IT had been the best for us, O most righteous Judge, and our most merciful father, that in our wealth and quietness, and in the midst of thy manifold benefits continually bestowed upon us most unworthy sinners, we had of love hearkened to thy voice, and turned unto thee our most loving and gracious father: For in so doing, we had done the parts of good and obedient loving children, It had also been well, if at thy dreadful threats out of thy holy word continually pronounced unto us by thy servants our preachers, we had of fear, as corrigible servants, turned from our wickedness. But alas we have shewed hitherto our selves towards thee, neither as loving children (O most merciful father) neither as tolerable servants, O Lord most mighty. Wherefore now we feel thy heavy wrath, O most righteous Judge, justly punishing us with grievous and deadly sickness and plagues; we do now confess and acknowledge, and to our most just punishment do find indeed, that to be most true, which we have so often hard threatened to us out of thy holy scriptures, the word of thy eternal verity: that thou art the same unchangeable God, of the same justice that thou wilt, and of the same power that thou canst punish the like wickedness and obstinacy of us impenitent sinners in these days, as thou hast done in all ages heretofore. But the same thy holy Scriptures, the word of thy truth, do also testify, that thy strength is not shortened but that thou canst: neither thy goodness abated but that thou wilt, help those that in their distress do flee unto thy mercies, and that thou art the same God of all, rich in mercy towards all that call upon thy name, and that thou dost not intend to destroy us utterly, but fatherly to correct us; who hast pity upon us, even when thou dost scourge us, as by thy said holy word thy gracious promises, and the examples of thy saints in thy holy Scriptures expressed for our comfort, thou hast assured us. Grant us, O most merciful father, that we fall not into the uttermost of all mischiefs, to become worse under thy scourge, but that this thy rod may by thy heavenly grace speedily work in us the fruit and effect of true repentance, unfeigned turning and converting unto thee, and perfect amendment of our whole lives, that, as we through our impenitence do now most worthily feel thy justice punishing us, so by this thy correction we may also feel the sweet comfort of thy mercies, graciously pardoning our sins, and pitifully releasing these grievous punishments and dreadful plagues. This we crave at thy hand, O most merciful father, for thy dear son our Savior Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.
I am putting together a book of Anglican prayers from outside the BCP. This will include several prayers from Queen Elizabeth I’s time, as well as the so-called Wyatt Prayer Book. For an example, see this link.
I found this in an old issue of Notes and Queries and thought I would pass it along:
There is a curious tradition existing in Mansfield, Woodhouse, Bulwell, and several other villages near Sherwood Forest, as to the origin of pancakes on Shrove Tuesday. The inhabitants of any of these villages will inform the questioner that when the Danes got to Linby all the Saxon men of the neighboring villages ran off into the Forest, and the Danes took the Saxon women to keep house for them. This happened just before Lent, and the Saxon women, encouraged by their fugitive lords, resolved to massacre their Danish masters on Ash Wednesday. Every woman who agreed to do this was to bake pancakes for their meal on Shrove Tuesday as a kind of pledge to fulfill her vow. This was done, and that the massacre of the Danes did take place on Ash Wednesday is a well-known historical fact.
In The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, he writes:
Every true penitential sorrow is rather natural than solemn; that is, it is the product of our internal apprehensions, rather than outward order and command. He that repents only by solemnity, at a certain period, by the expectation of tomorrow’s sun, may indeed act a sorrow, but cannot be sure that he shall then be sorrowful. Other acts of repentance may be done in their proper period, by order and command, upon set days, and indicted solemnities; such as is, fasting and prayer, and alms, and confession, and disciplines, and all the instances of humiliation: but sorrow is not to be reckoned in this account, unless it dwells there before. When there is a natural abiding sorrow for our sins, any public day of humiliation can bring it forth, and put it into activity; but when a sinner is gay and intemperately merry upon Shrove-tuesday, and resolves to mourn upon Ash-wednesday; his sorrow hath in it more of the theatre than the temple, and is not at all to be relied upon by him that resolves to take severe accounts of himself.
