Despite some real logistical problems, the general verdict seems to be that the tournament was a success with enthusiastic and colourful crowds and some classy and unpredictable football, not least the United States' shock semi-final defeat of Spain and a thrilling final where Brazil went 2-0 down to the Americans before storming back to win 3-2 and ensure the football world was not thrown off its axis.

Crucially, South Africa's own team, Bafana Bafana, did a lot better than many of their own fans had expected. The side suffered a lot of bad press from their terrible pre-competition form -- they did not even qualify for next year's African Nations Cup finals -- and Brazilian coach Joel Santana had been treated with scepticism by football writers and fans alike. Even Danny Jordaan, chief executive of the organising committee for next year's World Cup, expressed concern over their form.

After a slow start, however, South Africa turned in a creditable, if not outstanding performance. They reached the semi-final and held eventual champions Brazil until the 88th minute when they went down to a scorching free kick by Daniel Alves. And in the third place final they pushed European champions Spain into extra time before finally losing 3-2, again to a freekick.

They badly need more strike power and it looks like Santana must make peace with English-based striker Benni McCarthy who was dropped from the team for his apparent lack of commitment. But their performance gave grounds for some optimism.

Bafana Bafana's Confederations Cup performance was key to the 2010 World Cup because it will encourage local fan participation -- a constant worry for the organisers, who expressed concern before this tournament about lack of home enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, there are continuing worries that even the cheapest World Cup tickets are still too expensive for working class South Africans and that they will be unwilling to pay in advance for entrance in a year's time, something which goes directly against the entrenched local custom of buying tickets on match days.

World Cup matches attended predominantly by foreign fans and restrained, middle class South Africans would be a huge disappointment for the first World Cup held in Africa, where the unique local atmosphere was a major selling point.

That isn't the only worry in considering what the Confederations Cup tells us about the likely success of next year's much bigger global competition.

FIFA boss Sepp Blatter gave organisers 7.5 points out of 10 for the Confederations Cup but World Cup veterans said this was nothing to be complacent about, given his likely tendency to talk up the tournament. Even Blatter said South Africa had to do "a little bit more" and FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke was more direct, acknowledging problems with transport, security and accommodation capacity, which is still significantly below what will be required next year.

Security is a particularly sensitive issue, given South Africa's frightening reputation for violent crime, so it was unfortunate that the Confederations Cup saw alleged thefts from both Egyptian and Brazilian teams, although some of the circumstances remain mirky.

More serious were security lapses in access to stadiums and other areas. Such failures must be cleared up in the time that remains if fans are to follow their teams without constantly looking over their shoulders.

So the Confederations Cup provided both encouragement and warnings. Okay so far, but much more to be done. The next 12 months may be both nerve racking and frenetic for the organisers but we are all still hoping for a reasonably trouble-free football extravaganza with the special atmosphere that only Africa can give it--including those pesky vuvuzela trumpets...

PHOTO: A South African fan at the June 28 Confederations Cup final REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

The countdown has begun for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, an event, now only a year away, that could change perceptions about the whole continent and show the globe a festival of sport that reverses obstinate stereotypes of a region in constant crisis and violence.

Africans are deeply frustrated by the tendency of foreigners, including investors, to see Africa almost as one country instead of more than 50 extremely diverse nations. Meltdown in Zimbabwe can impact on investors' perceptions of countries thousands of miles away on the other side of the continent. By the same token, a successful World Cup will not only change the way people see Africa but also encourage future mega events and the huge investment that they can bring.

So, much more is riding on 2010 than a mere sporting spectacle, albeit the most watched sports event in the world and the biggest ever held in Africa. A successful tournament, with the special atmosphere that happy, dancing and singing local supporters can bring, should land a tourist and investment bonanza for South Africa in particular, but also help the surrounding region and countries further afield.

If the tournament falls short, the reverse will be true.

Even as late as the end of last year, the negative voices were still loudly casting doubt on South Africa's ability to organise such a huge event, suggesting everything from stadiums to transport routes would not be ready. White South Africans, many still sceptical about black rule 15 years after the end of apartheid and keener on rugby and cricket than football, were among the cynics.

But recently the Jeremiahs have begun to quieten down and it is now generally accepted that all 10 stadiums, half of them new, will be ready months ahead of the competition. This month's eight-nation Confederations Cup --although it has little of the buzz of the bigger event -- will give an idea of South African organisation and test four of those stadiums.

Still, big challenges remain and there is no room for complacency. Much work is still to be finished if the World Cup is to succeed and be the greatest edition ever, as both its organisers and President Jacob Zuma have promised.

The biggest potential spoiler is undoubtedly South Africa's daunting reputation for violent crime. Organisers clearly see the danger -- significant attacks on foreign fans would be disastrous for the World Cup.

Police are recruiting thousands of new members and will deploy 40,000 specially trained men to protect stadiums, hotels and major transport routes.

Officials point to South Africa's highly successful organisation of many events including a cricket and rugby world cup and the recent Indian Premier League (IPL) Twenty20 cricket--moved to South Africa because of security fears at home. Fans do not seem to be deterred. Ticket sales around the global are heavily oversubscribed so far.

The question is, will the giant police operation be enough to safeguard notoriously anarchic football fans, especially after they have a few drinks and decide to go for a wander? The European culture of aggressive supporters groups fighting each other is also totally foreign to the African way, so police will also have to handle that at the same time as deterring criminal gangs who may see the World Cup as a golden opportunity of their own, with many thousands of comparatively well-heeled tourists, not to mention journalists carrying expensive equipment, touring the country.

Insiders also say transport is still not adequate for the World Cup and cooperation will be needed between South Africa's traditional minibus operators and a fleet of special coaches planned by the government--the taxi drivers have already protested against the plan, believing it will rob them of revenue. Hotel capacity is another issue and South Africa is encouraging the use of guesthouses, national park lodges and even timeshare apartments to meet the shortfall.

Officials say whatever the problems, South Africans will pull together next year to ensure the tournament brings their country unrivalled kudos, with none of the whingeing seen in Western nations about the disruption caused by big events. President Zuma himself has emphasised the economic benefits of World Cup construction during South Africa's first recession in nearly two decades and promised a competition to remember.

So will this World Cup be the best and most joyful ever, boosting the image of Africa, or could it be a disastrous disappointment that reinforces the cynics?

PHOTO: A general view of Soccer City, also known as the FNB Stadium, in Johannesburg May 15, 2009. The stadium is earmarked to host both the opening and final soccer matches of the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

Gaddafi, a showman whose fiery, often rambling speeches, sometimes unconventional behaviour and colourful robes are always a scene stealer at international gatherings, has been pushing for a pan-regional govenrment for years. But like his previous, three-decade drive to to promote Arab unity, it has not aroused much enthusiasm in many quarters. All the AU's 53 states have said they agree in principle but estimates for how long this will take vary from nine years to 35.

Gaddafi was installed as chairman on Monday, the first time he has headed the AU or its discredited predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity although his aides say he has rejected the role twice before, preferring to work as a backroom reformer. He vowed in his inaugural speech to push forward with his pet project and said if there was not a majority opposed at the next summit in July, this would mean the idea was approved - somewhat discordant with the AU's traditional way of making decisions by consensus. AU leaders were berated by Gaddafi at a three-day summit in Ghana in 2007 for not agreeing to immediate union but braved his scorn and did not reach a deal. Regional economic power South Africa, with its considerable clout, leads the group of reluctant nations.

Delegates in Addis Ababa said privately that they felt duty bound to discuss the idea on the first day of this summit on Monday because Gaddafi is now an older statesman of the organisation and has poured money into some parts of the continent. But if anything, this meeting slowed down the process further. It agreed to change the AU Commission into a vague authority whose additional powers are not clear, and even that won't be launched until the next summit. Outgoing AU chairman Jakaya Kikwete, the Tanzanian president, said on the one hand that the authority would have more power but on the other that member states are not willing to give up their sovereignty.

There are also those within the AU who are uneasy about Gaddafi's prominence, given his previous alleged bankrolling of terrorism, for which he was ostracised by the West up until 2003. Then he was brought in from the cold after taking responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people and abandoning the search for weapons of mass destruction. Human rights groups also accuse his security forces of arbitrary arrest of political opponents and torture.

But whatever your views of Gaddafi, he remains a consummate showman. For years his caravan of hundreds of bodyguards, including a special all-woman unit, and his insistence on sleeping in a tent at AU summits --often in the grounds of luxury hotels--caused pandemonium among press photographers and cameramen.

At the AU summit this year, he flew a group of around 30 customary African leaders to Addis and managed, despite the objections of security men, to bring seven them into the conference hall for his inauguration as chairman. Their gorgeous robes and royal regalia rivalled Gaddafi's own typically eye-catching golden robes and cap. One of the group, a "king' from Benin, hailed the Libyan leader as a "King of Kings", generating one of the most used photographs of the summit.

