Egypt's constitution, article 44: Historic wrongs or rights?

BY ZERIHUN ABEBE YIGZAW, CONTRIBUTING WRITER                                Part II

Why is the phrase in the constitution?

Knowing what Egypt is claiming as “historic rights” have no international legal ground and knowing that upstream states on the Nile are against this nominal doctrine, why the politicians are adamant to include it in the constitution? There is no perfect answer for this but we can infer from experiences and current situations in the Nile Basin. Firstly, the current constitution of Egypt is drafted in a time where the Nile Basin is undergoing a dramatic shift from a one-country show of unfairness and monopoly into a basin which embraces all riparian states under the umbrella of a fundamental principle of international water law called equitable and reasonable utilization. The Cooperative Framework Agreement on the Nile (CFA) signed on May 14, 2010 is such a reflection and a historic moment.

Furthermore, Ethiopia is undergoing construction of the GERD, which eventually will become Africa's biggest hydropower dam, is part of such a dramatic change on the Nile basin. Hence, the inclusion of the so-called “historic rights” is a mere reaction of attempting to maintain the unfair past. In my view, the Egyptian's seem frustrated and unnecessarily feared the developments on the Nile and are in state of unstable mind. Hence, they seemingly include the phrase having in mind that this might help them undermine the truth.

Secondly, the inclusion of the “historic rights” phrase in the constitution might have to do with the ongoing domestic instability in the country following the ousting of President Mubarak and later Morsi. The Nile issue had been used by Egyptian leaders as a playing card to divert attention from their internal crisis to an international agenda. This was what Mubarak and Morsi tried to do but failed and what the current regime is doing will be doomed to fail as their narration is a groundless accusation of upstream states.

Thirdly, it could be due to the personalities of members of the constitution drafting committee and their attitude. In this regard, highlighting the perception and attitude of the chair of the committee, Amr Moussa, regarding the Nile and its riparian is important. In 1997 in his interview with the now defunct Amharic magazine Ifoyita Moussa as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt stated that “his country has a good attitude for Ethiopia as far as the latter do not encroach upon the former's right.” His definition of Egypt`s right on the Nile is nothing but those based on the 1929 and 1959 “Agreements” discussed above. For obvious reasons, foreign relations matter in the constitution and the inclusion of the “historic rights” phrase are the works of this man. Among the committee members, it is also worth mentioning the Grand Mufti of Egypt Shawky Allam from Al-Azahar and other members from the Salafist Nour Party whose perception of upstream water development on the Nile is linked with Israel and America`s involvement and conspiracy. Furthermore, people from the Al-Aharam Center for Political and Strategic Studies have been viewing upstream water developments as a violation of international law despite their baseless claim. These people also dare to say that the colonial and partial bilateral “agreements” on the Nile and their declaration of the so-called “historic rights” of Egypt “are binding on the non-signatory upstream states. All the members of the committee, I can say, are children of the same mother who have grown victimized hearing and learning the historic wrongs of colonial powers and emotional military generals since the 1950s as “historic rights.” And it is not a surprise that they have included the phrase in the constitution. So the question is: What are its effects?

The effect of Article 44 on the Nile Basin

Despite the controversy, one can argue that ‘the foreign policy of a state is the continuation and/or extension of its domestic politics and policy.’ In this regard, the prime effect of the inclusion of the so called “historic rights” in Egypt's constitution is, it will make discussions on the Nile tougher. Egyptian negotiators will possibly appear more rigid and unyielding than ever before in discussions regarding the Nile either pertaining to the CFA or the GERD. But it must be clear also that the reactions of upstream states for sure is what they have been saying and they will never accept any imposition of such arrogance which would have deprived them of their natural rights of utilizing the Nile waters for the benefit of their current and future generation. The result of such a situation will be nothing but a hydropolitical deadlock which could further fatten suspicion and mistrust which [was]/is the norm than exception in the Nile Basin. This will, however, not stop upstream states from utilizing the Nile waters as evidenced in their mega hydropower projects.

