修改永无止境,又改了几句话 (全版)



所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl

送交者: xj 于 2005-12-27, 22:27:38:

回答: 致《纽约时报》的信(草稿) 由 方舟子 于 2005-12-27, 19:32:28:

Sir,
As a loyal reader of the New York Times since I came to the US in 1990, I often cite the Times as an example of good journalism when I criticize the bad journalism of Chinese media. However, I was disappointed to see such a biased and inaccurate report being 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 misleading information should have been corrected in the email that I replied to Mr. Yardley’s questions in December 7, 2005 (see the enclosure). Unfortunately, he had completely ignored my opinions. Writing as if none of the opponents of the so-called "environmentalists" answered his interview requests, and accepting rumors and lies spread by the "environmentalists" as facts, Mr. Yardley reported only one side of the story told by the "environmentalists."

I am one of the scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists." First of all, 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 of the Nu River Project that 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 suggestion, 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). 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 in the dam-planning area of the Nu River has been virtually destroyed by over-exploitation (deforestation, 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 environment 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 of 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

Controversy of the Nu River Reflects the Pain of Social Progress, by Science Times (Kexue Shibao), Nov. 7, 2005

"The Battle of Protecting the Nu River" is 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 neither involved in this project and the controversy, nor did it make such a declaration. 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, for solely legal reasons (talking about "Rule by Law": 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 misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. On the other hand, those "environmentalists" should have known this legal issue very well because some of them (for example, Professor Jiang Gaoming) participated in the assessment study and should have a copy of the report in their hands. 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.

Sincerely,

Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi)
San Diego, California
www.xys.org




所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容(可选项):

URL(可选项):
URL标题(可选项):
图像(可选项):


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl