One of America’s most enduring mysteries is what happened to Amelia Earhart after she attempted to become the first female pilot to fly around the world in 1937. Earhart, and her navigator Fred Noonan, seemingly vanished over the Pacific Ocean, and concrete evidence of a crash was never discovered.

But now, researchers may have a new theory. A previously classified photo was discovered at the National Archives which appears to show a short-haired woman sitting on a dock looking at a boat towing a plane that is 38 feet long– the same length as Earhart’s plane. With her back turned to the camera, the woman’s identity is unclear, but her short hair and height match Earhart, according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, there is a man in the picture whose nose and hair match up perfectly with Noonan, in the opinion of a facial recognition expert. Their location would make sense since the small islands could have been along the path that Earhart took before disappearing over the Pacific. The tweet below identifies the two subjects:

Holy crap, there may be new evidence that Amelia Earhart didn’t die in that plane crash https://t.co/RF3xT9jR1Z pic.twitter.com/2JFg00Ot9E

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 5, 2017

The photo was discovered by former U.S. Treasury agent Les Kinney. It will be featured as part of an upcoming History Channel documentary titled “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.”  In order to ensure the authenticity of the photograph, it was examined by two independent photo experts who confirmed it was not distorted, according to the Washington Post.

At first, Shawn Henry, a former FBI assistant executive director who is now helping privately investigate the Earhart disappearance, was skeptical of the photo. But once he saw the woman wearing what appear to be Earhart’s trademark pants, his opinion changed.

“I’m looking at her sitting on the dock and thinking, ‘This is her,’” he said.

One of the theories is that Earhart and Noonan were held in Japanese custody after crashing in Japanese territory. Kinney believes that this photo is as close to a smoking gun as has ever been discovered in this decades-long investigation.

“We believe that the Koshu took her to Saipan [in the Mariana Islands], and that she died there under the custody of the Japanese,” said Gary Tarpinian, the executive producer of the special.

After finding the photo–the location pictured is Jaliut Harbor on Jaluit Island, Henry traveled to the Marshall Islands to speak with those who claim that Earhart did in fact visit there. Henry spoke with the son of one man who claimed to have seen Earhart in Mili Atoll in 1937. He also met the last living person who claims to have seen the duo after their arrival, according to the Washington Post. While these stories are inconclusive when considered alone, Henry believes that they corroborate the picture and that all combined we have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Japanese authorities did tell NBC News they have no record of Earhart ever being in their custody. However, many documents were lost after the islands switched from German to Japanese ownership, according to BBC.

Japanese explorers first arrived at the islands in the 19th century, but the first permanent settlements were created in the 1920s. The person who took this picture is believed to have been a American spy who was keeping tabs on Japanese military activity in the Pacific, according to NBC News. Japanese power over the region ended after the nation’s surrender in World War II. So, there is the possibility that Imperial Japan did keep Earhart and Noonan in its custody up until that point.

The mystery may never be solved, but this photograph is essentially the only concrete evidence ever discovered, and it has reignited the mystery.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Amelia Earhart Captured by Japan? appeared first on Law Street.

Panama established official diplomatic ties with China last Tuesday, thereby renouncing its ties to Taiwan. This decision comes as a major political victory for China as it seeks to further isolate Taiwan and strengthen vital economic partnerships in Latin America.

A joint statement issued by representatives of both countries said that Panama recognizes “only one China” and that the “government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing all China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

And then there were 20: Taiwan’s isolation solidifies

Panama’s decision leaves Taiwan with just 20 international allies. Many are just small countries or islands in Latin America and the Pacific (its only European ally is Vatican City), yet every loss to China further secludes the island nation.

Both Beijing and Taipei require foreign countries to decide whether to forge diplomatic relationships with either the People’s Republic of China (China) or the Republic of China (Taiwan)–never both.

In recent decades, as China’s global economic influence has grown, many countries have found it more advantageous to build ties with China. The latest country to switch its allegiance in favor of China was São Tomé and Príncipe, which announced the move in December.