Article 44 of the constitution of Egypt is in fact - especially the phrase “maintaining Egypt’s historic rights” - tantamount to insulting the upstream states of the Nile and their people. It is equivalent to saying “you have no Nile waters and the Nile is a property of Egypt.” In addition it is meant to say that those countries that are the sources of the Nile are a bunch of colonies that live with and accept the scars of the colonial powers manifested in the form of the 1929 “Agreement” that deprived them of their interest from their own waters and could do nothing. What should this countries therefore respond to such an insult? It is plain clear that the ball is in their court. Upstream states have gone further in calling Egypt and Sudan to come on board to join them and sign the CFA which can answer the question of all riparian states. It is time for the signatory states to ratify the CFA and those which do not ink their signatures follow their African brothers and maintain their rights on the Nile River. The CFA is the best instrument that the Nile Basin have to solve problems associated with the Nile waters. It is based on basic and accepted principles of international water law mainly equitable and reasonable utilization of the Nile waters for the benefit of all riparian states and enhance win-win situation in the Basin.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law, Article 44 is nothing but a provision of one state's national law. Its legal effect is within the boundary of the concerned state and it has no international legal effect. By the same token, it should be clear that international laws have supremacy over domestic laws. In this context, as clearly stated in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and analyzed by Malcolm N. Shaw (2008), “A particular provision within the internal legal structure of a state, including its constitution if there is one, cannot be applied to evade an international obligation.” This obligation includes, among others, principles of customary international law. By no means can the doctrine of “historic right” be invoked to escape the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of transboundary waters. In addition to this, the upstream Nile riparian states which are signatories of the CFA have international obligations of this agreement which has a binding effect on them. Besides, as has been seen in the Cameroon vs Nigeria case and viewed by the International Court of Justice, “There is no general legal obligation for States to keep themselves informed of legislative and constitutional developments in other States which are or may become important for the international relations of these States.”

To sum up, Moussa, in his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, stated that the new constitution of Egypt “was written in the context of the 21st century.” The truth is though this constitution of Egypt regarding the Nile issue is still in the early 20th century and not yet brings itself to the developments of the 21st century. It has repeated the then colonial power Britain and Egypt`s own historic wrongs of the 19th and the early and mid-20th centuries to say the least. In fact the new constitution is a codification of these historic wrongs with no solution for the Nile controversy but fueling suspicion and mistrust. Again as the late Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi plainly said in November 2010 during his interview with Reuters, “The Egyptians have yet to make up their minds as to whether they want to live in the 21st or the 19th century.”

In fact the new constitution is a codification of these historic wrongs with no solution for the Nile controversy but fueling suspicion and mistrust.

Ed.'s Note: Zerihun Abebe Yigzaw is a lecturer at Dilla University and researcher on the Hydro-politics of trans-boundary watercourses especially the Nile. He is also head of the Public Relations and Communication Department of Ethiopian International Professionals Support for Abbay (EIPSA). He can be reached at zerihun.yigzaw@graduateinstitute.ch.

Addis Abol : P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; col...

Addis Abol : P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; col...: Egypt's constitution, article 44: Historic wrongs or rights?   BY ZERIHUN ABEBE YIGZAW, CONTRIBUTING WRITER   ...

Egypt's constitution, article 44: Historic wrongs or rights?

 

BY ZERIHUN ABEBE YIGZAW, CONTRIBUTING WRITER                             Part I

Since the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has seen some three governments either as transitional ones appointed by the military or popularly elected in a free election.

The first transitional government of Prime Minister Essam Sharaf was progressive and seemed to turn Egypt`s face to Africa where its origin and life relies on. Nonetheless, it was a transitional government and had no any constitutional ground. It was a handicapped one and its efforts were not fruitful. But this does not mean that Sharaf's government was unique in its orientation but its attempts to solve the Nile issue in a peaceful and civilized way that will establish a win-win situation was a good start.

Following a popular election in June 2012, Egypt's old organized Islamist group-Muslim Brotherhood`s political wing Freedom and Justice Party`s representative Dr. Mohammed Morsi won the presidential election from Mubarak's last Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in a narrow vote difference (51.7 per cent to 48 per cent). The new president established his government and appointed a water expert Hisham Qandil as his prime minister-which shows the priority he gave to the Nile issue. In a parliamentary election Muslim Brotherhood with the conservative Salafists won the election and drafted a more Islamist and criticized constitution. This indeed led to the ousting of Mohammed Morsi in a military coup supported by a popular riot organized by young political activists called the Tamarod in July 2013.

