Saturday musings

I woke up this morning to the sound of the text message alert from the mobile phone. It was a message from Tessa who told me that she's seen my picture in the papers. I ran down to pick up my newspaper and tadah...I see me in one of the pages. I don't know how to react to it except that I think the hair is a little too much for me to take. And goodness, was the photographer using wide angle lens or something because I look so horribly chubby!! OK, maybe I am chubby :p

Now playing: Frederic Chopin - Nocturne in C sharp minor

This is the tune that was featured in Roman Polanski's The Pianist. Although the tune was played on the piano in the film, the essence of this piece of work is still captured in the voice of the violin. Certainly this violinist has justified the beauty of this nocturne & I'm sure Chopin will be pleased to hear it. The voice (of the violin) is so rich and it encapsulates the beauty and mood of the composition. There is much texture & depth in the score, with many variations of the tune within the work itself. The expression in this piece will find listeners find absorbed in its fullness & at the same time, feel Chopin's heartbeat.

It never fails to amaze me at the musical genius of composers in the past. They were living in a totally different age & time where entertainment was simple, where they relied on sheer human ingenuity to create masterpieces. They made a living out of their genius but the irony was that all these composers died as lonely paupers. Take Mozart for example. He composed some of the most memorable pieces of music & operas like The Marriage of Figaro, The Magic Flute among many others. He was a child prodigy who played in front of royalty & was the personal 'entertainer' of these households. However, by the time his life came to an end, he was so poor that he wasn't even given a proper funeral & burial. It is said that he was laid to rest in an unmarked grave with other paupers.

If Mozart lived in the 20th/21st century, he'll be rich from all the royalties paid to him, all the copyright that is due & perhaps from all the performances he gives. And when he dies, the news will travel far & wide over the Internet & in all other mediums of media available. He will probably be given a grand send-off attended by family members, dignitaries & even members of the royalty.

This is how much we have progressed in the last few centuries. But have we really progressed at all? If we have progressed, why is 65% of the world living below the poverty line? If we have progressed, why are we still resorting to violence to obtain the means to an end? If we have progressed, why are there so many who live in fear of not seeing the next daylight?

This week and next week, representatives from at least 150 countries meet in the Big Apple for the Annual General Assembly at the UN. The pressing issues in the agenda will include the war against terrorism, human rights issues, poverty & debt of undeveloped nations.

The UN has been in existence for about 60 years but what has it achieved? World peace? Maybe not. Since the end of WW2, more wars have started than ever. The world becomes an even more complicated place to live in. The UN, as I see it, is nothing more than a club for the NATO nations to put forward words for lip service. Sure, the objectives of the UN & its related organisations like UNICEF, theSecurity Council et al have played their parts in addressing issues of concern. The blue helmet and blue armband are internationally recognised and particularly useful in conflict zones. But have they really alleviated problems? Most of the funding for the UN come from the developed nations (and rightfully so, since so many of the other member states aren't as developed). Only the major stakeholders get the last word and more often than not, it really is NATO - No Action, Talk Only. At the end of the day, these developed nations will only look for solutions that help themselves and set the tune for the piece they want to play, while the other little nations will just hum along.
The UN has been criticised time after time for its failure in successfully intervening in conflicts, alleviating issues of poverty and human rights violation. However, one must consider that the UN does NOT have the rights to intervene. All it can do is to get the Security Council to vote on whether it makes any sense to send its peacekeeping force made up of its member states into these conflict zones. One important thing to look into is also the kind of treatment/reaction the UN peacekeepers get from the conflict, whether they are co-operating or not because that determines the success and/or failure of the efforts of the UN.

The recent scandals/failures lead to the question of whether the UN is still relevant. The recent oil for food project was a big embarrassment to the Secretary General and the failures of the UN in conflicts in places like the Balkan States, Middle East, Africa, etc raise questions of the organisation's usefulness. Is it just another one of those showy things, just like what the League of Nations was after WW1?

The bottomline is this - this world cannot be a better place for as long as disparity exists, be it in resources, territory or ideology. We are all different people but yet yearn for the same thing - wealth and equality, with the irony that it is this very desire that drives the world apart. UN or not, this world is not enough for everyone.