Two knowledgeable and very experienced (in dealing with both China and India) trade and economic development experts ― Bart Fisher and Arun Tiwari ― have written a completely up-to-date book, “India Wakes: Post Coronavirus New World Order,” on the history and relationships between China, India and the United States (though published in India, it is easily available to U.S. readers through Amazon). Mr. Fisher has been a leading trade lawyer and economist for many decades; and, along with his many other publications, he is the author of a classic book on international trade. Mr. Fisher is also an active international businessman and lawyer, as well as an academic, having taught both economics and trade law at a number of U.S. universities. Mr. Tiwari is a scientist and engineer who has received a number of important rewards for his scientific work. In addition, he has also been heavily involved in both scientific and economic policy in India, serving as adviser to senior Indian government officials. He has co-authored five books with APJ Abdul Kalam, former president of India, and written many other books and important articles. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Tiwari make the case that it is in the long-term interest of U.S.-based companies to shift more of their investment and resources to India. India is increasingly well positioned to replace China as part of the global supply chain, and India is now and likely will continue to be a rapidly growing market. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Tiwari conclude with a series of recommendations that should be taken by both the Indian and U.S. governments to speed and strengthen the economic relationships between the two countries.

India slowly and in fits-and-starts opened up its economy, giving it very modest growth until recent years. India is far more diverse than China with many different ethnic, religious and language groups, with English being the only real national language (which is increasingly proving to be an advantage). The Chinese, being far more brutal in their exercise of power than the Indians, have been able to impose more of a “national culture” and governing system - but even so continue to meet considerable resistance. The Chinese have focused much more than the Indians on building infrastructure. They have built an equivalent to the U.S. interstate highway system, new high-speed railroads and many air and seaports, all of which have reduced transportation costs and time. They have also built many dams, both for flood control and power generation, as well as a large number of coal-fired and nuclear power plants. The Indians have lagged in all of these areas, in part because the national government has limited powers to override local governments. Because there is functional democracy in India - with a number of political parties - along with a bureaucratic state, it becomes relatively easy to block many needed projects. Despite the impediments, India has made considerable economic progress in recent years under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was elected in 2014. Mr. Modi is more of a reformer than his predecessors, but is not a Western-style free marketeer and has protectionist tendencies. Many have argued, including officials of the Trump administration, for a tilt from China toward India. India has many problems but, unlike China, does attempt to follow the rule of law, and abide by intellectual property and trade agreements.

Will China overtake the Untied States and will India catch up to China? The world’s three most populous countries are in an increasingly competitive struggle for global influence and domination. The incredible rise of China over the past three decades took most everyone by surprise, and then the awakening and sudden growth in India has caused another surprise. Forty years ago, both China and India were very poor countries. China was even a bit poorer than India as a result of the imposition of a total Communist system under Mao Zedong. India obtained independence from Britain in 1947, but its first leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, was also a committed socialist who imposed a less authoritarian but very bureaucratic version of socialism on the country. As would be expected, the economic results in both countries were disastrous. China and India each have more than 1.3 billion citizens, with China slightly larger, but India is expected to overtake China in total population within the next few years. Tensions between these neighboring giants have been an eternal fact of life. The border has been in dispute forever and, not long ago, another small clash took place between their respective armed forces, inflaming public opinion in India. After Mao’s death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping gained control. Deng retained the Communist political system but allowed the development of a market economy with private ownership. China was soon able to achieve exceptional growth, with the economy growing more than 10% per year in many years. Forty years of high growth has enabled China to create the world’s second largest economy with per capita incomes equal to middle-income countries.