The military chief of Egypt and Defence Minister appointed by Morsi himself, General Abdel Fattah Al Sisi announced that Morsi was ousted and the 2012 constitution suspended. Al Sisi further declared Adly Mansour, who was the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court, as the president of the transitional government. Mansour, a lawyer by profession, appointed Ahmed Beblawi as prime minister and there was hope that the Nile discord would be solved as one of the criticisms against Morsi was that he could not handle the Nile problem well as he was busy of remarking war mongering speeches following Ethiopia's successful re-touring of Abbay (Blue Nile) to make clear of the river bed from water to undertake the civil works of the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The new government under Mansour will be in power till a new government is established following the promulgation of a new constitution. President Mansour was authorized to form the constitutional drafting committee which he actually did.

Egypt's new constitution drafting body was composed of 50 people from different political groups and sectors and chaired by Amr Moussa, ex-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt and ex-secretary general of the Arab League. The committee was entrusted initially to amend the constitution introduced by Mohamed Morsi's government and was believed that it would only take sixty days. Yet, the constitution drafting committee which almost took three months came up with a new constitution. The new constitution is endorsed by the people of Egypt with a 97 per cent vote in the January 14 and 15, 2014 referendum. [...] the Egyptian people has the right to say whatever they want in their constitution, their politicians led them into a free fall and codified a historical wrong that their grandfathers did in the early and mid-20th century regarding the Nile. Let us compare the provisions of Egypt`s 2012 and 2014 constitutions on the Nile and say few words on how it is again a historical wrong than a right.

Egypt`s 2012 constitution under Article 19 declared that “The Nile River and water resources are a national wealth. The State is committed to maintaining and developing them, and preventing abuse. The use of such resources shall be regulated by law.” Hence there is no problem and no indication is made as to the trans-boundary nature of the river. When the constitution declares that it is ‘national wealth’ it refers to the water that flows to Egypt. And as any other Nile Basin country Egypt is entitled to say the Nile is its national wealth. The provision of the 2012 constitution on the Nile is purely of domestic nature and one can say that had no any complications. Nonetheless, it is a constitution suspended with the ousting of Mohammed Morsi.

Article 44 of the 2014 constitution on the other hand reads as that “The state [of Egypt] commits to protecting the Nile River, maintaining Egypt’s historic rights thereto, rationalizing and maximizing its benefits, not wasting its water or polluting it...” Now the problem is on the inclusion of the phrases “maintaining Egypt’s historic rights” which clearly shows and carries a message to the Nile Basin states. This made the provision under this article more controversial and, despite a national constitution which has no legal effect outside the Egyptian territory, the implicit meaning attached to it is worth of scrutinizing, as it has a trans-boundary message to the Nile Basin states. Before analysing the issue from the perspective of international law and the politics of the Nile waters in relation to other Nile Basin states it is worth zooming in on the meaning of “maintaining Egypt’s historic rights” from the Egyptian perspective.

Claim of “Historic Rights” on the Nile and International Water Law

For Egypt the so-called “historic rights” on the Nile are defined based on colonial or partial treaties of the 20th century. As repeatedly discussed Egypt considers the 1929 colonial “treaty” between Britain (on behalf of Sudan and its other colonies in East Africa) and Egypt as the base of its “right” on the Nile. In fact, it is difficult to call the 1929 “Agreement” as a bilateral agreement between Egypt and Britain as the former was still under tight political and economic control of the later. It can better be said that the 1929 “Agreement” was between Britain and Britain for Britain as concluded to make sure that its textile factories in Manchester had secured uninterrupted cotton from Egypt produced by the Nile waters. This “agreement” gave Egypt the lion's share of the Nile waters and veto power on upstream water projects which has been a ludicrous and irrational attempt of controlling the Nile. In fact, the idea was that the British administrators in upstream Nile British colonies would not do anything without consulting the British administrators in downstream of the Nile in Egypt. But Britain had left the Nile Basin long ago and Egypt's current call of claiming a “right” based on an obsolete colonial “treaty” is a self tomfoolery.

