Well, the Hong Kong authorities are clearing up their city, no doubt relieved that the worst of their fears about the likely scale and violence of the protests proved unfounded, writes Caroline Lucas.
NGOs are issuing their final press releases and packing their bags, while exhausted trade ministers and their teams already left some hours ago, each no doubt assessing how best to put a brave face on a bad deal.
Accusations of rich country betrayals and broken promises abound. Headlines speak of the trade round being left on "life support", of aid packages being dismissed as bribes, and of fury on the streets turning to gloom.
The endgame sadly has a weary predictability about it. The script could well have been written weeks, if not months, ago.
It was clear that the EU would resist going further on agriculture, that the US would avoid giving anything significant on cotton, but that they would both combine to try to force developing countries to open up their markets for manufactured goods and services.
It was clear, too, that their strategy would be whitewashed with the tediously repeated mantra of a "development round", and that a few symbolic gestures of marginal benefit would be dressed up as genuine progress on poverty eradication.
Perhaps now is a timely moment to consider what comes next.
The compromise agreement cobbled together in Hong Kong on Sunday was achieved only at the cost of postponing until next year all the most difficult negotiations, with a further meeting pencilled into ministerial diaries for Geneva in the spring.
But before we rush to arrange our travel arrangements, book our rooms for the protest meetings and plan the demonstrations, we would do well to consider the bigger picture.
According to the bicycle theory of world trade, trade liberalisation has to keep moving forwards otherwise it risks falling and failing.
For those who are looking in the right direction, there is an extremely large juggernaut bearing down on the trade system, which is likely to send the (already distinctly wobbly) bicycle crashing to the ground.
The juggernaut is China, a country which has kept a low profile during the Hong Kong meeting, but which nevertheless poses an extraordinary challenge, not just to the world trade system, but to the theory of free trade itself.
Proponents of the current free-trade orthodoxy which underpins the WTO argue that, although some jobs in the north are lost, either to imports or because factories move to cheap labour countries like China or India, on balance everyone benefits.
The bulk of this work is labour-intensive and lower-skilled, they argue, and can be done more efficiently by countries that have an abundance of less-educated workers.
In return, those countries buy more of our higher-value goods made by skilled workers - for which we have a comparative advantage.
In theory, the lost jobs and lower wages in the industrialised countries are more than offset, leading to more robust exports and lower prices on imported goods.
But with the rise of China, and the increasing number of TNCs (transnational corporations) which are choosing to base themselves there, attracted by a combination of low wages and increasingly high technical expertise, we are faced with a country that doesn't just have a comparative advantage - but rather an almost absolute advantage in an increasing number of sectors.
But this is a triumph for multinational capital, not for Chinese workers who, as well as suffering from some of the worst labour exploitation on record, are also losing jobs at a phenomenal rate.
In textiles, for example, in order to be competitive enough to drive others out of business, the Chinese sector shed over 50% of jobs between 1996 and 2001, throwing over 3 million people out of work.
The costs of competition from China-based companies to a growing number of poorer developing countries are also increasing, with jobs lost and markets destroyed.
As far as the EU is concerned, the response from trade commissioner Peter Mandelson is complacent and patronising.
All the EU has to do to remain competitive is to move up the value-added chain into high-tech sectors, he asserts.
Yet such complacency is completely undermined by the fact that companies in China are already moving in precisely that direction themselves.
On my way to Hong Kong, I visited Guandong province - the fastest growing region in China - and have lost count of the number of provincial government officials who assured me that their strategy was exactly that.
There is already a significant body of empirical evidence that the WTO's neoliberal free trade dogma is failing the poor, and destroying the environment - hence the resistance of so many poor countries to open their markets at rich countries' behest.
Combine that with growing evidence from China that very soon whole sectors of global trade will be dominated by companies operating out of just one or two countries, and it's clear that the whole free trade project is in question.
So as the bicycle wobbles on its way towards the next major WTO meeting in Geneva, we should be there not with a bicycle pump and a repair kit, but with a blueprint for a completely different vehicle - based on managed markets, and tariffs and quotas where necessary, that will allow the gains from international trade to benefit the majority of the world's people, rather than the self-interest of the powerful minority and transnational corporations.
*Caroline Lucas is the Green party MEP for south-east England. Read her blogposts from last week.