Taiwan severed its ties to Panama on Wednesday, one day after Panama’s announcement. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it felt “anger and regret” over the “very unfriendly” diplomatic turn by Panama, which it deemed “yielded to economic interests by the Beijing authorities.”

Beijing has increased its pressure on Taiwan after Tsai Ing-wen was elected president last year. Her liberal democratic party views have regularly heightened tensions with China. She did not endorse the “One China” policy, after she took office, a common practice between the two countries, which agree to endorse the policy but hold different interpretations of what it means.

Then in January, after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Tsai called him to offer her congratulations. China took offense to the fact that the U.S. took the call and because it saw the potential for the two countries to get closer.

Tsai has tried to foster that possibility. She stopped in the U.S. in January, en route to Central America for diplomatic visits, and made a point to visit politicians such as Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL.).

Tsai, who visited Panama just last June, emphasized the years of friendship between the two countries in a speech she gave on Tuesday. She maintained that Taiwan would not engage in “a diplomatic bidding war” with China, despite the fact that China continues to “pressure Taiwan’s international space.”

“We are a sovereign country,” Tsai said. “This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded.”

An important play for Panama

China is currently the Panama canal’s second biggest user and it’s clear this new relationship will give China an economic advantage over the historically U.S.-controlled Panama canal.

China was funding a $50 billion alternative to the Panama Canal in Nicaragua. However, financial struggles and environmental critiques have halted construction before it even started. Though that project has largely fallen through, China can now comfortably rely on Panama’s canal to circulate its goods.

The Panama Canal Authority also just announced it will be looking for contractors and customers to modify infrastructure surrounding the canal later this year, further providing China with strong potential business opportunities.

Asia-based political risk analyst Ross Feingold said that “enhanced communication channel between the Panamanian and Chinese governments following diplomatic recognition can only be a positive for Chinese logistics and infrastructure companies that operate in the canal zone.”

However, China may not be the only party to benefit from this alliance. In the last few years, two of Panama’s main economic drivers, the canal and its status as a fiscal sanctuary, have taken a hit.

In late 2013, President Xi Jinping announced the Maritime Silk Road plan, a development strategy aimed at integrating and coordinating trade between Eurasian countries. This plan completely excluded North and South America. In 2015, the Suez canal, perhaps the Panamanian canal’s main competitor, underwent a renovation, which allows it to accommodate larger ships and ease congestion.

China’s renewed interest in Panama through this diplomatic relationship can be seen as an indicator that Panama and its canal will not be cast away in favor of newer, more convenient options.

New Chinese direct investments are also an opportunity for Panama to revive its financial and fiscal image, which had taken a toll after last year’s “Panama Papers” revelations.

At the time, many officials had complained that the shorthand used by international media outlets for the Mossack Fonseca case hurt the country’s reputation.

“It’s not about Panama, it’s about one company. Nobody called it the Texas fraud when Enron [went] bankrupt,” vice-minister of the economy Ivan Zarak said at the time. “It’s unjust. You are holding accountable the whole country for the actions of one company,”

A renewed relationship with China could indeed help the nation re-boot. In a televised speech given last week, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, who actually met with President Donald Trump earlier today, said he was “convinced that this is the correct path for [the] country.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Shift Away From Taiwan, Panama Established Key Relationship With China appeared first on Law Street.

Today, United States law enforcement officials charged the security detail for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after they escalated a protest outside the Turkish Embassy, leading to violence.

The skirmish broke out this May after Erdogan and his security detail met with President Donald Trump at the White House on May 16. Court documents reveal the demonstration was peaceful until a group of “radicalized protesters began taunting the peaceful protesters,” according to the Washington Post.

When Erdogan’s group arrived at the property, Turkish security provoked the demonstrators and a violent outburst broke out that entangled demonstrators from both sides, Turkish security, and American law enforcement. Eleven people were injured and nine were hospitalized, as Erdogan watched from his Mercedes-Benz.

Police in Washington D.C. have been investigating the incident alongside the State Department and Secret Service.

These charges levied against Turkish security officials are the first steps since the attack a month ago. Since the incident, American authorities have been frustrated privately and publicly regarding what they perceived as a foreign government’s attack on American free speech, according to the New York Times. 