Following Sudan's independence from British colonial rule and issues precipitated following Egypt's decision to construct the High Aswan Dam in the 1950s, the Nile issue was again raised and the 1959 Agreement between Egypt and Sudan was signed. In fact, the process of negotiation for the 1959 Agreement was full of Egyptian trickery supported by Sudan's pro-Nasser president Ibrahim Abboud who came to power in a coup in 1958. Nonetheless, Egypt considers the 1959 Agreement as a consolidation of a self-claimed “historic right” on the Nile. The 1959 Agreement divided the entire flow of the Nile for Egypt, Sudan and evaporation at the Sahara from Lake Nasser behind the Aswan High Dam (55.5, 18.5 and more than 10 billion cubic meters of water respectively). Furthermore, the veto power of Egypt was still maintained in this agreement. It is worth noting here that many Sudanese are not happy with the way the 1959 Agreement is negotiated and signed. In addition, the recent policy shift of the Sudanese should be seen from such a perspective of latent opposition to the unfair 1959 Agreement.

Hence for Egypt, it is those partial, unfair and irrational “agreements” which are regarded as the basis of the self-claimed “historic right” on the Nile. No water is left for upstream states and their national pride was in fact insulted and they were considered as non-existent. Their water rights were neglected, undermined and ignored. This is what Egypt is claiming as its “historic right” which is a total absurdity, hydro-political arrogance and vindictive stance which will not solve the Nile problems but throw it in a vicious-circle of mutual suspicion and mistrust.

From upstream point of view the so-called “historic rights”, a recurring fanfare by Egypt, are rather historic wrongs on the Nile. Ex-British and other European colonies on the Nile, immediately after their independence in the 1960s, declared that agreements entered by colonial powers are null and void on newly independent states. This is famously known as the Nyerere Doctrine after Julius Nyerere of Tanzania who for the first time declared that Tanganyika will not abide by a treaty entered by Britain on the Nile. As for the 1959 Agreement it is a bilateral agreement entered between “two independent” states where the legal effect is only on the signatory states and as clearly declared in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 “a treaty does not create obligations or rights for a third party without its consent.”

As for Ethiopia, which was the only state on the Nile Basin that was not colonized, both “agreements” are of no concerns. In fact, Ethiopia has made its position clear in 1957 knowing that negotiation between Egypt and Sudan was taking place. Ethiopia asserted that it has the right to utilize the Nile waters for the benefit of its current and future generation. Furthermore, it has unequivocally declared that any attempt of making treaties on the Nile without involving Ethiopia has no legal effect on its utilization of its Nile waters.

From the above explanations one can note that the position of Nile riparian states are at odds and Egypt is standing alone upholding an obsolete doctrine in the utilization of trans-boundary watercourses. In fact, other Nile riparian states have the support of international water law which has tremendously evolved in the 20th century. In the eyes of international law “historic right” with its other names such as “ancient right, prior use, established right” and so on had been nominal ‘doctrines’ in the utilization of trans-boundary watercourses. A doctrine in this sense is defined as more of a theory and personal opinion of a few individuals with no legal base. As far as international water law is concerned the basic principle, which has the acceptance of leading scholars and is accepted as a basic rule in international courts, is the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. This principle is capable of answering the water questions of any state in trans-boundary watercourses as evidenced, for example, in the decision of the International Court of Justice in Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case on the Danube between Hungary and Slovakia. This principle is, therefore, the most popular and widely accepted one and is developed into a status of principle of customary international law. As clearly stated in the works of leading international law experts there is nothing called “historic right, established right, ancient right” in international water law (For details, one can refer to A. H. Garretson, R. D. Hayton, & C. J. Olmstead (Eds.). 1967. The law of international drainage basins. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.).

Zero sum politics, politicizing science never water down GERD construction

  BY WORKU BELACHEW

Cooperation among Nile Basin countries had been moulded badly on a destructive base. That was enormously ascribed for colonial agreements signed in 1929 and 1959. Particularly the latter “bilateral agreement”— Between Egypt and Sudan— guaranteed Egypt to obtain an unfair share of waters of the Nile that was as big as 55.5 bln. cubic metres of the estimated total of 84 bln. cubic metres produced each year. But, for the basin countries these treaties were no more acceptable since the days they were liberated from colonialism.

