In the office of the spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General, fount of knowledge for media correspondents, there are three jars with different labels on them. One says, "Good Humour Pills"; the next, "Courage Capsules"; and the third, "Patience Pills". All eyes were on Bush but it was Annan who provided the drama, writes Deaglán de Bréadún from New York.
But inside the jars you will find sweets, not medication. It's an indication of the difficult time the world organisation is having at the moment, but also of the resilience and good humour of the UN and its staff in the face of adversity.
The annual debate among world leaders at the General Assembly began yesterday under a considerable cloud. The UN has suffered big hits in the last month: the attack on its Baghdad headquarters on August 19th deprived it of many valuable personnel, including a potential future secretary general in Sergio Vieira de Mello from Brazil. This was followed up by another bombing on Monday, no doubt carefully timed to make a point to the heads of state and government as well as foreign ministers as they prepared to convene yet again at the tall building beside Manhattan's East River.
It was a diplomatic constellation. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were waiting to hear their boss George Bush, President Chirac looked bored, the lone North Korean delegate's jacket was spattered with rain, Jack Straw whispered to his civil servants. That nervous-looking man sitting at the Iraqi desk was Ahmed Chalabi, would-be ruler in the post-Saddam era. The ever-stylish Hamid Kharzai represented Afghanistan. Some of these people would not have been here two years ago, or even last year. Even at the UN, things are beginning to change.
In an obvious gesture of respect to the memory to Sergio de Mello, Brazil's President Lula da Silva was allowed to speak after the secretary-general, instead of President Bush from the host country.
Mr Bush's speech was long-awaited and there was much speculation on its contents, with considerable leaking from the White House to highlight certain angles. But in the end it turned out a rather flat production, more important for what it didn't say or barely mentioned than for its main themes.
We knew already the President was not about to backtrack or apologise over the invasion of Iraq. His argument was simple: an evil dictator has gone, the torture chambers and rape rooms are no more, and now it is up to the international community to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq as a showcase to other Middle East countries, proving that democracy works and maybe you should try it yourselves sometime.
Although he had us participating in "an unfinished war" in his opening remarks, the President's tone was surprisingly measured and low-key. There was no evangelical zeal to destroy an "axis of evil" or participate in a "crusade" against terror. But he did make a pointed and knowing suggestion that terrorists "should have no friend in this chamber".
There was a Manichean warning that, in the fight against terror, nations which are not with him are against him, because there was "no neutral ground". But the old tub-thumping zeal, so evident after "9-11", was muted this time.
Instead of a rallying-cry there was an appeal to self-interest: maybe you didn't like my war on Iraq but instability and chaos in that country threatens the whole region and ultimately yourselves. There was the usual hint to the Palestinians to get rid of Arafat but only a gentle reminder to the Israelis about their responsibilities. We are coming into an election year after all.
The President finished off with two soft, "big tent" issues to get everyone behind him. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction must be stopped (no one shouted, "When you can find them"); and the new slave trade, whereby almost a million people are bought and sold each year, must be brought to a halt. But he was quiet about the issue of UN reform and whether Washington would consider broadening the base of real power at the UN, namely, the five permanent, veto-wielding seats on the Security Council, currently held by Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.
The real fireworks came from the mild-mannered Kofi Annan. Immaculately dressed as always, the soft-spoken secretary-general delivered a hard message. He said, in effect, that the UN had a choice between being radical or redundant.
The old rules no longer suited real, everyday reality. When Roosevelt and the rest of them set up the UN at the end of the second World War, the biggest danger to peace came from belligerent sovereign states. Now the threat could come from groups without a state which were capable of launching massive attacks without any warning.
In response, states were assuming the right to launch a pre-emptive strike. There was a danger that the world would turn into a lawless, unilateral jungle. But it was not enough to tell beleaguered nations, "Thou Shalt Not": the UN and its Security Council must adapt to the new reality.
Although he spoke in coded, diplomatic language, the secretary-general was implying that the UN should itself authorise pre-emptive strikes when there was a clear and present danger, e.g., from terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction.
This will be known as Kofi Annan's "Fork in the Road" speech, because of his assertion: "Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded."
A high-level panel will be named, with a mandate to come up with answers to the hard questions in time for the next General Assembly. Like a prophet, Kofi Annan intoned: "History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass."
He had no more appreciative listener yesterday than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen. Not a man known to be easily excited, the Minister described Kofi Annan's contribution as "a hugely important speech" which set out the agenda for achieving the "seismic shift" that was required if the UN wished to remain relevant.
The international community was being challenged to take the initiative and make multilateral action a credible and effective instrument for achieving world peace. "I would have to reflect very carefully on how Ireland can contribute to this approach," the Minister said. Clearly impressed by the practical, pragmatic note struck by Kofi Annan, Mr Cowen said "Ireland should and will follow that lead".
But Ireland has always been one of the UN's more apt pupils, taking the international body seriously and sacrificing the lives of many soldiers on peacekeeping missions. But what the impassive-faced Saudi Arabian delegation thought of the speech was not immediately clear. The Iranians, for their part, looked somewhat uncomfortable. The US delegation offered only polite applause.
Jack Straw was now munching a polo mint. And the man from North Korea was probably still waiting for his jacket to dry.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times