"There is something deeply distasteful about the spectacle of the entire upper echelon of our political class decamping to Washington, amid a miasma of speculative hyperbole on the possibilities of progress and perhaps even a breakthrough."
These stern words from the Belfast Newsletter probably voice the feelings of very many people, nationalist as well as unionist, on the St Patrick's Day exodus to the United States. The question keeps getting asked: Is there a possibility that a meeting of minds could take place on Capitol Hill which has eluded the politicians back in Belfast? If not, is there any point to this expensive annual junket?
The Taoiseach, speaking in Australia earlier this week, was cautious. "I think this will take some little time further," he told Geraldine Kennedy, this newspaper's political editor, in response to a question about the possibility of a breakthrough on the decommissioning issue. Mr Peter Mandelson was emphatic that his trip was for "more than just a party" and that he expected serious discussions to take place.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has yet to experience the sheer volume of hospitality involved in celebrating St Patrick's Day in Washington and may find it more difficult than he anticipates to drag people away from the party atmosphere.
Not that there is anything wrong with a good party. It beats a "Mexican standoff", as Mr Mandelson has described the present state of the peace process. As with all these occasions, there will be opportunities for people who have been bad-mouthing each other at home to meet in a less combative atmosphere. It will also serve to focus the minds of Northern Ireland's political leaders on the fact that the most powerful nation in the world may be losing patience with both sides. They will be reminded, quite forcibly one hopes, of how much is at stake.
St Patrick's Day in Washington has never been primarily about the nitty-gritty of a political deal. It's true that the whole disastrous concept of decommissioning was introduced by Sir Patrick Mayhew in his "Washington 3" statement, but this surely proved how unwise it is to allow such difficult issues to be put onto the agenda a long way from home. It is a lesson which no Irish government is likely to forget.
For most of the politicians involved, from both sides of the Border, the aim is to demonstrate serious clout. When Bertie Ahern goes to the White House tomorrow to present a bowl of shamrock to President Clinton he will show that Ireland has privileged access to the White House. On Northern Ireland, the views of this small State are given at least equal weight to those of the British government.
This was not the case in the past when the State Department guarded the special relationship between Britain and the United States. In practice, this meant that it vetoed any attempt by the administration in Washington to take a stance that might be construed as critical of British policy.
A dramatic change in the relative balance of influence was effected with great political skill over a number of years. John Hume's assiduous briefing of Democratic politicians like Teddy Kennedy and Tom Foley marked the start. This was followed by Irish diplomats, working in Washington to extend the base of support in both parties in Congress. More recently, Irish Americans who were eager for change in Northern Ireland seized the opportunity offered by the election of a president - Bill Clinton - with little reason to hold the British Conservative government in high regard.
The new relationship between Dublin and Washington was crucial in bringing about the first IRA ceasefire. There have been times when decisions taken by President Clinton, against the advice of the British government, enabled the whole process to move forward. One thinks of the visas granted to Gerry Adams and Joe Cahill.
The White House has also been extremely skilful in bringing unionists in from the cold, ensuring that their views and deep fears about the peace process were heard and understood. As well as all this, the appointment of Senator George Mitchell to chair the talks process was inspired, and would probably not have happened without President Clinton pushing and persuading him to take the job.
Now there are signs that this active involvement by Washington may be winding down. Bill Clinton will soon be replaced at the White House. The two main candidates to replace him have both pledged support for the peace process, but are unlikely to have the same very personal sense of engagement. George Mitchell has made it clear that he does not intend to return to Northern Ireland.
None of this is necessarily a bad thing. As the Taoiseach has reminded us, the task of rebuilding confidence in the Belfast Agreement is likely to take some time - months rather than weeks and possibly longer. What is needed now is for the two governments, visibly working together, to find a way of moving the decommissioning issue onto another political track.
There have been a number of suggestions in recent days - ranging from a pledge to disband the IRA to some form of words which would make it clear that violence is no longer an option - that might provide the basis for a formula acceptable to both sides. But the gulf remains very wide and mistrust continues to sour the atmosphere.
The new threat to David Trimble's leadership, the increase in punishment shootings and beatings, the imminent approach of the marching season all point to difficult times ahead. In this situation, the first priority is to steady the confidence of those in both communities who continue to support the agreement.
It may be that a week of partying in Washington to the strains of Danny Boy will help to set the politicians up for the next stage of this long process. Many of them are clearly exhausted and deserve a break. But the Newsletter is right when it says that the people who voted for the agreement need to see "their referendum decisions firmly, clearly and publicly implemented - where it counts". That can only be done back in Northern Ireland.