Mary Ailes died today. She was one of the pioneers of Anglican blogging who was in the thick of things from Truro in Virginia, in the early days of CANA. To me it feels like yesterday but it is quickly fading into the past. I met her in person once and she was a kind soul. I am thankful for her work in proving that blogs could be a great source of news, something that we have gone backwards on I fear. Her blog is available at:
And that brings me back to my starting point.
The business of us laymen is simply to endure and
make the best of it. Any tendency to a passionate
preference for one type of service must be regarded
simply as a temptation. Partisan “Churchmanships”
are my bête noire. And if we avoid them, may we not
possibly perform a very useful function? The
shepherds go off, “every one to his own way” and
vanish over diverse points of the horizon. If the
sheep huddle patiently together and go on bleating,
might they finally recall the shepherds? (Haven’t
English victories sometimes been won by the rank
and file in spite of the generals?)
As to the words of the service—liturgy in the
narrower sense—the question is rather different.
If you have a vernacular liturgy you must have a
changing liturgy; otherwise it will finally be
vernacular only in name. The ideal of “timeless
English” is sheer nonsense. No living language can
be timeless. You might as well ask for a motionless
I think it would have been best, if it were possible,
that necessary change should have occurred gradually
and (to most people) imperceptibly; here a
little and there a little; one obsolete word replaced
in a century—like the gradual change of spelling
in successive editions of Shakespeare. As things are
we must reconcile ourselves, if we can also reconcile
government, to a new Book.
If we were—I thank my stars I’m not—in a
position to give its authors advice, would you have
any advice to give them? Mine could hardly go
beyond unhelpful cautions: “Take care. It is so
easy to break eggs without making omelettes.”
Already our liturgy is one of the very few remaining
elements of unity in our hideously divided
Church. The good to be done by revision needs to
be very great and very certain before we throw that
away. Can you imagine any new Book which will
not be a source of new schism?
Most of those who press for revision seem to wish
that it should serve two purposes: that of modernising
the language in the interests of intelligibility,
and that of doctrinal improvement. Ought the two
operations—each painful and each dangerous—to
be carried out at the same time? Will the patient
What are the agreed doctrines which are to be
embodied in the new Book and how long will
agreement on them continue? I ask with trepidation
because I read a man the other day who seemed to
wish that everything in the old Book which was
inconsistent with orthodox Freudianism should be
For whom are we to cater in revising the
language? A country parson I know asked his sexton
what he understood by indifferently in the phrase
“truly and indifferently administer justice”. The
man replied, “It means making no difference
between one chap and another.” “And what would
it mean if it said impartially?” asked the parson.
“Don’t know. Never heard of it,” said the sexton.
Here, you see, we have a change intended to make
things easier. But it does so neither for the educated,
who understand indifferently already, nor for the
wholly uneducated, who don’t understand impartially.
It helps only some middle area of the congregation
which may not even be a majority. Let us
hope the revisers will prepare for their work by a
prolonged empirical study of popular speech as it
actually is, not as we (a priori) assume it to be. How
many scholars know (what I discovered by accident)
that when uneducated people say impersonal they
sometimes mean incorporeal?
What of expressions which are archaic but not
unintelligible? (“Be ye lift up”). I find that people
re-act to archaism most diversely. It antagonises
some: makes what is said unreal. To others, not
necessarily more learned, it is highly numinous and
a real aid to devotion. We can’t please both.
I know there must be change. But is this the right
moment? Two signs of the right moment occur to
me. One would be a unity among us which enabled
the Church—not some momentarily triumphant
party—to speak through the new work with a
united voice. The other would be the manifest
presence, somewhere in the Church, of the specifically
literary talent needed for composing a good
prayer. Prose needs to be not only very good but
very good in a very special way, if it is to stand up
to reiterated reading aloud. Cranmer may have his
defects as a theologian; as a stylist, he can play all
the moderns, and many of his predecessors, off the
field. I don’t see either sign at the moment.
Yet we all want to be tinkering. Even I would
gladly see “Let your light so shine before men”
removed from the offertory. It sounds, in that
context, so like an exhortation to do our alms that
they may be seen by men.
