Mapping 2012 UN Security Council Resolutions

I've always been hesitant to write or highlight things in books, magazines or newspapers. For some reason I feel like it will ruin it for the next time I read it. I consciously do this knowing that the ability to go back through an article in Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy and see the highlights would be a great time saver. So recently, I grabbed a few index cards. Similar to the dream notes, the thought is I can write down information about new concepts or add to a card with general information on a place, person, policy or historical event.

The ability to quickly access information is something I've grown accustomed to. So much so, that I get frustrated when information isn't a google away. Earlier I read a BBC article on South Sudan's proposal to the north on oil royalties and fees in excess of 8 billion dollars. Noting that Sudan is looking to charge 36 dollars per barrel in refining, transit and tariffs, I thought the major Sudan oil pipelines might make for a creative map to put together.

Now it seems that the geography of a pipeline that in most years is pumping billions of dollars of a commodity through it would be easily accessible. Not so. Through a series of what, at the time seemed like related searches, I found myself looking for a list of US economic sanctions on other countries. While I was able to find an encyclopedic reference, I wasn't able to get the "elevator speech". As I continued to poke around I came across a list of UN Security Council Resolutions by year.

Just in case anyone happens to wonder where UN Security Council Resolutions in the first half of 2012 relate to, I put together a map, along with links to the resolutions themselves.

National Geographic and the Soon-to-be South Sudan

Two weeks ago, my nerd project focused on the dramatic change a divided Sudan will have on world maps. Because National Geographic is the be-all and end-all of quality maps (in my world), I used a snapshot from their iPad app and created a modified map from it to impress upon readers the dramatic change that will result.

When I finished my modified map, I contacted National Geographic to see if the Map Policy Committee had taken any action on South Sudan or if there were any updates as to how National Geographic plans to depict South Sudan. Always helpful, Juan Valdes replied. It turns out, a lot of thought has been given to South Sudan.

"In recognition of Southern Sudan's new political standing, the Society's Map Policy Committee examined how this autonomous region should be portrayed on our maps. As Southern Sudan has yet to gain its independence, and following the Society's principles for recognizing semi-autonomous states, it has been decided that the region should be designated on our maps as an "Area of Special Status." Where scale permits, our maps will show Southern Sudan in a gray boundary band or gray fill. Final color designation will be discussed and determined when Southern Sudan nears its independence. Juba, the region's administrative center, will be identified by a special symbol.

Additionally, and where scale permits, the Sudanese region of Abyei will be recognized. Although its borders were left undefined in a 2005 peace deal, in July 2009 the Abyei Tribunal redrew this region's borders. The redrawn borders left most, but not all, of the region's Muslim population residing outside its boundaries, making it more likely that the majority of its population would vote to join the south. This region will, for now, be identified by a simple red boundary treatment and the use of the following note: 2009 Abyei Tribunal Decision Line."

Unforunately, still no Map Policy Committee meeting minutes, although I did send another email to Cindy Beidel about those...I'm not going to get my hopes up. NGS seem relatively tight lipped about things before they are made official, one once they are made official it's re-established that its officiality is based in policy. That sounds circular, I think it's rather clever.

I look forward to an update of the National Geographic World Map. As of today, neither the Executive or Political World or Continent maps have been updated on their iPad application.

It turns out National Geographic has a policy for modified maps, too. Apparently Mr. Valdes has taken a peak or two at my blog and asked that I include the following:

Map modified by Ryan Buck. Boundaries and names shown do not necessarily reflect the map policy of the National Geographic Society.

I, of course, instantly added the disclaimer and think National Geographic has taken a remarkably understanding course of action with my modified map. The fact that there was concern (and I use that term loosely) over confusion the map might cause, probably overstates my photoshop abilities. If nothing else, I got a shout out on Matt Rosenberg's (about.com) twitter account.

New Year, New Spirit, Same Old Problems

The new year has provided me a refreshed spirit. I have high hopes for what the new year will bring. I purchased plane tickets to England, continued my running regimen and enjoyed a few short days off of work. In Michigan, we welcomed a new Governor who is calling for a culture change; It's hard to go more than a few hours without hearing about new positive economic indicators and the US markets started the new year at highs not seen for years.

Unfortunately international news is not as encouraging. The post election turmoil in Côte d'Ivoire and the rumors of impending genocide serve as reminders of how good things are in the west. Really, it makes uprisings in Greece and France seem trivial.

And we find ourselves six days out from the South Sudan referendum on independence. I'm all about national self-determination and I'm pro-South Sudan independence but I cant help but worry about what will happen in the aftermath of the vote. From oil revenues to delineation, voter eligibility and race relations one is reminded of the challenges of democracy and sovereignty.

