(CNN) -  Good news for Nigeria. A wake-up call for South Africa.

That’s my “take-home message” from the headlines emerging from a new Morgan Stanley report, which predicts Nigeria’s economy will overtake South Africa’s as Africa’s largest by 2025.

High oil prices, the “decisive” election of President Goodluck Jonathan and buoyant consumer spending will all push Nigeria’s economy into the front in the next 15 years, says the Morgan Stanley survey.

Critics in South Africa say they are not concerned about the prospect of the country losing its spot as the largest economy on the continent.

Economists brush off this latest report by saying that the Morgan Stanley projections are based on economic models that are contingent on factors that might or might not impact the Nigerian economy.

Whatever the eventual outcome in 2025, the report serves as another sage reminder to Nigerians to manage their oil wealth cleverly ­by pouring investments into infrastructure and making sure that government polices and regulations stimulate growth in the sector.

Of course, oil remains about 80% of Nigeria’s GDP and experts say that is just too much. The country needs to diversify as it strides ahead in the coming decades.

South Africa’s economy is, of course, healthily diversified and not reliant on the variables of oil prices.

However, for Africa’s biggest economy to maintain its lead over its West African competitor, South Africa has to invest and upgrade its education system. Over and over again, the point cannot be understated: For all South Africa’s promise, the country’s future growth is reliant on the next generation of managers, workers and business leaders.

For now, South Africa is failing to educate its youngsters to steer the country’s economy into 2025 and beyond.

The seriousness of the problem was reinforced on the same day the Morgan Stanley report was publicized.

The results of another survey ­- an annual assessment of the country’s literacy and numeracy levels – were confirmed by South Africa's Department of Education.

Both reports made headlines on the front pages of some of the country’s newspapers. The implications of both stories lying side-by-side in print was a stark reminder of the challenges that lie ahead.

The South African education assessment - which a teacher’s union apparently dubbed “dismal” and “sobering” – was a shocking assessment of the level of literacy and numeracy in the country’s primary schools.

Backed up by other international studies, this report confirmed that South Africa’s young school goers are among the worst-performing students in the world. As one outraged newspaper reported, most nine and 12 year olds “can’t count and can’t understand what they were supposed to have been taught.” This is despite a significant financial investment in education by the South African state.

Looking 15 or 20 years ahead, there are critical and immediate choices that need to be made by Nigeria and South Africa. Africa’s powerhouses both need to nurture and protect their country’s most precious resources.

No one wins in the end if South Africa’s children are unemployable when they finish school.

No one wins in the final reckoning if Nigeria squanders its oil wealth on corruption and bad management.

The whole continent can be uplifted if these two countries stride ahead together, and smartly, in the decades to come.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) The business of stimulating economies, creating jobs and mentoring young leaders starts in the cradle.

It is no secret that raising children to become working, responsible members of society is all about the quality of early parenting. However, South Africa, according to some of the country’s most powerful women, is failing to nurture the next generation of workers, leaders and innovators.

This crisis of parenting, which has long-term implications for the country, was highlighted recently at a women’s lunch I attended along with Wendy Luhabe, a prominent businesswomen, and Lulu Xingwana, a cabinet minister. These two ladies and others present expressed concern that South Africa’s children need to be better parented for the challenges that lie ahead.

The real worry for many is the huge number of single-parent families and the lack of male role models in children’s lives. Nine million, or nearly half of the country’s children, are growing up with an absent but living father, according to recent statistics.

With millions of children never knowing their father, Minister Xingwana accused South Africa’s men of avoiding the responsibility of parenting and questioned why so many men “don’t support their children.”

Of course, there are many dedicated fathers, but there is agreement between government and business that the state of the South African family is not healthy. One report stated that there was a “crisis of men” as women struggle to provide and parent for their children alone.

Based on the worrying statistics, there is a growing realization that the nuclear family has broken down and that the burden of child rearing lays solely on a mother or a grandmother.

