做为“访问怒江并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注”（《法治：对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》，Jim Yardely于2005年12月26日报道）的学者之一，我感到有必要纠正Yardely先生报道中的错误。

　　如果Yardely先生能重视我在2005年12月7日回答其提问的电子邮件（全文见附件）的话，该报道中的不准确和不实之处大部分都可以避免。然而，在Yardely先生的笔下就好像没有“环保人士”的反对者回答其采访要求，他显然完全忽视了我的意见，只报道“环保人士”的一面之辞。

　　首先，我想要说明我参与的对怒江的访问并非如Yardely先生报道的那样“由大坝开发者赞助”，而是由国家水电水利规划总院资助的。该机构负责编写“环保人士”现在要求公示的有关怒江项目的环评报告。请注意，在我们访问怒江之前，该机构也资助过一些“环保人士”访问怒江。

　　怒江并非如Yardely先生断言的那样是“中国仅有的两条自由流淌的河流之一”。在怒江的干流已经有两座水坝：比如水坝（1990年完工）和查龙水坝（1995年完工）。与Yardely先生所认定的相反，争议中的新坝并非要建在世界自然遗产地，对那个地区的生物多样性也几乎没有什么影响。事实上，怒江计划建坝的地区的生态和环境实际上都已被毁灭，是由于数百年来当地居民过度的开发（砍伐森林、开荒、修路等等）造成的。建坝反倒有可能在某种程度上有助于恢复那里的生态系统，例如通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和开荒，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。

　　Yardely先生进而报道说：“近几个月来中国国内媒体的有关报道已被禁止。”

　　这不是事实。在近几个月来，在中国大陆的全国性报刊上有许多关于怒江建坝争议的报道。其中大部分是支持“环保人士”的。以下是一些例子：《水电还是环保 是一个问题》，《国际先驱导报》2005年11月21日《怒江之争折射社会进步阵痛》，《科学时报》2005年11月7日《“怒江保卫战”逆转？》，《商务周刊》2005年10月21日

　　Yardely先生又报道说：“但是中国水利部注意到有关国际河流的政府报告被视为专有的信息，宣布环评中的一小部分内容属于国家机密，并禁止其发布。”

　　这也不是事实。中国水利部并没有参与怒江规划，也未卷入争议，从未如此宣布过。怒江环评报告在完成之后，全文就被归为机密，这甚至发生于有关争议出现之前，纯粹是由于法律的原因（不是在说“法治”吗？）：在2000年12月29日制定的一部法规规定有关国际河流的科研资料属于机密；而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，该环评报告中并没有什么内容需要保密、不宜让公众知道的。事实上，我将乐于见到该环评报告被公示，因为我相信这将会澄清有关怒江项目的不实报道和误解。那些“环保人士”应该很清楚这个法律问题，因为他们中有人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手上应该有一份环评报告。如果他们真的希望该报告获得公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律。因此我相信他们的呼吁不过是试图使局势复杂化，混淆视听。

　　自从1990年到美国以后，我便是《纽约时报》的忠实读者。在批评中国媒体糟糕的新闻操守时，我经常将《时报》做为好新闻的标准加以引用。我希望在将来我还能这么做。像这样有倾向性的、不准确的报道只会损害《时报》的信誉。

　　附英文原文：

　　To the Editor:

　　As one of those scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists" (Rule by Law: Seeking a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River', by Jim Yardley, December 26, 2005), I feel obliged to correct the mistakes in Mr. Yardley's report.

　　Much of its inaccuracy and misinformation could have been avoided if Mr. Yardley had paid any attention to my email reply to his questions dated December 7, 2005 (see the enclosure). However, writing as if none of opponents of the so-called "environmentalists" had answered his interview requests, Mr. Yardley had apparently ignored my opinions and reported only one side of story told by the "environmentalists".

　　First of all, I would like to make it clear that the trip I attended 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" now want to make public. Please note that the same institute also sponsored some "environmentalists" to visit the Nu River before our visit.

　　The Nu River is not "one of only two free flowing rivers in China" as Mr. Yardley asserted. There are already two dams in the mainstream of the Nu River: Biru Dam (completed in 1990) and Chalong Dam (completed in 1995). In contrast to Mr. Yardley's assertion, the controversial new dams will not be built in the World Heritage Site area and will have little impact on the biodiversity of that area. In fact, the ecology and environment of the Nu River in the areas planned for the dams has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people during past few hundreds of years. The dam project may instead help restore the ecological system in ways such as stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient funds 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 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.

　　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", Has the Situation Changed? 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 was not involved in this project or the controversy, and never made such declaration. The environmental assessment report of the Nu River Project as a whole was classified as confidential right after its completion, before the controversy even started, for a purely legal reason (talking about "Rule by Law"): One current Chinese law, enacted on Dec. 29, 2000, prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential; and 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 that the environmental assessment report is made public, because I believe it will clarify the misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Those "environmentalists" should have known this legal problem very well because some of them (e.g. Prof. 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 have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal has no merit except complicating the issue and misleading the public.

　　Having been a loyal reader of the New York Times since I came to the US in 1990, I had often been citing the Times as the standard of good journalism when I criticized bad journalism of Chinese media. I certainly hope I can do the same in the future. Biased and inaccurate reports like this one will only hurt the credibility of the Times.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Sincerely,

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi)