TOTH's letter to BINDER on 2/23/2001:
Dear Mr. Binder,
I am in favor of returning the Danube to its original riverbed and
dismantling the hydroplant, elevated intake channel and reservoir with EU
and American financial assistance.
I am an American-Hungarian, have 2 degrees from Columbia University in
physics and computer science. I have visited the following hydroplant
sites: Gabcikovo-Bos, Hydroquebec 10,000 MW facility at James-Bay Raddison,
Hydroquebec 800MW facility north of Trois River, New York State-Canada
Niagara Falls 2,200MW plant, NY State pump-storage hydrofacility and some
smaller ones.
I have the following questions:
1. If after a week of heavy rains, the dike breaks near Baka, what will
happen?
2. What is the percentage of Hungarians which were employed during the
construction, and what is the percentage currently in the hydroplant?
3. What is the future of the isolated Nagybodak, Vajka and Doborgaz
villages? Are the human rights of the residents violated by the elevated
intake channel?
Best regards, Kalman Toth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BINDER's response to TOTH on 3/11/2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ing. Július Binder"
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Gabcíkovo
Dear Mr. Toth,
I have received your questions concerning the Gabcíkovo Project. I welcome
your interest and I gladly answer them :
1. A week (or even a month) of heavy rains cannot influence the stability of
the canal-dam near Baka. There is a big difference between a dike (which is
built of local material, on the terrain and has no sealing element) and the
canal-dam, built of pure gravel and sealed by asphalt-concrete sheet,
connected with the strong PVC-sheet sealing the canal-bottom.
1. It is not usual in Slovakia, or in the former CSFR (and I am sure, that
neither in USA) to keep an evidence what percentage of workers belong to a
certain race, nationality, religion or political party. An evidence of this
kind existed during the war in Germany and its satellite countries, but we
are glad to get rid of such totalitarian practices. But you can be sure that
most of the workers - during the construction, as well as during the
operation of the Project - were local people - simply because the economic
point of view was decisive. The proof of it is easy: before, most of the
houses in surrounding villages were made of adobe bricks, with a thatched
roof. Now the villages are renewed, with modern, recently built houses. This
confirms an increased income and - may be - also the possibility to acquire
also some material from the construction sites at more favorable
conditions - so they were the first to profit on the Project realization.
But the greatest benefit of the local inhabitants is the guarantee that no
flood will destroy their houses and endanger their lives in the future !
According to statistics, in this region live 20 to 80 % of people who now
declare themselves as ethnic Hungarians. However, this is a result of the
Austrian - Hungarian settlement of 1867, when of the whole territory of
Hungary started a regardless magyarisation, which in this region continued
also after the Vienna arbitration. Therefore, many of them are original
Slovaks who have unedergone the "re-education" in the Hungarian school
system. This is why for the "reeducation" of other nations in Hungary to
Magyars there was used the expression "the Magyar industry".
3. There is no violation of residents´ human rights by the elevated
water-level in the canal. They do not feel it more, as if a highway with an
earth-fill body would be built in the vicinity. In fact - much less, because
the highway is noisy and smelly, while the sailing of ships does not disturb
the environment. Do you realize that, people living along the Danube
(whether on the Zitný ostrov, or on the Szigetköz) were always enclosed by
water and water became a part or their lives. The river nourished them, but
the river very often took away their property and endangered their lives.
And the risky part of this relation became only history now. However, the
property of the three villages and villagers, rose enormously in value (lots
up to about 1000 times !) - because it became a very attractive recreational
area. There is a new source of income - people rent rooms in their houses,
build restaurants, render the possibility of horse-back riding and practice,
what is in USA called "ecotourism". Now, when the most significant
draw-back - the constant danger of floods - was definitely removed, there
are conditions created for economic growth and for improving the living
standard of people. Do you oppose even this ?
You are a University graduate in two highly technical sciences. You
are living in USA, famous for freedom and democracy. How is it possible
that, without having more detailed information, you state unambiguously and
firmly, you are in favor of returning the Danube to its original riverbed
and dismantling the hydroplant, elevated intake channel and reservoir.
We know and keep in touch also with other Hungarian experts - for instance
Professor Gábor Karádi from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who is a
graduated water-management engineer and who received the Hoffman Award for
his thesis about environmental impacts of the utilisation of hydraulic
energy, or Professor Emil Mosonyi from the Karlsruhe University, who is a
orld-renowned expert in hydro-power, with uncountable distinctions and
Doctor honoris-causa titles. They both have a diametrically different
standpoint, as compared with yours. It can be caused by the fact that, they
are experts in the field, to which they give their standpoint !
May be, we are stupid when we built a project that brings yearly 2,4 billion
kWh of electric energy from a renewable source (it could render much more,
if completed), without polluting air or water, a project that guarantees
flood-safety to people in the vicinity (and what more - prevailingly to
ethnic Hungarians) and provides for the whole Europe a significant
improvement of the most ecological way of transport - the water-way,
connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Black Sea. But are the Americans an
Canadians and many other nations even more stupid, when they harnessed the
Niagara, made navigable the Missisippi, built big hydro-power plants in
James Bay etc. ?
