and every time it's brought up China gets very paranoid so that tension is just continuing to rise and the disagreements are continuing to rise so the policy implications that come out of this strategic ambiguity as we saw was largely a success in the 1970s and 80s because it was able to foster a little bit more cooperation with the United States having a more hands-off approach but since China has grown in strength and since the third Taiwan straight crisis things have reached such a breaking point that strategic ambiguity is causing more harm than good because both countries are incredibly paranoid of one another and they're both willing to go to war at any time so because of this policy consideration that I thought would be applicable to the situation we need to push for cultural reunification while maintaining Taiwan as a politically autonomous state so as I mentioned before when strategic ambiguity was successful in the 70s and 80s they were able to foster a relationship where they could see themselves as one China but they were politically different things have not been that cool ever since in my opinion so if we can try to push for a more positive outcome from that where they can see themselves as culturally Chinese but politically different that would be huge and then decreasing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan that would allow the United States to remain more neutral instead of adding to that tension that I mentioned of that arms recycle pulling the United States out of that might help to ease tensions as well showing China that they are more neutral than in favor of Taiwan and then setting concrete boundaries making the United States like a referee so basically saying if you cross this line then the United States is going to militarily interfere on whichever countries involved so saying missile testing in this location is too close in Taiwan China will be attacked by the United States and that would allow for a peaceful cooperation between the two countries and that would start to lower that tension that I mentioned before so my conclusion strategic ambiguity was overall an initial success but as we started to see that arms recycle that started to create as China gained more prominence and more power has done more harm than good and so strategic ambiguity is more of a focal point of disagreement successful easing of tension the United States still maintains an idealistic view of democracy so we need to make sure that Taiwan remains politically independent however we can't allow for any large scale conflict to be a result of this so in order to do that we need to push for political autonomy but cultural reunification and we need to remove conflict friction points in the Taiwan Strait and create a specific policy that prevents both nations from doing military testing or anything conflict brewing in the Taiwan Strait so that concludes my presentation thank you very much good afternoon everyone my name is Caleb Riley thank you all for letting me come here as a West Pointer and talk to the oldest private military college in the United States it's truly my honor to be here briefly what I'm going to talk today about is the Yugoslavia Civil War and the Allies between 1941 and 1945 as your mayor may not know a civil war raged alongside the conventional war during World War II inside of Yugoslavia and this resulted in massive violence and destruction within the country of Yugoslavia resulting in upwards of 1.75 million deaths which is one of the highest per capita casualty rates of any nation during World War II to talk about this we're going to look at the background of Yugoslavia briefly as well as what the beginning of the war looked like and then we're going to examine the competing factions within Yugoslavia and how the civil war and the misunderstanding of it led to the changing Allied support that waxed and waned and evolved throughout the war finally we'll look at the outcome of the war before I conclude so Yugoslavia was formed following World War I as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes interestingly those nations although they had always been under some sort of empirical power they had never been united under one flag prior to the Treaty of Versailles established it in 1918-1919 what we saw is that it was established under an organization that was highly favorable towards the ethnic majority which were the Serbs. The Serbs were riding a wave of high esteem following their performance during the Balkans war in 1913 as well as Serb perceived military preeminence during World War I this establishment of the government that was favorable towards Serbia may have been beneficial to the Serbs in the short run but in the long run and especially by the time we got to World War II it was highly detrimental to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the 1920s and the 1930s ethnic relations between the majority Serbs and the next highest ethnic minority Croats continually deteriorated this included leaders of political parties being assassinated on the steps of parliament it included Croatian political representative refusal to participate within the Yugoslav parliament which only led to more more problems between the Croats and Serbs and all of this was occurring during the Great Depression it was occurring while war clouds were on the horizon Yugoslavia desperately clung to its neutral status but they were seeking help from the allies unfortunately for them the British and the French specifically were in no position to offer extra support to Yugoslavia Germany on the other hand had great strategic interest down in the Balkans regions especially the oil fields of Romania the minerals within Yugoslavia itself as well as the large workforce potential that was located within Yugoslavia in 1939 in late 1940 Germany made some strong pushes to gain Yugoslav to force Yugoslavia to join the tripartite pact but the Yugoslav region continually demurred however that changed on 25 March 1941 Yugoslavia assented to the tripartite pact but they actually secured some pretty important provisos in there for themselves including no need for them to provide soldiers to support the Axis war machine no need to allow Germany to station their troops inside Yugoslavia although that's questionable and then it also had some post war guarantees on behalf of the Axis for Yugoslavia however the previous 20 years of discontentment finally boiled over two days later and on 27 March there was a coup that rapidly overthrew the government when Hitler heard of this coup he was thrown into a rage and he immediately said we will crush Yugoslavia and the exact quote is with merciless brutality and that they did on 6 April the Axis invaded Yugoslavia and a mere 12 days later Yugoslavia was completely under Axis control this is truly a fascinating military accomplishment but the reason that they were so successful partly is because they negotiated a separate peace independent nation of Croatia and the independent nation of Croatia is was led by an individual named Antipavlic and Antipavlic was actually a member of a terribly brutal fascist party called the Ustaja and the Ustaja promised to be able to control Croatia and provide a good level of security which is exactly what Hitler needed at that point in time as you may or may not know was supposed to start on 12 May which is just a mere month later so he needed to make sure that his southern flank was secured that he had Axis unfettered to those oil fields in the Balkans and that Yugoslavia was not a problem unfortunately for him by placing the Ustaja in charge they were actually not widely regarded by the Croats themselves so the leaders of the independent nation of Croatia were actually ill prepared to govern a state that did not actually want them in charge Germany for its part in the areas that it did personally control used the same brutal tactics their same brutal occupation tactics that they had throughout Europe and for every German soldier that was wounded 50 Yugoslav civilians would be killed and for every German soldier that was killed in this grid Yugoslav citizens would be killed and this played a major role in how these competing factions ended up using the Axis for their own advantage so if we look at the Ustaja which I briefly touched on it was led by Antipavich they were ardently Croat they were a fascist organization and they relied heavily on Catholicism they relied heavily on Catholic priests to help them with their mission the Ustaja ruled brutally they have the unfortunate misnomer of being the only individuals outside of Germany's sphere to enact their own concentration camp and at the Yasenovic concentration camp upwards of 400,000 Serbs and Jews were brutally murdered by the Ustaja if we look at the other two competing factions within the Yugoslav Civil War we have the Chetniks and the Partisans the Chetniks were actually not one main group of organized resistance and that led to a lot of the missteps and miscues by the allies over the course of the war but the main Chetnik band that was recognized by the allies was led by an individual named Drager Mihailovich Mihailovich was not some sort of guerrilla warfare genius in fact he was a moderately performing staff officer at outset of the war and he just refused to give in but being that he was loyal to the monarch that was at this time in exile in London and that he was willing to carry the flag so to speak within Yugoslavia the allies initially put all of their support behind him the last competing faction within Yugoslavia was called the Partisans it was the National Army of Liberation and they were led by a little known communist named Josep Broz Tito and Tito was ardently communist however at the behest of the Soviet Union they did not emphasize their communism so much as they did their Pan-Jugoslavism so in other words their nationalism and their pride in being Yugoslavian, vice being Croatian or Montenegro or Serbian or Orthodox or Catholic they just emphasized that they needed to be a national unit that resisted the Axis invaders the problem is as you can tell from my very clear chart is that it's confusing and this is on paper so imagine if you are on the ground and you are trying to decide who is friend or foe and if you are not even speaking the language and they themselves are speaking a mixture of different languages it's very difficult to figure out who to support and the other problem is that the moniker Chetnik was used to describe Croatian Ustazia who believed that they were performing the work of the greatness of the Balkan nations it was also used by Draža Mojilović's the term Partisan is often just applied to any guerrilla band so whenever you read Axis reports of guerrilla activity they often mention the Partisans well you don't know if they were talking about Tito's Partisans or if they were talking about the Chetniks because they simply used the term Partisan so when the allies tried to figure out who they were going to support they waxed and waned and frankly got it right and sometimes they got it wrong and this really fueled the civil war as you can imagine guns and ammo and food and medical supplies were hard to come by within Yugoslavia and initially supporting Draža Mojilović in 1941 and 1942 Mojilović didn't really want to conduct very many kinetic operations and this was actually in line with allied policy and the reason it was in line with allied policy is because they had their hands full in North Africa and they were