One could not feel imbued with optimism for the future of our endangered planet this week, writes Deaglán de Bréadún in New York
In his fascinating memoir of the United States in wartime, American Journey, the late journalist and broadcaster Alistair Cooke describes how the momentous decision by the Senate to approve the United Nations Charter was overshadowed on the day by the sensational news that a B-25 bomber had crashed into the Empire State Building in New York in thick fog, killing 14 people.
It's not the first time - nor will it be the last - that a genuinely important development with far-reaching consequences was relegated to second place in the headlines on the day.
The fact that an aircraft hit a skyscraper in Manhattan by accident is now largely forgotten, although it poignantly foreshadowed the more recent and potentially epoch-making decision by followers of Osama bin Laden to fly two aircraft into the World Trade Centre on purpose.
Among other things, it was a challenge to the international system of politics and diplomacy embodied in the UN. Despite its many substantial achievements, the world body has been found wanting in important respects, a fact that was highlighted again this week at the annual debate among political leaders at the General Assembly.
Seen through the prism of domestic politics, the General Assembly debate could be described as an "ardfheis" for the leaders of the world. Some of the speeches, at least, are important but so too are the side-meetings held and deals done in the margins.
The General Assembly is also a unique opportunity for journalists to see an entire array of world leaders in the flesh, so to speak, to listen to their thoughts and ideas and ask them questions.
It has to be said that the results of such an empirical investigation this week are not encouraging, nor could one feel imbued with optimism for the future of our endangered planet as a result.
President Bush was, in effect, the keynote speaker of the General Assembly. It was interesting to contrast his performance from the podium with his remarks in the more intimate surroundings of a celebration lunch for outgoing secretary-general Kofi Annan.
At the lunch, the president was charm personified, combining the political and personal in a warm and gracious tribute to the UN's chief administrator. In the assembly, Bush was aggressive, hostile and at times downright rude. It was a wonder some of the governments he singled out for attack did not walk out, which would have been an embarrassing setback and a blow to presidential prestige.
I have heard a senior US diplomat lament the fact that it is not possible for everyone to meet the president in a one-to-one or small-group setting because his private persona is so different from the George W of public perception. Perhaps one should blame his advisers. It was astonishing to read the transcript of a White House press briefing in advance of Bush's visit.
"The whole visit is structured to show that the freedom agenda remains central for us, and the US is engaged around the world to support people yearning to be free. Because they know that freedom will defeat them, terrorists, tyrants and traitors to humanity are doing all they can to stop the expansion of freedom. The Middle East is the central battleground," a senior administration official was quoted as telling the White House press corps.
There might be nothing much wrong with any of the sentiments in principle, but the language has an archaic, neo-conservative flavour that is foreign to any notion of diplomacy and is likely to get people's backs up in a situation where you really want and need their co-operation. The same outmoded tone was carried forward into the president's speech.
The biggest immediate challenge in international affairs is the Iranian nuclear programme and whether Tehran's intentions are peaceful or belligerent. Iran's rulers may not be the most appealing on the world stage today, but they and the people they represent have a strong sense of pride, and talk of "terrorists, tyrants and traitors to humanity" only serves to humiliate them and push them into a very dangerous corner.
Not that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his advisers seemed to have their finger on the pulse of international opinion either. Although it was remarked upon that Ahmadinejad's speech to the General Assembly was measured and moderate in tone, his performance at a packed press conference later in the week was deeply unimpressive.
Coming from the background of Irish politics, one was irresistibly reminded of the celebrated occasion when Bertie Ahern, in one of his rare displays of temper, denounced Fine Gael TD Gay Mitchell repeatedly and at some length as "a waffler". On question after question, Iran's president waffled relentlessly, dodging and evading the issue in a display that would be laughable were it not for the fact that he occupies a pivotal position in the future security arrangements of the world.
One can only speculate that some would-be public relations expert in Tehran told Dr Ahmadinejad it would be a good idea to hold a big press conference and generally make himself agreeable during his trip to the US. But the presidential adviser clearly forgot to tell him that it's a good idea in those situations to answer the question you are asked, as fully and factually as possible.
Three times he failed to satisfy reporters with his answers to questions about the supply of weapons to Hizbullah. Twice he waffled around the issue of whether he actually said, in the Farsi language, that he wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map".
One was left wondering whether this most important man regards the people of the world as being of very low intelligence. Iran is not a country whose rulers are used to being challenged by the media and there were echoes of the former communist bloc apparatchiks.
Another key player, although he likes to ham it up and act the fool somewhat, is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. He caused a mild sensation with his denunciation of Bush as "the devil". Blessing himself during his General Assembly speech, he said that the podium where the US president had stood the previous day "smells of sulphur still today".
Chavez is the latest version of the populist Latin American leader whose appeal is based on a combination of charisma, militant nationalism and left-wing politics. If Bush comes across as outdated and Ahmadinejad out of touch, the jocular Chavez does not seem to take anything seriously and one wondered initially if he was "out to lunch".
Sixty-one years after its charter was approved, the UN has lasted longer and has a better record than its predecessor, the League of Nations. But the structure is anachronistic and cries out for change.