Is New Zealand kidding itself?

China and the United States are at war. It is not a hot war. It is not yet a cold war. But it is a trade war. The New York Times recently reported from one of the front lines of the war. In North Dakota, a soybean farmer who had done well out of China watched as mountains of unsold soybeans grew larger and larger. It was a simple way to illustrate that US soybean sales to China are down 94 per cent from 2017.

Blame the tariffs. Under President Donald Trump, the US has put tariffs on US$250 billion (NZ$365b) in Chinese products in the four months since July 2018. China has responded with US$110b in tariffs and is likely to add more in January 2019.

The US applied the tariffs over what it called years of unfair trade practices by China. The Chinese refusal to sign up to eradicating such practices has been identified as a key reason why this year’s AsiaPacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting was the first in 25 years to conclude without leaders agreeing on a formal joint statement.

‘‘There are differing visions on particular elements,’’ was the carefully coded diplomatic language used by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Somewhere in the middle of all this we find small, independent-minded New Zealand. Can we really be a bridge or honest broker between the warring economic superpowers, as Trade Minister David Parker has put it, or is New Zealand kidding itself?

Make no mistake. The trade war also has a strategic military dimension. We saw that flare up during an unguarded moment at the start of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Asean meeting with

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Bypassing the usual ceremonial pleasantries, Mohamad jumped straight into questioning what he saw as New Zealand’s inaction over China’s role in the ongoing South China Sea dispute. It left Ardern looking exposed.

The South China Sea issue is also behind the recent US announcement of a new naval base to be built on Manus Island.

The irony for New Zealand is that we hope, perhaps naively, to maintain beneficial trade relationships with China while we also recognise the growing strategic issues. Recent Defence papers have alluded to the growing threat of Chinese influence in the Pacific, which is presented within the infrastructure programme known as the Belt and Road Initiative. It has been reported that, since Apec, both Tonga and Vanuatu have signed up to the programme.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters’ ‘‘Pacific reset’’ earlier in 2018 was seen as a clear sign New Zealand’s strategic thinking towards China had evolved. When the previous Government signed up to Belt and Road, Peters was the Opposition’s most vocal critic.

Some of the same difficulties around independence and neutrality in the face of an expanding, ambitious superpower can be seen in the troubling case of Canterbury University professor Anne-Marie Brady, a China expert whose home and office were broken into and her car allegedly sabotaged. Brady believes the events are connected to her work. By referring to this simply as a matter for the police, Ardern risks minimising an attack on academic freedom and independence that could have chilling implications.

‘‘Can we really be a bridge or honest broker between the warring economic superpowers, as Trade Minister David Parker has put it ... ?’’