land boundaries in the region, later formalized in 1932 and acknowledged by Iraq in 1963.
Maritime demarcation, however, remained unsettled.
After Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, UN Security Council Resolution 833 (1993) demarcated the land border and divided Khor Abdullah at Buoy 162, leaving deeper maritime areas subject to a bilateral understanding.

Following the 2003 Iraq War and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Baghdad and Kuwait resumed diplomatic relations and signed the 2012 Khor Abdullah Navigation Agreement, ratified by the Iraqi parliament in 2013 and registered with the UN.

The agreement faced sustained domestic opposition in Iraq.
In September 2023, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court ruled the ratification unconstitutional due to procedural deficiencies, effectively reopening the maritime file and returning Baghdad to the option of unilateral technical demarcation under international law.
 
The submission defines Iraq’s straight baselines and those based on the lowest low-water line for measuring its territorial sea.
 
What Baghdad’s submission recalibrates

Iraq’s new deposit marks a departure from a maritime status quo that has constrained its access to open waters since 1993.

With only 58 kilometers of coastline and heavy dependence on Khor Abdullah, Iraq has long argued that its maritime depth is structurally limited.
By submitting coordinates consistent with UNCLOS provisions, Baghdad seeks to ground its claims within a formal legal framework rather than rely on provisional understandings.

The coordinates extend into areas where Iraqi interests intersect with those of other Gulf Arab states and Iran.
They also overlap with offshore hydrocarbon prospects, including the Durra/Arash field – contested between Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran – and areas such as Jamal Tuyina 2.
By formalizing its maritime limits, Iraq positions itself as a recognized stakeholder in any future resource arrangements.

According to Maj. Gen. Jamal al-Halbousi, a member of Iraq’s border demarcation committee, the official objective is regulation of maritime activity, protection of ports, and navigational safety. Strategically, the step strengthens Iraq’s hand in negotiations and signals that Baghdad intends to operate as an equal maritime actor in the northern Persian Gulf rather than a confined littoral state.

Khor Abdullah and the leverage of passage

At the heart of the dispute lies Khor Abdullah, the channel separating Iraq’s Al-Faw Peninsula from Kuwait’s Boubyan and Warba islands.
For Iraq, the waterway connects Umm Qasr and Khor al-Zubair to global trade routes.
Any restriction reverberates immediately through supply chains and revenue streams.

For Kuwait, the same corridor is central to the Mubarak al-Kabir Port project on Boubyan Island. Geography ensures that neither state can ignore the other.
Control over navigation in this narrow passage translates into influence over trade flows in the northern Gulf.

The Development Road and Al-Faw: Iraq’s logistical wager

The maritime recalibration coincides with Iraq’s most ambitious infrastructure undertaking in decades: the Development Road project.
Designed to link Basra to the Turkish border through an integrated network of highways and railways spanning more than 1,200 kilometers, the project aims to position Iraq as a transit corridor connecting Asia to Europe.

At its center stands the Grand Port of Al-Faw, envisioned as a deep-water hub capable of receiving ultra-large container vessels.
The submerged Basra Tunnel beneath the Shatt al-Arab forms a critical component, linking rail and road networks directly to port facilities.

Iraq’s Ministry of Transport has reported advanced completion rates across key segments: the railway link from the tunnel reportedly exceeds 80 percent, the highway component approaches similar levels, and core port infrastructure – including navigation channels and container berths – has progressed significantly.
These figures require independent verification but reflect the government’s narrative of accelerated implementation.

In April 2024, AD Ports Group signed a cooperation agreement with Iraq’s General Company for Ports to support development and operation at Al-Faw.
The same month, Iraq, Turkiye, Qatar, and the UAE signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) outlining operational frameworks for the Development Road.
The project’s estimated budget stands at approximately $17 billion, structured in phased implementation extending to 2050.

For Baghdad, maritime demarcation and infrastructure expansion are interlinked.
A secure legal maritime footing strengthens investor confidence and reinforces Iraq’s bid to reposition itself as a logistical crossroads within the northern Gulf trade architecture.
 