There are many reasons for this – the impact of HIV/AIDS, cultural traditions, migration from the rural to the urban areas, tough economic realities and many other complicated social and financial explanations.

The inference by worried South Africans is that it has become a rarity, and indeed, even, a luxury, for children to be raised, nurtured and supported through to adulthood by two parents.

Too many children in South Africa are just not getting the deep-seated emotional, psychological and educational benefits that come from living with a mom-and-pop family unit. International and local studies all point to the fact that these children are at a real disadvantage when it comes to their future prospects.

This is not just a problem faced by the poor.

Indeed, mothers in South Africa’s ever-growing middle class were also singled out for skipping on their “responsibilities.” According to Luhabe, too many working women were leaving their children to “be raised by nannies and au pairs.”

The solution, says Luhabe, is that more women needed to stay at home to raise their children. In doing so, she said that men needed to pay stay-at-home mums a “salary.” Fair work for fair pay. A mommy “salary” would help to ensure that women are recognized for the roles they play at home. This idea – it was no joke, believe me – would also help to lift the quality of mothering.

From the rural areas in Transkei to the urban areas of the East Rand, from the wealthy homes in Sandton to the shacks in Diepsloot, the challenge it seems is for parents to raise children who can cope with the implications of the 21st century.

The solutions to unemployment, crime and a growing dissatisfaction by the country’s youth lie in the lost chances of early childhood. Well-meaning legislation to stimulate “job creation” all helps but the real foundations to a vibrant economy and a dynamic workforce are all laid by a loving mom and dad.

As a working mother myself, this issue is fraught with judgment and guilt. Every mom wants the best for their kids. No one likes to be questioned about his or her parenting techniques.

No parent – no matter how poor or disadvantaged they are – wakes up in the morning and says to themselves, “I really want to raise illiterate, vulnerable and unemployable children today.” That is just plain wrong. Instead, it seems that too many South African women are struggling desperately to be both a mother and father, a homemaker and a breadwinner. They, and their children, are being failed.

Why, then, do South Africa’s fathers not play a more active role in the lives of their children? Do women let them off the hook too much? Many will point to the legacy of apartheid, which systematically broke up families with a heart-breaking set of laws that forced families to live apart. What impact does ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ have in a country that, despite a liberal constitution, is still deeply patriarchal?

Whatever the reasons, South Africa’s children are not ready for the tough, brutal challenges of adulthood. Blaming is not the answer. Instead, the solution lies in a cuddle, a bedtime story and unconditional love for the country’s important natural assets.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) - The skullduggery by the News of the World newspaper in Britain exposed an underbelly of phone taps and lies.

While the fall of the newspaper and the shenanigans of the Murdoch business empire are a compelling and continuing drama, we should be reminded that this sort of behavior is not limited to the tabloid muckraking press.

Underhand tactics, secrets and illegal tampering with private information is a growing and common problem in the corporate world. Call it what you may - industrial espionage, corporate hacking, commercial spying - the practice is widespread and deeply entrenched on a global scale.

In Africa, the practice of stealing or secretly accessing information about another company –­ more than likely in competition with yours – is not as widespread as it is in Europe, America and Asia. However, here in South Africa the practice of corporate spookery is “massive” and “rife,” according to a security expert working for a global bank.

The mining sector, dealing with rising costs but soaring commodity prices, is particularly vulnerable to corporate espionage. When there is so much at stake, money to be made, and deals to sign, ­then information becomes valuable. It’s all about gaining a competitive advantage, of course.

There is no doubt, say the security experts, that all the big mining firms working in Africa will be ultra-cautious about their “information security.” As a matter of course, they will double check the backgrounds of new employees who might be “moles” for their competition and they will sweep for bugs or listening devices in boardrooms. They will warn traveling executives to keep a close eye on their laptops and ensure that their emails are protected from cyber spies.

In Europe and the United States, examples of threats to corporate information are numerous. The recent fallout over an alleged spy ring at Renault in France has raised the alarm in Europe over how industry is undermined and even threatened by corporate espionage.