I have been in the
presence of the Presidents, about four, in our region, and every time I
ask the Lord, “Lord give me the strength to just raise your flag, just
in a small humble way.” And recently when, you know, we met, the
President Kagame with many delegates we talked business and after were
done we were to go and in my heart I said, “Oh Lord, I’m failing you
help me!” And I put up my hand and asked, I said, “Your excellency,
would you allow me to kindly pray in this place?” He said, “Of course
Nathan” because we bumped into each other in some high school, so we
knew each other a little bit.
And he was right there, it’s a big,
big, you know, Presidential hall. And I just felt I need to move and
pray with him there, something crazy, some of these things happen. So,
I, I said, “if I move the security will think I’m in, you know, I’m up
to something.” But I said anyway, “don’t worry” so I walked right across
and as I stood behind him, near him, we were almost the same height, so
I said, “yeah, I think it’s fitting to put my hand on him.” I prayed,
and we all got out so I said, “who knows when I will ever have the
opportunity like this?” Praise be to God.
Bishop Gasatura discusses the much-touted reconciliation process in
Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. He goes on to make the astounding
claim that “Kagame honors the Lord”:
In Rwanda the story of
forgiveness, healing, peacebuilding and reconciliation has been a very
painful journey, has been a heartbreaking journey, has been a painful,
excruciating journey, has been a very, very, hostile journey, but it has
been a worthwhile journey. We thank God for the leadership whom we
believe God has used in some way because Kagame honors the Lord.
He doesn’t proclaim Christianity openly, many of his ministers, members
of Parliament and Senators they honor the Lord. When you come in the
Presidential Prayer Breakfast that’s when you see it, it’s, it’s just
moving. And we have no doubt that God has used that government to be used as his instrument like he used King Darius. And, Rwanda is changing partly because of the work of the church and government and other forces.
Bishop Gasatura then claims that Kagame was used by God to stop revenge after the genocide of 1994:
When the genocide was beaten and stopped, the very first policy that was put in place was a policy of no revenge, Kagame, somehow was used by God
to say, “If we never stop this bloodletting and revenge this vicious
cycle will never stop.” So he put in place like a general an order,
which had not gone into policy and law, that nobody was allowed
whatsoever to shed blood of someone who had killed even 200 of your
family members, the government will handle that, nobody (should) take
the law in his hands. And today that policy has gone into practice, into
law, and a Commission of Unity and Reconciliation has been put in place
to re-educate and help the Rwandans unlearn the wrong and poisonous
history that they were taught. And if that was not supported by the
Church, praying and interceding and teaching, and you know, repenting,
it would never go far.
Fact checking the Bishop
Does Kagame honor the Lord?
One of his former cabinet ministers told me, “Like all of us, he grew
up Catholic. He has never seriously practiced any faith.Before those he
trusts, he ridicules faith in God, and those who believe.”
Furthermore, Kagame is a murderer who crushes all dissent in the open
prison that is Rwanda, not quite the qualities of a leader who honors
Did Kagame stop the bloodletting?
To the contrary, the entire reign of Kagame is covered in blood. Look
at just a couple of the thousands of examples; first, former Kagame
bodyguard Aloys Ruyezni wrote:
The Murder of Religious Leaders in Rwanda
The 157th Battalion, led by (then) Col. Fred Ibingira, killed many
innocent people in Mutara, Kibungo, Bugesera, Gitarama and elsewhere
during the final attack to take control of the country. This includes
the bishops who were murdered in Kabgayi. The 157th Battalion’s I.O.,
Wilson Gumisiriza, organized a section of his staff to kill the bishops.
It was led by (then) Sgt. Kwitegetse (alias Burakari), who was briefed
on the mission by Gumisiriza. Gen. Kagame
gave the final order to kill the bishops to Col. Ibingira. He gave him
the order in these words: “Remove those rubbishes,” or “Fagia,” in
Maj. Silas Udahemuka was appointed by President Kagame to
supervise the killing of civilians during 1994 and afterwards. He would
complete his assigned operation and then report back directly to Gen.