The State Department responded by saying “violence is never an appropriate response to free speech” and that officials are “communicating our concern with the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a bill condemning the violence and asking for punishment.

While America views free speech and protest as an integral part of its democracy, the same cannot be said for Turkey. After a failed military coup last year, Erdogan’s government has pursued enemies and detractors of his regime. Nearly 200,000 people have been arrested, dismissed, or suspended from their jobs, according to the Washington Post. While the United States ranks 43rd in the World Press Freedom rankings, Turkey is ranked 155th.

One issue is that Erdogan and his team returned to Turkey just hours after the skirmish and it is unlikely that the country would extradite its people to face charges. If they ever return to the United States, however, they risk being arrested, according to the New York Times.

With that in mind, the State Department added that it would consider additional action “as appropriate under relevant laws and regulations.”

Another issue the outburst created was how it would impact diplomatic relations between the nations. It has already halted the progress of a $1.2 million arms sale to Turkey, according to the New York Times.

The incident has certainly raised tensions with Turkey, and American officials may continue to be disappointed with their attacks on protesters. Now it remains to be seen how Turkey, and Erdogan, will respond to the charges from law enforcement.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkish Security Detail Charged after May Melee appeared first on Law Street.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s lifetime of strange behavior continues with yet another trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea this week–his fifth trip to the isolated nation.

Rodman has built a close relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in recent years, becoming a pseudo-ambassador for the United States. America has no ambassador or diplomatic relations with North Korea; instead, it relies on the Swedish embassy as a mediator, according to its website.

“My mission is to break the ice between hostile countries,” Rodman told Sports Illustrated in 2013. “Why it’s been left to me to smooth things over, I don’t know. Dennis Rodman, of all people. Keeping us safe is really not my job; it’s the black guy’s [Obama’s] job. But I’ll tell you this: If I don’t finish in the top three for the next Nobel Peace Prize, something’s seriously wrong.”

Rodman’s current trip is being sponsored by Potcoin.com, a cryptocurrency business that does banking for legal marijuana companies. While there is little known about cultural life in North Korea, some defectors have said that marijuana is obtainable and common in North Korea.

I’m back! Thanks to my sponsor https://t.co/zBtIFz1QBr. #NorthKorea #PeaceAndLove https://t.co/G7t6PX3WV9

— Dennis Rodman (@dennisrodman) June 13, 2017

Another one of Rodman’s previous trips was sponsored by Paddy Power, an Irish gambling company.

The fact that Rodman, an eccentric NBA star who has headbutted a referee, kicked a cameraman, once married former “Baywatch” star Carmen Electra for less than six months, and then donned a wedding dress and wig to marry himself, is the main liaison between the two nations is pretty strange. But his rapport with the supreme leader is even more bizarre.

Dennis Rodman gives copy of ‘The Art of the Deal’ to North Korean official https://t.co/QKyhrMvigp via @RyanGaydos pic.twitter.com/FQYXQyGnm6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2017

In the past Rodman has discussed politics with North Korean leaders, in addition to having fun as a private citizen. Prior to his fifth trip, he told to reporters he is “trying to open a door” for better relations between the two nations, according to Chicago Tribune.

In 2014, Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-born American citizen, publicly thanked Rodman following his release from the country after being imprisoned and sentenced the prior year to serve 15 years of hard labor in the country. Bae called Rodman the “catalyst” for his release.

Coincidentally, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was released back to the United States within hours of Rodman’s arrival in North Korea Tuesday. It remains murky as to whether or not Rodman had something to do with Warmbier’s return, but Michael Anton, a US national security spokesman, told CNN he didn’t believe Rodman played a role.

Rodman endorsed President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign after twice participating as a contestant in Trump’s reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” Since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly criticized and threatened both Kim and North Korea.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Despite Trump’s public criticisms, Rodman still believes the president would approve of him befriending Kim. When asked by reporters in Beijing if Trump was aware of the trip, Rodman replied, “Well, I’m pretty sure he’s pretty much happy with the fact that I’m over here trying to accomplish something that we both need.”

Multiple sources involved in unofficial talks with North Korea, according to the Washington Post, claim the Trump Administration is using Rodman as a back channel to North Korea, rather than the usual lineup of experts and policy makers. But it remains to be seen whether or not basketball can actually bridge the seemingly impassable divide between the two countries.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dennis Rodman Heads to Favorite Vacation Spot, Again: North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

Iran and the major world powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) have less than two weeks to come to a deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As talks continue in Vienna, here’s your guide to everything you need to know about why the United States doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, whether or not a deal will be worked out, and what options remain if talks fail.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

How long has Iran had a nuclear program?

Iran has had a nuclear program in some form since the 1950s. Oddly enough, the United States helped Iran lay the foundation for their programs with President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace initiative. Atoms For Peace exported nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium. This program was merely for developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy around the globe. Eisenhower did not intend to develop a nuclear weapons system in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear energy program was supported by the United States in some capacity until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran was then left without international support and continued to develop its nuclear program.

Iran has always insisted that its program is merely for energy, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the leaders of many Western nations have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons.

Is Iran allowed to have nuclear weapons?

If Iran is making nuclear weapons, and most signs point to this being true, then it would be violating international law. Iran is a signatory, along with every country but North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the South Sudan, to the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty holds signatory nations to three main points:

1. The signatory nation must not create nuclear weapons.
2. Signatory nations must disarm themselves of all nuclear weapons.
3. All signatory nations have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

It is important to note that the NPT labels the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear-weapons states. This means that they do not have to disarm. They only have to negotiate in good faith to work toward disarmament.

Iran often cites point three in its defense, while critics argue that the country is violating points one and two.

Here is a NATO overview of the NPT:

Why does the United States not want Iran to have nukes?

There are few reasons the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the United States and Iran have not been on good terms in the past few decades.

In 1953, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and replacing it with the Shah, a monarch who was friendly to the interests of the United States. The Iranian people remembered this when they overthrew this government during the Islamic Revolution. This, plus the fact that the United States took in the Shah after his exile from Iran, is why revolutionaries held diplomats hostage at the American embassy in Iran  for 444 days. Relations have been cold ever since. This video provides a more in-depth summary of U.S.-Iran relations:

There’s another big reason the United States does not want Iran to have nukes: Iran is geographically close to Israel, a close American ally. The Iranian government does not like Israel, and the Israeli government does not like Iran. For emphasis, these two countries really do not like each other. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the worst kept secrets in international politics, and letting its  adversary also have nuclear weapons is a recipe for trouble.

A third concern is that Iran could spark a domino effect of sorts in the region. If Iran has nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want nukes, which will motivate another Middle Eastern country after another to get nukes until the Middle East, a rather unstable region, is covered in warheads.

How has America tried to stop Iran?

For now, the United States, and many other countries, has used economic sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear problem. According to the State Department, these sanctions target the Iranian sectors of finance, transportation, shipping, energy, and more.

Why is Iran willing to talk now?

There are two reasons that Iran is willing to come to an agreement with the world’s powers.

First, the sanctions worked. The economic punishments vastly increased the average Iranian’s cost of living and increased Iran’s inflation rate to a staggering 40 percent. This can be mostly attributed to the American and European embargoes on Iranian oil. In 2012, when the sanction took effect in Europe, Iran’s exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1.53 bbl/d. The Rial (Iran’s currency) also collapsed, dropping by 80 percent between 2011 and 2012.

Second, Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, is much more reasonable than the last one. You might remember former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the crazy guy who said he wanted to wipe Israel “off the map” and that there were no gay people in Iran. This was not a man who would be willing to negotiate with America. Rouhani, on the other hand, ran as a reformer and campaigned on working with the West to ease the sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy.

The President is not the most powerful actor in Iranian. That distinction goes to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the fact that Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run and win shows that he is willing to negotiate.

What has already been agreed upon?