in a position to provide really any large support so Mojilović took a step back because he didn't want to suffer the consequences by the hands of the Germans on the other hand the Partisans who also weren't really receiving any allied support at this time used the German reprisals as a recruiting method they said if you're with us we will protect you we will take it to the fight of these evil Germans if you are against us we will also crush you we crush the Germans the problem is that Churchill was a very pragmatic individual and when he was asked how are you going to support this communist band he said first off he said that well I'm not going to be governed by them following the war so it shows a very pragmatic whoever is killing Germans was his friend and that was ultimately what led the big shift in 1943 to to move allied support from primarily being the Chetniks to being primarily behind the Partisans we still saw a confused policy though because there was a lot of politics and distrust between the US and the UK both supporting various factions within Yugoslavia and ultimately what we end up seeing is that a lot of the guns that were provided by the British or the Americans were used respectively by the Partisans and by the Chetniks not to fight the Germans or the Italians but instead to fight each other and so this brutal civil war was waged and it was fueled by allied guns and war material there were some really compelling missions that took place that used the support of both the Chetniks and the Partisans most notably Operation Halyard so between August and December of 1944 Operation Halyard rescued about 800 allied airmen who had been downed throughout Yugoslavia this is really an incredible story because they rescued all of those people 12 people at a time per plane load so 800 divided by 12 publicly educated in Alaska I'm not going to do the math up here it was a lot of airplanes in single runs the Soviets didn't ever actually really support the Partisans as much as you would expect until they showed up in October of 1944 and then it was really in a paternalistic manner and this set this set Tito off as you can see in this quote Tito was going to be no one's little brother Tito viewed himself as the leader of a great power nation and did not think that he owed the Soviets anything and in fact he wanted to seat at the table bt the men and the men and so you will see there if you go on for the next 20 years so this is really good and you get to see what Tito did and what he did and what he did and it was a real very successful a real successful and a very well-urned Tito has approached to the movement for the remainder of his life, which was an organization of communist nations, third world communist nations, that he encouraged to not bow to Russian pressure. It's really a fascinating thing. War continued in Yugoslavia, though, seven days after Europe, after it ended in the rest of Europe. Draza Mahalovic was tried in June of 1946. I'm sure it was a fair trial, after which he was immediately shot. An anti-Pavlovic fled to Argentina, where he was shot in 1957, and he died a slow and painful death two years later. Finally, as I sum it up, I love this picture of Sipa and Fulopovich because it's so powerful. It shows you the emotion behind a civil war. So Fulopovich was a partisan leader who was captured in 1942, and as he's here, about to be hung, his final words were death to fascism, freedom to the people. And if you look really close at the picture, you see that he's being hung not by Germans or Italians, but he's being hung by Ustaja militants. He's being hung by his own people. And that truly is the travesty of the Yugoslavia civil war during World War II. So thank you for your time today. That concludes my brief. How y'all doing? My name's John Walsh. I'm here to present about my paper, a continuation of a dictatorship, how U.S. policy and practice led to the continuation of Saddam's regime in the eyes of the Iraqi people. So before we start, I want to go over some key terms that I believe are necessary to understand. From our first two terms come from MCRP05, TAG 12 Alpha, operational terms and graphics. So that is what the U.S. military officially, how the U.S. military officially defines these terms. Control, a tactical mission, task that requires the commander to maintain physical influence over a specified area to prevent its use by an enemy. Occupy, a tactical mission task that involves a force moving into an area so that it can control the entire area. Both the forces' movement to the occupation of the area occur without enemy opposition. And finally, insurgency. Insurgency is an uprising, organized uprising that uses violent and nonviolent means to overthrow an existing government or to arrest away control, either de jure or de facto, over part of their territory. When I say insurgency, I do not mean terrorist, okay? There are very two very different things. And if you like to talk about that, I'll talk about that during question and answer period. So my key tax and thesis. In my paper, I primarily use literature specifically theater from Iraq. I use the plays Ishtar and Baghdad by Rasha Fadhil, A Strange Bird on a Roof, published in Contemporary Plays from Iraq by Amir al-Azraqi. And finally, the book, Night Draws Near by Anthony Shadeed. These works demonstrate how the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. in 2003 was not an end to Saddam's regime, but rather a desperate attempt by the U.S. government to build back up a broken nation that instead led to a continuation of the dictatorship. So before we talk about how this affected the nation, I want to talk about each text in specific. So Ishtar and Baghdad, I want a quick poll. Who here has heard of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal? Raise your hands. Okay, that's more than I thought and I'm glad to see. So for those who haven't, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Abu Ghraib prison is a prison in Abu Ghraib about 30 miles from Baghdad. It was originally Saddam Hussein's prison that he used for his political prisoners. After we took the prison, we started using it ourselves, the U.S. In the prison, United States Army and members of the CIA committed many documented human rights violations and war crimes against detainees in Abu Ghraib, including physical, mental and sexual abuse. We can see some pictures I have up there. There's many more on the Internet if you want to do your own research. As a result, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. 11 soldiers were prosecuted with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. The people in this prison were not just insurgents, as we say. They were also common criminals. There were those who did commit crimes against occupational U.S. and then just normal people who got caught up in this, unfortunately. The play Ishtar and Baghdad by Rasha Fahdheel uses fictional characters, Ishtar and Tammuz, who are two Mesopotamian gods, to tell a very real story of the events of Abu Ghraib. They are first detainees in Iraq when coming down to visit the world, and then they are brought to Abu Ghraib where they experience many of the scandals that happened in the prison, in particular the two I have up there right now. It disgusts the atrocities committed by the U.S. military. Now here we can see where Iraq culture and U.S. culture kind of clash. So in Iraq culture, way back when we first took Baghdad, we were using the rules Abu Bakr's rules of warfare. Abu Bakr was the first Caliph, which is the first leader of the Muslim people, directly following Muhammad.  All of these happened in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Rasha Fahdheel says that she believes this play has not been produced in Iraq because of the fact the Iraqi people do not want to admit to the shame and that this incident brought upon their culture. It also talks specifically about the plight of Iraqi women in the prison, which she said is not talked about at all in the country. The play ends with an insurgent rocket attack on the prison, which is a real event that killed many prisoners, including in the story Ishtar and Ta'amuth. We can really see some cultural clash throughout the play with certain quotes. In particular, Ishtar says when she is first detained and she is being tortured, I know this land, the history of every grain of sand is in my blood, she states. I almost hear its sands boiling with hatred and desire for revenge on you. Now Ishtar and culture is a figure representing a very high quality of love and peace. Ishtar in this story is meant to be a metaphor for the Iraqi people who are caught up in this invasion and unfortunately many lost their lives. The next text that he uses is Night Draws Near. Night Draws Near is a collection of first-hand accounts and interviews from Iraqi civilians compiled by Anthony Shadeed while he was in Iraq during the invasion. It focuses on the before, after and during the invasion and also talks greatly about the rise of insurgency we see throughout the region. The final text I use is Strange Bird on our Roof. I was not able to find the author of the play, however it was produced in Anthony Shadeed, no, sorry, as you were. Amir al-Azraqi's book Contemporary Perlays from Iraq. The Strange Bird on our Roof follows a true story according to Anthony Shadeed who I got the chance to interview about a family whose house was invaded by the US military. In itself it's a whole metaphor for the war. The place starts with the US military coming in force, taking the house and then eventually leaving behind one soldier to watch over the place. And quickly we see distrust established with the mother and the daughter who live in the house, their son who is a terrorist, sorry, insurgent who is not in the house. The play goes to great length to show the cultural distance and distrust with the mother and daughter. In Iraqi culture bird keepers are often considered to be thieves as the bird cage is on the roof of the house. Throughout the play they make references to the fact that the soldier is on top of the house in the position of the bird keeper. There are birds in cages on the house. It's supposed to allude to the fact that the people in the story consider him to be a thief. Eventually after much time trust starts to develop between the Iraqi family and the individual soldier, which is a good point of how Iraqis did not hate Americans while the US was invading. In reality they just hated the practice and the policy the US government was using. They did not hate individuals. And finally the play ends with the American receiving word that the building that he is occupying is about to be attacked by the insurgents and evacuating himself and the family. And unfortunately the family gets left in a poor financial state living in a tent on US controlled area. Much how like we left the nation after the end of, after the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So the long term effects of the invasion. Obviously we see a breakdown of trust between America and the people of Iraq and a mistrust of the US across the entire Middle East. This figure is from the Arab center in Washington DC. In addition we see a large amount of foreign influence come into the country of Iraq particularly from Iran. We see this is where the start of Iranian militias who currently reside in Iraq. This is the start of it. Iraq's politics according to Amir al-Azraqi are riddled with foreign influence from Iran. And I also