 
Map of Iraq's Al-Faw Port and Dry Canal projects.

Mubarak Port and Kuwait’s counterweight

Kuwait’s Mubarak al-Kabir Port, launched in 2011 at an estimated initial cost of $1.1 billion, represents its own strategic gambit.
In December 2025, Kuwait signed a contract valued at nearly $4 billion with China State Construction and Transportation Company to complete the first phase.

The port is expected to integrate with regional rail networks, including proposed Gulf railway links and a Kuwait–Saudi line projected between 650 and 700 kilometers.

These developments situate Mubarak within broader connectivity initiatives linked to Belt and Road corridors.
Its geographic proximity to Iraq and Iran gives it potential leverage as a northern Persian Gulf transshipment node.

Internal Kuwaiti debate has intensified, with parliamentarians criticizing delays and warning that Iraq’s Al-Faw project could erode Kuwait’s share of regional maritime traffic.

Sovereignty, escalation, and political pressure

Iraqi officials insist the UN deposit is a sovereign legal act consistent with UNCLOS.
The Council of Ministers has described it as an affirmation of territorial and maritime rights, while the Foreign Ministry emphasized that the submission cannot be nullified, though objections may be lodged through diplomatic channels.

Members of parliament have framed the coordinates as essential groundwork for offshore resource development and future negotiations.

Lawmakers argue that the maps establish a legal basis for investing in marine resources, including transboundary fields, facilitate management of shared reservoirs, and strengthen the Ministry of Oil’s authority to explore and safeguard national entitlements.

Parliamentary sessions are reportedly being scheduled to translate the technical filing into executive action, including potential steps toward offshore oil and gas exploration in areas covered by the new charts.

At the same time, Iraqi authorities handling the Khor Abdullah file are preparing to formally advance the Federal Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that invalidated the ratification of the 2012 navigation agreement.
Submitting that ruling within international legal channels would reinforce Baghdad’s argument that previous maritime arrangements lack constitutional standing, potentially reopening discussion of the demarcation at Buoy 162 and beyond.

In effect, the deposit of coordinates is paired with a legal and political escalation designed to reassert Iraqi discretion over how its maritime boundary is interpreted and implemented.

Gulf reactions and regional anxieties

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have urged Iraq to adhere strictly to international law and bilateral understandings, expressing concern that the coordinates affect areas long regarded as sensitive. Saudi Arabia has signaled apprehension that Iraqi claims intersect with portions of the submerged divided zone shared by Riyadh and Kuwait, an area linked to energy reserves.

Some regional actors worry that a fully operational Al-Faw Port could recalibrate northern Persian Gulf trade patterns, challenging established hubs.
Egyptian and Jordanian commentary has linked the project to broader regional transit dynamics, including implications for the Suez Canal and overland pipelines.

Within Iraq, political figures and activists have rejected what they describe as external pressure.
MP Ali al-Fatlawi criticized Jordan’s alignment with Kuwait and called for a firm national stance to defend sovereign and economic interests.

Media narratives and geopolitical undercurrents

Segments of Gulf media have portrayed Iraq’s move as politically motivated, suggesting it coincides with internal governance uncertainties.
Separately, the Kuwaiti cabinet issued an official statement calling on Iraq to engage in accordance with international law and to take historical relations into account.

Commentators in Kuwait, including the ‎President of the Tarous Center for Studies, Mohammed Al-Thunayan, have speculated about regional power dynamics influencing Baghdad’s decision, including the role of Iran.

On social media platforms, some Kuwaiti voices advanced more assertive positions.
Posts circulated arguing that Kuwait’s maritime facilities extended to Iraq in Khor al‑Zubair in 1993 out of consideration for navigational depth toward Umm Qasr, and that Kuwait should reconsider the balance of regulatory authority within the shared waterway.

Others went further, calling for the quadrilateral Al‑Faw framework – involving Iraq, Turkiye, the UAE, and Qatar – to be linked explicitly to strict compliance with UNCLOS and for a return to the 2012 Khor Abdullah navigation agreement as a precondition for broader cooperation.

