送交者: xj 于 2005-12-28, 00:09:41:
当然仅供参考，最终还得老方定。
Sir,
Having been a loyal reader of the New York Times since I came to the US in 1990, I view the Times as exemplary journalism. However, I was shocked by the blatant bias and numerous inaccuracies in the report, Rule by Law: Seeking a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River', by Jim Yardley, published in December 26, 2005.
Mr. Yardley interviewed me through email. Thus, had he paid any attention to the email in which I replied to his questions in December 7, 2005 (see the enclosure), many inaccuracies in his report could have been avoided. Apparently, he had completely ignored my opinions. Writing as if none of the opponents of the so-called "environmentalists" had answered his interview requests, and accepting rumors and lies spread by the "environmentalists" as facts, Mr. Yardley reported a one-sided story told by the "environmentalists."
Here I will correct some mistakes in Mr. Yardley's report, again.
First of all, as one of the scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists," I would like to clarify that this trip was not "sponsored by dam developers" as Mr. Yardley reported, but by the National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute. This institute was in charge of the environmental assessment report on the Nu River Project which the "environmentalists" want to make public. Furthermore, the same institute also sponsored several "environmentalists" to visit the Nu River before our visit.
In contrast to Mr. Yardley's assertion, the Nu River is NOT "one of only two free flowing rivers in China." There have already been two dams in the mainstream of the Nu River: Biru Dam (completed in 1990) and Chalong Dam (completed in 1995). The controversial new dams will not be built in the World Heritage Site area, thus having little impact on the biodiversity of the Nu River region. In fact, the ecology and environment of the Nu River areas planned for the dams has been virtually destroyed by over-exploitation (deforestation,primitive farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. The dam project may help protect and restore the ecological system in ways such as stopping local people from burning trees for farming, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology.
Further, Mr. Yardley reported: "Domestic media coverage has been banned in recent months."
That is not true. There have been many reports on this controversy in national newspapers and magazines in the mainland China during past months. Most of them supported the "environmentalists." For instance,
Hydropower or Environment Protection? This Is a Question, by International Herald (Guoji Xianqu Daobao), Nov. 21, 2005
Controversies over the Nu River Reflect the Pain of Social Progress, by Science Times (Kexue Shibao), Nov. 7, 2005
"The Battle of Protecting the Nu River," Has It Backfired? by Chinese Business Weekly (Shangwu Zhoukan), Oct. 21, 2005
Mr. Yardley also reported: "But the Ministry of Water Resources, noting that government reports about international rivers were considered proprietary information, declared a small section of the assessment to be a state secret and forbade its release."
This is not true either. The Ministry of Water Resources did not involve in this project or the debate, neither did it make such a statement. The environmental assessment report on the Nu River Project as a whole was classified as confidential right after it was finished and before the controversy started, solely out of legal reasons (talking about "Rule by Law": one current Chinese law, enacted on Dec. 29, 2000, prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential; and the Nu River is an international river.). To my knowledge, nothing in this report is secret or inappropriate to be known by the public. Indeed, I will be glad to see it to be publicized because I believe that it will clarify the misunderstandings about the dam project.
On the other hand, those "environmentalists" should have known this legal restriction very well because some of them (for example, Professor Jiang Gaoming) participated in the assessment study and should have a copy of the report. If they do want the report to be publicized, they should request a change of the confidentiality law first. Therefore, I believe their appeal is merely a means of complicating the issue, distorting the facts, and misleading the public.
I agree that the debate on the environmental, legal, and economical issues raised by the new dam project on the Nu River is a test-field for Chinese government. However, a biased and inaccurate report such as Mr. Yardley’s is of no help, if not destructive, for Chinese government and the world as well.
I would appreciate your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi)
San Diego, California
www.xys.org