One manifestation of the said fact could be the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) signed between these states which, inter alia, recognizes the Nile as an “asset of immense value to all the riparian countries”.

Diametrically opposite to the above fact, some “politicians and scholars”, if at all they are, of Egypt persistently work to resuscitate the outdated treaties aiming at keeping domination over the water. This is evident in their repeated destructive endeavours that are tailored to hinder— though it has not and will not be succeeded— the construction of the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam. Ethiopia, unlike many other nations which utilized cross border rivers without consulting riparian states, has initiated, supported and realized a tripartite committee that assessed the impact of the dam on downstream countries. From the onset of this effort, however, Egyptian officials tried countless arms twisting tactics to influence the normal functioning of the committee. It was no surprise when such officials and scholars also tried to reject the report of the committee in which Egypt itself had been represented.

Same attempt was also seen in the third round of talks of the trio, Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia, held in Khartoum which had been deemed to advance the negotiation headfirst but ended up pulling them back. They met to form a committee that oversees the implementation of recommendations given by the International Committee of Experts which assessed and reported as the dam poses no significant harm to downstream nations. From Egypt's side, however, an unexpected agenda rolled up. They reflected an awkward proposal—i.e., to hire a special committee that controls the enforcing committee itself. To the surprise of everyone, they also tried to make the CFA a point of discussion.

The critical questions that must be answered are: Would it be essential to hire independent experts panel while experts represented from the respective countries can monitor the enforcement and why do they wish to make the CFA a fresh agenda for the trio? In addition, what do these proposals imply?

In the first place, it is critically important to reach agreement on the formation of experts’ panel with representatives from the three countries namely, Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt that monitors the enforcement of the recommendations of the previous trio. With no doubt, the needed experts are available in all the nations. What comes then is, to let this committee carry out its tasks independently. It is palpable as no task would go beyond the committee's capacity. But, it could be appropriate to propose for external bodies in case the committee fails to do its responsibilities effectively. Even that can be made real when respective Ministries of each nations accept the proposal. Therefore, for Egypt it is too early to stick on such agenda.

The second point is that the CFA has already been signed. And some countries turned it into a law endorsing the agreement by their respective parliaments. More importantly, the third round of talks had nothing to do with the CFA. Attempting to discuss the CFA on the wrong platform and in the absence of other members of the basin countries is obviously undermining their ownership of the basin, which is impossible.

When one critically examines the track some Egyptian officials and scholars travelled through time, it leads to the origin where their mindset had been shaped. Totally, it is the colonial attitude that left its remnants of an evil mentality which is “assuring” veto on the riparian countries. There seems also a tendency to disregard Basin countries natural rights of utilizing the river. The three countries, undoubtedly, can resolve disputes that may arise as far as GERD construction is concerned. It is the mutual trust created among Ethiopia and Sudan that eliminates the previous ambivalence. Now Sudan has fully understood the benefit it can get out of the dam. But, some scholars and officials are giving a deaf ear to this reality. The officials are attempting to lag the enforcement of the trio behind while scholars are trying to influence the international community using their famous universities. The former is a zero sum political game. And the latter is merely politicization of science.

It is high time for Egyptian officials, therefore, to stop their games and cooperate with the solution seeking trio in particular and with the riparian countries in general. There are a lot of rooms for cooperation. As has been told repeatedly, Ethiopia has no intention to harm any country. And the reality on the ground also proves that. The electricity generated in Ethiopian soil is giving light and energy in Sudan and Djibouti.

PUBLISHED ON 11 JANUARY, THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD

Zero tolerance for poor leadership

 

BY WORKU BELACHEW

Development is hard to come by without adherence to the creation of personnel, in the civil service, that exercises eminent leadership qualities in the course of discharging public responsibility. In most cases, however, and as government itself has reiterated in various occasions, the leadership across many sectors is seen confronted with solemn challenges sourcing form various origins.

