The attacks of Sept. 11 and the resulting "war on terrorism."

President Bush's State of the Union address, seeming to foreshadow a new unilateralism in the American world outlook.

The collapse of Enron.

The last of these probably did not "change everything" as many believe the terrorist attacks did, and might not have the long-term significance for the world of a U. S. "go it alone" approach.

At the moment, however, the fall of the seventh-largest American corporation into bankruptcy, disgrace and possible criminal liability may have been the worst shock to American complacency since the Great Depression, confirming old suspicions, undermining new certainties, angering not just Enron's victimized workers, pensioners and shareholders but a wide spectrum of the uninvolved public.

For the political and economic leaders from abroad who had gathered in New York for the World Economic Forum, the Enron spectacle dominated headlines, news broadcasts and private conversation. The sordid story is bound to have diminished their confidence in America's governing and regulatory processes, perhaps in its investment possibilities, and in the touted "new economy" of which the failed company was believed to be the star.

For millions of Americans, at least for those of a certain age, the economic "ground zero" surrounding the shell of Enron, revived ancient suspicions of the honesty and intentions of "big business," big banks, big lawyers, big money ­ suspicions never entirely erased by the prosperity and stock-market "exuberance" of recent years.

Enron's fall ­ symbolically if not actually as horrific as the collapse of the World Trade Center towers ­ fanned the equally persistent belief that business interests, with their lavish campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, are able to "buy" a corrupt political process that, so far from guarding the public interest, promotes private greed.

The spectacular demise of a company once considered a model for the economic future, and the apparent complicity of its hired auditors and attorneys ­ they can be bought too -- may even prove a caution to those eager to rely on "the market" alone, for everything from riches to retirement.

Finally, the spectacle of Enron executives making a killing in stock sales while their employees lost everything, must have re-enforced the nearly theological conviction of many here and abroad that the wealthy and powerful are moved mainly by greed, and lack essential concern for the world's less fortunate millions.

Even the press, which likes to regard itself as a "watchdog" of the public interest, mostly cheered on Enron until Gotterdamerung arrived, rather than questioning and investigating what , in retrospect, looks like a house of cards. And what about those "experts" who advised buying Enron stock even after those who knew better were bailing out?

Enron's failure, dramatic as it was, could not entirely overshadow, however, the World Economic Forum's more accustomed agenda - the problems of rich and poor nations in trying to make "globalization" work for all.

On that front, too, with the world economy ­ including that of the United States --in slowdown, the news was mostly bad.

Forum-goers had to face the facts that after growing throughout the Nineties, global trade slumped to virtual stagnation in 2001. Foreign investment declined to barely half that of the year 2000. Argentina defaulted on its $155 billion debt, though it had abolished trade barriers, opened its capital markets and welcomed foreign investors. On top of the Sept. 11 terrorist shocks, numerous speakers suggested that these developments might have signaled a practical end to globalization.

Security concerns, following Sept. 11, certainly will not help matters. Higher insurance premiums are certain; longer border delays and higher transportation costs are likely. The movements of peoples, particularly out of underdeveloped nations, will be more restricted. The World Bank has estimated that air freight costs alone have risen by about 15 percent since Sept. 11. Tourism, a mainstay for many developing economies, has been hard hit. On the other hand, a U. N. survey showed that 70% of those responding expected a rise in investment and employment in their foreign operations over the next three years.

Global integration, however, has always been uneven and nothing said at the WEF suggested much change. A World Bank study found that 24 nations with 3 billion people, including China, Argentina, Brazil, India and the Philippines, have improved growth rates in the last 20 years, while their poverty rates declined. But another 2 billion people were found to be living in countries ­ including much of Africa -- that have become less "globalized, with diminishing trade, stagnant growth rates, rising poverty and falling income per person.

A major problem facing the underdeveloped world is the reluctance of the wealthy United States to increase its foreign-aid level, now the lowest of any industrialized nation. U. S. aid now totals only a tenth of one percent of gross domestic product, with much of that meager sum devoted to Israel; and the political prospect for a more generous approach is all but non-existent, given the lukewarm attitude of the Bush Administration. At the WEF, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill frequently indicated that he does not favor an increase in aid until he sees concrete evidence ­ such as rising living standards ­ that aid is working actually to help developing nations. That evidence is scarce, so world aid levels are not likely to increase if the wealthiest of nations refuses to show the way.

Even more ominous are population projections. In the next 20 years, total world population may decline slightly, but 2 billion more people will be living in the developing world, many of them in countries that now would have to be rated economic failures. Unless these nations can somehow be brought into the international economy, their population increases alone will render true "globalization" all but hopeless.