Growing concerns of expanding Russian influence over Belarus come on the heels of recent reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee and other agencies which once again exposed Moscow’s attempts at political interference in the United States and malign activity against American troops abroad. These developments are no surprise to anyone watching Russia over the last two decades, as the Kremlin has used the same playbook of hybrid warfare in its immediate neighborhood. Deploying political subversion, direct military action and manipulating energy (mostly natural gas) supplies, Moscow is hard at work to weaken its neighbors and pull them firmly into its orbit. This seems to be driven both by Moscow’s post-imperial nostalgia and its apparent paranoia about former Soviet republics getting closer to the West. For Moscow, any sign of independence by its neighbors is a proof of the Western encirclement. Most recently, Russia has managed to set up its fraternal and, at times stubborn, neighbor Belarus for a lose-lose scenario. Eager to teach a lesson to Belarus’ eccentric President Alexander Lukashenko, who has been flirting with the West too much for the Kremlin’s taste, Moscow quietly supported the opposition - ensuring the predictably grotesque reaction by Mr. Lukashenko and the equally predictable response from the West. Whether Mr. Lukashenko stays in power through complete surrender to Moscow or the opposition forces another election, Russia wins by effectively returning full control of Belarus. For other post-Soviet states, these dynamics present a cautionary tale. Moscow has decided to exert pressure on its most independent neighbor, Azerbaijan.

Concurrent to the foregoing geopolitical turmoil two other evident trends ― population growth in emerging markets and urbanization ― pose serious challenges and potential opportunities for all of humankind. Over the next 30 years global population will grow from 7 billion to 10 billion people. Ninety percent of that growth will occur in non-OECD countries and involve migration to cities where they will require a scale of industrial and social services unparalleled in human history. The need for clean electricity, fresh water and nutritious food will be staggering and will constitute the largest management challenge in human history. Clearly the dominant provider of that infrastructure will have gained political control and breathtaking profits and will dominate the world. Today those providers stand to be China and Russia. Nuclear power currently provides the only realistic solution for meeting the predictable demand for clean baseload electricity facing our planet, while concurrently addressing emissions at the scale needed to meet climate objectives. Today state-owned, heavily subsidized entities from Russia and China are capitalizing on this demand for nuclear power, creating alliances in parts of the world that will shape geopolitics for the next 60-100 years (the lifespan of these plants and fuel). Tragically, over the past 40 years our country has allowed its capacity to build nuclear power plants to atrophy, leaving it unable to compete by itself with China and Russia. Considering these realities the need for U.S. leadership, and multinational coordination toward forging partnerships is more critical and urgent than ever.

In 2013, with the arrival in office of President Xi Jinping, China began the roll-out of its Grand Strategy, known internally as Unrestricted Warfare. Originally Mr. Xi cast the strategy publicly in a benign wrapper known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Its purposes and content, however, were unmistakable. In close collaboration with Russia, China sought to penetrate country after country using predatory lending and traditional mercantilism, and by seductive offers to build infrastructure, China has sought to secure control of critical resources, strategic terrain and distant markets. The strategy seeks political and economic dominance through local dependency on Chinese goods and services. In 2018 after securing changes in party rules that virtually assure his chairmanship for life, Mr. Xi accelerated the pace of his effort to expand China’s influence and control throughout the world. For example, today China owns 60% of Congo’s cobalt, much of Chile’s lithium (for batteries), and ports in Sri Lanka, Greece (Piraeus), Italy and others spread throughout Europe. Russia has followed suit, contracting to build four large nuclear power reactors in Egypt and two more units in Turkey that will give it a dominant role on the Suez Canal, and in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Russia already maintains a naval base at Tartus on the coast of Syria. Both China and Russia are expanding into Africa and South America, buying up substantial stakes in mineral resources and focused entrees in energy. In sum, Russia and China are establishing dominance over country after country without having to deploy a soldier, a ship or to fire a shot.

That then is the utility of such covert operations? Most experts believe that Fakhrizadeh was no longer running the program and critical to it as he was in starting Iran’s nuclear program in the post-revolution era, and shaping the weapons phase of the program. Most experts argue that there is no reason to expect his death will have any serious effect on Iran’s current nuclear program. At the same time, his death sends a clear signal to those who are now in charge of the Iranian nuclear weapons program that they are in Israeli crosshairs and could be next. They are not so stupid to believe that their role in the program and locations are somehow secret, and Israel will not stop in eliminating this aspect of the threat. Certainly, they understand their own government is unable to protect them and Israel has the upper hand. So far the Iranian response has been limited to the expected rhetoric vowing revenge. An overt attack by the Iranians in response to covert operations is both unlikely and incredibly stupid. Presumably, Israel has made it clear to the Iranian leadership through some backchannel that such a strike would be out-of-bounds, and the leadership itself would be targets for assassination. Israel has in fact used such threats dealing with the Hamas in Gaza and has previously targeted hostile leaders and their families. The Iranians know this and would hopefully take this into their calculations. A more likely Iranian response would be a covert operation. Clearly, Iran has an internal security problem which it is presently incapable of solving and Israel has no intention of letting them off the hook.