These arguments have not been formalized as state policy, but they reveal how rapidly the maritime dispute has become entangled with intra‑Gulf competition.
Debate has also surfaced regarding the participation of Emirati and Qatari entities in Al‑Faw’s development, with some commentators suggesting that regional port rivalries and strategic calculations now intersect with the legal contest over maritime boundaries in the northern Persian Gulf.

What is really at stake in Iraq’s maritime recalibration?
  • Iraq breaking free from post-1990 constraints imposed under exceptional circumstances
  • Kuwait defending a strategic buffer that underpins its northern Gulf leverage
  • A wider Gulf struggle over ports, corridors, and who controls regional trade flows
  • The emergence of a new balance of power in the Persian Gulf shaped by infrastructure, not warships
The legal battleground ahead

Legally, the dispute hinges on methodological principles.

Iraq appears to have relied primarily on the median line approach in defining maritime limits.
Some Iraqi experts argue that Khor Abdullah, as Iraq’s sole deep-water access, justifies consideration of Thalweg principles or geographic necessity doctrines, emphasizing depth and navigational viability.

Resolution 833 remains binding regarding land demarcation, and Iraq’s UN submission does not amend that boundary.
Rather, it establishes coordinates for maritime zones subject to interpretation under UNCLOS.

Article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows states to challenge agreements ratified in violation of constitutional procedures, a provision Baghdad may invoke regarding the 2012 navigation agreement.

Analysts, including commentary published by the Atlantic Council, have suggested that recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) remains a possible avenue should bilateral negotiations stall, pointing to precedents such as the Qatar–Bahrain maritime dispute.

A contest over routes and regional weight

Iraq’s deposit of nautical charts is formally a sovereign administrative act. In practical terms, it forms part of a wider contest over sea lanes, ports, and the economic geography of the northern Persian Gulf.
As Al-Faw and Mubarak advance, maritime lines translate into trade leverage, and infrastructure becomes an instrument of influence.

Baghdad’s decision signals that it does not intend to remain confined by arrangements forged under extraordinary post-war conditions in the early 1990s.
Whether the dispute proceeds through negotiation or international adjudication, the outcome will shape the commercial and strategic architecture of the Gulf for decades.

Maritime coordinates may be measured in degrees and minutes, but their consequences are measured in power.

Links :

Monday, March 2, 2026

What happens if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz?

 
From Wired by Carla Sertin

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most sensitive pressure points in the global economy. Conflict in Iran could put it at risk indefinitely.

A DISRUPTION IN the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical energy chokepoint—in the aftermath of US-Israeli attacks on Iran would not stay confined to the Gulf.
Analysts say it could trigger a new inflation shock across the global economy, complicating monetary policy and putting pressure on the currencies of energy-importing countries.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency reported that the “Strait of Hormuz is shut down” following the strikes on Iran in the early hours of February 28.
Vessels operating near the strait have also reported VHF radio warnings from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warning that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz."
On Sunday morning, authorities in Oman said that an oil tanker was attacked off the country's port of Khasab, which is in the Strait of Hormuz.
It's unclear who conducted the strike.
 

Why the Strait Matters
 
Strait of Hormuz with the GeoGarage platform (UKHO nautical raster chart)

Data from the US Energy Information Administration shows that about 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day in 2024—roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption.


Infographic showing map of the Gulf with refineries and liquefied natural gas terminals operational in February 2026, as well as maritime tanker traffic in the Gulf region.
INFOGRAPHIC: NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA AND OMAR KAMAL/GETTY IMAGES

The waterway is also critical for gas markets, with around 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade moving through the corridor linking the Gulf to the open ocean.