had the opportunity to talk to a Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. Sinal, as you were a Sergeant Major of Marines, very different. Who was a battalion Sergeant Major for three different battalions throughout the operation. He had three tours of duty. Two was with the infantry battalions and the one was with combat engineers. He said that you could tell the difference between people you fight. There's a difference between how an Iraqi would fight who picked up a rifle about a month ago to fight back for himself, for his home, versus how a freedom fighter from Russia or Iran have been fighting their entire lives. It's noticeable. So at the end of the day, why does this all matter? Well the answer is pretty simple honestly. Even though this ended in 2011 officially, first of all we still see great influence that these foreign influences have in Iraq. And also this is a lesson about invasions and how we conduct them in the future. David John Kilcullen is a member of the U.S. State Department who kind of wrote the book on counterinsurgency. David Kilcullen believed that returning the nation to a state of normalcy and order was more important than killing every insurgent in the region and the violence. At the end of the day, killing people is not going to make a nation better. At the end of the day, we've got to rebuild a nation that we destroy if we really want to improve it. The U.S. needs to understand the culture of the nation that we invade and occupy. Or better yet, just don't get involved. There are some nations that we have sought conflict with that at the end of the day, Iraq included, we've definitely put them in a worse situation. As soon as you use terms like liberation and winning the hearts and minds of a population in a military operation where you intend to destroy the country's infrastructure, you've already failed. You cannot win the hearts and minds of a population whose home you've just destroyed as we currently see in Ukraine with Russia and their invasion. And Putin spouting these ideas of liberation and freeing them from the neo-Nazi government that he says in his speech exists. We see this uprising of people in Ukraine fighting back much like how we saw in Iraq. You will never, you will never edit insurgency just by fighting. People will never give in. And the more insurgents you kill, the more you will create. That is all I have. Thank you all for your time. Good afternoon, everybody. Can you all hear me okay? Thank you all for being out here today and listening to our papers and the commentary. I'd like to keep this brief as possible, but these papers gave me a lot of food for thought even though they're on topics that are not directly related to what's going on just a few thousand miles away. I felt that they actually have a lot to offer in terms of connections. So I'll start with John Walsh's paper, Ethan Owens and then Caleb Riley. So I think John's paper asks us to really remember and reconsider and reflect on U.S. violence and the terrible results that poor understanding of a different culture wrought on the lives of everyone who was involved, but really very critically for the people of the countries, Iraq and then later Afghanistan, then later Iraq. And I think sort of something for maybe John to consider or think about is, I think one question that in the previous panel, Dr. Chedley's I think brought up, is there room for nation building in U.S. foreign policy? And perhaps recent examples show that no, there shouldn't be. And so I think in your thinking, is there still room for nation building of some kind? Or is this an option that should be taken off? Because recent examples have been the result or failed results from violence and invasion. Ethan Owens's papers is a really interesting, I think, because I study modern Chinese history, looking at a very present but ongoing kind of issue that involves three distinct and autonomous political entities, the U.S., China and Taiwan. Of course, everyone else in the region is very closely monitoring this even now. And I think this topic of strategic ambiguity thing that you bring up is really interesting because it's something that frustrates our allies as much as maybe they frustrate our adversaries. And in the themes of some of the panels today, and I think of course tomorrow, we seem to be in this present moment, this room right now, we seem to be living in a moment where some long held conceptions, long held assumptions about the international rules, rules of order seems to be really sort of shifting underneath us, right? It's really scary and what have you. So in such a situation, having people play a game where no one knows the rules seems to be quite unfortunate and dangerous, right? So I was wondering what your thoughts about that might be. And then this sort of question about culturally acknowledging sort of connections but politically being separate. Well, I think we can argue that politics is culture, right? It is the way that people engage with and think about power and how to sort of run their lives. And there's a cultural component to that, right? The act of voting, the act of challenging your representative or what have you. So I think I was really interested in your definition of culture and what you think about that. And then finally, Kayla Riley's paper is a really thoughtful look at a very confusing episode of the mid 20th century that unfortunately has a lot of bodies in its wake. But I found it really interesting that Yugoslavia or the former Yugoslavia is a case where it didn't work out, where people who lived in an area that was very multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-linguistic, weren't able to kind of keep it together for various reasons as you laid out in your paper. So as we look at what's going on in Ukraine, and I think Dr. Pisano and the earlier panel mentioned that the Ukrainian leadership right now seems to be pretty successful in shifting the needle in trying to identify national identity as something based on diversity, more civic, rather than on these sort of older ethnic religious ties. From what you've learned about sort of the mid 20th century, what you know about these countries and the way things turned out, what do you think the view is from the other side, where it didn't stay together? And does Ukraine in its present moment offer something of an alternative? What are your thoughts on that? So those are my comments and I look forward to hearing everything from the panel and questions and what have you. I'll turn it over to Professor Thunberg. Alright, thanks everybody. So first and foremost, these are awesome papers to read. So it's really good to see that you all are thinking about these things and taking a more scholar look into these different topics. I was really impressed with the quality of work from you all at this level. So first and foremost, really impressed by what you all came up with. So I'll go over kind of my comments and then hopefully we'll get some good discussion going from the audience. So I'll start with the Owens piece and I think that the first comment that I have is that one of the concerns is that you kind of take a monolithic look of each of these countries. So right, it's the U.S., it's China, and it's Taiwan. And yes, there's a lot of approaches in international relations that allow us to look at states as unitary actors. But I think the Riley paper showed us there's a lot going on within the states. So there's a lot that I think you can look beyond just kind of these individual unilateral actors to kind of give yourself a little bit more leverage. One of the things that I questioned in thinking of that is how you picked the documents that you were looking at. So you said that there were some correspondence that you looked at and then this Taiwanese Act. And that might be the official kind of U.S. statement and approach, but at the same time, I can see the official approach and then the way that the State Department defines it and the way that the Defense Department defines it, that all of them are going to be a little bit different and that can add to the complexity of the ambiguity that you might be thinking about. So you can look into some different documents, some different documents as well. On that point, you also kind of want to look at the flip side. So not just the way that the U.S. is defining these things, but how is Taiwan receiving this kind of strategic ambiguity and how does that shape their actions in some different ways? You have a really good definition given that though. You still have a really good definition of strategic ambiguity. I think one thing that I would like to see is a little bit better definition of tension. So does increased military spending necessarily equal tension? There's a lot of different types of tension that are out there, and I think that that could be defined a little bit better. As you kind of go through these case studies, you also say that China's tension is increasing and therefore its military spending is really increasing. Well, in this kind of realist world, there's a lot of threats out there, so China's military spending might be increasing for things completely unrelated to Taiwan. And there's a lot of challenges and especially on the world stage, a stronger military, a stronger force gives powers a bigger voice and China wants to have a bigger voice on the world stage, so they might just be bolstering up their military for completely unrelated reasons to Taiwan. And that's something that can be really difficult to entangle, but something to disentangle, but something to potentially think about. One of the last things that you said in your policy implications talked about kind of a U.S. red line, right? So if China or Taiwan crosses this red line, the U.S. is going to get involved and I would challenge you to maybe think about that because lines by their nature are tested, right? And China will want to test that line and that can raise credibility issues for the United States. But on that point, at what point does strategic ambiguity really start to fail and the United States does have to step in and we do have to say, okay, we're going to do something, what does that look like and when does that happen and is kind of a red line the way that we want to go or are there some different approaches? On the Riley piece, so in the sense that Owens can take kind of a lesson from the Riley piece and look deeper into the state, I think that the Riley piece can kind of generalize a little bit more. So in reading the paper, you do a really excellent job in kind of developing this timeline and this narrative and you introduce the characters and you introduce the complexities of it, and I think that it needs to be broadened and you need to step outside of Yugoslavia a little bit to try to give us some broader generalizations. So really good details of events and actors, but what does this tell us a little bit more broadly about things like ethnic conflict? How can we apply this to other international cases, right? Are there other case studies that we could apply this to? There's a lot of different ethnic conflicts going on within Afghanistan right now. How can we apply this to that? How can we look at kind of spillover effects from major conflicts into some of these kind of secondary or tertiary areas and how that might have an impact? And how do we determine when outside actors are actually getting involved, right? So you gave an example of how different outside