The car manufacturer’s electric car project was allegedly compromised by the presence of three senior executives who were not, to put it mildly, working in the interest of Renault. Who hired them? The French speculate that the competitors in China might be the source of the leak. That, of course, cannot be confirmed.

But there have been many counter-accusations over the decades thrown back at the French, who are described in some reports as being particularly aggressive when it comes economic espionage.

Additionally, traditional allies on the political front but competitors on the economic front,­ the Americans, the British, and other European companies regularly, according to numerous press reports and security experts, indulge in some form of corporate snooping, known as “friendly spying.”

Within Western economies, the aerospace industry, the tobacco and pharmaceutical businesses and consumer-goods companies - particularly their research and development departments which create new brands or new products - are all targets.

As the global economy continues to struggle, budgets are tightened and outlooks are lowered, the stakes become higher. From a new shampoo brand in Germany to a lucrative new geological find in the DRC, much is at stake for the multinationals and conglomerates.

However, the same pressures that push companies to spy on their competitors are also forcing the same companies to cut their security budgets. This leaves many companies even more vulnerable to hacking of industrial secrets.

So while here in South Africa there is often a real concern about the physical aspects of security ­– the high walls, the alarms systems - ­ the real danger perhaps lies in the vulnerability of a company’s private information.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) Nelson Mandela’s 93rd birthday recently made many people reflect on what the former South African president meant to them. It cannot be overstated just how important Mandela’s leadership was in steering South Africa away from civil war and into a democracy.

His particular style of leadership was fuelled by an innate inner strength, a deep sense of self-confidence and years of patience honed in an apartheid jail.

The characteristics that define Mandela, who was the right leader at the right time, ­provide clues for all of us on how to manage conflict, deal with enemies and play the long game.

Everyone’s welcome

As a leader, Mandela was inclusive by nature. His childhood in the rural area of the Eastern Cape, watching tribal elders deal with community problems, inculcated in him a consensual approach to politics.

In prison and in the presidency, Mandela ensured that black and white, Xhosa and Zulu, English and Afrikaans, communists and capitalists, were given equal access and representation. Inclusion of a wide group of people in decision-making was, for Mandela, the purest form of democracy.

Listen and wait

Mandela is legendary for listening to all sides of the argument, taking guidance and then offering his analysis. In speaking last and entering the debate at a late stage, Mandela not only gained a psychological advantage but also the ability to close the argument. The final decision is his, but not before he takes council.

Sometimes though, go it alone

“There comes a time when a leader must lead,” said one of Mandela’s fellow prisoners. So, in the late 1980s, when South Africa’s townships were burning and the grip of the security apparatus never seemed stronger, Mandela secretly started talking and negotiating with the apartheid state.

He abandoned his consensual approach because he knew his ANC colleagues would disagree or veto any contact with the “enemy.” Instead, he did it alone. Taking a risk; going with his instinct that the time was right for negotiation.

First impressions count

Mandela is acutely aware of the power of image. He is tall, imperial-looking and walks with a ram-rod straight back. When he walks into a room he fills it with his physical presence. When he wears his casual, silk-printed shirts he gives the aura of a wise old mystic guru.

His wife, Graca, has told me that he is “vain,” ­ always well dressed, neatly put together. This is as much about personal pride as it is about projecting an image of a man who is confident, successful and trustworthy.

Mandela sold himself as the “Go-To Guy” because not only was he a great leader, but he looked like one too. It is always fascinating to watch how people gravitate towards him in a room; he attracts people like a magnet, even children who have no idea of who he is. He’s the “main man,” as the say in South Africa, before he even opens his mouth.

The media is not the enemy

For a man who was locked away from the world for 27 years, Mandela has a refreshing understanding of the media. This is unusual for an African leader, many of whom continue to view the press with suspicion. Mandela differed from those in his own party in his attitude towards press freedom.

