While the continental model is ostensibly based on physical features, the world regional model is keyed more to geopolitical factors. As a result, it does not generally divide countries among regions. The one exception is France, whose exclaves (overseas departments) are usually placed in Latin America (Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique) and sub-Saharan Africa (Réunion and Mayotte). I have mapped them accordingly (see the map re-posted below). Overseas dependencies, however, are usually separated from the state that holds sovereignty over them. As a result, I have mapped Puerto Rico not with the United States in North America but rather as part of Latin America. For the same reason, I have placed Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in “Australia and Oceania.”
The world regional model also differs from that of continents in the larger number of countries that occupy an uncertain position, which I have specified on a map (re-posted below). The ambiguous status of these countries needs clarification, which is provided in the remainer of this post. As the most problematic cases are found in the former Soviet Union, I begin there.
The world regional model emerged in the Cold War period, when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw-Pact satellites seemed to form a stable region, based largely on geopolitical criteria. When the Soviet system unexpectedly collapsed, a substantial degree of re-regionalization was necessary. Eastern Europe, including the former-Soviet Baltic states, was easily slotting into Europe based on historical and cultural factors, as well as the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO. Russia understandably came to form the core of its own world region, but the position of most of the other post-Soviet states remained uncertain. In most schemes, a new world region called Central Asia appeared on the map, focused on the five former-Soviet “‘stans” (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan). Central Asia has solid historical and cultural grounding, although its extent remains contested. I have included Afghanistan in it, although this country can just as easily be placed in South Asia or in Southwest Asia & North Africa. More controversial are the three countries of the Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. As most Georgians and Armenians strongly prefer to be grouped with Europe, I have mapped them accordingly, although this maneuver remains unconventional. In contrast, I have placed Azerbaijan in Central Asia, due to cultural, historical, and economic consideration; such mapping, however, sunders the unity of trans-Caucasia. Ukraine is equally problematic. If cultural and historical factors are given precedence, Ukraine clearly belongs with Russia and Belarus. Most Ukrainians, however, favor affiliation with Europe, although it is a different story with the Russian-speakers of Crimea and the Donbass. Any clear regionalization of this area will have to wait until the end of the current conflict. Finally, I have placed Moldova in Europe due to its extremely close cultural and historical connections with Romania, although the de-facto independent statelet of Transnistria along its eastern flank is a different matter.
Turning to the Western Hemisphere, I have indicated an uncertain position for all the Caribbean, including the mainland polities of Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and Belize. In some schemes, this area constitutes its own world region. Its English-speaking countries, such as Jamaica, Guyana, and Belize, do not culturally fit in “Latin America,” which is defined by its official Romance (Latin-based) languages. But even French- and Creole-speaking Caribbean lands are a poor fit, as Latin America is historically linked to the experience of Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) colonization. Although it is awkward to exclude Spanish-speaking Caribbean polities (Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico) from Latin America, it is essential to note that they also strong significant affinities with the rest of the Caribbean.
I have also indicated an uncertain status for most polities in the Pacific. These areas are conventionally grouped with Australia and New Zealand, but there is little that ties together this vast but mostly oceanic region. What, for example, do New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have in common? Australia and Oceania thus seems to largely be a world region of convenience, with little cultural and historical coherence. To be sure, the islands of Polynesia (including Hawaii) have deep cultural connections with New Zealand, but those of Melanesia do not. Australia has regarded most Melanesia as being within its sphere of influence, but it is questionable whether such claims are adequate for world-regional delineation.
The islands of the southwestern Indian Ocean are conventionally placed in sub-Saharan Africa, but the rationale for doing so is tenuous. Cultural and historical affinities link Madagascar to both Africa and Southeast Asia, but the connection to Southeast Asian is much stronger in terms of language and deep history. From what I gather, moreover, many Malagasy people object to their classification in Africa. The other island polities in the area, particularly Mauritius and Réunion, have both African and South Asian cultural connections. They seem to have been placed in sub-Saharan Africa largely for convenience.
I have mapped Vietnam as having an uncertain world-regional status even though it is unquestionably placed in Southeast Asia. In cultural-historical terms, however, Vietnam arguably fits better in East Asia. The cultural definition of East Asia rests on a legacy of Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, an originally Chinese-based writing system, traditional Chinese-derived ideas of statecraft, and a history of intellectual exchange across the so-called Sinosphere. By these criteria, Vietnam belongs in East Asia, although it also has important cultural, historical, and political affinities with Southeast Asia.
The definition of East Asia mentioned above would preclude placing Mongolia in the region. Mongolia could conceivably be categorized alongside Russia, but on deep cultural and historical grounds it is probably best placed in Central Asia. Doing so, however, would create a discontinuous region, although just barely.
Finally, I have marked Sudan and Mauritania as countries of uncertain world-regional designation. They are usually mapped in sub-Saharan Africa, which seem appropriate as most of their inhabitants live south of the Sahara. But despite the use of the physical-geographical term “sub-Saharan,” world regional divisions are ideally based on features of the human world. As Sudan and Mauretania are predominantly Arabic-speaking countries, it seems fitting to place them in the same region as the other Arabic-speaking countries (North Africa and Southwest Asia).
In the final analysis, the semi-conventional world regional model that I have mapped is a useful and even necessary device for understanding and communicating about the world. It is also a vast improvement over the continental model for organizing human-geographical knowledge. But it remains far from ideal, and as a result it needs to be constantly questioned and scrutinized. Just as important, it should be complemented with alternative regionalization schemes, some of which should be based on different criteria.
In the final Geo-Currents post in this series, I will explore a few possible but problematic revisions to the standard world regional model.