Plunging in unethical practices that are well articulated for personal gains than working for a common good and ignoring the relationship with the society, which is on a contractual base, are where these challenges primarily originate and flow downward and across critically crippling both individuals and sectors from attaining their set goals. Other bugs which have a huge potential to force our development go under the weather are capacity limitation, lack of commitment, centralizing or decentralizing responsibilities unnecessarily — for fear of accountability for decisions made. During their periodic reports, most offices are heard of treating the latter as a challenge that could be easily conquered with a sporadic training or with a series of meetings. That is also the chief reason for many public offices to invest their invaluable time wrongly caring out meetings and training. Without exaggeration such pseudo efforts, have brought and also will bring nothing more than disorienting the leadership itself.

 

Where there is poor leadership, public resentment is likely to occur. Indeed, it harms the public psyche, and end up making everyone to lose confidence in what government is doing. All these happen due to unethical individuals' appointment in the leadership. Some officials, for instance, in a range of government hierarchy usually admit failures but the corrective measures they put is weak to bring a genuine solution. Thus, public demands remain unanswered. Telecom service interruption is a usual phenomenon, for example, that made customers everywhere to raise questions as to how long it keeps annoying them. However, pertinent bodies once in a blue moon, in quarterly..., reports communicate with the people. Same goes to power blackouts and potable water supply disruptions.

 

The issue under treatment also disrupts working environment and accounts for poor service delivery. In many public institutions, if not all, individuals from top to bottom hierarchy informally establish networks, but not to work their routines better, to attack one another ignoring the duties vested on them. In such cases, decision making and speedy service delivery would be tough because of ill famed acts of one group to shadow the works of the other. If example be needed, the “saboteurs” in the former Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo.) which Prime Minister Haile-Mariam once made them responsible for power blackouts can be typical examples in this regard.

 

Be this as it may, there are hopes that dismantle malpractices originating from poor leadership. The current move of the Parliament standing committees in rooting out such challenges is one manifestation of that. Likewise, the government has never back off from accepting limitations —be the form, capacity, attitude, commitment or other— seen in the leadership at all hierarchies. Hence, it is installing assorted kinds of instruments to winnow those that are upsetting the public intentionally or unintentionally. Similarly, encouraging results have been registered in many areas as far as reinforcing the leadership is concerned. However, compared to the magnitude of the problem, there is a long distance to travel to overcome the challenges.

 

In fact, the government and other stakeholders need to work hard to get the problems mentioned earlier solved. Meanwhile, doing periodic communication with the public can be a great means toward mitigating most of the challenges. This is to mean that at times when service interruptions are inescapable due to various reasons, providing adequate information is vital. Above all, the leadership appointment across every government hierarchy should be made with too much care. Individuals that misdirect the enforcement of policies, strategies and directions particularly at grassroots, since such problems rampant in this area, need not be tolerated. In addition, high level of commitment in its true sense is important criteria to appoint individuals. There will be no need to talk about such challenges anymore. Therefore, a drastic change is vital to serve the public and to sustain the ongoing development on its path.

Published on 4 Jan 2014 edition of The Ethiopian Herald

Going Back to the Ethiopia's Semiens Mountain after

To the Simien and back — 47 years on

BY C.W. NICOL
JAN 4, 2014
 

By the time you read this I should be in the Simien Mountains of northern Ethiopia. I have been asked to go back there to tell the nation’s current generation what the forests and wildlife were like in 1967, ’68 and ’69 when I served the government of Haille Selassie as the country’s first game warden and set up the Simien Mountains National Park.

Back then, things were pretty basic. There was no road into the Simien, and everything except chickens, eggs, goats, sheep, very small potatoes, garlic, chilli peppers, barley, wheat, millet and teff (a grain used to make the national dish of injera pancakes) had to be bought in to the primitive trailhead of Debarek. From there it was hauled in by horse, mule or donkey. Long timbers were carried in by teams of men.

I lived in a tent for the first year, and even when I finally got my house built, there was no electricity and we fetched water from a spring. The outside toilet was clean, but simple; a wooden seat with a hole in it and a bucket with some water and creosote underneath. After each bog bucket was dumped, we’d scatter woodash over its contents to control the flies and smell.

