While highlighting the areas of cooperation with China, US President Donald Trump also identified it as a strategic competitor when he unveiled his national security strategy on Monday.

This is not the first time Washington has defined its ties with Beijing in this way.

Former president George W. Bush also described China as a strategic competitor when he first came to office. Yet over time, Bush came to see China as a "responsible stakeholder", paving the way for years of stability in Sino-US relations.

Likewise, despite his China-bashing rhetoric on the campaign trail, Trump has changed his tune since entering the White House, expressing the wish to build "an even stronger relationship between the US and China".

This is recognition of the fait accompli, for despite their differences, their interests are increasingly interwoven, and as Trump indicated there are many areas of cooperation.

And with the Trump administration saying the strategy outlined in the speech reflects "principled realism" in addressing global threats, there is clearly room for the two sides to work more closely together, not least on issues of common concern such as the nuclear weapons program of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

However, that is on the one hand. On the other, with Trump promoting economic strength as being indispensable for national security, there are likely to be exacerbated frictions over trade, where the two countries are already at odds, with the US following an all-for-itself-path and China advocating further global trade and investment liberalization for the benefit of all.

It is clear that the incumbent administration feels that US is somehow being taken advantage of in trade matters, even though this likely stems from it looking back to a time that has been and gone. Trump's national security adviser H.R. McMaster has hailed the new strategy as a means to help the country reclaim the strategic confidence it had under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, saying the US had vacated a lot of competitive space in recent years.

Yet it is hard to see how the instinct to withdraw from its global leadership commitments, not least combating the real and pressing threat of climate change, will be reconciled with the inclination to make "America great again" — which suggests that we may be in for a bumpy ride.