On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump said that he would pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, President Barack Obama’s signature trade dealing linking countries around the Pacific Rim, on his first day in office. Immediately before, a gathering of international leaders in Peru gave early hints of what might happen next.

The picture is one of China rushing forward to lead the world’s next trade agreement, with American allies such as Australia and Japan in tow.

Without the U.S., the TPP is effectively done. But international trade negotiations won’t stay quiet for long. America’s largest trading partners are already looking toward the next agreement. That appears likely to put China, Russia and other countries – which the U.S. had pointedly exluded from the TPP, in hopes of encouraging them to improve their trade practices and join at a later date – in a more favorable position to negotiate a trade pact that works for their economies.

At the summit in Peru this weekend, world leaders turned toward two agreements China has been negotiating in the TPP’s shadow. As the U.S. pushed ahead with the TPP in the last several years, China had been pushing for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a deal negotiated among 16 Asian countries that is now close to completion, as well as the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which is open to 21 economies along the Pacific Rim, including China, Russia, Indonesia, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile and the U.S.

In the last few years, the U.S. had persuaded its Pacific trading partners to set aside that second deal, the FTAAP, in favor of the TPP. But now that the TPP appears to be dead, China and other countries are pushing ahead with FTAAP.

Fred Bergsten, senior fellow and director emeritus of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and the author of a blueprint that led to the TPP, said the feeling from the Lima meeting was that the world would continue down a path of trade liberalization, perhaps without the U.S.

“It’s pretty clear the sentiment there was a backlash against a backlash,” he said.

In interviews and an op-ed published before the event, Australian trade minister Steve Ciobo signaled that his country was moving on to the new free trade agreement.

“With the future of the TPP looking grim, my ministerial counterparts and I will work to conclude a study on the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, which sets out agreed actions towards a future free trade zone,” Ciobo said, according to The Guardian.

Following a meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Russian president Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the meeting, China’s foreign ministry announced that China and Russia would work together to promote the free trade area.

Leaders from Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia also confirmed they were shifting their focus to a China-backed deal, while Japan still appeared to be holding out hope that the U.S. would reverse its position on the TPP.

Trump and his trade advisers say that the TPP is a bad deal for the U.S., citing the large numbers of losses in the manufacturing industry and other sectors that have come since the U.S. deepened trade in the 1990s. But Bergsten, a proponent of free trade, argues that being left out of the next global free trade deal will hurt American workers.

While other countries will always hold the door open for an economy as large as the U.S. to join them, they also appear likely to forge a deal without the U.S. If the U.S. does not join, the result would be what economists call “trade diversion” – where lower barriers to trade mean that countries in the pact may choose to buy goods from each other, even if an American-made good is cheaper. That could weigh on American exports and worsen our trade deficit.

The other risk is that China, Russia and other countries will create a trade agreement that is more favorable to them on certain issues, and less favorable to the U.S., Bergsten says.