送交者: 方舟子 于 2005-12-27, 19:32:28:
Sir,
As a royal reader of the New York Times since I came to the US in 1990 and often citing the Times as the standard of good journalism when I criticized bad journalism of Chinese media, I am surprised to see such a biased and inaccurate report published by the Times (Rule by Law: Seeking a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River', by Jim Yardley, December 26, 2005). Much of its inaccuracy and misinformation had been corrected when I replied to Mr. Yardley questions by email in December 7, 2005 (see the enclosure), and it's very easy to check the facts. However, writing as if none of opponents of the so-called "environmentalists" answered his interview request, and accepting rumors and lies spread by the "environmentalists" as facts, Mr. Yardley simply ignored my opinions and reported only one side story told by the "environmentalists".
I was one of those scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists" -- criticizing the "environmentalists" using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. This trip was not "sponsored by dam developers" as Mr. Yardley reported. It was sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute. This Institute is also in charge of the environmental assessment report of Nu River Project that those "environmentalists" want to make public. The same institute also sponsored some "environmentalists" to visit Nu River before our visit.
The Nu River is not "one of only two free flowing rivers in China". There are two dams in the mainstream of Nu River: Biru Dam (completed in 1990) and Chalong Dam (completed in 1995). In contrast to Mr. Yardley's suggestion, the controversial new dams would not be built in the World Heritage Site area and would have little effect at the biodiversity of that region. In fact, the ecology and environment in the dam-planning area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. The dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology.
Mr. Yardley reported: "Domestic media coverage has been banned in recent months."
That is not true. There were several reports about this controversy published in newspapers and magazines of mainland China in recent months, most of them were supporting the "environmentalists", for instance,
Hydropower or Environment Protection? This Is a Question, by International Herald (Guoji Xianqu Daobao), Nov. 21, 2005
Controversy of Nu River Reflects the Pain of Social Progress, by Science Times (Kexue Shibao), Nov. 7, 2005
"The Battle of Protecting Nu River" is Backfired?, by Chinese Business Weekly (Shangwu Zhoukan), Oct. 21, 2005
Mr. Yardley 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. Ministry of Water Resources is not involved in this project and controversy, and never made such declaration. The environmental assessment report of Nu River Project as a whole had been classified right after it's finished and before the controversy started, for purely legal reason (talking about "Rule by Law"): Current Chinese law, enacted on Dec. 29, 2000, prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment report is secret and doesn't dare to let the public know. In fact, I would be glad to see the environmental assessment report is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. It's purely legal reason that the report can't be made public. Those "environmentalists" should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the assessment study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the report published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public.
Sincerely,
Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi)
San Diego, California
www.xys.org