The example of Festo Kivengere
Bishop Gasatura rightly praises the example of Ugandan Bishop Festo
Kivengere, and says he wants to be like him. However, Kivengere spoke up
against his dictator, Idi Amin, and had to flee Uganda because of it.
Bishop Festo wrote:
A suffering Church can bless a nation and provide a
refuge to which the suffering society may turn for healing, for
liberation and hope. This was proved in Uganda as the Church came under
more systematic attack, and hundreds of martyrs’ deaths were added to
that of the archbishop’s.
Bishop Gasatura is knowingly or unknowingly spreading falsehoods about Rwanda and the nature of Paul Kagame.
If the West knows about ethnicity in Rwanda at all, it is in the familiar form of the Hutu and Tutsi. However, there are further sub-groups and clans within these broader configurations. One clan that features prominently in the story of Bishop John Rucyahana and his support for M23 is the Bagogwe clan.
Who are the Bagogwe? This article (in French) explains the roots of the Bagogwe ethnicity inside Rwanda:
Bagogwe are Tutsi whole hand. Indeed, in the former Rwanda, Bagogwe families regrouped into clans. The family clan was more than an ethnic identity. It is recognized by clan membership. The most important lineages were “abega” the “abahumuro” and “abatsobe.” …The identity was also related to the area occupied by a population. Thus, Bagogwe assumed the name of the region they occupied, the Bagogwe, the namesake of a rocky hill “in Iberia rya Bagogwe” …It is far from a designation of a sub-ethnic group or a sub-race. (Note that this is a Google translation and could be improved upon).
Jason Stearns says of the Bagogwe that “clan identity amongst the Tutsi does play a difference, as does their socialization within the RPF. We currently see some divides between the Bagogwe, mostly from Masisi, and what is usually referred to as Banyanduga or Bajomba, many of whom are from Bwisha in Rutshuru. This is reinforced by a class divide – Bagogwe are often poor cattle-herders.”
Stearns is referring to divisions among the Bagogwe from the Congo who
have participated in rebel movements fomented by Rwanda, but there is a
strong Bagogwe presence inside Rwanda itself. In fact, prior to the
outbreak of the genocide in 1994, the Bagogwe were themselves targeted
for genocide by the Habyiramana regime in the towns of Ruhengeri and
Bigogwe. Amnesty International wrote that the Bagogwe clan “was targeted for elimination”(AFR 47/02/92).
The Bagogwe as Soldiers for Kagame
It seems that after the RPF took over in Rwanda, the Bagogwe were often used to do Kagame’s dirty work. According to former Kagame bodyguard Aloys Ruyenzi:
In 1996, many Banyamulenge and Bagogwe were recruited by the DMI and integrated into RPA battalions (for example, the 59th Battalion) and the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL-CZ) forces to participate in the mass killings in Zaire. The murder of Hutu refugees located near Kisangani started on the “Live Goshe” road near Lubutu. The next massacre occurred on Gafasende Road, located 59 kilometers from Kisangani. The RPA feared these killings would be detected by the human rights organizations that were pressing for an on-site investigation. The DMI staff was ordered to exhume the all the bodies from the mass graves, burn them, and then throw all the ashes into the fast-flowing waters of the Congo River.”
In November 2009, Jason Stearns talked about unrest brewing in the DRC again, and said that “…previously the Tutsi faction was represented mostly by upper class Tutsi from Goma and Jomba, while this time they seem to be mostly from the lower class Bagogwe clan from Masisi.
The leader of the Bagogwe faction inside both M23 and the CNDP, which was the precursor to M23, was Bosco Ntaganda. Some of this ethnic background is explained in this story:
…Rwanda is aware that although it can influence M23, it does not have control over it. For example, one of the factors behind the current infighting in the rebel group is clan politics and rivalries. Ntaganda is from the Bagogwe clan alongside Baudouin Ngaruye. Meanwhile Makenga is also from the same Bagogwe clan but grew up in Rucuru among Banyejomba clan of former CNDP leader, Laurent Nkunda. Ntaganda has always seen himself as a rival to Nkunda and enjoys large support among the Bagogwe. This meant that Makenga could never rival him for support in the clan which made him court the Banyejomba. Ntaganda has since used his identity to wrestle control from Makenga.
