After weeks of research, I have been unable to find any information that makes me think Abu Sharati, supposedly the “representative” of Darfuri refugees and IDPs, exists -except to the extent that someone, who possesses neither that name nor that position, has been making statements to the press. And that whoever that person is, he is apparently awfully fond of the rebel leader Abdel Wahid Al-Nur.

I cannot think of any way to interpret the information I have been given that would allow me to conclude that no journalist has either (a) lied to me, (b) failed to follow the professional ethics that a journalist should, or (c) been duped by a fake “refugee representative” when any minor amount of digging or critical thought would have alerted them that there was more to the story. Frankly, the Occam’s Razor explanation here really seems like it’s (d): all of the above.

The trail that leads her to this conclusion is definitely worth a read, as are her conclusions for why this misreporting matters.  She believes first that “Abu Sharati’s” claiming to represent all Darfuris deprives other IDPs of their ability to tell their own stories and, furthermore, that “presenting a political argument in the guise of a humanitarian sentiment is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst.”  With 2.7 million Dafuris scattered over numerous camps in Darfur, it seems highly unlikely that they are organized and represented by one voice with one message.

Finally, she notes the implications for the Darfur activist movement:

Thirdly, it matters that the media quoted “Sharati” misleadingly, because it allows any of us who trusted those stories to be, well, misled. The Save Darfur movement is massive, and has motivated a huge number of grass-roots activists to support the cause, many of whom have never been to Darfur and rely on the media for information about the humanitarian situation there. They are ordinary people, (except when they are Mia Farrow or Nat Hentoff), with regular jobs and lives, and they don’t have access to firsthand experience to guide them. So when the mainstream media quotes Sharati, they trust that he is who the articles say he is. That lends power not only to the views expressed in mainstream publications, but also to the things that he says in less reputable publications. So, if it’s not true that he can reasonably speak for the displaced, then the activists who listen to him have been duped, and that sucks for them. And if it turns out that the thing they’ve been duped into doing is supporting one particular dude’s particular political ambitions because those views are presented as a neutral humanitarian perspective, then I think that sucks even more.

Overall, I think Taub accurately summarizes the dangers posed to the advocacy community’s understanding of Darfuri politics.  At the end of August, I did quote Abu Sharati in one of my blog postings from a telephone interview “he” gave to The Sudan Tribune in which “he” expressed concerns about the “protection of civilians and evacuation of new settlers who occupy IDP lands.” These complaints matched up with a number of other reports we have received from Darfur and Darfuris.

“Abu Sharati’s” strong denunciations though of U.S. Special Envoy Gration’s visit to the IDP camps in early September motivated me to look into other statements allegedly made by him.  I found, like Taub, that Abu Sharati had a consistent record of restating the talking points of Darfuri rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur.  I shared this information with my colleagues and when such criticism of the Gration was brought up the same week on a Save Darfur activist conference call, a colleague of mine noted that activists should not put too much stock in the quotes from Abu Sharati because there were strong suspicions that he was speaking mostly for one faction of the Darfuri rebels.

Taub should be commended for trying to ensure accuracy about the reporting on the harsh, no-exaggeration-needed situation and concerns of the 2.7 million Darfuris living in IDP camps.