At the very outset of the 21st century, Osama bin Laden wittingly or unwittingly positioned himself with the 9/11 attacks as one of its most important figures.

The attacks initially served to undermine multi-cultural policies in relatively ethnically and religiously homogeneous European societies, which struggled to with migration from other continents, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds. The legacy of the attacks has brought identity politics back to the fore not only in the West but also in Africa and Asia.

In doing so, the attacks reshaped global politics and attitudes towards large numbers of people fleeing political and economic collapse as the ‘other’ instead of viewing them as victims of misconceived Western policies that backfired in countries governed and mismanaged by corrupt politicians and political and economic structures.

“Identity wars and conflicts based on differences in ethnicity, culture, language or religion are, once ignited, the most powerful forces in human affairs… Alongside the return of great power competition, the eruption of identity politics is the single most consequential political feature of our time. This fateful combination does not bode well,” said scholar and Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead.

Mr. Mead pointed to a host of identity-driven conflicts that fractured Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon; spawned Iranian Arab, Kurdish, Azeri and Baloch separatist movements, encouraged Russian revisionist nationalism in Ukraine and the Caucasus; enabled cultural genocide in northwest China and boosted populist and far-right sentiment in Europe and the United States.

Two decades after 9/11, the United States, drained by forever wars, appears less willing to stand up firmly for its values while, rising powers like China have little interest in what happens to multi-ethnic, multi-religious nations

“With all the deserved criticism and analysis of the American foreign policy of the past decades, we will live to regret the decline of American ambition,” said Sabina Cudic, a Bosnian parliamentarian worried about the threat of the Bosnia Herzegovinian federation fracturing into separate Bosnak, Serb and Croatian states.

The fallout resulting from changed attitudes was evident in the West’s recent failure to anticipate mass movement towards Kabul airport in the wake of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban takeover of the country. The West’s initial hesitancy to respond to the plight of those cooperating with Western forces and institutions in the last two decades compounded these failures.

It is almost as if Mr. Bin Laden anticipated US President Joe Biden’s stumble when he ordered Al Qaeda in 2010 to target then President Barak Obama on a visit to Afghanistan, but not Mr. Biden, his vice-president.

“The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency for the remainder of the term, as it is the norm over there. Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis,” Mr. Bin Laden predicted.

The West’s US-led failures while exiting Afghanistan undermined two decades ago of multiculturalism and open borders and further empowered populist and right-wing anti-migration and pro-nationalist forces in Europe as well as the United States, Asia and Africa, particularly against Muslims, Jews, and people of colour; and nationalism laced with supremacism.

Western democracies pay the price with the brutalization of debate and dialogue, the abandonment of civility and etiquette, and expressions of racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic attitudes becoming less socially taboo and more mainstream.

“Of all the endless costs of terrorism, the most important is the least tallied: what fighting it has cost our democracy. How like America it is not to recognize that the true threat was counterterrorism, not terrorism,” argues journalist and author Spencer Ackerman. Ackerman suggests in his latest book, ‘Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump,’ that the global war on terrorism with its associated use of torture, mass surveillance, militarism and authoritarianism created an environment that catered to Bin Laden’s vision of undermining Western ideals and sewing disarray. 

“The anti-Muslim discourse that arose in the wake of 9/11 was a vector through which open racism and open bigotry was smuggled back into the mainstream of American politics,” said Matt Duss, two-time presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser. “I think it normalized these sorts of claims about different groups of people, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, Black people, or others.”

Changed attitudes have made Western societies more vulnerable to intolerant, anti-pluralistic, and counter-revolutionary machinations by countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Alarmed by the strength of political Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the 2011 popular Arab revolts, the Gulf states had little compunction about fuelling anti-Muslim sentiment in Western countries, including France and Austria, to counter Islamists and their backers, Turkey and Qatar.

Anti-Muslim sentiment is bolstered by the lack of support from Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as much of the rest of the Muslim world for persecuted Muslim communities such as the Uighurs in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar and Bangladesh, and Muslims in India-administered Kashmir.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE promote their socially more flexible but autocratic versions of a moderate interpretation of Islam that preaches absolute obedience to the ruler. The two states’ use their interpretations to project themselves as leaders of moderation in the Muslim world in which they compete for religious soft power with one another as well as with Turkey, Qatar, Iran and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country.

”The UAE’s narrative was purposefully designed to appeal to a Western, particularly American audience, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Islamist surge during the Arab Spring, and the rise of the Islamic State. Yet, for Abu Dhabi, its crusade against Islam in the political space has another, more sinister objective: depoliticising civil society while monopolising socio-political power and authority in the hands of the state,” asserted Gulf scholar Andreas Krieg. Mr. Krieg could just as well have been speaking about Saudi Arabia.

The irony is that the religious soft power rivals unwittingly reinforce each other’s efforts. Emirati and Saudi encouragement of Islamophobia in cooperation with populists and Europe’s far-right strengthens Iranian revolutionaries and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr. Erdogan projects himself as a pious leader who defends the rights of marginalized Diaspora communities that hail from ‘black’ Turks at home who have been disenfranchised by the Kemalist Turkish elite while Iran claims to represent the struggle of the downtrodden and disenfranchised.

The populists and right-wing nationalists in Europe and elsewhere are the perfect foil for Mr. Erdogan. In turn, Mr. Erdogan’s calls on the Turkish Diaspora to reject assimilation is fodder for the very groups Mr. Erdogan ostensibly opposes.

“Ultimately, these are two right-wing currents that profit from each other. Turkish nationalism coloured by Islamism on the one hand and anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish racism, which has spread throughout Europe and Austria in particular, on the other,” said political scientist Thomas Schmidinge. He was discussing the situation in Austria that serves as an example that repeats itself across Europe in which the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey wage covert campaigns against one another.

M. Bin Laden must have a grin on his face as the scene unfolds in Europe and the United States, irrespective of whether the former leader of Al-Qaeda is looking at the world from above or from down under. He may bemoan the plight of Muslims in much of the world but the disarray in the West is probably greater, in part thanks to his lethal handiwork, than he probably would have accomplished in his most imaginative dreams.

An earlier version of this story appeared on 911Legacies.com.

Political pressure and anxiety over a fourth wave of the Coronavirus is now replacing clinical data and science. President Joe Biden’s overused talking point in stating ‘science will dictate the vaccines’ seems to be going by the wayside with the White House pressuring the Food and Drug Administration following a pre-emptive announcement to rollout the COVID-19 booster (third shot) on September 20.   

The fallout from Biden’s booster push may be responsible for a major mutiny and increasing discord within the FDA. Two of the agency’s top regulators are out as increased pressure mounts to authorize vaccine booster shots and doses for young children under the age of 12.

The two regulators resigning are Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR), and OVRR Deputy Director Phil Krause. Gruber has been with the FDA for more than 30 years, and Krause has been at the agency for more than a decade. Their departure is a huge loss for the agency with key roles in addressing critical vaccine-related issues and side-effects.

It may not end here with a festering rebellion within the agency who seem to be out of lockstep with the WH and the CDC over the premature decision to anoint a drug into the veins of young children who for vast majority are not at any risk of hospitalization when contracting the virus.

These key resignations may have likely been a culmination of events with the highly conspicuous, yet much heralded FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot on August 23^rd.  With Biden, the CDC, and the media’s capricious tone on the remaining nail of hesitancy pried away to induce the unvaccinated to roll up their sleeves, the president and world leaders now have their stick to mandate vaccines for all federal government employees.

This momentum has resulted in large corporations, hospitals, the travel industry, and higher education leading the way in requiring their employees and students to be vaccinated in order to return to the workplace or school. The extension of the vaccine mandate has resulted in the momentum for vaccine passports to attend civic events, restaurants, riding public transportation, and moving about freely in the marketplace.

Not so quick.

When reviewing the FDA letters sent to Pfizer, the Biological License application was simply approving to call the COVID-19 drug with the brand name Comirnaty; and still requires nearly a dozen additional clinical studies over five years with annual grade reporting – specifically noting further analysis for the younger population. Comirnaty is not a fully approved drug; but rather an approval to manufacture the drug under a brand name and further clinical studies must take place to assess side effects of the drug over longer periods of time.  

A second EUA letter from the FDA to Pfizer simply grants the stayed Emergency Use Authorization of an experimental drug now branded as Comirnaty and now permits injection of persons aged 12 through 15 years under emergency sanction. Pfizer must also include warnings of side effects related to pericarditis and myocarditis. Let’s be clear, this experimental vaccine is not fully approved for use as prescribed and perceived in the media; and the shots should not be mandated and legally forced while under further clinical reviews.

The FDA resignations of two leaders with a combined 20 years of service in reviewing vaccine-related issues may be in large part of their unwillingness to stand behind the decision to juice up additional injections for the third time and perhaps a fourth knowing immunity wanes quite quickly after the jab and those who are fully vaccinated are now falling victim to the virus.    

A recent major study by the Mayo Clinic that reviewed thousands of PCR tests found the effectiveness of COVID-19 infections dropped in July to 42% for the Pfizer vaccine and 76% for the Moderna vaccine. The effectiveness of long-term protection with the vaccine can no longer be masked with the alarming rate of breakthrough cases as demonstrated in Provincetown, Massachusetts where three-quarters of 469 residents infected during a recent COVID-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated.

Some in the FDA may be alarmed over the recent analysis by Luc Montagnier, a world top virologist and Nobel Prize winner for his work in discovering HIV as the cause of AIDs. He says the world is silent about Antibody-Dependant Enhancement (ADE) where the vaccine is creating the variants by forcing the virus to find a way to stay alive and mutate or die. We just don’t know the extent of the vaccine’s ability to manipulate variants; and yet the tracking for third doses is being prepared.

Comparatively, the cautious responses by government to previous vaccines rollouts has been far different to the rush given to this vaccine. In contrast, when the US vaccinated 45 million for the swine flu in 1976, 53 people reportedly died after the shot, and the US government immediately halted the vaccination. According to the data from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), they have registered over ten thousand known COVID-19 vaccine related deaths. How many deaths go unreported? VAERS has also reported thousands of heart attacks, hospitalizations, tinnitus, and high rates of deep vein thrombosis associated with this vaccine, not to mention real concerns over possible fertility issues in women. In comparison, the Menveo vaccine for preventing meningitis had one known death following the vaccine over a 5-year period from 2010-2015.

In adding further concern on whether the employees embedded at the FDA are fully committed to the COVID-19 vaccines was the compelling response by Peter Marks, director of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, when he was questioned by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on May 11 on what percentage of the employees in the FDA have been vaccinated. Marks said he could not tell the exact number but probably a little bit more than half, probably around 60 percent of his employees are vaccinated. Do they know something we don’t know?

Western democracies, specifically the United States, have refrained from an authoritarianism level of control or pressure similar to that of the Chinese communists on independent regulatory agencies. It is a dangerous precedent to see the FDA become weaponized by the political arm of government in their effort to coerce and force entire populations to inject emergency use medicines still subjected to long-term clinical studies.

If the government runs roughshod over the FDA with key voices of objection now removed, what guarantee does society have that other invasive treatments or unconstitutional compliance measures are not enforced in the future? We are already witnessing the fallout with the government’s nod to the private sector and institutions to implement mandatory vaccination and passports; along with social media platforms doing the bidding of government by censoring opposing positions and freedom of speech.

Vaccination efforts that penalize the non-compliant with social and economic limitations is inherently oppressive. Physicians, nurses, and those in the private sector who express opposing opinions or refuse this vaccine are being threatened with the loss of their license, suppressed, and their employment will be terminated. In short, the unvaccinated will be left behind in society.  

Society is breaking down into a divisive us and them situation where the political and news media mantra has repeatedly stated this virus has become a pandemic of the unvaccinated, anti-vaxxers are responsible for the lockdowns, and in some cases being refused medical care and labeled as murders. The climate for persecution against the unvaccinated is becoming evident while the temperature for domestic unrest is rising. 

History has shown time after time that government’s excessive state control by creating an environment where there is a lack of access to employment and a means to survive, a denial of freedom to move about in the community or travel, and imposed isolation can create the potential for civil unrest. While protest in a democracy is healthy, no one should advocate or participate in unruly unrest, however medical coercion is wrong and should be illegal in removing one’s ability to live, work, and provide.   

With the high-profile resignations at the FDA, there is growing friction and mistrust between the regulators and the Biden administration’s third shot booster plan. The government’s resolve to push forward without the FDA’s full approval of the vaccines as a safe medicine for all ages of the population may result in a further mutiny among the FDA’s employees and the agency’s collapse under political pressure.   

Despite a new era of pro-choice feminism sweeping the world, Texas has passed the Senate Bill No. 8, bringing to life one of the restrictive abortion bans in the world. The law, pegged as the ‘foetal heartbeat bill’ disallows all abortions at the point of the ‘first detectable heartbeat’. In this post, I shall approach the law through two-prongs. First, I shall discuss the scientific and medical concerns associated with the bill. Then, I shall demonstrate how the law violates the internationally recognised human and reproductive rights of women, and disproportionately impacts specific groups of women.  

What Does Science Say?

Science cannot conclusively establish when an embryo becomes a ‘human being’. Scholars have pointed out that there are as many as five different stages of development, each of which is a plausible beginning point for human life. What is clearly determinable, is the fourth stage, which is viability. Viability is defined as the stage when a foetus is able to survive outside the uterus successfully, with medical aid. This is the stage which was endorsed by the US Supreme Court in its decision in Roe v. Wade.  With the currently available technology, this stage is achieved about 24 weeks into pregnancy. According to the existing precedent, abortion cannot be banned prior to this stage. Despite this, the Texas law adopts a contrary and unviable standard. 

The Texas abortion Bill seems to be inspired from the misinformed Poterian thought that an abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy stops a beating heart. The very phrasing of the law, which aims to ban abortions after the ‘first detectable heartbeat’ is problematic. Such detection could happen as early as around six weeks into the pregnancy. However, the actual heart only begins to form around the eighth week of pregnancy and remains relatively unformed till the twentieth week. What is detected earlier is not a heartbeat, but electrical cardiac activity within the embryonic cells. It is also important to note that it is extremely possible for women to get past the six-week mark without being aware of their pregnancy. The new law shall restrict a woman’s abortion to approximately the time till six weeks of her pregnancy, and it is utterly misleading to make a pro-life argument on the basis of the ‘first detectable heartbeat’ standard. 

Rights of the Women: An International Human Rights Perspective

Apart from being based on medical inconsistencies, the legislation channels an attack on the human rights of women. The right to privacy is a universally-recognised human right, enshrined under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR]. As noted by the Working Group on discrimination against women, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to make decisions about reproductive functions is central to her right to privacy. Even in V.D.A. v. Argentina, the United Nations Human Rights Committee [HRC] held that denying women access to abortion can be viewed as a violation of their right to privacy under the ICCPR. While the HRC has previously stated that States can adopt measures to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, it also clarified that such measures should not affect the exercise of other rights under the Covenant by women. However, ensuring the right to privacy and bodily autonomy of women is to be viewed as a precondition to their enjoyment of all other rights. While the decisions of the HRC are not binding on state parties, it is argued that they must be considered in pursuance of good faith. Even if we turn a Nelson’s eye to such violations of a woman’s right to privacy for a moment, another problem quickly grabs our attention.

The legislation allows any person who ‘aids or abets’ a woman seek abortion in any capacity to be sued for a minimum amount of $10,000. Such a suit can be brought by any private citizen in Texas. This would incentivise citizen bounty hunters to unnecessarily interfere with a woman’s private bodily decision in order to make money. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly bars such arbitrary interference with one’s privacy. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on torture, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment expressly noted that extracting information from women seeking medical care or abortion for prosecution purposes shall amount to torture or ill-treatment under the United Nations Convention against Torture. By relying on citizens instead of state officers to enforce the law, the Legislature has made it complicated for the courts to strike down the legislation. Thus, the question before the Supreme Court recently was not whether the law is constitutional, but whether it can even be challenged in court. Subsequently, Texas has provided a model for other states to use the private citizen enforcement loophole, if they wish to sidestep judicial interference. To add salt to the injury, private citizens bringing a suit are not required to produce any evidence that the abortion took place after six weeks of pregnancy, and thus, legal abortions might also be subjected to such litigations.

Yet another issue with the Act is the disproportionate impact it will have on certain groups of women. Women in Texas can still seek abortions after six weeks in other states. However, this option shall not be equally accessible to all socio-economic groups. As a consequence, women from weaker economic backgrounds, women of colour, and undocumented women will face the brunt of this law. What is concerning is that it is precisely these women who form the majority of the cases of abortion. A 2019 study found that as much as 70% of the abortions in Texas were those provided to women of colour. Having to travel to another country to abort is not only non-affordable, but also against the rights of women. In the case of Whelan v. Ireland, the HRC held that compelling women to travel away from their home country to abort can amount to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ and shall be a violation of their right under Article 7 of the ICCPR. 

What is even more disappointing is that the law does not create any exception for victims of rape. Since the brining of a lawsuit against anyone who aids or abets the abortion of such victims is so easy, rape crisis centres are concerned about whether they can continue to support survivors after an assault. Any support they provide might fall under the broad ambit of the word ‘aid’ within the Act, and hence open the possibility of them having to face a lawsuit. With the increasingly high number of rape cases reported in Texas every year, this will leave several survivors of rape with inadequate access to post-assault care. 

The new legislation on several counts – from science to upholding the rights of women. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the enactment of the law, one can only wonder how far-reaching the consequences shall be. If other states decide to continue on the same path set by Texas, then the reproductive rights of women which have been championed ever since Roe v. Wade shall suffer a huge blow.