Ntaganda, a hardliner, has the support of the Bagogwe Tutsi clan from the mountainous Masisi region, who have tired of the dominance of Nkunda’s Rutshuru-based Tutsis in the rebel leadership. Support for both CNDP and M23 came from Bagogwe inside Rwanda. During the CNDP rebellion, the US embassy in Kigali sent a cable pointing out that there was fundraising for Laurent Nkunda and CNDP occurring among the Bagogwe in Rwanda: Reports of financial contributions to the CNDP by private individuals come as no great surprise. Mission recently heard reports of informal collections of funds for Nkunda among the Bagogwe, a Tutsi clan that straddles the Rwanda – DRC border, and which claims him as a member. Reports of CNDP recruiting in the refugee camps also continue, as do reports of demobilized Rwandan soldiers “re-mobilizing” themselves by voluntarily crossing to join Nkunda.
The following table outlines the backgrounds of three rebel leaders who operated for Rwanda in the DRC.
Bagogwe, Banyejomba clan
Bagogwe, Banyejomba clan
Rucyahana’s Bagogwe Connection
Where does Bishop John Rucyahana fit into this picture? In 2012, the UN said that Rucyahana was the “president of the Bagogwe community”:
John Rucyahana has been the head of the Anglican Church at Ruhengeri, president of the Bagogwe community from Rwanda, and President of the Rwandan National Unity and Reconciliation Commission.
Details about this role in the Bagogwe community are lacking, but Rucyahana’s fundraising and recruiting efforts for M23 were clearly in support of the Ntaganda faction, as subsequent evidence makes clear.
…Rwandan officials who had previously supported Ntaganda, and who could no longer control his network in Rwanda or his actions in the DRC, decided to sideline him from M23 and to dismantle his support in Rwanda. In late December 2012, Rwandan authorities arrested RDF Col. Jomba Gakumba, due to his close ties with Ntaganda, according to former RDF officers and an M23 collaborator. A former Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) member, two former RDF officers and a politician loyal to Ntaganda, told the Group that Bishop John Rucyahana, a Ntaganda ally in Rwanda who recruited politicians and raised funds for M23, had to stop his collaboration (emphasis added). The Group has sought clarification from the Government of Rwanda on the matter and is awaiting a response.
A “civil war” of sorts broke out between the two factions within M23, with Bosco’s faction losing badly because Rwanda was determined to eliminate him. Anyone who helped him was arrested:
…on 10 March 2013, Rwandan authorities arrested Gafishi Semikore and Theo Bitwayiki, while they attempted to help Ntaganda from Rwanda by supplying him with small quantities of ammunition, food and medical supplies during the hostilities between the two factions in Kibumba.
With Rwanda hunting him, Bosco Ntaganda had to flee for his life. How he was able to do so is laid out for us by the UN and sources such as this:
Hailing from Northwestern Rwanda and from the reclusive Tutsi Bagogwe’s ethnics, generally hostile to the current Rwandan government dominated by Tutsis from Uganda and Burundi, General Ntaganda could rely on a network of incorruptible clansmen. So he was moving from relative to relative, avoiding highly circulated areas and moving in trucks carrying staples to the capital city Kigali. While the DMI killing squad was looking for him in Gisenyi, the volcanoes and Masisi, he had already crossed Kinigi on his way to Kigali. He reached Kigali late at night on Sunday, where a trusted relative was waiting for him. Early morning, the relative dropped him off close to the US Embassy (emphasis added), to where he walked in and asked for being sent to the International Criminal Court.
The UN’s account of Bosco’s flight says:
On 15 March 2013, Ntaganda clandestinely crossed the border into Rwanda using a small path in the Gasizi area, with one escort…he reached Kigali with the help of his family, and arrived at the United States embassy on 18 March where he requested to be transferred to the ICC, without the prior knowledge of Rwandan authorities. Subsequently, Rwandan authorities arrested an individual suspected of having aided Ntaganda’s escape, and interrogated Ntaganda’s wife and brother.