Is Gaddafi good for Africa or should other leaders ignore him? What do you think?

But when will Kenyans get the honest politicians so many of them yearn for, so that this country can develop its full potential as a gateway to a wide swathe of central and eastern Africa and meet the government's goal of turning it into a prosperous, well-governed country by 2012?

Even for Kenya this was bizarre, but only slightly more unusual than the daily chaos on the roads, where almost anything goes; from enormous potholes capable of cracking the axle of normal cars, to abandoned or broken down trucks, to the swarms of battered, unroadworthy and brightly decorated matatu minibuses, driven by people whose brains appear to have been removed. A colleague recently saw a matatu swing across three lanes of traffic to smash into an unsuspecting car for no apparent reason. Matatus are the only available transport for many Kenyans but climbing into one is a daily and possibly terminal gamble. They are notorious for terrible accidents, often when smashing into oncoming trucks while overtaking on bends or hills. Matatus, like other vehicles, including huge trucks, often travel without lights at night. Matatus break down frequently, leaving a group of disconsolate passengers beside the road while the driver and tout (who takes the fares) try to change a wheel or mend the engine, creating another hazardous obstruction. Combined with the entirely selfish habits of other Kenyan drivers who think nothing of jamming a junction to get a slight advantage over other traffic, the minibuses cause the daily commute to frequently turn into a frustrating calvary with jams that last for hours. All this is made worse by regulations requiring drivers involved in an accident, even a minor shunt, to desist from moving their cars until the police arrive - which can be many hours.

The traffic police often seem only tangentially interested in the chaos, standing on the verge watching as cars, trucks and buses become increasingly interlocked in flagrant disregard for the law and traffic lights. Sorting out the mess seems important to only a few of them. That is perhaps because their main activity, according to most Kenyans, is to extort bribes to supplement their meagre wages. Their favourite victims are matatus and trucks who are allowed to pass, on payment of small bribes. Traffic experts say the delay caused by police roadblocks can add a day to the journey from Mombasa port through central Kenya to Uganda and neighbouring countries.

Like all criminal activity, this extortion of bribes increases at certain predictable times. On a recent one-hour drive to the lakeside town of Naivasha, northwest of Nairobi, I had to concentrate hard to avoid being stopped in one of at least eight police roadblocks. "Of course, it is Christmas, they need money," said one Kenyan friend.

Elections also cause the roadblocks to sprout like mushrooms as politicians push police to raise money for their campaigns.

Before Kenya's bloody election at the end of last year I was stopped at a roadblock, again on the road to Naivasha. Without even the usual desultory attempt to accuse me of some imagined misdemeanour, the policeman shoved his hand through the window and said only: "Two thousand shillings ($25)". I protested and after much bargaining offered 1,000 as a compromise. "Oh no," the policeman replied. "My boss says I have to get two thousand from everybody today."

On the face of it, China, which is relatively unscathed by the crisis, has a golden opportunity to exploit Western disarray and increase its financial and political penetration of the continent. Already there are signs that Africans are starting to look away from the West and towards other emerging markets, especially China, as they watch the banking chaos in the traditional capitalist markets.

This could have a lasting impact on Africa's perceptions of East and West as they see Asian financial structures surviving better than those in Europe and America.

China's economy is still robust, despite the turmoil elsewhere, with GDP growth this year expected to reach 8.5 to 9 percent. Its thirst for African commodities, especially oil, is unabated to fuel Beijing's rapid industrialisation drive. Western governments and aid groups accuse Beijing of turning a blind eye to misrule, corruption and human rights abuses as it invests in Africa, including in controversial countries like Sudan, whose Darfur region is suffering a deep humanitarian crisis. But many Africans welcome China's refusal to interfere in political issues, in contrast to Western attitudes.

Experts say it is questionable whether China has the capacity to get more deeply involved in Africa economically because of its existing huge exposure and the diversification of investment on the continent to include other emerging market countries like Brazil, India and Russia. Not to mention the huge petrodollar funds of Gulf states. They say that in any case economic contagion will reach China which has vital export links with the West. 

But will the spectacle of the Western capitalist system in disarray push African countries to look even more towards the East, finally breaking their strong ties with former colonial powers in Europe and with the United States. What do you think?

