Having completed a whirlwind 12-day tour of East Asia with stops in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, China and the Philippines last month, President Donald Trump declared the trip a resounding success.

While in China, the president was given a warm welcome by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who spared no effort honoring the U.S. president and First Lady Melania Trump. As noted by media, the two leaders seem to have developed a very good personal rapport with one another and even a degree of bonhomie, as evidenced by the many personal flourishes between the two.

On his return to the Oval Office, President Trump Donald John TrumpBubba Wallace to be driver of Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin NASCAR team Graham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Southwest Airlines, unions call for six-month extension of government aid MORE signaled the possibility of initiating trade action against China. Specifically, he directed the U.S. Department of Commerce to cite China with unfair trade practice as it applies to the importation of China made steel and aluminum.

ADVERTISEMENT

This move has many puzzled. Why the about-face? This move seems at odds to the goodwill enjoyed between the two on this most recent summit.

In actuality, the divergence between words and deeds should not come as a surprise. With tensions escalating on the Korean Peninsula, the president is prepared to link economic interest to security interest and use that as a catalyst to motivate China to do more with regard to North Korea.

There is a clear and present danger presented to the United States and its allies should North Korea successfully develop a nuclear weapon with long-range delivery capability. The security interests at stake cannot be overstated given the nature of the threat.

The United States has demonstrated great restraint with regard to North Korea. Time and again, diplomatic dialog and economic sanction has been preferred over overt military action. As North Korea continues on its path toward the development of ballistic missile capability, a point of no return may come. This is a high stakes game that will lead to very dire outcomes.

What are the stakes for China? If things spiral out of control, China will have a lot to lose. Since the 1980s China’s rise and economic transformation was accomplished through manufacturing and exports.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the ensuing decades leading to the present, China enjoyed the benefits of becoming the world’s factory floor, exporting all manner of consumer goods and industrial products. As the Cold War drew to a close and the Soviet bloc collapsed, China found itself at a crossroads.

They asked themselves whether it would be better to sell to the former Soviet republics or to sell to the United States. China chose the United States and rightly so. It was far better to sell products into a market that had both the size and wealth to purchase its products.

As a result, China’s rise was accompanied by having the right friends in the right places. China’s growth would not have gone as far and as fast had the United States not opened its markets to its prodigious export machine.

History offers us lessons on economic and social progress. More often than not, economic progress is accompanied by the stability that peace offers. Instability and wars lead to a disruption in trade. Cargoes cannot be shipped and transit secured if chaos prevails.

The Roman Empire lasted as long as it did due to the overwhelming might of the Roman legion. Roman fighting forces possessed such lethal military capability that rival states and tribes dare not provoke Rome lest they suffer the consequences.

Under the Roman Peace or “Pax Romana,” allied regions and tribes conformed to Roman authority because their lives were far more predictable and secure knowing the Roman army was around to police the territory.

The same can be said to hold true today. China has enjoyed over three decades of uninterrupted, stable and rising trade. It’s cargoes of clothing, consumer goods and iPhones get to their intended destinations safely and efficiently as a result of the peace that has been secured by the United States and the protective umbrella of its extensive navy.

The same can be said of the many imports that transit to China, including its vital energy imports from the Middle East. A destabilized Korean Peninsula can change all of that. War is by its very nature destabilizing, carrying with it a wide range of disruptions including trade.

When viewed in this manner, it is not in China’s vested interest to allow a destabilized and potentially war-torn North Korea. Perhaps President Trump’s latest move was meant as a reminder of that.

Arthur Dong is a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. He specializes in legal and business engagements between China and the United States.