by Colin Hyde

I watched the journey of young Gabriel Pablo Orellano, his last (I think on News5), and it was clear from the beginning that he had a purpose. I noticed how he navigated the traffic, how fast he ran when he had open terrain before him, and on the last leg of the journey how he gave a little skip, a little dance, which told of the joy, the excitement in his heart as he neared his destination. He should have been bone tired after running so fast, and far, but that skip, that little dance also said that he was a long way from winded.

The sun was shining, a fresh wind was blowing, he was young and healthy and he couldn’t deny the call, the clear call to go down to the sparkling emerald sea. He could have slipped into the water, or jumped in for a bath. Gabriel Pablo must have known how to swim. His dad is a fisherman. The sea was a little choppy. The area wasn’t safe for a little child.

Understandably, Gabriel’s family will not easily be consoled after this devastating tragedy. For those who might have failed in their responsibility, a boy with such boundless energy could not have been an easy charge. That child, he had the makings of a marathoner. Mucho love to Gabriel’s family. You lost a good boy. The nation lost a good boy. The nation mourns with you.

UDP chances at the polls go up with one, down with the other

If the UDP’s splitting into two teams was a strategy to stay in the news in an election year when they are facing a government with a super majority, they were successful. It is for sure that the party’s “two” leaders are headline news nightly. If they are in it to win it, or not to get destroyed at the polls, of course one of the leaders has to step down. For the party’s chances, who is left standing is critical. From the outside looking in, one shouldn’t, and one won’t and should.

The PUP split in the 1950’s over federation; the NIP split around 1969 because one of its leaders, Dean Lindo, thought the party wasn’t focused on the things that get leaders elected to government, and maybe that the leader, Philip Goldson, was too black to lead in a country that was predominantly “brown”; the UDP split in 1991-92 over the Maritime Areas Act (MAA); the PUP split around 2005 over Ashcroft and Ralph Fonseca’s privatization; the UDP split in 2024 mainly because Shyne Barrow, after squeaking a win in a leadership convention, turned his knife on leaders who had legitimized him.

With general elections just up ahead, talk has increased about the chances of the factions joining, and the possibilities of a “déjà vu” like in 1993 when UDP factions came together and won a surprise victory. Looking at just a little bit of 1993 history, the Esquivel UDP promised the Goldson UDP (under the name NABR at that time), that if the UDP formed the government Goldson’s faction would get what they wanted: repeal of the MAA. There are major differences between 1993 and 2025. But we’ll forego that discussion to focus on the chances of another kiss and make-up for the UDP this year.

The factions don’t appear to face an insurmountable philosophical hurdle. In a debate coming on to the 2020 general election, a journalist suggested to BPF leader Nancy Marin and BPP leader Patrick Rogers that they should merge, because in our system a snowball has a better chance in hell than a third party does in general elections. But the parties had different approaches to developing the country, and, no disrespect: on the political scene Nancy had a small following, while Patrick was a force.

We’ve heard that the court advised the UDP factions to seek mediation to settle this present standoff. You’d have to have money to throw into the wind to bet on the Tracy Panton faction backing down. It wouldn’t make sense. The breakaway faction, Tracy’s UDP, did so because she is far more popular in the party than Shyne is (that was proved at an “unofficial” convention), and because of his massive betrayal of trust. Shyne, to cement his place, gambled that with his bank account he could get away with guillotining senior leaders.

You can imagine the possibilities all you want; Tracy absolutely can’t take a backseat to Shyne. The ball is entirely in Shyne’s court. I won’t discuss his hard-to-believe leadership. He’ll have to give up the nightly appearance on the television news. Without the crown he’ll have to give up the Disney contract. By Belize standards he is wealthy, so only those on his payroll will cry with him if he loses that. The story is, he loses his trips to the US if he loses Mesopotamia. His best chance of keeping the seat is by handing over the keys to BelChina, and begging Lee Mark to withdraw his candidacy.

With this Shyne, it looks like we’re dealing with some serious ego business, and money lust.  I say, he’s got his claws in, and he’s holding on desperately. In consecutive weeks I have read seriously scandalous statements made by this brother, smear jobs on prominent members of Tracy’s faction, the far lesser of these bringing the threat of a lawsuit that he would likely lose.    

Let’s be sober here. Tracy’s faction would have to be some kind of (you put in the word) to roll over, to give Shyne the opportunity to stab them in the back, again. Ah, there are all kinds of crazy things under the sun. But the only way this one makes sense is if Shyne steps down.

Paul Kagame, no Netanyahu card

I’m putting off my piece on the EOB, for now, to hib my two cents on an ongoing situation in the Congo, in which “accusers” are pointing the finger at Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. If you recall, Kagame was to pay us a visit a couple years ago, so anything involving him is of special interest.

Forces backed by Rwanda, M-23, are in control of parts of Goma, a city in the Congo that is near Rwanda’s border. Democracy Now says the UN Secretary General has called on Rwandan forces to withdraw, and for the country to end its support of M-23. Democracy Now says Dr. Maurice Carney, the executive director of Friends of the Congo, said the offensive is “part of a 30-year war of aggression and plunder by U.S. allies: Rwanda, led by Paul Kagame, and Uganda, led by Yoweri Museveni”, and that the aggression continues with the support of the US, UK, France, and the EU.

An AP story says “the international community has stopped short of putting financial pressure on Kigali [Rwanda’s capital] to withdraw its support for the rebels as happened when they took Goma in 2012.”

The Guardian (UK) says “M23…is one of more than 100 armed groups fighting Congolese forces in the mineral-rich eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo].” The Guardian says M-23 “says its objective is to safeguard the interests of the Congolese Tutsi and other minorities, including protecting them against Hutu rebel groups who escaped to the DRC after taking part in the 1994 genocide that targeted Tutsis.”

To refresh our memories, we turn to Britannica, and the story, “Rwanda genocide of 1994.” Britannica says that in 1994 the majority Hutu population in Rwanda slaughtered “more than 800,000 civilians—primarily Tutsi, but also moderate Hutu”, and that “as many as 2,000,000 Rwandans fled the country during or immediately after the genocide.”

The slaughter didn’t end until the forces of Kagame restored order in Rwanda. I am no expert on this trouble, but I can tell you that I KNOW that is NOT an easy situation there. Kagame is from the Tutsi tribe, and he is saying that his business in the Congo is to protect the Tutsis living there. There’s a similarity there with the operations of Netanyahu’s Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, prior to the full-scale atrocity after October 7, 2023. The claim of Israel has been that their aggression in settlements across their border was/is about protecting their citizens. Of course, the GIANT difference is that Israel NEVER experienced genocide at the hands of the Palestinians.

There is division on the African continent about the way forward, who to ally with, which system serves best. There is a strong Russia, China, BRICS group on the continent led by South Africa. Paul Kagame has hitched Rwanda’s star with the West.