According to confidential sources, the situation of bishops Rucyahana and Kolini is bad because since (a) the escape of Bosco Ntaganda into the American embassy in Rwanda and (b) intense external pressure to end support for M23, Paul Kagame has abandoned the bishops. A sign of this abandonment is his open admission that churches support M23 as a Tutsi self-protection campaign. A source says that Bishop Rucyahana cannot travel outside Rwanda on orders of the Government (or without its explicit permission); and that in fact Rucyahana’s own driver assisted Bosco Ntaganda to escape to the American embassy. If true, this means that Rucyahana’s driver is or was a relative of Bosco’s all along.
In short, Rucyahana (a) had a driver related to Bosco Ntaganda, (b) was the President of the Bagogwe community in Rwanda, and (c) was sidelined when Bosco’s support network was eliminated as part of the M23 civil war.
The civil war between Bosco’s faction and the Makenga faction may have hurt Bagogwe support for M23, since many native sons of the Bagogwe were betrayed by Paul Kagame.
The UN says: The Group notes that M23 recruitment in Rwanda has decreased since the dismantling of Ntaganda’s recruitment network; community leaders in northern Rwanda who supported Ntaganda have ceased collaborating with the M23. […] Demobilized Rwandan soldiers have been killed on M23 frontlines in the DRC. The Group obtained the identities and addresses of seven families residing in the northern Rwandan villages of Bigogwe and Mukamira, whose sons fought in the ranks of M23 as demobilized soldiers and died during the fighting between Makenga and Ntaganda.
It is not as clear why Bishop Kolini would support M23, although he preached and served among the Bagogwe in the eastern Congo for many years, and his support for Paul Kagame is probably unwavering. He is also connected to the current bishop of Boga, the Rt Revd William Bahemuka Mugenyi. He has connected the severely weakened AMiA to Bishop William which means that Kolini has ongoing contact with clergy in the DRC.
Rucyahana has appeared in the US recently as part of Kagame’s
Presidential Advisory Council. Presumably, he is engaged in what Rwanda
calls, “Kwicazwa ku gatebe” – literally “being made to sit on a small
chair.” When you fall out of favor with Paul Kagame, you must keep
silence and wait, hoping that someone else will soon fall out of favor
and a replacement will be needed.
Warren’s relationship with Rwandan President Paul Kagame
is also of concern. Kagame was the leader of the rebel Tutsi forces that
brought an end to genocide in 1994. Yet as president, he has overseen a
military that continues to occupy parts of the Democratic Republic of
Congo. Human-rights observers such as Amnesty International and even the
U.S. State Department accuse Kagame of not only stripping Congo of its
natural resources, but also of mass rape, burning villages, and
murdering civilians. Rwandan leaders reject these claims, yet the
human-rights community maintains their accuracy.
Years of African corruption in the wake of colonial
puppetry have created rifts of distrust between those who are suffering
and those with friends in high places. Although Kagame is an improvement
from past leaders, his connection to former regimes and to ongoing
human-rights concerns should trouble anyone seeking to work with him.
Coming to the defense of Kagame, current Anglican Bishop Augustin Ahimana Murekezi of the Kivu diocese wrote a response in Christianity Today. He said:
It is also our duty to inform American Christians that
there has been a malicious campaign to demonize Rwanda’s leaders,
distorting the political situation. This distortion emanates from people
often hiding behind so-called humanitarian organizations. Some have a
hidden agenda of distracting the international community so that their
own role in Rwanda’s tragedy cannot be exposed.
When Rwandan troops decided to pursue the genocidal
forces and their sponsors in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in
1996 and 1998, they did so in the light of day. The peace we enjoy today
in our country is mainly a consequence of that action. When our troops
pulled out of DRC in 2002, it was under the intense gaze of
international observers and media. So accusing Rwandan troops today of
continuing “to occupy parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo” is
The advance of M23 towards Goma started in earnest on 15
November with an attack on Kibumba, approximately 20 km north of Goma.
