Khaled Sharrouf: Terrorist or Transnational Figure?

Khaled Sharrouf is one of the sixty or so Australian nationals fighting on behalf of the Islamic State, most often referred to in the media as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). Before this August, he was relatively little-known. He had been in and out of local courts throughout his childhood, had plead guilty to a terrorism charge in 2009 on the basis of mental illness, and had fled to Syria on his brother’s passport last year- none of which sparked more attention than usual. But on August 10th he captured the disgust and outrage of people around the world with a photo posted on Twitter. It was of a young boy, around 7 years old, who is likely to be Sharrouf’s son. He is dressed like any suburban Australian kid, with a blue polo shirt, plaid shorts and a baseball cap, but in his hands he is holding a severed head. From the expression on his face and the way he is hoisting it up with two hands, you can tell it is almost too heavy for him to carry. “That’s my boy!” says the caption.

Some of globalization’s more optimistic proponents believe that encouraging contact between people around the world using social media tools like Twitter will foster a greater understanding of humanity, making violent conflict less likely. But here is an example of a father purposefully exposing his 7-year-old son to the barbarity of an extremist ideology in a region that is very far from home. Sharrouf and other expatriate terrorists raise the possibility that the flow of information constantly at our fingertips is not always a positive product of globalization, and that it can even exacerbate the violence it claims to prevent. Are there other situations in which globalization has been harmful rather than helpful? And how is the violence that is inevitably tied to globalization portrayed in the readings of our class?

(Apologies for this post’s morbid content. A link to the article is here.)

Xanthe Gallate

One thought on “Khaled Sharrouf: Terrorist or Transnational Figure?”

  1. I think that there are definitely downsides to globalization. One that I have been hearing a lot about recently, but isn’t particularly violent is food gentrification. With increasing globalization, foods are being eating by people outside of the country of origin of that food. One of the issues that this can cause is that the prices of certain foods can rise massively as they gain popularity in wealthier nations. For instance, for people in certain parts of Bolivia and Peru, quinoa is part of the traditional diet, but the price has tripled since 2006, which puts it out of the range of many people who have relied on it for nutrition.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s