actors ended up getting involved in this, but trying to generalize and understand what's drawing them in in a broader picture I think could be really beneficial. So I think kind of taking a step back and kind of looking at the bigger picture would really help ground your paper a little bit more. The Walsh paper I really thought was super interesting, right? So you're looking at the role of art and understanding one of the worst things in humanity, right, of conflict and war. And I would encourage you as you continue to develop this paper to think about how the humanity of these individuals is reflected in the art that they're producing when it's a group of people that can't do anything else, right? They don't have any other outlets, so they're kind of leaning on this idea of art and the impact of art, and I think that that's really valuable in a lot of ways in something that you can develop more. As I started to read the paper, and even as you were kind of going through it in the presentation, one thing that I think you can work on is how you approach this art, right? So I think there's two ways you can do it. One is you can look at the real-world events that are happening in Iraq, and then you can say, all right, well, here's how it's been portrayed in art by these individuals on the ground, right? And another way that you could potentially do it is really flesh out what these different artistic pieces are, who are the characters, what are the events, and then relate it back to the real-world events, right? But either way, I think you want to make sure that you're really focusing on the art and kind of building up that conversation. You're focusing on things that were created by the Iraqi people, and one of the things you said in your presentation was that there's this US-Iraq culture clash. It would also be really interesting to compare how US folks have covered these things, right? Because I'm guessing it's going to be fundamentally different, or how Europeans have covered these things and kind of showcase, you know, how different cultural approaches have looked at these, have looked at these very difficult issues. The last thing I would say is you mentioned a couple interviews that you did. You should really build that up, right? Talk about the interviews that you're doing. That's a lot of work, and that's something that you should really be focusing on and incorporating into your paper, because that gives a lot of life to the things that you're doing, and that gives kind of a primary connection to the work that you're putting together. So really good papers, everybody. I really enjoyed reading them, and I'll turn it back over to our moderator for some questions. Thank you. A round of applause for our presenters. At this time, I'd like to invite any members of the audience to come down. We have two microphones down here. You can ask some questions of our panelists here. While you guys think that over, maybe come up with some queries for our student presenters. I think I'll give them an opportunity to maybe weigh in on some of the comments that were made by the discussants. Any reactions, anything like that? Feel free to jump in. So that's a great point about looking at what external factors led to an influx of allied support. So between 1941 and 1942, the allies provided very little support, very little in the way of material support to anyone in Yugoslavia. And if we think about what war time events were happening in World War II at that time, the allies were, frankly, on their heels and weren't too concerned with what was going on in the Balkans. But at the end of 1942, the British and the Americans had seen some pretty good success in North Africa. They turned around Rommel's army, and that allowed them to see a broader view. The other impetus that led to additional allied material support into Yugoslavia is their unwillingness to open up a second front already. And so the way that they saw they could do that is by sending guns and war material to Yugoslav partisans. I use the term partisans being partisans and the Chetniks to appease Stalin so that he, the allies could say, see, we are supporting you without actually having to get skin in the game. Any other comments from panelists, or should we open it up to questions? Okay. I believe this gentleman over here was first. Please identify yourself and offer your query. Hello. My name is August Grary, and I wanted to go off of Walsh's paper. Given that our topic discussions today, they covered a lot of how nation-building and the spreading of democracy shouldn't be part of U.S. foreign policy. I wanted to ask, is it realistic that nation-building will ever not be part of U.S. foreign policy, including the influence of politicians such as John McCain, John Kerry, the Bush and Clinton families, Dick Cheney, and others who may have economic interest in keeping the military industrial complex afloat? Thank you. So I think from what I know, I think it's unrealistic to say that the U.S. will reach a point where we are not involved in nation-building of other countries just because of the amount we have meddled in other nations as it is already, and we've kind of established this role as the protector of democracy across the world, which I think is an unrealistic goal of the U.S. in general. I guess the second part to that answer would be, should we be involved in nation-building and spreading democracy? My answer to that is really no. I think we, we spread democracy. In general, we use the military. And as I spoke about greatly, when you destroy someone's home, they're not going to want to hear what you're going to say. So I think that did I get to your question there? Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, Laugh Goldstein. I'm at Brown University and with defense priorities as well, and I just want to really commend a fantastic panel. I mean, I learned something from all the papers and all the comments as well. So congrats to all there. And I would say, you know, I think we have to reflect how great a university is in our country, too, where we, you know, are so honest about our own mistakes, and we don't just sort of pass on to the next crisis, but we actually sit and think hard about the meaning of this. After all, we did that. We were responsible for that. But I would like to, as a mostly China specialist, let me address strategic ambiguity because it's critically important after all the economists last year, I think rightly said that Taiwan Strait is the most dangerous place in the world, and I would submit that that is still true even after what we saw in Ukraine. And I think you did an outstanding job dealing with it. It's a complicated issue, but I would just let me also add on to the good commentary about the paper.  I mean, that's a pretty novel concept, so maybe you can unpack that a little for us. But let me also make a quick comment on the arms sales, because you're onto something, and by the way, your recommendation extremely brave, right, because the conventional wisdom is oh, let's just, you know, how about another 20 billion Americans, right? And by the way, a lot of Americans getting fabulously rich off this, so you know, what's wrong with that? Well, you rightly point out there is something wrong with that, because it is fueling a cycle. So what to do, and here I would just say maybe there's a lesson, maybe you have a thought on this, maybe there's a lesson from Ukraine, right? In Ukraine turns out some pretty simple weaponry actually, you know, javelins and stingers, infantry weapons turn out to be absolutely critical. And maybe it's not the fighter aircraft, some of us who study the issue, honestly we don't think those will get off the ground, because they'll all be destroyed in initial missile strikes. So maybe what the answer is to kind of go to these less high-tech weaponry that don't inflame the situation and yet we've seen that they can be very effective. So I just throw that out as an idea to reflect on, but I commend your, you know, you took some brave positions in those conclusions. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. That was very flattering. The policy implication part was the biggest thing I struggled with in this paper because I can identify all the problems, I can identify all the solutions very well. And the cultural reunification is very difficult to put into policy because it's, how do you make a policy about a culture? The biggest draw I got from that was, like I mentioned you started to see an ease of tension in the 1970s and 80s and I think that was because there was a larger laissez-faire stance from the United States that was less influenced with the United States. So that's why I was thinking my policy implication was to try to create that again where the United States is not so heavily involved in Taiwan and China and that they can kind of peacefully duke it out themselves without the United States looming over as that sort of nuclear button, I guess I would say. Thank you very much for the comments. Thank you. Sir. There was some ambiguous language but the administration said that there would be severe consequences towards Russia if they invaded Ukraine. And since then we've also seen how the U.S. was responding to resending some sort of more infantry-based weaponry to try and hate the Ukrainian people and I was wondering if you saw any policy implications with the U.S. changing policy based off of that, who could this give us insight on what the U.S. might do if war were to break out between China and Taiwan? Yes, it seems that war broke out immediately in Taiwan because it's like a textbook like apply this to that sort of thing and there are two very, very different situations but in terms of U.S. support of an invasion and a complicated situation like that, I think there's strong parallels. I think it was last week in the news there was a discussion about a Chinese whistleblower that had leaked information that there was going to be some sort of invasion in the fall and that that was pushed back. I don't know how accurate that information is there's a lot of misinformation in Russia right now but that would make sense to me from a Chinese perspective like we were going to have an invasion and now we're seeing the failures and we want to rethink this. I see China culturally as more of a long-term planner but there are some decisions so I consumed recently the issue of Russia and I think we need to rethink this in terms of the United States and I haven't seen really, we're still being used to tell a bit and change that but thank you. I think we got time for the two remaining questions. Yes. Hello, my name is Ching Xu and I'm from Taiwan and I also have some questions about Taiwan kind of issue and first of all I want to actually express my agreement with you about this kind of kind of leaning towards strategic from strategic ambiguity to clarity kind of like situation since you know from the US perspective we really want to push the elasticity of Taiwan Relation Act to a more you know pro kind of like Taiwan kind of stands especially when you talk about like last year American and Taiwan issues actually come from there are some first groups first special operation group in operating the area but you know my question for you is how it's kind of like beating on the death horse but how are these producing that cultural revolution no sorry cultural reunification is to the both parties especially when Professor Kim actually talked about politics really tied to the