Do you realize, what you are believing in ? It is not only impossible to
return the Danube in its original state, but there is no logical reason to
do so ! What is the "original state" of the Danube ? The state 25 years ago,
when the side arms of the inland delta were 11 months in a year without
flowing water and could not support life ? When there was quite clear that,
if left in this state, they would disappear in no time, like the the
side-arms disappeared along the Rhine, after the Tulla regulation ? Or to
return to the "good old days", when the local inhabitants could have the
"advantage" of being flooded - each year by seepage water and periodically
also with a higher one, which destroyed their houses ? Are you familiar
with the impacts and consequences of the latest disastrous floods - in 1965
on our side and in 1954 on the Hungarian side ? Probably the most idyllic
"original state" was 1000 years ago, when there was no main river-bed (this
was cut through the system of side-arms only 130 years ago), when there were
no dikes, limiting the free meandering of the Danube (the system of dikes
started to be build about 600 years ago) and when there were no people
living along the Danube, because in-between the side-arms were swamps and
marshes !
As a democratic feeling man (I suppose so), do you agree that keeping
treaties is a condition "sine qua non" of peaceful coexistence of nations ?
If so, why do you not remind the Government of Hungary that, it is not fair
to breach an interstate treaty (ratified by parliaments and signed by
presidents and thus becoming an international law of highest force) when a
group of people starts shouting, they don´t like it ? Why do you not
protest, when official intergovernmental delegations formulate a framework
agreement and after the elections and a normal, democratic change of
governments - the new delegation of Hungary does not respect anything
negotiated by the previous official delegation ? After the International
Court of Justice in the Hague did not accept the environmental arguments of
Hungary, supporting the stopping and abandoning works at Nagymaros (calling
them exaggerated and unsubstantiated) and ordered to both parties that they
"must negotiate in good faith, in the light of the prevailing situation and
must take all necessary measures to ensure the achievement of the objectives
of the Treaty 1977.", why did you not protest, when the government of
Mr.Orban declared already in its governmental program, that Nagymaros will
not be built ?!
You do not want to admit to yourself the true response to all these
questions. You believe in all this environmental propaganda, because
Budapest decided so. You don´t want to acknowledge that, there exist also
highly graduated Hungarian experts, who strongly disagree with the decisions
of Hungary in the years 1989 to 1992 and even more with the second try of
Hungary to breach again the same Treaty of 1977, the validity of which was
clearly confirmed by the ICL in 1997 ! Do you realize that by the first brea
ch of the Treaty 1977, Hungary experienced the greatest losses ? We have the
costs of our part of the project increased by more then 50 %, but we have
the functioning Gabcíkovo, producing large amounts of electric energy - and
probably this is why it should be erased from the face of the world ! But it
seems that the present losses experienced by Hungary were still not high
enough The second breach will be even more expensive !
Your request and questions were formulated in a polite way. But
subconsciously you committed an offence, very obvious among those who
believe in the infallibility of Budapest. Already in the subject of your
e-mail you wrote: Gabcikovo - Bös questions. Allow me, to draw your
attention to the fact that, nowhere in the Treaty documents neither in the
Common Treaty Design (all documents and drawings have both Slovak and
Hungarian texts and descriptions) there is no mentioning (neither in the
text written in the Hungarian language) of the name "Bös". It is the
Hungarian name of a village, but it never was the name of the Project ! But
it is necessary to look again into the history, to clear the connections.
On the territory of Slovakia, Hungarian names of settlements started to be
used only after the mentioned year 1867, when every village got a Hungarian
name, even if it was inhabited only by Slovaks. Therefore the Hungarian name
is not a "historical" one, but a sign of the Hungarian oppression in the
past. I recommend you, to study the statistics of the percentile
representation of various nations in certain parts of the Hungarian Monarchy
in the 19th century - there you can find proofs about the development.
Indeed, also the name of the state was invented only on the Bratislava (at
that time Pozsony) Assembly in 1944, when Hungaria - the state of the Huns,
was renamed to Magyarországh - the land of Magyars !
And this is why, the name Bös is used instead of Gabcíkovo - prevailingly
by the opponents of the Project - who want in this way indicate the
superiority of their standpoint ant to remind thus of "good old days" of the
Hungarian Monarchy, when the decision of Budapest was the highest law ! Or
do you use such double names also for other geographic, or personal names as
: Istambul - Constantinople, Peterburg - Leningrad, Vysegrad - Vysehrad,
Petöfi - Petrovic etc.?
I hope, I have answered all your questions and cleared a little the
consequences of your standpoint. I am aware that, Central European states
are now a playground for experiments, but I personally would wait with the
removing of Gabcíkovo, even with a "generous" EU and American assistance,
after such experiment would be tested and approved on several significant
Projects in their countries. And then I will be quite sure, they have
really gone crazy !
Finally, I would like to stress that, in-spite of the fact that I evaluate
the situation realistically, with knowledge of the historical background, I
am not an enemy of Hungarians. I am trying only to create conditions of good
mutual co-existence in the unifying Europe, based on equal rights and mutual
respecting of nations and states.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