My base camp and house were more than 3,000 meters above sea level, so it got very cold at night. We had a fire and a wood-burning stove, but we used only dead wood because living trees could not be cut in the park area. That meant our firewood was brought in by pack animals. At night I’d often share drinks and tales with my assistant, Mesfin, or with visitors who made the effort to venture out so far. Beside a warming fire, with lamps and candles, we’d maybe have a song or two — and the luxury of being able to play with a big German shepherd dog who’d sprawl on a locally woven woollen rug at my feet.

I never missed television, of course, and when it got dark if I ever wanted to gaze at something truly magnificent, I’d go outside and look at the stars. I did, however, have a small transistor radio that I tuned to the BBC. It was thanks to that, on July 20, 1969 (three days after my 29th birthday), that I heard about the success of the Apollo 11 lunar expedition — and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had walked on the Moon and taken pictures of the Earth.

I told Mesfin and he was incredulous, and when I told some of the rangers they thought I was inventing another story like the ones I loved to tell. That day, though, the Moon was clear to see during the day from the Simien, and I took a photograph of a group of Gelada baboons looking intently at it. Maybe they had also heard the news — but because they have such good eyesight, perhaps they’d just seen some movement up there.

I had a small telescope that I used to spot Walia ibex on the cliffs, and at times I would bring it out at night. I’d focus on the Moon and show it to the rangers or to local mountain men who often bivouacked overnight at our base camp because it was relatively safe from hyenas and bandits. When I told those folk there were mountains on the Moon — and that all the rings they could see on its surface were made by huge rocks from outer space hitting it — they laughed with delight.

“Why don’t big rocks hit our Earth?” one tribesman asked.

“Sometimes they do,” said ranger Mitiku, “and it says so in the Bible. We see streaks of fire in the night sky, right? Well that’s the sword of the Archangel Gabriel, smiting the boulders that the Devil hurled at us.”

When I was a boy, my favorite place to stay during the holidays was with my Auntie Peg. She was a tiny little Welsh lady with a huge sense of humor and a shrieking, cackling laugh that set off everybody around her. She and her family lived in a little stone cottage a 5-km walk from the main road into the town of Neath where my home was.

The cottage had no electricity, gas or running water. Dogs, chickens and the occasional orphaned lamb would come into the back kitchen. The cats of course went wherever they wanted to. At night we could see the blinking of the Mumbles lighthouse about 30 km away. I remember that cottage being a wonderland of stories told at night around the fireplace with oil lamps casting their gentle light and a candle in a holder to lead the way to bed.

The other week, we had a meal for our Afan Woodland Trust staff and researchers at the new center we’ve built outside Kurohime in the Nagano Prefecture hills. After the feast, which included wild boar stew, I lit candles, turned off the lights and put some big logs on the fire in the brick-and-stone hearth of the main hall.

We brought chairs to make a semicircle around the brightly blazing fire, where we sat and relaxed, had a few drinks and chatted. It was gone 11 p.m. when we called it a day, though no one had noticed the time going by.

As we enter the Year of the Horse, and all of us in Japan surely have thoughts about nuclear and other forms of energy in the back of our minds, I have become ever more certain that the simple life really does give me by far the most comfort and pleasure. After all, it carries with it none of the guilt of having used a hideously dangerous form of power that will go on polluting and endangering all life on Earth for tens of thousands of years.

Meanwhile, as a festive treat a friend sent me two large boxes of fresh wild oysters. We couldn’t possible eat them all raw, so I steamed them and, as the shells opened, salt water and their bodily fluids merged into the boiling water. After extracting the oysters from their shells, I filtered off the liquid and boiled it some more to concentrate it before pouring it over the oysters and putting the lot in an earthenware pot that I sealed with a tight cork lid. Stored in the back pantry which remains just above freezing all winter, we’ll now have oyster snacks for the next three months.

While writing this article, I’ve gazed outside from time to time at the fresh snow piled on all the branches and twigs, with my neighbor’s white-capped barn the only other building visible in one direction and the Torii River and Mount Kurohime in the other. Now, the light is fading and soon it will be time to snack on a few of those oysters, a cat on my lap, while sipping snow-chilled white wine.

Life is good, and I hope that next time I write this column I will be able to relate to you tales from under those Simien stars in Ethiopia — the same stars that twinkled back when Man walked for the first time on the Moon as Gelada baboons looked on.