culture and since both sides like you know a communist and democratic stand so I think that's my question about cultural reunification thank you. I guess part of my answer to that is it's getting harder as time goes on because there's generations of people that are born in Taiwan and they see themselves more as Taiwan than Chinese and I don't think that the cultures necessarily need to see themselves as Chinese but you've got language and cultural similarities that government should not inhibit and I think that like I mentioned that had started to happen and then we got all up in the politics issue and it crushed it and I think I do blame China for that I'm a little biased but I don't know how policies going to work with that I'm still wrestling with that I'm still trying to find a good way to put it into words about how something like that could be fostered and when you get into legal jargon it's difficult to impose things like that on sovereign nations and then the obvious complexity of considering Taiwan a sovereign nation or not it gets very sticky but I agree and I think that the cultural issue is the most important and it's also the most difficult and it gets harder every day. I think Professor Kim had something to add to that. Just to add on to that from the perspective of Russia or China why is Ukraine or Taiwan important? or why are they dangerous? I think your idea about culture it's because Ukraine is not a place it's an idea Taiwan is not really a place it's an idea of what Chinese this could be or Russian this could be and that alternative is dangerous. Absolutely thank you My name is Max Weber I am a high school junior at St. John'sbury Academy and as you accurately pointed out the war in Iraq was a fairly major failure in terms of democratizing and liberating and a people oppressed by a dictator I have noticed that as recently the United States has become much more hesitant when it comes to where it's using military force in order to protect and secure democracy abroad. Let's take the withdrawal from Afghanistan as an example. My question to you would be where is that red line that you talked about where the United States would consider the use of active military force in the defense of Taiwan? Are you asking me or him? Because he's the one who talked about the red line so I was a bit confused but so first of all one thing I didn't say that I really think is true and people are going to disagree with me but I think the war on terror in general is the greatest military failure the US has ever had and I think that we see this decrease in trying to send military places, trying to influence other countries with these ideas of democracy because of that failure. I personally don't believe there is a line where we should be using military might to influence a nation towards democracy but I think that the idea of that is ludicrous if I'm to use a strong word because I think again like I've spoken about if we invade a nation and we destroy it with military might people aren't going to be all for democracy they're going to seek something else or maybe if they do seek democracy it's not going to be with us and I think we're just plowing into these conflicts that at the end of the day aren't going to bear fruit for us so I hope I answer your question there you were very specific thank you thank you Max and thanks to all of you it's my pleasure to really wrap up our first day of events at the peace and war summit I want to thank you for all being here I want to thank you for the tremendous support from the audiences from Norwich University once again but the best way to end would be to thank our panelists one more time please thank you very much I hope to see many of you tomorrow at our final presentations in the morning


100 meters to go, 18 seconds to go under two minutes, going to the arms, Shafiqa Maloney. She... Well, not only did she clock sub two minutes, but Shafiqa Maloney has booked her ticket to Paris 2024, the Olympic Games, that is, to compete in the women's 800 meters.


So, welcome to the last lecture of this course L40. In this lecture what we will do is we will study theory related to virtual work method and also we will compare the results of virtual work based force calculation with MST based force calculation as well as you know that from with that from an analytical formula. So, to start with let us understand this energy balance in electromechanical devices. So, now electrical energy is equal to field energy plus mechanical energy in any electromechanical device like a rotating machine for example. So, now electrical input is basically now this WE is the electrical input to the motor and then that will be equal to the field energy plus mechanical energy. These also will include losses one can in a more accurate model losses in the corresponding three components can also be accounted for in this equation. So, now DW ME change in mechanical energy will be equal to the change in electrical energy minus change in field energy. Now DW E is we know it is EIDT right E is the voltage I is the current. So, EI gives you power power into time is energy and we also know the and E also is basically EMF. So, induced voltage EMF is nothing but rate of change of flux linkages lambda is flux linkage and then that is why DW E will be given by I d lambda by dt into dt. So, that gives you I d lambda as change in electrical energy. So, but one may argue that E is equal to d by dt of Li and then that can be written as Ldi by dt right if we assume L as constant and you know here lambda is substituted by Li because L is flux linkage upon current is L. So, that is substituted here and then we get this if we assume L as constant. So, then DW will be EI dt and then we substitute here E substitute expression of E here. So, Ldi by dt into I dt and then you get lambda di. So, we are getting that means two expressions one is I d lambda and again we are getting another expression as lambda di. Now, let us understand what is this lambda di. However, we should keep in mind that in moving systems L is function of time and thus representing E as Ldi by dt is physically incorrect because E should be then written as this because L also is changing with time in a typical rotating machine. Also co energy this actually later on we will see that this actually is representing the co energy. So, this I d lambda is energy lambda di is co energy. Now, in basics of electromagnetic we had seen you know I is corresponding to H lambda is corresponding to B. So, this is nothing but HDB this is representing HDB. So, HDB is change in corresponding energy density. Here it is this is representing BdH. So, this is co energy density and the corresponding it is showing the change in co energy density. If it is H if it is you know taken as BdH whereas lambda di is has the unit of energy. So, this is co energy. So, also it should be remembered that co energy which is integral lambda di is a non physical quantity which will be demonstrated later in this lecture. Now, consider a relay structure as shown here and this is a hinged armature with this as pure and now once you pass the current in this coil here this armature will get attracted and suppose that it moves along this x direction by a very small delta x distance then the operating point would shift from A to B. So, initially if the you know characteristic curve was this for a particular gap after it has moved by a delta x the operating point shifts on this curve from A to B along this line. Now, here why it becomes like this because of the fact that reluctance is going down because this air gap is reducing. So, then your flux in the circuit will increase you know when you go from A to B flux is going up and current is going down. So, basically then you know we have two options to simplify our force calculations either you know we can assume flux as constant that means we approximate this A B instead of A B we can approximate it as A E. So, that will be constant flux condition when the operating point shifts from this curve to this curve or the second case is we can approximate constant current condition when the operating point shifts from this blue curve to black curve then it will be a moving the operating point would be moving from A to B dash. So, in both these cases there is approximation in the first case when we are when we are assuming constant flux condition. So, we are basically neglecting this E A B area and the corresponding energy whereas in the second case when we are assuming constant current case we are in fact considering additional area and the force calculated would be higher. In the first case the force calculated would be lower than actual. So, now we will see the advantage and disadvantage of using both these approaches and we will eventually you know understand that keeping constant current that means considering this shift as A to B dash this condition is you know easier to implement while doing calculations and then we use we end up using co-energy based force computation method. So, now let us see in detail the two approaches that I just now briefly discussed. So, approach one is constant flux case this is the characteristics for the initial position of the armature and A is the operating point of the magnetic circuit in this position and then it goes to the other curve and the new operating point is this E and it is this AE they are on the same horizontal line. So, field energy at the initial position corresponds to area of OACO this highlighted area. Field energy after the moment of delta X the field energy would be represented by OECO area. So, change in field energy will be simply DWF as difference in the two you know areas that I just now discussed and remember this is why these are all field energies because we are calculating integral you know I d lambda. So, integral I d lambda is the energy field energy that is also equivalent to integral HDB because I corresponds to H lambda corresponds to B. So, this is nothing but also integral HDB but then that would represent energy density because unit of HDB will be you know energy you know the joules per meter cube whereas lambda into I the unit is energy that is joules. So, going further so change in electrical energy fed by the source here in this case is 0 because lambda is not changing because we are considering constant flux case. So, d lambda is 0 so, I d lambda is 0. So, now we know from the very first slide that DWM change in mechanical energy is change in electrical energy minus change in field energy and since DW is 0 you have DWM as equal to minus DWF. Now DWM is nothing but FDX force into the distance. So, FDX you get it as minus DWF and then eventually then you can calculate F as minus DWF by DX with lambda the total flux linkage being held as constant. So, now you know this effectively what we are doing the difference in two energies is basically this area Ae Oae O is the change in the field energy and corresponding energy density would be integral HDB in joules per meter cube. Now this is you know absolutely there is no problem here from the point of here you know basic principles. The force should be you know positive number now DWF by DX is negative because WF is reducing.  