After some success in pushing back M23 on the first and second days of
the offensive with significant and robust support by MONUSCO, which is
estimated to have resulted in high casualties to M23, the Congolese
armed forces later succumbed to a larger, well-organized and
well-supplied force. Following the setback of its first attack on
Kibumba, the subsequent speed, efficiency and success of the renewed M23
offensive were rendered possible by a sudden increase in the group’s
combatants, coordinated multi-pronged attacks and attacks with
coordination between infantry and fire support, all capacities that are
not characteristic of former integrated CNDP elements. Furthermore,
MONUSCO observations of the command and control ability of the attacking
force, the effective coordination of its fire support, the quality of
its equipment and its general fighting ability, particularly during
night- time, all suggested the existence of external support, both
direct and indirect.
Let’s be clear, “external support” means “the Rwandan Army.” The
wars that Bishop Augustin defended involved horrific atrocities, as
outlined in the Mapping Exercise report of the UN. Wikipedia says that
the Second Congo War “and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people,
mostly from disease and starvation, making the Second Congo War the
deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.” In fact, the
Mapping Report says that the Armée patriotique rwandaise (APR – the
Rwandan Army), went after ethnic Hutu’s regardless of their lack of
involvement in the 94 genocide:
Several of the incidents listed appear to confirm that
multiple attacks targeted members of the Hutu ethnic group as such, and
not only the criminals responsible for the genocide committed in 1994
against the Tutsis in Rwanda and that no effort had been made by the
AFDL/APR to distinguish between Hutu members of the ex-FAR/Interahamwe
and Hutu civilians, whether or not they were refugees.
30. The intention to destroy a group in part is
sufficient to constitute a crime of genocide and the international
courts have confirmed that the destruction of a group can be limited to a
particular geographical area. It is therefore possible to assert that,
even if only a part of the Hutu population in Zaire was targeted and
destroyed, it could nonetheless constitute a crime of genocide if this
was the intention of the perpetrators. Several incidents listed in this
report point to circumstances and facts from which a court could infer
the intention to destroy the Hutu ethnic group in the DRC in part, if
these were established beyond all reasonable doubt.
The incidents of horror from this war could be enumerated at length, but here is a sample of what the Rwandan Army did:
On 21 October 1996, units of the AFDL/APR/FAB attacked Lubarika camp
and village, killing an unknown number of Rwandan and Burundian
refugees, as well as Zairian civilians who were trying to flee the
village after the departure of the FAZ. The soldiers forced local people
to bury the bodies in four large mass graves. On the same day, soldiers
also burned thirty refugees alive in a house in the village of
Kakumbukumbu, five kilometres from Lubarika camp.
On 24 November 1996, in the village of Mwaba, units of the
AFDL/APR/FAB burned 24 Burundian Hutu refugees from the Biriba camp
alive. On their arrival in Mwaba, the soldiers arrested those present in
the village. After questioning them, they freed the Zairian civilians
and imprisoned the Burundian refugees in a house which they then set on
On 22 October 1996, in the Rushima ravine between Bwegera and
Luberizi, units of the AFDL/APR/FAB killed a group of nearly 550 Rwandan
Hutu refugees who had escaped the Luberizi and Rwenena camps a few days
before. Soldiers inter- cepted the victims at the checkpoints set up in
the surrounding area. Between 27 October and 1 November 1996, under the
pretext of repatriating them to Rwanda, units of the AFDL/APR/FAB led
an unknown number of additional refugees into the Rushima ravine and
In January 1997, AFDL/APR units killed at least thirty Rwandan and
Burundian refugees, mostly with knives, on the Bukavu to Walungu road,
around sixteen kilometres from the city of Bukavu. The victims had been
arrested as part of a combing operation. Before killing the victims, the
soldiers often tortured and maimed them.
Between 15 November and 16 November 1996, AFDL/APR units arrested an
un- known number of Rwandan Hutu men from the Lac Vert camp and Mugunga
and executed them. Some were bound and then thrown alive into Lac Vert,
where they drowned. Others were shot in the head and their bodies
dumped in the lake.
This could go on and on. Suffice it to say that these wars and those
who instigate them should not be defended, but decried. Going after the
humanitarian organizations instead is astonishing.