I was perusing the AFRICOM website today and came across a few interesting findings, but none more so than the "Fact" Sheet of US-Africa Relations Chronology. In light of Bush's recent trip to Africa, the United States Department of State released a timeline in order to give a (partial) history of US-Africa relations. As is always the case, our government's understanding of history, let alone its importance for the present and future, is consistently disregarded. Whether it is on purpose or just oversight, this example proves that ignorance and confidence is not a good combination in foreign policy.

I would just briefly just like to outline a few instances in which this chronology fails to provide an understanding of not only Africa-US relations, but also how these failures translate to issues with US foreign policy.

The first issue is the start date of the chronology. The "first" internaction between the US and Africa according to this chronology is in January of 1943, when President Roosevelt had an informal visit with President Barclay of Liberia. Well, to say that this is a bit off would be an unbelievable understatement. A timeline of the Atlantic Slave Trade would certainly beg to differ that 1943 was the first interaction between US and Africa. It would be to naive to think that not mentioning the slave trade was an oversight by the State Department.

In keeping with the positive theme of US-Africa relations, the chronology notes every instance of US foreign aid to Africa, with a particular emphasis on what has been done during Bush's administration. Out of the roughly 30 parts of the timeline, Bush's administration accounts for 14 of them. There is no mention of airstrikes in Somalia. Clinton's administration gets off easy too, as he is implicated in the "Operation Restore Hope, a joint UN-US effort to provide food relief to starving victims of Somalia's civil war", but apparently not much hope was restored as the troops were withdrawn two years later. Additionally, there was no mention of the bombs that were dropped on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, which, whether or not you are under the impression was in the process of producing chemicals for warfare under Bin Laden's advice, does not seem as an opportunity to provide "food relief".

This chronology does not contain CIA missions to oust Western unfriendly leaders like Patrice Lumumba. It mentions how in 1995 the "United States backed special international war crime tribunals for Rwanda", but characterizes them as "massacres" and not genocide, as it is now internationally recognized.

So, what does this all amount to? Besides a bunch of BS, this chronology is complete and utter propaganda. A chance for the state department to demonstrate their good work in Africa, failing to highlight the fact that a lot of the issues in Africa stem from actions taken by the US and its allies of the Western world. Its ignorance provides the assertion that AFRICOM is necessary, as it gives justification for not only AFRICOM, but also, as we saw this past week, provides a basis for claiming that the defense department needs more money to help in Africa, but help what? Lastly, how can you justify government information and websites as legitimate sources when they cannot even get their "facts" straight about things that have already happened, and when what they omitted is so obvious that it is not only embarrassing but disrespectful?