International trade talks are never easy but the negotiations in Seattle last week - where trade ministers failed to agree on the terms on which to launch a new round of talks - have sent out some very worrying signals. The meeting was ill-prepared, the agenda overloaded and participation unbalanced between developed and developing states. The well-publicised protests have put the effects of economic globalisation firmly on the international political agenda.
As ever in talks of this kind, the various negotiating parties are all pointing the finger accusingly at each other. The United States, and some of the developing countries, have long complained about the European Union's reluctance to dismantle elements of its subsidies to agriculture which are again a contentious issue. Many of the participating nations accused the US delegation of playing too much to the home gallery and not doing enough to seek compromise.
Many of the developing countries complained about being excluded from key negotiations in Seattle. Making progress in international trade talks requires finding a balance between the conflicting economic and political interests of the many different participants. The correct balance was not found in Seattle.
More worrying is that the whole way such talks are conducted, has now been called into question. It is no exaggeration to say that the World Trade Organisation is now in crisis. Limited talks on agriculture and services will commence next year at its headquarters in Geneva, but its director general, Mr Michael Moore, faces a difficult task in rebuilding the credibility of the organisation and launching a wider range of negotiations. His first job is to look at the way the talks should be conducted. New procedures, put in place in Seattle to try to give a bigger say to the developing countries, failed completely and were abandoned towards the end of the week.
A new, more inclusive process must be found. The developing states complain legitimately that the old system, in which the big players thrashed out a deal between themselves, can no longer apply. Mr Moore also faces other problems familiar from former talks. The US, the EU and Japan would not agree a plan to cut tariffs on imports from developing countries as a signal of intent for the new round. And the EU's system of subsidising agriculture remains a major bugbear for the US, other major agricultural exporters such as Canada, Argentina and Australia, and much of the developing world.
This issue of agriculture has been seen as central to Ireland's interests and there will be some relief among farmers that big reductions in export subsidies are not now on the immediate agenda. The farm organisations have, quite legitimately, been to the fore in putting forward the views of their members on this issue. But as a major exporting State, Ireland has a strong vested interest in the continued development of free trade - interests are now much wider than the agricultural issue.
The danger, after Seattle, is that as the momentum to free trade falters, damaging disputes may flair up and lead to a reversal to old protectionist measures. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. The negotiating states and the WTO must now work to put the trade talks back on track, recognising that the needs of all 135 parties to the discussions must be taken into account in setting the new agenda.