So, that also is you know verified. So, in approach to now what we will do here we are keeping current as constant. So, we are going from A to B dash. So, now originally we were at operating point A then we went to operating point B dash and the field energy at the initial position is represented by OACO area field energy after the moment is area OB dash DO. So, change in field energy is the difference of the two areas. So, OB dash DO minus OACO. So, if we actually you know represent the areas as given here. So, C E B dash DC C E B dash DC as 1 then O A E O this blue one as 2 and this triangle more or less this is a triangular area that triangular area is E A B dash E is 3 then you know DWF is given by 1 minus 2 areas the difference in areas 1 and 2 and 3 does not contribute. Now, this DWE we have seen earlier it is I D lambda. So, now once we have moved from A to B dash this much electrical input has increased in the system. So, this is representing I D lambda. So, that is nothing but area 1, area 1 is this and area 3 which is E A B dash E. So, that is 1 plus 3. So, now DWE minus DWF which is DWM can be represented as 1 plus 3 just now we saw this is 1 plus 3 DWE DWF is 1 minus 2 from the previous slide. In the previous slide we just saw this DWF is 1 minus 2 will be equal to the change in mechanical energy. So, 1 plus 3 minus of 1 minus 2 will be simply 2 plus 3 and that is what we are getting this area was O A E O is area 2 and this E A B dash E was designated as area 3. So, you get 2 plus 3 and now you can see here this area is basically representing the change in co-energy because now if you actually you know find out this area by you know difference of 2 areas which are those areas. Now, what you do you calculate integral B D H or integral lambda Di then the original operating point was A. So, the corresponding area will be the area under this curve under O A curve with H or I as the reference axis. So, then we get integral B D H or integral lambda Di. So, this was the initial co-energy when the operating point is approximated to shift to point B dash then the area co-energy is represented by area under this curve which is under the curve O E B dash. So, effectively now you can see there is increase in co-energy there is increase in co-energy and you know that is something you know that means effectively the potential energy of the system has increased which should not be the case and in that sense co-energy is non-physical. So, you cannot get both co-energy also increasing as well as kinetic energy in terms of moment also increasing. So, both you know are increasing this case which is non-physical but then you know this approach has some advantage we will see. So, DWM then is given by DW minus DWM that is area O A B dash O A B dash O which is nothing but change in co-energy and this is nothing but DWM is FDX DWM is FDX and this difference is DWCO change in co-energy. So, finally you get F as DWCO upon DX with current held constant. It is basically dual of energy a non-physical quantity which I explained and co-energy is used with virtual work principle to calculate the forces and torques in rotating machines. So, in terms of FEM coding what is the advantage of using co-energy we will see now. In simulations of moving systems it is easy to keep current as constant since it is a circuit quantity and therefore co-energy based calculations are easy with current being held constant. In contrast magnetic circuit change leads to corresponding change in flux linkage lambda and this lambda is not easy to control it is not easy to enforce constant flux condition during flux during the FEM simulations. That is why we use co-energy based force computation method and that is being demonstrated now. Now, in order to verify our virtual work based you know force computation method first let us calculate analytically the force value and in L39 we have already calculated force using MST using the MST method. So, then we will compare all the three values. So, analytically we can calculate because this is a fairly a simple you know problem and corresponding geometry. So, this geometry was already described in L39. So, this is a core or is also armature but it is this armature is not hinged it is free and it will give a moment you pass the current this core will get attracted to this you know to this C shaped core. So, now the air gap here is 0.04 meters reluctance is L by mu 0 times area S. So, now there are you know two air gaps. So, the total reluctance in this magnetic circuit because since there are two air gaps there are two lengths two air gaps. So, 2 into 0.04 upon mu 0 into area what is the area? Area through which the flux is crossing. So, one of four dimension of the area is this 0.01 and other dimension is 1 meter depth in Z direction because we are going to calculate as usual the performance parameter that is force per unit length in Z direction this is in XY plane. That is why it is 0.01 into 1 then this gets calculated as this number MMF magnitude motive force is ampere turns is equal to 100 or the number of turns into I 362.04 this was actually calculated in L39. So, Ni is this. So, flux is MMF upon reluctance. So, then that gets gets calculated as so many Weber's and B is flux upon area. So, flux is this upon area 0.1 into 1 I just now explain why area is this. So, the flux density is 0.569 Tesla in each gap in each of these two gaps. So, energy in two gaps together is twice B square upon twice mu 0 is the energy density into volume because this energy per unit volume into volume s into area into length into 2 because there are two gaps. So, that gives after substituting all the values you get the energy as this and then force is energy upon length force into distance is energy. So, it is you know energy by this distance because this entire core moves in this direction by 0.04 meters. So, we are here we are not considering in small incremental distance we are considering the total moment through this you know 0.04 meters and we are calculating the force for that complete moment of 0.04 meters and then you get the force as 2.57 into 10 raise to 4 Newton per meter because again I explained you we are calculating per unit length in z direction because of 2D approximation. So, you get Newton's per meter we have we had already calculated using the MST approach in L39. So, this slide in fact is from L39 only. So, we had seen it there and we in fact calculated their force as 2.7 into 10 raise to 4 Newton per meter. Now, we will calculate using co-energy using the co-energy approach or the virtual work method approach seen in this lecture L40. So, here again these are the 2 you know FEM simulations one with you know higher distance and one with smaller distance after virtually displacing this you know core or armature or even it is called as in literature plunger. So, by some distance small distance along this direction and then find out the energies in both these positions take the difference which will give you DWCO divided by the distance by which this core plunger or armature is moved which is in fact 5 mm in this case and co-energy at position 1 is this co-energy in position 2 is this. Now, you can see here co-energy has increased. So, as was explained here in this case when operating point is approximated to to have shifted from A to B dash there is increase in this co-energy which is represented by this shaded area. That is what we are also getting by simulation there is increase in co-energy and then force is calculated as this. So, it is coming as 2.28 into 10 raise to 4 whereas the MST based force calculation gave the force as 2.71 into 10 raise to 4 and our analytical formula based value of force was 2.57 into 10 raise to 4. So, all these 3 values 2.28, 2.71 and 2.57 in one of the previous slides all are in the same range. So, that gives us confidence in all our calculation approaches. Now, these are very simple problem to analyze as I have been mentioning in this course you start with very simple problems verify with analytical formulae or some other methods get confidence in the procedure that you are adopting and then go on to solve more complex problems. Finally, we will see how do we calculate reluctance torque on a simple rotating machine. Now, here this is like a rotating structure which moves in this gap. Now, this is again a core which is excited by this coil. So, flux is established and this rotating structure tends to rotate toward minimum reluctance position. So, that means when it is in this position torque would be acting to move this so that it gets aligned and becomes vertical. So, what we will do again the same thing we can develop our own code or use any commercial FAA software to model this. So, using a code developed based on the theory that was discussed we get here co-energy for position 1 as this for position 2 as this and then the torque is dwco by d theta. So, the difference between these two numbers divided by the angular displacement which is you know 0.18 radian or 10.31 degrees you get torque as 0.2895 Newton meter. So, this is how we can calculate torque using co-energy based approach. With this you know last case study our course is completed. Now, I just want to you know summarize using this slide what are all things that we have covered. So, in first 10 lectures we covered basics of electromagnetics relevant to electrical machines and equipment finite element method and finite element analysis. And then we you know in these 10 lectures some of the concepts were explained through practical examples and virtual electromagnetic laboratory developed in E department of IIT Bombay. In lectures 11 to 16 we understood fundamental principles of finite element method in the next 5 lectures we studied two dimensional finite element formulation and the corresponding coding procedure and basically we studied that with reference to Poisson's equation. Then we basically in these lectures we demonstrated few course using freeware platforms like Gmesh and Sylab. Then we went on to you know Sol Laplace and Poisson's equations in these three lectures and basically we calculated leakage inductance of a power transformer, we calculated magnetizing inductance of an induction motor and also we understood how we can use finite element method effectively for high voltage insulation design. Then in further lectures from 26 to 40 we analyzed many case studies and some extensions of standard and you know simple FEM formulations for Laplace and Poisson's equation to you know more complex cases involving axisymmetric problems, permanent magnets, eddy currents. Then we also studied how do we couple circuits and fields to solve practical problems which may involve transients and nonlinearities. Then we also got exposure to some advanced topics in which we studied how do we you know do FE coding for simulating rotating parts where that is basically rotor structure in a typical rotating machine and we also studied how to impose periodic boundary conditions which basically you know reduces computational burden. Then we went on to see how to compute torque speed characteristics of rotating machines. How do we impose tangential magnetic field excitation for some specific problems. For example, we studied how do we calculate effective complex permeability for analysis of core joints in transomers. And finally, we studied how do we calculate forces using two approaches, Maxwell stress tensor best approach and virtual work best approach. So in all we basically you know had about 20 case studies throughout this course and I hope this course will be useful to not only undergraduate and postgraduate students but practicing professionals for solving you know real life problems either by developing their own course or by effectively using available commercial FEM software. Thank you very much.


