Seven years of talks have yet to produce an actual agreement at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiators reported progress in the latest round, but a dispute between the United States and India over protections for domestic agricultural goods blocked a final deal. India favored measures to protect farmers in poor countries; the U.S. was against it.

There is some reason, I suppose, to be optimistic. Participants such as U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said a final deal was “so close.” Celso Amorim, Brazil’s foreign minister, said that an “outside observer” — say, someone from another planet — “would not believe that, after the progress made, we could not conclude.”

Members of the European Commission seemed especially frustrated. European Commission spokesman Peter Power called the failure to reach a final deal a massive blow to the confidence in the global economy. Participants seemed ready to blame the United States for the collapse of the talks. Indonesian trade minister Mari Pangestu complained that “a key country is not going to show flexibility,” avoiding naming the United States explicitly but leaving little doubt about which country he meant.

But while freer trade could boost a faltering economy and lower rising prices for consumer goods, representatives from other countries are sensitive too to the political dangers of trying to sell that stance back home. People worldwide, not just Americans, are suspicious of free trade deals.

European powers like France and Italy that are trapped in economic stagnation are reluctant to embrace further liberalization of trade rules, for example.

That is a frustrating stance to people like Norbert Walter, chief economist of Deutsche Bank. According to Walter, politicians have it backwards: Trade liberalization will boost national economies, not make them worse.

But any further negotiations will likely have to wait until next year due in large measure to the race for president. The trouble is that by then, an important window of opportunity may have closed.

One benefit of soaring food prices has been that farmers in the United States and the European Union (EU) have been less reliant on government subsidies to make a living. And those agriculture subsidies are always a sensitive subject to handle in WTO trade talks. It stands to reason that if the subsidies are less important to farmers, they will be more willing to see them disappear. But food prices could fall as quickly as they rose, and the pressure to protect subsidies in developed countries could return.

Given that the negotiations flopped largely due to agricultural issues, it is hard to see how another WTO round could end in success if the economic conditions “down on the farm” do worsen. Debate over trade rules attracts legions of lobbyists, of course, and farm lobby groups have proven particularly powerful during the WTO trade talks.

Farmers have heavily lobbied delegations from both the United States and Europe, and frankly, business groups that hold a more liberal view of trade deals haven’t been able to compete.

Agricultural interests make up less than 2 percent of the national GDP in the U.S. and the EU, but their political power is much larger.

The fact remains, however, that the WTO is not just about agriculture. It is about global economic stability in an unstable world. We need an international organization that we can rely upon to solve our economical and political disputes peacefully. Therefore, we need to give those organizations the necessary tools and power to fulfill their tasks.

There will always be a need for compromise to move forward. The EU, which has to manage the diverse interests of its member states, is used to cutting deals. The United States may need some further instruction in this regard.

Geiger is founder and managing partner of Alber & Geiger, a leading EU government relations law firm with offices in Brussels and Berlin. Before that, Geiger was head of the EU Law Center of Ernst & Young, and president and CEO of Cassidy & Associates Europe. He has written a handbook on lobbying the EU.