In practical terms, disruption in the strait would remove a significant share of the world’s energy supply from global markets almost immediately.
Legal Status and Market Reactions
The United Kingdom’s maritime monitoring center, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, said radio messages declaring the strait closed are not legally binding under international law.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, transit through international straits remains protected unless physically prevented.
But markets and shipping companies often react to risk signals long before any formal blockade occurs.
Data cited by S&P Global Commodity Insights showed that vessel traffic in the strait dropped by roughly 40-50 percent within hours on Saturday, as ships rushed to leave the area while new arrivals hesitated to enter.


A motorboat cruises along the shore off the town of Al Jeer on the Strait of Hormuz, with a tanker seen in the background, on February 25, 2026. PHOTOGRAPH: FADEL SENNA/GETTY IMAGES
 
The analysis company's Commodities at Sea monitoring also recorded outbound oil and product flows averaging about 20.4 million barrels per day in February to date, slightly below January levels—evidence that geopolitical tension alone can slow shipments before any physical disruption occurs.
"Hormuz risk is not only about closure but also fleet productivity. If Iran escalates by seizing tankers or using drones to threaten commercial traffic, voyage times and possibly costs for Middle East oil exports would further increase," S&P Global CERA analysts said.
Multiple shipping companies have already reported that they are avoiding the Strait of Hormuz and expect delays and rescheduling of shipments.
 

What Would Closing the Strait Mean?
 
There is no alternative export system at comparable scale. Saudi Arabia and the UAE operate bypass pipelines, but these cover only a portion of Gulf flows, while Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar lack meaningful alternatives.
If the strait formally closed, most oil exports from the Gulf would be cut off from the world almost immediately
 Even if Saudi Arabia and the UAE pushed their alternative pipelines to the limit, analysts say about two-thirds of Gulf exports would still be stuck.
LNG markets would also be hit.
Qatar, the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas—a super-cooled form of natural gas shipped by tanker—depends almost entirely on the Strait of Hormuz to export its fuel.
If the route were blocked, Asian buyers could lose their key suppliers within days.
Asian economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India depend heavily on imported LNG to generate electricity.
Getting oil from elsewhere, like the Atlantic, would mean longer shipping times and higher costs, potentially pushing prices even higher.

 
How It Could Affect Consumers

Historical modeling suggests that sudden loss of Gulf supply could push oil prices sharply higher.
If that happens, the effects would likely reach global consumers quickly: higher gas prices, more expensive airline tickets, and rising transport costs that feed into the price of food and goods.
Financial markets typically react even before physical shortages appear, with oil futures rising, transport-sector equities weakening, and currencies of major energy exporters strengthening as traders price in the risk of disruption.
Strategic petroleum reserves could moderate the shock, but releases take time and cannot fully substitute for Gulf crude grades.
Inside the Gulf, stopping exports would quickly strain government finances.
Countries such as Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar rely heavily on oil revenues to fund public spending.
If shipments halted, storage facilities could fill rapidly, forcing producers to cut output and lose income.
Shipping effects would extend beyond oil.
Tanker rerouting, insurance repricing, and naval risk zones tend to raise freight rates across bulk commodities and container shipping, impacting worldwide logistics.
 
Links :

Sunday, March 1, 2026

Greenland's Petermann Glacier

 
e-GEOS is monitoring the Petermann Glacier 
since the 2010 using both Modis (optical) and COSMO-SkyMed (RADAR) data.

 
On August 5, 2010, an enormous chunk of ice, roughly 97 square miles in size, broke off the Petermann Glacier, along the northwestern coast of Greenland.
The glacier lost about one-quarter of its 40-mile long floating ice shelf, the Northern Hemisphere's largest.
It's not unusual for large icebergs to calve off the Petermann Glacier, but this new one is the largest to form in the Arctic since 1962.

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Let's stick together


Penguin leaps to safety as ice breaks

Friday, February 27, 2026

Why is the North at the top of the map: from Mesopotamia to Mercator, the compass, European navigation, and distortions that make northern countries appear gigantic to the naked eye even today.

Understand how European navigation, the compass, and the Mercator projection created north on the map and shaped the world maps you use today.

From ClickPetroleoegas by  Carla Teles

For millennia, different civilizations designed the world with the south, the east, or even the religious center at the top, but it was the European navigations of the Age of Discovery that established the north as "up" and spread this convention to the entire planet.