Hello, everyone. Welcome to this advancing financial inclusion to open source payment model session. My name is Costa Perry, I will be co-presenting, co-presenting with Paula Ponder, I follow. I am, as I said, Costa Perry, the modular foundation chair of the board. I also am deputy director at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the financial services for the poor strategy. So, let's dive in. In this question first, do you know how people who are unbanked and who typically earn less than $2 on average per day? So here is a symbol that represents their lives. Because basically, they need to walk all day to pay for things. It is expensive to be poor because if you only have cash to view for your transactions, then essentially you are required to work, to walk, to pay for the tuition of your child at school, to pay for your utility bill, to bring money to another family member in another village who needs the money. So you walk, and you walk, and you walk, and you lose time, energy in just dealing with cash and having to deal all day with cash for your financial transactions. Today, there are still 1.7 billion people on the planet in this situation. 400 million Africans on the African continent are in this situation. And the situation also is skewed with a big gender gap. There are more women in this case than there are men overall, from 60 to even 70%. So 10 to 20% gender gap sometimes. So digital financial inclusion is essentially about connecting this population to an adequate digital financial system through their mobile phones. And the instrument for that actually was invented 10 years ago already. The first innovation happened in Kenya 10 years ago, in fact more than 10 years ago, with the system called M-Pesa. That system essentially allowed people to send money using very simple mobile phones, not smart phones, to send money to each other pretty much in the same way they send text messages.  So it is an instrument of poverty alleviation in the sense that when the people get connected to a financial system, they have a way to save money. They can better manage their money. They can better manage their lives and not walk all the time anymore. Another thing that M-Pesa has proven is that it can be profitable to actually serve this poor segment of the population with a totally different business model than traditional banks. By 2018 then, this is a situation that they were in excess of 150, and today actually more than 200 mobile money operations across Africa, as well in South Asia. And you can see here some of the statistics, but it is for example impressive that in Kenya, 68% of adults, even more today, use mobile money daily. And you can see some other impressive numbers showing again how digital technology can serve in connecting and increasing financial increases. So then we are there today. As I mentioned, there are still 1.7 billion people. We came down at the beginning of the last decade from 2.5 billion people. So progress has been made, but there is still a huge population out there that we need to connect and we essentially need to accelerate the movement considerably. So a new wave of innovation needs to happen, and that wave actually happened in Tanzania. And in one word it's about interoperability of these mobile money services. One of the issues with, as good as I showed you, the mobile money was, for many perspectives, one of the issue that remains is that the majority of the mobile money operations are siloed in the sense that the standard and receiver of the payment need to be on the same network. So if you think about this, if you had a phone where you could talk to people only on the same network as you, would be useful, but obviously not very pervasive. And so this next wave of interoperability happening in Tanzania when the four mobile money operations started interoperating. And what is happening, so that was a few years ago. Today, there is a program that is driven by the Tanzania Central Bank that will connect the whole country in an interoperable way, not only the mobile money operations, but also the traditional banks. And hence, a woman in Tanzania that has a mobile wallet on a mobile money operation now can reset and receive money between many, across all of these mobile money networks, but also from bankers, she can receive salary from a bank account, she can pay other people who have a bank account. So let's look at what actually does interoperability bring. Let me play this short video to show you what happened in Tanzania a few years ago. So you can see how interoperability actually enables this scaling that is needed and that I was talking about. And today, there is a project on the scale of the whole country, not only on the mobile money operators to have interoperability in a payment platform on a country scale and Moja loop as we will see is the technology that enables this. So, interoperability, as I said, is the next wave of innovation that will hopefully allow us to reduce the 1.7 billion people number. I hope to zero by the end of these decades by connecting systems together. And Moja loop was actually developed as an open source as a software that provides easily this interoperability between different systems, be it mobile money operations, be it even blockchain systems. So Moja loop has been developed as one of the key assets that will enable this acceleration, and hence accelerate financial inclusion. Before handing over to Paula, let me just tell you a little bit how these country wide programs work. Tanzania was a pioneer, as we say, but there are many other countries and regions in Africa and South Asia, who have also progressed. And typically there are these four layers that require attention rules raise accounts and applications rules are, as the name says everything that's required about setting up the right regulatory and governance framework. Because it is not because we deal and have services for the poor that there shouldn't be rules and regulations. On the contrary, we should protect this population even more against fraud, for example, so very important aspect rails is the actual infrastructure. And this is a collaborative space where Moja loop place where Moja loop is an enabler to provide essentially a shared country wide or even regional wide payment infrastructure that has the characteristics that Paula will talk about. Why is this important. It is important so that there is a rich ecosystem of accounts be mobile money wallets or traditional bank accounts are thriving on these rails, but even more importantly to connect new innovative applications to these rails that serve the population. For example, solar pay as you go transportation services, all the services that require vast amounts of small value payments. So that's the stage that I wanted to set for Moja loop and I will now hand over to Paula, who can explain how Moja loop enables this economy that is open where everyone benefits from an economy that includes everyone. Paula, please. Thank you Costa. I'll switch over to my deck. Okay, so thank you everyone for joining us today. I want to talk a little bit more about the Moja loop project and the Moja loop foundation and how we can address the issue of financial inclusion that Costa has given you some insights on. But first of all, as as Costa mentioned Moja loop is an open source software stack. It's designed to enable interoperability across payment service providers. So this was a fundamental decision made in how we address financial inclusion is to leverage the benefits of the open source development model to deliver this functionality to the marketplace. The design of Moja loop was based on financial inclusion principles detailed by the Gates Foundation to provide an open loop interoperable open loop interoperability between providers to have adherence to an international financial inclusion standards. I have a push payment model with immediate funds transferred in same day settlement so no waiting for cash. Adequate system wide fraud and security protection. And as I'm sure you all can appreciate collaborating on addressing fraud and security protection across a group of participants is a more efficient way to address this then as a silo. A more efficient proportional identity and know your customer requirements. We wanted to meet or exceed the benefits and utility of cash in these days of COVID. We can certainly appreciate the fact that more and more countries around the globe are trying to address their use of cash. And of course what we wanted to do is make sure that the platform was customizable so that folks could adjust the platform to meet their needs and and they're both a regulatory and their their local needs. And how are we doing this well first of all what we decided to do earlier this year is launch the Moja loop foundation. Similar to many of the organizations that you may be affiliated with has a mission to deliver open source software to address the financial inclusion mission. We're doing this with with a mix of participants. We have the the generosity of charitable organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation, a media network who are aligned with us on our mission and want to help support our efforts to to address this challenge. We also have technology providers such as Google, Coil, ModusBox, Ripple, Geore Digital and Cyber and these companies are are very well positioned in the payment space. They understand the challenges we're trying to address with respect to financial inclusion and they're bringing engineering resources to bear to help us address this this challenge. The module foundation was formed this year as I mentioned but we've had a lot of history since 2016 when we kicked off the project as an open source development effort. We've gone through three full phases of development over those years. We're now in phase four development, wrapping that up this year and we'll move into phase five. We have a pretty robust code base already in place and in fact have several deployments underway. Right now one of those deployments is Muali, which is a joint venture between Orange and MTN, two very large mobile network operators in Africa. And they're collaborating to deliver a mojo loop based system to their customer base. And that has recently gone live and will continue to expand across the continent. We also have the Bank of Tanzania, which is currently in development of a mojo loop based platform as Costa alluded to earlier in his slides. So we're in a really good position now to leverage all that hard work our developers have put into the code base and start rolling out new deployments around the world. I mean, we talk about Africa a lot and it's an important sector for us because of the proportion of citizens that are unbanked. But there's certainly use for this platform all over the world. Even in my own country, the United States, there's still a disparity in financial services delivered to the poor and unbanked. As far as how we go about the development of mojo loop. What we've done is we certainly have a community driven driven development process that said we adhere to an agile development model. We are rapidly designing, building, configuring, testing and rolling out new