In November 2013, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, came to an interim agreement. Iran halted parts of its nuclear program and in return Western nations eased some of the sanctions. This was a six-month deal that halted progress at every nuclear facility in Iran, and also prevented the building additional facilities. The idea was that a more comprehensive deal would come about in six months.

Here is an ABC News report on how this deal played out in Iran and the United States:

There is debate over whether or not this deal was a good idea. Watch CNN’s Crossfire discuss the issue. The introduction is obnoxious, but the rhetorical arguments are an accurate representation of both sides of the issue:

Six months will be up on July 20 of this year. That means Iran and the world powers have less than two weeks to come to a comprehensive agreement. While the option to extend the deadline is on the table, American diplomats have stated that they are unlikely to support such an extension.

What is still left to agree upon?

The main sticking point for a comprehensive deal is the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain. Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges. Western powers would like to see that number reduced to the low thousands, while Iran would like to someday have 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges are not the only problem that negotiators will face over the next two weeks, however. While Iran has accepted tougher inspection requirements and limits on production of enriched uranium, the country does not want its ballistic missile system to be on the table. It also wants more sanctions to be removed and is not interested in dismantling nuclear facilities.

Iran will resume nuclear production and the world powers will resume crippling sanctions if the two sides cannot resolve these differences.

What should the United States do if talks fail?

Continuing sanctions without any chance of an agreement would be foolish. In 2003, Iran approached the Bush administration under crippling sanctions to discuss a deal. Bush passed, believing that the sanctions would just lead to the collapse of the regime. Iran had 164 centrifuges at that time, which has increased by more than 11,000 percent to its current cache of 19,000.

Sanctions alone will not deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. If talks do not work, military force seems to be the only option left.

Should the United States bomb Iran?

This debate is best personified by Matthew Kroenig and Colin H. Kahl, two contributors to Foreign Affairs. Watch them debate the issue here:

For those of you who do not have an hour of free time, here is a summary of their arguments:

Advocates of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities argue that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for America and its allies. A nuke would give Iran too much leverage in the region. Worse, Israel and Iran would be at constant odds without the safeguards that prevented nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. Kroenig claims that military action in Iran could be contained to just nuclear sites, involve few civilian casualties, and inspire little retaliation. As long as America assures Iran that it is only attacking nuclear facilities, Iran will react calmly.

Kahl argues that a surgical strike would be a disaster and that the United States should merely contain Iran as a nuclear power. Even if the strike succeeds, which is not a given, Kahl envisions a massive retaliation from Iran that includes closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military forces in the Gulf, and providing lethal assistance to terrorist groups that the West is currently fighting throughout the region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz alone would send a shockwave through global markets, but Iranian attacks against American troops would be devastating. Plus, given how unstable the region is, there’s no telling what kind of violence this could cause in other Middle Eastern nations.

Even worse, Kahl does not believe that a military strike would deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Such a strike would only set the program back by a few years, and has the potential to rally Iranians around rebuilding. It’s not as if America can remove the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons from the Iranian people.

Conclusion

Iran and the West have until July 20 to come to an agreement. If diplomats fail, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program and the Western world will continue to cripple the country’s economy with strong sanctions.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

On July 18, negotiators in Vienna agreed to extend the deadline by four months to November 24, 2014. Negotiators also agreed to extend the terms of the stop-gap agreement. Iran will still halt its nuclear program and the United States will continue to suspend sanctions. Iran and the world powers have made some progress but they are still struggling to agree on how large the country’s nuclear program should be.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Iran Sanctions

Energy Information Administration: Energy Information Administration on the Iranian economy

Additional

Reuters: U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Rebukes Iran

Cold War: CIA Overthrows Iranian Democracy

CNN: Facts About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

NPR: Iran’s Economy Key in Nuclear Deal

Economist: A Red Line and a Reeling Rial

LA Times: U.S. Threatens to End Iran Nuclear Talks

Foreign Affairs: Not Time to Attack Iran

CNN: Final Talks Before Deadline Begin

CNN: What Critics Are Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

Foreign Affairs: Time to Attack Iran

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iranian Nuclear Talks: Final Deadline Looming appeared first on Law Street.