Zapiro, the South African political cartoonist, often recalls how Mandela told him how much he enjoyed his cartoons, even when Mandela himself was critiqued or caricatured. Importantly, Mandela also knew how to play for the cameras and manipulate the world of celebrity; he was just as easy with pop stars as he was with presidents.

Essentially, he used the mass media to help portray him as an everyman, which in turn helped him to win over those who might have been suspicious of him.

When it’s over, it’s over

One of Mandela’s greatest legacies was his decision to leave office after one term as president. Very few African leaders have given up power so smoothly and so quickly. Leading by example and showing that he wasn’t bigger than the Office of the President helped to steady South Africa’s democratic journey.

It is a lesson that is as relevant to gamblers as it is to sportsmen or CEOs: Quit when you are on top. Step away when the game is over. Do what you have to do, say goodbye and keep on walking.

Mandela’s not been seen in public for more than a year now. He’s frail, old and sometimes forgetful. As he walks away, in the twilight of life, it’s never too late to learn from one of the giants of our time.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) When you see a yellow taxicab in the movies, you know you’re watching a film about New York. London is immediately identifiable by the city’s black cabs.

Here in Africa, it is the minibus taxi that defines transport on the continent. The 16-seaters are used by millions of people each day. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the minibus taxis are a uniquely African experience.

From Lagos to Kampala to Johannesburg, Africa’s taxis are more often than not bulging with passengers as their drivers jostle through traffic.

The incessant hooting and parping are signals, which offer passengers waiting on the pavement an indication of where that taxi is going. There are no taxi ranks along well-worn routes; instead the taxis use a process of ‘stop-drop-drive-stop-drop-drive’ to deliver commuters to their destinations.

It is chaotic, organic and haphazard but it’s an industry that is an example of grassroots entrepreneurialism.

Here in South Africa, the taxi industry is a multi-million dollar business that is lauded as an entirely black-owned collective. That said, there is criticism that the wealth is not as broadly shared as some would claim, because Zulus and family dynasties mostly dominate the industry-owned taxi fleets.

By its very nature, the taxi is a collective, community experience.

Catching a ride from the Bree Street taxi rank in central Johannesburg to Cresta Centre in Randburg costs just 8 rand, which is just over a dollar.

It is a cramped and slightly wild ride as the driver straddles lanes, pulls over to drop off passengers at a moment’s notice and hoots hysterically.

Inside, squashed next to strangers, dodging traffic in a beaten old vehicle, this is the daily grind of life in Africa. Cars are too expensive and there is a barely functioning public transport system, so most people rely on the taxi industry to get them from A to B.

The government would like to regulate the drivers and bosses more, so as to bring the industry into the mainstream of the formal economy. However, the bosses and drivers I’ve spoken to say they prefer to operate on the fringes, ­ priding themselves on “self-regulation” - a complicated system of ownership, associations and codes.

Often they play fast and loose with traffic rules, but the taxi bosses say they pay their taxes and support an industry that transports 65% of South Africa’s people.

Taxi owners are now expanding their road-travel empires. The industry is “spreading its wings,” as one owner described plans to invest in a low-cost airline, which will service the poorer, more rural areas of the country. Taxi commuters will be able to buy a plane ticket at a taxi rank.

This news comes as a high-speed rail link opens between Pretoria and Johannesburg, which is a welcome relief for many car owners who spend hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic each day.

However, planes and trains aside, for most South Africans the daily trip in a wobbly, speeding minibus taxi is the only way to get home.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) In the roadside markets of central Johannesburg, alongside neat piles of fresh vegetables and Chinese-made wigs, hawkers sell self-help books.

The book titles are long-winded and have the author’s photo enlarged on the cover - a style that seems popular in the United States. In fact, most of the books are aimed at the American businessperson and seem incongruous sitting in a Southern African roadside stall.

The Americans have pioneered that genre of literature that aims to “help.” Some books take a religious tone and others are more business-focused. Some of these manuals are self-righteous, some are plain boring; most are worthy and the authors have a genuine desire to help others “make decisions,” live “in the moment” or find their “passion.”