One area of concern in the news a lot as of late is the Abyei region. It is a complete microcosm of Sudan, exhibiting the same issues affecting the country.

More to come on what will be the biggest change in maps since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Happy New Year!

Drawing the Lines Between North and South Sudan

Following more than two decades of the young nation's second civil war, a yet to be determined group of voters in South Sudan plan to hold a referendum on independence in January 2011. For many in the south, the potential prosperity of an independent South Sudan has been a long time coming. But where will the borders between North and South Sudan lie? The area in question is the subject of this image of the week. While the image is a bit underwhelming, the issues are beyond intriguing.

Because I am fascinated with cartography, independence and Africa it was natural for me to come across a fascinating article written by Rengo Gyyw Rengo,Jr on the website www.southsudannation.com. While the original link is gone. You can still access his article here. I followed up with Rengo and have since corresponded with him several times.

While the thought of an independent South Sudan is exciting and has been surprisingly accepted in concept by Omar al-Bashir, much work remains before it can become reality. Recent comments from Khartoum hint at the fact that the North will not support a vote by the South if the precise borders have not been drawn.

I've included a map below showing the regions of Sudan from Wikicommons to give you a frame of reference.

For more info on the regions (such as a legend) check out the Southern Sudan wiki page. It's important to note that the voter pool has not been decided yet and represents another serious challenge before the vote can take place.

After reading al-Bashir's comments on borders I followed up with Rengo and recieved the following:

"Regarding the political atmosphere surrounding the conduct of referendum for South Sudan and those other thorny issues which parties use as preconditions for referendum and lack of political will towards the possible conduct of referendum, its repercussions and so on, are matters to be looked at by all. I have been pondering about the border issue, and I happened to have attended a political rally in Juba on 30th July last month to have a grasp at contentious issues and I can now fairly examine the possibilities ahead in an opinion analysis.

You have given me an honour to now accept to write something about it."

I'm excited that I have a pen pal in south Sudan who attends political rallies in Juba! How cool is that?

I'm looking forward to Rengo's comments and will be sure to post a link when they become available.

The Hala'ib Triangle and why National Geographic has it Wrong

The Hala'ib triangle is a division of land in northeast Africa. The area is a disputed region, a result of two different borders being set between Sudan and Egypt, both of whom claim the Hala'ib triangle.

In 1899, Egypt and the United Kingdom agreed on the 22nd parallel as the border between the two countries. Three years later in 1902 the British created a new dividing line, granting administration of the area to Sudan because of its proximity and access from Khartoum. The administrative boundary created the Hala'ib triangle north of the 22nd parallel and a small area, the Bir Tawil south of the parallel. The 1902 agreement ceded administrative control of Bir Tawil to Egypt (which was really the British anyway) Both can be seen on the map above.

While both countries still claim the Hala'ib triangle, neither claims Bir Tawil, the "lonely little triangle" to the south of the 22nd parallel. So what would cause two countries to claim one 20,000 square kilometer piece of land but both reject claims to a 2,000 square kilometer parcel adjacent to it?

If you guessed natural resources, you're probably right! But that is only part of the story.

While Sudan held troops in the area for years it was Sudan granting exlploration rights to the Canadian oil company, Canadian International Petroleum Corporation, that finally made Egypt take note.

In 2000, Sudan pulled troops from the area, ceding de facto control to Egypt. However, Omar al-Bashir remains firm in Sudan's claim to the land, stating earlier this year "Halayeb is Sudanese and will stay Sudanese".

I found a FANTASTIC article on the issue in the Sudan Tribune.

In my daily routine of mapgazing I discovered that National Geographic, who I see as THE authority on political maps, now uses the 22nd parallel as the border. This shows all the land to the north as Egypt and all to the South as Sudan. This is a significant change from the 2000 world map which shows the 1899 Anglo-Egyptian political division - complete with Egpyt control over Bir Tawil. What's not clear is what happened that made them switch how the area is displayed.

I thought that it must have been Sudan removing their armed presence in the area and the desire to show de facto control. But that doesn't explain why they show Bir Tawil as Sudan. If it was the removal of troops that prompted the change, that should only be reflected in the Halai'ib traingle, not Bir Tawil. Until I get a better reason or explanation, I think National Geographic has this one wrong.

I emailed National Geographic for an answer on what prompted the Map Policy Committee change from the 1899 political boundary to the 1902 administrative boundary. I'll probably only receive a generic email but I am going to stick with this, look for individual contact information and see if I can get official word from a spokesperson. Perhaps I should have inquired through their press inquiry e-mail. Whatever I find out I'll let you know.

How do you think the Hala'ib triangle and Bir Tawil should be displayed?