The hostility forced Washington to rethink its plans and Africom, expected to reach its full complement of 1,300 by the end of next year, began work from Stuttgart, home of the existing European command, although officials clearly expect to open a base in Africa sometime in the future. It also pushed U.S. officials to emphasise that there was no hidden agenda, that Africom would not threaten the sovereignty of any nations and that a base would not be built in Africa without the full agreement of potential host nations. They also said half of Africom's leadership would be composed of civilian agencies including the State Department. Africom's stated aim is to help African countries face everything from natural disasters to terrorism and its targets will including drug trafficking, arms smuggling and the kind of piracy now plaguing the waters off Somalia. Experts say U.S. forces have been cooperating quietly for years with African armies, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel where rebel and al Qaeda-affiliated groups operate. They say Africom got a bad press initially because it was associated with heavy-handed U.S. policy in Somalia and as part of the U.S.-led "War on Terror", but now Pentagon officials are treading more carefully, realising how sensitive Africans are about suggestions Washington is trying to dominate.

Do you believe U.S. assurances about Africom or is it the thin end of the wedge, a precursor to a boosted American military presence on the continent that could attract rather than deter terrorist attacks and infringe on the sovereignty and independence of African nations?

Motlanthe, quiet spoken and dignified, struck exactly the note the public were looking for when he took office, sober but smiling gently - a huge contrast to the theatrical ebullience of Zuma and the aloof, intellectual style of Mbeki, who was seen as arrogant and out of touch with his people.

The sense of relief was palpable on Friday.

"Motlanthe restores order" said the front page headline of Johannesburg's Star newspaper, over a picture of the new president swearing the oath of office. "New leader steers SA to calm," said the Pretoria News. "For now the country has at its head a nice and largely untainted man with not much ego who doesn't think he knows everything and who listens to people. You can almost feel the relief in the republic," Business Day said in an editorial.

But Motlanthe's honeymoon may not last.

He must try to end an unprecedented battle inside the ANC while his country, Africa's biggest economy, faces serious stresses including record inflation, slowing growth and a power supply crisis that has hit vital platinum and gold mines. Yet, he has little room for manoeuvre. Although fully accepted as the third president since the end of apartheid, he is seen only as an interim leader, holding the fort until Zuma takes over after elections expected around April next year.

This will make it difficult even to make a mark, without arousing suspicions that he wants the permanent job himself--something that many South Africans would welcome.

Ironically this suspicion, if allowed to grow amongst Zuma's militant allies within the party, could create new divisions instead of allowing Motlanthe to do the job for which he has mainly been elected -- gluing back together the once monolithic ANC which is now torn by rifts that have distracted policy makers from addressing huge economic and social problems including persistent and widespread black poverty, an AIDS epidemic and rampant crime.

He has promised to stick with the economic policies of Mbeki, who presided over South Africa's longest period of growth, but is already under pressure from Zuma's leftist allies to shift policy away from protecting investors and towards rapidly spreading the fruits of black rule. On Friday, his first day in office, the powerful COSATU trade union confederation called on him to eradicate policy and create jobs.

Can Motlanthe make a difference and end South Africa's instability? Could he eventually dislodge Zuma to become the next president? Or will he just leave problems untouched until the election? What do you think?

U.N. officials say this is no longer simply an environmental issue but something that has huge importance for the whole country. Already two of the top three foreign exchange earners -- tourism and tea -- are feeling the impact of falling water levels which have also forced the postponement of a major hydro-electric project. 

Prime Minister Raila Odinga describes the forest's destruction as a national emergency. Both foreign and local officials say there is no gap between Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki on the issue.

Saving the forest will involve huge costs to resettle and compensate some of the thousands of people living illegally there and restore tree cover which produces vital supplies of water. Officials say they expect international donors to provide major financial help.

Until a few months ago, the destruction of the forest was a familiar story of land grabbing, illegal logging and the allocation of government land to try to win votes. It began in 1997 when the government of Daniel arap Moi gave large plots away in exchange for electoral support.

Then, this year, the United Nations flew Odinga and other officials over the forest to show them the extent of the destruction, shocking them into urgent action.

The government is pushing ahead despite the fact that many of the area's MPs and voters belong to Odinga's ODM party. Unlike the past, political considerations are being pushed to one side in the national interest. U.N. officials call this process unique for a country long blighted by the depradations of powerful and greedy politicians.

This momentum is all the more striking because Odinga and Kibaki were bitter enemies before and during a bloody political crisis in the first two months of this year when around 1,500 people died in tribally-based clashes following the president's disputed victory in an election.

Does the Mau forest issue mark a turning point in Kenyan politics or is it a one-off. What do you think?