EVERYONE IN our inter-connected world lost out in Geneva last week when the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks finally collapsed, but the deal on the table was neither in the interests of the developing world nor in the interests of Scotland's farmers. Better no deal (yet) than this bad one.

Without doubt the world needs a deal of some sort. Pressure is now on to ensure a just settlement before the world trade system breaks down into warring blocs. Faced with this prospect, a strong internationalist Scottish voice on the world stage is needed more than ever.

In 2001, when the WTO's Doha round of negotiations was launched in Qatar, it was presented as an effort to focus on needs of the world's poorer nations. These nations have the most to gain from the liberalisation of global trade, though the developed world would also win. Economists have long been united in the belief that liberalising trade from the shackles of national protectionism generates long-term gains for rich and poor countries alike.

But there's the rub. What happened last week was that pro-developing world rhetoric was not matched by the mercantilist reality behind those generating that rhetoric. The cause of the impasse was the extent to which developing countries, led by India, were willing to compromise on lowering tariff barriers to Western goods (known as "special safeguard measures" or SSMs), especially in agriculture.

In one corner, big countries like India and China wanted to hang on to a flexible SSM regime to protect their subsistence farmers from large influxes of imports from highly competitive - or highly subsidised - agricultural exporters. In the other corner, the US, backed by some major developing-country exporters, especially in South America, wanted the SSM regime to allow them access to these markets.

The EU, acting for Scottish and UK interests, was not actually a key player in that particular dispute, though that is not to say that I think that EU policy was on the right lines. The EU has been championing Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between individual countries and the EU, designed to open up mutual market access.

I went to Zambia and Ethiopia last year to see what Africa thinks of these EPAs. The verdict was unanimously negative. For example, the EU-Zambia agreement opens up the EU market to Zambian goods - good news for Zambia on the face of it.

But it also opens up the Zambian market to EU companies, and I do not believe that it is equitable, or in the interests of Zambia's painfully fragile economy, to allow EU access without adequate control by the Zambian national interest.

EPAs have been opposed by Scottish MEPs, NGOs, churches and others. Scotland, which witnessed a million people marching in Edinburgh for trade justice, is an internationalist nation. We recognise the fraud inherent in pretending that developing economies are as robust as ours.

The collapsed WTO deal, the only deal on offer, would not only have opened up the developing world to inappropriate competition, but there would have been implications closer to home as well. Scotland's dairy, beef, pig and poultry sectors were also at risk of substandard imports.

To contemplate one standard for domestic produce but another for imports was a concession too far. Given all the downsides to the deal that is now going cold in Geneva, I say better no deal than this bad one.

So what now? The timing of last week's landmark breakdown is not good. Elections loom in the US and India later this year, as well as in Europe in June next year. With negotiation fatigue well entrenched in Geneva and political attention wavering - especially in the US - it seems unlikely that a major deal will be done soon. The Doha round is not quite dead, but it is fading fast.

But all is not lost. Some issues, such as duty-free, quota-free market access for least developed countries, aid for trade and the "enhanced integrated framework" of assistance to least developed countries were agreed, and will be banked for the next round of talks, whenever they start. A face-saving agreement might be cobbled together from these points and we can look towards a more fruitful new round.

This is important. The WTO, for all its faults, is the only organisation that is looking for a global solution. The alternative is thousands of EPAs, and then the poor really will lose out, and fast. Globalisation has been, and can continue to be, a positive force for all trading nations, but only if world trade talks are open to all countries participating as equals before international law, rich and poor.

Too idealistic? Maybe. But if you think the US is powerful when pitched against India in the WTO, imagine what would happen if the negotiation was just between the two of them, without wider considerations.

Doha has disappointed, but we must begin again. We need a new round, with trade justice at its heart and citizens in charge rather than companies with loyalty only to themselves and their shareholders.

Alyn Smith is SNP MEP for Scotland