Most recently, the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium is now 12 times the level permitted under the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, and also noted that Iran is adding more advanced centrifuges to speed enrichment. Studies by the BESA Center and others detail how Iran has cheated on what was a flawed agreement while Iran continues to move forward toward an operational nuclear capability. While Israel opposed the 2015 JCPOA, its military and intelligence establishment also opposed a direct military strike on Iran, with or without the U.S., and has focused on covert operations that directly impede the program. One successful effort was the Stuxnet computer worm made public in 2010 that targeted Iranian centrifuges and was attributed to a joint U.S. Israeli operation, and was covertly inserted into the Iranian system by Israeli operatives in Iran. It has been reported that virtually the entire budget of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service, has long been devoted to Iran and has resulted in the most significant clandestine capability the world has seen in many decades. Clearly, Mossad is able to operate with impunity, both in the technical area as well as in assassination of terrorist leaders and key figures in Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Without question these operations are driving the Iranian leadership crazy, and they obviously have no ability to locate or stop Israeli operations. Iran has excelled in suppressing internal dissent and arresting opposition leaders, but has failed miserably in countering Israel. It is a monumental embarrassment to their security services which are unlikely to disrupt future targeted attacks.

The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Iranian nuclear scientist who was a driving force behind Iran’s nuclear weapon program, which most attribute to Israel, poses a difficult problem for the Iranian regime in this time of transition. Fakhrizadeh’ s killing - on a road in east of Tehran - was the third high-profile attack to shake Tehran’s leadership in less than a year, which showed glaring holes in Iran’s intelligence networks - nearly a decade after targeted bombings and gun ambushes killed at least four people with links to the Iranian program. Thus far Israel has declined any comment on the attack, as one might expect with respect to any clandestine or covert operation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously identified Fakhrizadeh and his work as the “father” of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and there is little doubt that this was in fact another Israeli operation aimed at the Iranian nuclear weapons program. In this position Fakhrizadeh was the head of the Amad Plan, as well as Projects 110 and 111, Iran’s the secret nuclear weapons program that sought to develop as many as six nuclear bombs. Underlying such covert operations is the fact that Iran has for years consistently lied about their nuclear weapons program, and public statements that their nuclear program was only for “peaceful purposes” and the weapons program either did not exist or was terminated in 2003 are laughable. A 2018 Israeli operation in Tehran stole thousands of documents related to this program that proved Iran had been lying all along. Documents include reports and handwritten notes signed by Fakhrizadeh, directing a series of experiments aimed at mastering key technical challenges in the construction of a nuclear weapon.

Plastic straws fail the test. Black plastic sushi trays that can’t be recycled don’t make it either. Baked goods could be put in paper, instead of plastic without significant consequence. Consider a plastic version of the Department of Agriculture food pyramid. At the top are those plastics that are linked to health and safety needs ? including packaging for perishable foods that easily promote bacteria, purified water and medical supplies. Second tier are those plastics which can be substituted. Eating cutlery or wraps for foods that don’t easily spoil are good examples. Remember paper cups? They can often replace plastic. The bottom tier of the pyramid includes low-value resins that are commonly found in unnecessary packaging. Perhaps the most familiar example are the billions of Amazon Prime shipments that crisscross the country every year. Admittedly, there are tradeoffs for some of these shifts that have their own consequences. Use paper to replace bubble wraps or wood forks to replace plastic and we will need to cut down more trees. Using aluminum cans or glass to replace plastic soda bottles is akin to chasing your tail. Those materials still need to be recycled and the production process of these alternatives can have a larger environmental footprint. We could ask more people to use their own refillable water container but know that the water often fails safe-water standards with a disproportionate threat to infants, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. As with most major societal problems there are no easy answers. But there is always a place to start. The need for more recycling containers is a priority, as well as strategies to encourage personal responsibility.