iterations three, four times a year. Our community meets four times a year for a week. In fact, the week of October 19th, they'll be meeting face, not face to face, I'm sorry, virtually, we used to hold them face to face. But as you know, we're all in a virtual world now. But at those meetings, what the community does is evaluate progress on work to date and establish priorities for the next program increment. This is a cycle that we're now, this is our 12th program increment starting the week of October 19th. So the community is pretty well accustomed to a mode of operation and welcoming to others that want to jump on board and contribute to the work streams. That community does vote on the work streams based on on market requirements and gap analysis. And then that sets the priorities for the next program increment. It's a very open process, it's inclusive of developers, implementers and customers. We welcome all to those those convenings they're always open and free to anyone that wants to participate. And the agenda spans from business issues to technical issues to market issues. So it's a very diverse set of people that are contributing to those work stream discussions every every 12 or 13 weeks. So that's phase four of our development cycle in January of this year. As I said, we're wrapping it up and we'll start phase five in January 2021. So we'd welcome you to hop on and and join us in that effort. I'd be remiss and not identifying some of the key technologies that are the underpinnings of the mojo loop offering. It's a Linux based solution, but there are many other technologies that you're probably familiar with that are dependencies enrolling out a mojo loop instance. So as you see noted here, many of you are probably affiliated with some of these open source organizations, and we thank you for your ongoing support of those platforms that are so important to our work. And the other thing about the mojo loop that's important to note is that we have, we're hosting agnostic. We have Amazon Web Services platform that we're using for development. We have Azure instances that have been tested out. But what we're finding particularly in developing countries there is a need and an interest in holding the deployment close to home. There's regulatory issues. There's data privacy issues. And so we want to make sure that any option is open to to the customers. They can use a cloud based service or they can host it on premises themselves. There's a lot more detail about the technology. And for those of you that know me it'd be dangerous for me to go too far into the architecture. There's a lot of information on our GitHub repository about the architecture and all these technologies and how they how they play in the design of the system. So I'd encourage you to check that out at the link shared on the slide. For a little bit more about the community. We've been operating now as an open source project for nearly four years. And what we've done over that time is developed a very strong base of participants across all spectrums. We have financial services payment platforms, central banks regulators and developers and developers are obviously key to our code base, but having over 650 participants providing feedback requirements input testing, etc is really important and we will continue to grow this this community. As the project evolves, it's the community span six continents and 47 countries. So we have a very well rounded voice, providing input into the project. And as I mentioned earlier, we have 10 members that have recently joined the foundation when we launched, providing operational and governance support to to the legal entity. What we really have set out to do is build an ecosystem that benefits everyone. FinTechs and banks can use the code to modify their existing systems or to enhance what they're they're offering they have today as far as platform payments platforms. Central banks can speed up deployment of national payment gateways with commercial partners. So a good example that's like such as Bank of Tanzania has done. Governments can use mojo loop to deliver support payments to citizens right into their mobile wallets. Governments can have customers pay their bills directly from their phones and users to customers point don't necessarily have to walk miles anymore to transfer money to friends and family members can be simply done via their their mobile phone. So we we're building out this robust ecosystem. And again, welcoming all to participate in the ongoing development efforts as they progress. Well, mobile wallets are an important factor here. And they've really made cashless transactions easier, but they're often isolated from mainstream financial providers. And what we wanted wanted to do with mojo loop is ensure that there was inappropriate ability across all the different players in the in the ecosystem to allow a consumer to be able to use the tool of choice for them that makes sense with a relationship with a business or a bank or government as needed, but have the ability to exchange that money across very various different providers so that thus the interoperability is so key. So how do we enable interoperability in this payment platform. There's four key components to this. First of all, there's an interoperability layer that connects bank accounts mobile money wallets and merchants in an open loop system emphasis open loop that's that's an important shift for payments in particularly in the developing countries. Second, we provide a directory service layer that navigates the digits that providers use to identify accounts on each side of a transaction. So ensure that those accounts are validated and and accurate. Third, we provide a transaction settlement layer that makes payments instant and irrevocable. The instant is so important. If if you're making $2 a day or living on $2 a day, you can't afford to be without that cash for several days. That's that's something that we want to change. And then what we have is components designed for implementing strong internal fraud controls. So the fraud and risk management is a very important point for for all financial institutions to navigate. And we wanted to make it a flexible approach so that they can refine their solution based on local and regulatory requirements. I want to stop for a moment and talk about the advantages of open source software to to to the masses in this room, so to speak that are already indoctrinated. But I think it's important for us to recognize something that you all have adopted for some time now and and enjoy the benefits of in the projects that you've been working with. So first of all, with open source and the module platform, the capital cost of front is lower. First of all, there's no licensing fee, but also we've made it easy for someone to test it out, download it create an entire module of instance on a laptop, test it out and then move from there. So very low entry barrier to entry and and testing out the system. There's no maintenance costs, because the, the, the effort is shared across many organizations. One company does not have to pay for all the maintenance costs doesn't have to hire all the developers to do the maintenance the community will continue to maintain it. There's no vendor lock in. Again, when you when you deploy a system like this, it's in for the long haul it's not you don't swap out your payment platform every two years. The other issue is that you don't have vendor lock in you're not at the whims of a company of a commercial company that might say time to upgrade or time to add to pay more for new features. You're free from that lock in. And also it's a lower lower cost to acquire additional functionality.  And when you have an issue with your system. You come back to the community and the community might work on it and find that there's five or 10 or 15 other entities that are having the same issues and challenges. So that's through that collaboration. The community can develop new functionality. And again, you're not opening the checkbook to pay for that. And the long range, the benefits from having this this ecosystem are profound. First of all, at the individual level, it could reach well over a million and a half, a billion and a half individuals that currently are unbanked or underserved. Businesses not only can save money with this type of platform, but they also can open up new avenues for transactions and loans to small businesses and individuals. Digital financial service providers can also see tremendous business benefit and also take some of the costs associated with cash out of their their operating expenses. And then governments can have a more efficient way to deliver their benefits and payments to their citizens in a in a more transparent and interoperable way. So how to engage. There are a number of ways for folks to engage. If you're in the financial sector if you're fintech if you're a central bank. You can adopt the modular platform. Use it to extend your current offerings or to create new lines of business or new offerings out into the marketplace. You can contribute code. We obviously are always looking for new community members to participate. In the module community. Again, our convenings are open. And if you go to our website you'll see that there are easy ways to get onboarded into the community. We do have a community manager that will happily talk to you and help you walk through the code base and understand what the priorities are and how you can engage. And it's not just coding. There's there's testing that needs to be done. There's documentation that needs to be updated. There's evangelism that needs to be done. So, you know, if you want to be an ambassador for the Mojloop Foundation, we'd be happy to have that contribution as well. And then finally you can join the Mojloop Foundation. As I mentioned early on, we have a great mix of charitable and technology companies who support our mission of addressing financial inclusion. So providing resources to the community, organizing events, providing them with tools and a hosting platform for the development infrastructure. As you know, that all costs money. And so the Mojloop Foundation exists to take away that friction for the developers. You know, in addition to being the steward of the open source code and the trademarks, we also want to make sure that we make it as easy as possible for developers to participate in the community and contribute to it. So if you're interested in joining, I'd be happy to talk to you. So with that, I'd like to encourage you to check out the Mojloop website. There is a direct links to all of our GitHub repositories so you can find out, you can go deep on the technical very quickly. There's also an opportunity if you engage with us on the discourse platform. That's that first US URL in the second section of the slide, the Mojloop underscore OSS 20. That takes you right to a discourse session where you can ask questions about these these slides meet our community manager and talk about how you might be able to engage with with the Mojloop Foundation. So with that, we would welcome your questions either now or at the on discourse, happy to engage you and thank you for your attention.