老方的信,完全重写了第一段和最后一段,和改了些小错



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 2005-12-28, 11:38:29:

Sir,

As one of the so-called "environmentalists’" opponents who were interviewed by Mr. Jim Yardley, and one of the scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists," I was shocked by the blatant bias and numerous inaccuracies in his report titled “Rule by Law: Seeking a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River',” published in December 26, 2005.

Mr. Yardley contacted me through email in [date]. Thus, had he paid any attention to my email reply dated 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 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."

To give a more complete and accurate picture of the controversy about the Nu River, I feel obliged to correct the mistakes in Mr. Yardley's report.

First of all, I would like to make it clear that the trip I attended was not "sponsored by dam developers" as Mr. Yardley asserted, but by the National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute. This institute is 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 are already 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 be located outside the World Heritage Site area to minimize the impact on the biodiversity of the Nu River region. In fact, the ecology and environment of the Nu River in the areas planned for the dams has been virtually destroyed by over-exploitation (deforestation, primitive farming, road building etc.) by local people during past few hundreds of years. The dam project may instead help protect and restore the ecological system by stopping local people from burning trees for farming, relocating them from the deprived land to more fertile land, and providing more funds to protect the local ecology.

Further, Mr. Yardley reported: "Domestic media coverage has been banned in recent months."

This 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." Here are a few examples:

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 statement. The environmental assessment report on the Nu River Project as a whole was classified as confidential right after its completion, which was even before the controversy started (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. In fact, I will be glad to see it to be accessible to the public because I believe that it will clarify the misunderstandings and rumors about the dam project.

On the other hand, those "environmentalists" should have known such 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 suspect their appeal is merely a means of complicating the issue to mislead the public.

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. I hope my letter will correct some inaccuracies in Mr. Yardley’s report, and benefit the Times’ readers as well.

Sincerely,

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




所有跟贴:
  • oops, title should be "to the editor" ... - xj (0 bytes) 2005-12-28, 11:39:07

    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