For most of human history, Maps didn't have an obvious "top".
Clay tablets in Mesopotamia, maps with the south highlighted in Egypt, Chinese maps with the north at the top because of the imperial throne, Arabic maps with the south at the top because of Mecca, and European Christian maps with the east at the top to honor Eden.
Each culture projected onto the map what it considered most sacred, most central, or most useful.

The turning point came when European navigation on the open sea began to depend directly on the compass and the Mercator projection.
By aligning world maps with the needle pointing north, cartographers like Gerardus Mercator created a model that made life easier for captains, but also introduced cartographic distortion, making northern countries appear larger and more important on the map than they actually are.
Before the European voyages: the world turned upside down.
In the earliest cartographic records from Mesopotamia, around 2300 BC, 
maps were administrative tools.

Hand-sized clay tablets depicted rivers, fields, and cities, helping temples and palaces control land and resolve border disputes between neighbors.
There was no standardized orientation.
Each scribe drew according to their own logic.

In ancient Egypt, the criterion was almost entirely based on affection.
The Egyptians placed the south at the top.
Because the Nile came from the south and was seen as the source of life, fertility, and agriculture.

Placing the south "on top" was a way of honoring the source of survival.
This view influenced other African peoples.

In China, the map reflected imperial protocol.
The emperor sat facing south.
And the throne was located on the north side of the hall.

Maps began to be drawn as if the emperor were looking out over his territory, with the north at the top and the rest opening up below.
It was a choice.
politics and ceremony.

In the Islamic world, during the Golden Age, cartographers such as al idrisi They produced some of the most accurate maps of the period, with the south at the top and Africa highlighted.

Mecca was located south of many important regions, and this direction took on symbolic weight.
These maps were used by navigators from various cultures, long before the great...
European navigations to gain the prominence you learn about in school.

In Christian Europe, the so-called TO maps placed the east at the topJerusalem at the center and Christ above all, blessing the world.

They were theological maps, not navigational tools.
The goal was to present a religious worldview, not to help ships cross oceans.
Ptolemy, the compass, and the rediscovery of a world in coordinates.

The mathematical basis of the modern map comes from Claudius PtolemyA geographer from the 2nd century who lived in Alexandria.
In his work "Geography," he compiled coordinates from thousands of locations, defined latitude and longitude, and proposed a systematic way of representing the Earth.

Ptolemy lived in the northern hemisphere, was primarily familiar with lands north of the Equator, and considered that part of the globe to be more relevant and more detailed.

It is no coincidence that the areas known to the Greeks and Romans, concentrated in the north, gained prominence in the upper part of the map.

But medieval Europe lost this knowledge for over a thousand years.
The work survived in the Islamic world and the Byzantine Empire.

It was only in 1406, when Jacopo d'Angelo translated "Geography" into Latin, that the European intellectual elite regained access to this method.

During this same period, another piece enters the board: the compass, likely brought to Europe by Arab merchants.
The needle consistently pointed north.

The navigators of Genoa and Venice realized that if the map was drawn with north at the top, it was much easier to align the chart with the compass at sea.

Portolan charts, used on coastal routes, began to be made with north at the top for purely practical reasons.
It was faster to read the map, rotate it less, and make fewer mistakes.

From then on, north began to consolidate as the preferred upward direction, even before the era of the great giants.
European navigations oceanic rocks explode.
European navigations: when the north rises and never falls again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pkqgv135v8

The definitive turning point happens with the explosive combination of three factors: Compass, maritime ambition, and European navigation on the open sea..

The European kingdoms entered the era of great [powers/powers].
European navigations Driven by trade, faith, and power, Portugal, Spain, and later other powers, sought routes to new lands, spices, metals, and markets.
However, Nautical charts did not keep pace with the ambition of the ships..

Navigating for weeks without seeing land required plotting a straight route on a map and following that direction with a compass.
But the Earth is a sphere and the map is flat.

A straight line on paper did not correspond to a simple route on a curved surface.And navigators needed to recalculate their position all the time.
An accumulated error could mean hundreds of kilometers of deviation.

It is in this context of Risky European voyages, ships getting lost and fleets disappearing.
Then Gerardus Mercator enters the scene.

He studies Portuguese and Spanish charts, analyzes errors, and realizes he needs a projection tailored for someone who lives with a compass in hand.
Mercator: the orphan who aligned maps, compass, and European navigation.
 


Gerard de Kramer, son of a shoemaker, orphaned at 14, becomes Gerardus Mercator by Latinizing his own name.
He studies Latin, philosophy, history, geography, is imprisoned for heresy, freed by pressure from the university and, already at 40 years old, sets up his cartographic workshop.

He spends years studying letters from Portuguese and Spanish navigators, right in the middle of the era of the great European navigationsThe problem is clear: the map doesn't communicate properly with the compass.

It was necessary to create a projection in which it would be possible to draw a straight line between two points and follow a...
steady direction on the Earth's surface.

In 1569, at the age of 57, Mercator published his great world map, with a title that defined it as "correct for use in navigation".

In him, Lines of latitude and longitude intersect at right angles, forming a rectangular grid., a map full of squares.

The key point is this: A straight line on the Mercator map corresponds to a route of constant bearing relative to north., something that the compass is able to keep track of.

A navigator could position the map with north at the top, draw a line from point A to point B, measure the angle relative to north, and follow that course at sea without seeing land.

North is on top because The projection was designed to work in conjunction with the compass....and the compass points north.
The map becomes a precision instrument for...
European navigations...and not just an illustration of the world.

With ships, weapons, and colonial power, Europeans began to redraw the entire world using the Mercator projection..

When they arrive in a new territory, they don't adopt local maps.
They ignore African, Chinese, or Arab traditions and rewrite everything aligned to the north.

The standard that served navigation purposes would gradually become the standard that governs school maps, government maps, and, today, the maps on your cell phone.
Distortions that make the north seem bigger and more important.

The Mercator projection solves one navigation problem, but creates another: distorts the size of countries, especially at high latitudes.

Since it is impossible to flatten the curved surface of the Earth without deforming anything, Mercator chooses to preserve angles and directions of bearing at the expense of areas.

The result is clear.
Greenland appears gigantic, almost the size of Africa, when in reality it is much smaller.


Northern countries are stretched and enlarged, gaining a disproportionate visual presence.
Regions near the Equator, many of them in the global south, are compressed and visually diminished.

These distortions are not merely technical.
They influence how we perceive importance, power, and centrality in the world., symbolically inflating the global north.

A projection created to serve the European navigations This ended up reinforcing, graphically, the idea that the north is larger, occupies more space, and therefore deserves more attention.

When you open Google Maps, you see a digital version of this logic: a rectangular grid, north at the top, and northern countries large and comfortable on the screen.

The standard has survived empires, technological revolutions, and ended up in your pocket without you ever having voted for it.
Seeing the world through other maps

None of this means that the Mercator projection is "wrong." It is brilliant for what it was created for.: to guide navigation routes with a constant course, integrated with the compass, in the full era of European navigations oceanic.

The problem begins when a specific map is treated as if it were the only "natural" way to see the planet.

You can look at other projections that better preserve the areas of countries, that reposition the Equator, or even that place the south at the top, as the Egyptians and Arabs did.

Changing projections is, in a way, changing one's point of view on the world.
By changing the map, you also change the narrative about what is at the center, what is on the margins, and who appears bigger or smaller.

The next time you open a map, remember that you're not seeing an absolute truth.
You're seeing the planet.
Through the eyes of a 16th-century orphan, surrounded by religious wars, who spent his life trying to map the Earth to aid navigation..

His name was Gerardus Mercator, and it was the need for alignment between maps, compass, and European navigations which put the north on top forever.

So, after learning this story, do you think we should continue using maps with north at the top, or is it worthwhile to popularize other projections that challenge this standard?
 
Links :