The controversy sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement in January 2025 to change the name “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” is merely one manifestation of conflicts linked to geographical names between certain countries. The use of these names by nations for both land and maritime areas varies significantly within the context of politicizing geographical names (Toponymy) and their official recognition on relevant maps. A geographical name is not just a label for a place; it signifies power and control within international interactions, potentially bolstering territorial claims or affirming a state’s sovereignty in opposition to another.
Diverse Nomenclature
Examples of differing geographical names among various countries in different regions of the world include:
Trump Administration’s Name Change for “Gulf of Mexico”: The White House issued a statement on January 20, 2025, announcing the change from “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America.” The statement claimed that the region previously known as the Gulf of Mexico had long been an integral part of American history. This Gulf, the largest in the world, extends along the U.S. coastline for over 1,700 miles and provides about 14% of U.S. crude oil and natural gas production. It is also a preferred commercial and tourist destination, contributing billions to the U.S. economy. Concurrently with the statement, President Trump signed an executive order initiating the renaming process, prompting Google to update its maps accordingly. This move was met with fierce criticism from Mexico, whose president, Claudia Sheinbaum, deemed it profoundly incorrect, proposing instead to refer to North America as “Mexican America,” recalling that this designation appeared on maps as early as 1607. Notably, the U.S. has a Board on Geographic Names (BGN) responsible for standardizing and coordinating geographic names both domestically and in its territories, overseeing the documentation of foreign geographic names in official American records.
Geographical Naming Conflict between China and the Philippines: The territorial dispute between China and the Philippines extends to geographical nomenclature. China refers to the contested body of water as the “South China Sea,” while the Philippines calls parts of these waters within its exclusive economic zone the “West Philippine Sea,” a name officially adopted in 2011 following a presidential decree directing all government agencies to use this designation in maps and official documents. The Philippines brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which ruled in 2016 that China’s historical claims to the South China Sea were not legally valid, stating there was no evidence of exclusive Chinese control over the waters or resources in the area throughout history.
Nomenclature Dispute between South Korea and Japan: One of the most prominent geographical name disputes exists between South Korea and Japan. Japan refers to the sea between them as the “Sea of Japan,” while South Korea designates it as the “East Sea.” The Japanese name has been recognized internationally since the 19th century, but South Korea rejects it as it carries colonial connotations acquired during Japan’s occupation of Korea. Amid South Korean pressure, some maps have started to include both names, yet this issue remains sensitive in their bilateral relations today.
Russia-Ukraine Dispute over the “Crimea”: The Crimean Peninsula is a focal point of historical disputes between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow refers to it as the “Republic of Crimea” and considers it part of its territory after annexing it in 2014. In contrast, Ukraine, the United States, and Western nations reject this claim, insisting on the official designation “Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula.” International organizations, notably the United Nations, also reject the Russian name, recognizing the peninsula as part of Ukraine.
Geographical Naming Controversy between India and China: Amid border disputes, the name “Arunachal Pradesh” is part of a naming disagreement between India and China. China refers to it as “South Tibet,” while India has officially recognized it as a state since the 1980s. China issues Chinese identity cards to residents of the region and formally protests any Indian projects or elections conducted there, with the conflict ongoing.
Morocco-Algeria Dispute over the “Sahara”: The desert in Northwest Africa, covering around 266,000 square kilometers, is officially considered by Morocco to be part of its territory, referred to as “Moroccan Sahara.” Conversely, Algeria and the Polisario Front designate it as “Western Sahara,” claiming the region is occupied and should gain independence. This dispute dates back to the 1970s and is marked by varying international positions on the issue.
International Disagreement over “Taiwan”: China views Taiwan as an inseparable part of its territory and exerts intense diplomatic pressure to prevent international recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign entity. Consequently, Taiwan is often referred to in many international forums as “Chinese Taipei” instead of its official name, the Republic of China, as a compromise allowing its participation in international events like the Olympic Games and certain trade agreements without directly challenging China’s “One China” policy. This approach was officially adopted in 1979, enabling Taiwan to engage in some international activities while avoiding political disputes.
Varied Implications
The insistence of countries on different geographical names for specific regions can lead to various implications, including:
Increased Disputes over Sovereign Rights: Differences in geographical naming can directly affect each state’s sovereign rights. A name may be used as a political tool to reinforce territorial claims or to deny the legitimacy of another’s sovereignty. Thus, a state’s insistence on a particular name for a disputed area affirms its claim in international arenas, potentially escalating legal and diplomatic disputes.
Negative Effects on Relations with Third Parties: Each disputing state seeks support from third parties to adopt its narrative based on the geographical name, which can adversely affect third-party interactions with the conflicting nations. International recognition of one party strengthens its narrative and position against the other.
Increased Invocation of Historical Grievances: History serves as the primary basis for “map wars” over geographical names, which symbolize significant sovereign rights. Countries often invoke historical grievances, further inflaming relationships with others and hindering any settlement efforts, especially given the emergence of local public opinion as a pressure factor on political systems and governments.
Escalation of the “New Reality” in International Relations: States utilize these names as political tools to assert their sovereignty or to influence global public perception. For instance, when President Trump referred to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” it was an attempt to solidify U.S. dominance in the region, despite the Gulf being globally recognized by its original name. Such renamings reflect nations’ efforts to impose a new reality that aims to undermine the other’s sovereign claims or reshape geographical perceptions according to their political interests, exacerbating regional conflicts and complicating diplomatic resolutions. Recognizing any name implicitly acknowledges the political sovereignty of those who use it.
In conclusion, disputes over geographical names are not merely linguistic or narrative differences but are deeply rooted in international relations, intertwined with historical tensions and territorial disputes. They reflect attempts to impose both internal and external political legitimacy, whether real or perceived, highlighting the difficulty of finding radical solutions to such disputes. With major powers like the United States and China increasingly leveraging geographical names to bolster their interests and national security, it is likely that this will encourage other countries to reject compromises regarding geographical naming disputes in the near future.