What “life lessons” can, for example, an immigrant Zimbabwean living in Johannesburg learn from a salesman in Idaho? Well, a lot apparently.

The common denominator in much self-help literature is the underlying need to triumph over adversity or to improve oneself. The universality of that instinct translates across cultural or geographic differences.

Personally, I like to just get on with things. Professionally, as a journalist, I am always open to hearing stories about how people change their lives or make a difference. I avoid the self-help books but over the years, I have interviewed business leaders, self-help gurus, management experts and many others who offer their solutions to dealing with life, money and business.

For me, the simplest arguments make the most sense. There is a whole industry and tone of language devoted to the self-improvement business but once all the waffle is taken away, it’s the obvious advice that is the most valuable.

Take, for example, the recently re-released book “The Surfer’s Code,” written by South African surf legend Shaun Tomson. I interviewed him recently and his lessons or “codes” made sense, even though I am a useless surfer and average swimmer.

Some of his offerings include, “I will always paddle back out,” and “There will always be another wave.” These will be familiar to many parents who constantly remind their children to keep trying harder and never give up.

The old adage that one should pick one’s fights is reworked as “I will never fight a rip tide.” Sensible stuff.

“I will watch out for other surfers” has shades of good neighborliness and the 10 Commandments.

It is a gentle book about dealing with tragedies and challenges. Like all self-help books there is nothing new in it ­and that’s the point. Tomson’s message is that everyone faces difficulties and sadness in their life; the big challenge is how to deal with it.

As the global economic situation seems to look bleaker and bleaker, ­ from the United States to Europe to East Africa ­ people are realizing that future opportunities might get lesser.

So, many more will look for comfort and advice in the pick-me-up manuals that are flogged in the bookshops of fluorescent shopping malls of the industrialized nations as well as on the brightly sunlit stalls of the developing world.

The messages will offer succor and try to sustain populations of people around the globe who are all sharing experiences that are familiar:  how to make money and be happy.

It’s as simple as that.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) Many South Africans have been smug watching the images of lawlessness, anarchy and violence on London’s streets.

As hooded youths burnt and trashed the streets of London, there has been a sense of self-satisfied bemusement from the country that hosted last year’s World Cup football.  So much so, the spokesperson of the opposition party, the DA, mentioned on Twitter that she was “perturbed” by the tone of tweets posted by South Africans and asked if “the chips on our shoulders are really that deep?”

In the years leading up to the 2010 tournament, the British tabloid press in particular irritated many South Africans with constant assessments of how “unsafe” South Africa is. Proud locals felt that many English football fans were dissuaded from attending the World Cup because of the fear campaign generated by the British media.

Now that the South African government has issued a travel warning to citizens travelling to the United Kingdom some have been questioning the double standards. Had this happened in South Africa - a year before the World Cup - many suggest that the world’s media would have been pressuring the football governing body, FIFA, to move the tournament someplace safer. FIFA would often hint at a Plan B location, such as “safe” Australia, if South Africa became too dangerous or unpleasant to host the World Cup.

However, now that the Olympic Games are to take place in a year’s time in London, some Africans are asking why more people aren’t debating whether England can pull off the world’s oldest sports tournament. After all, they say, the streets are burning! The mobs are in control! The politicians are on the beach! Call in the army!  Is there a Plan B for the Olympics, some ask jokingly? How about South Africa?

Africans are generally ultra-sensitive to comparisons between themselves and Westerners, particularly old colonial bosses. This time around the debate is less rooted in reality - no one really suggests that London is too dangerous to host the Olympics - but in the perceptions that many Africans believe still exist.

If that was happening in Africa … they mumble as they watch the TV.

That said, there is also a reverse smugness about the level of rioting seen in England and the British police’s inability to challenge it. In some cases rioters are dismissed as just a bunch of gormless “hoodies” on the rampage. One South African newspaper headline read: “London riots are tame by SA’s protest standards.”

In many ways, the UK riots, while shocking to many, are relatively meek compared to the violent protests experienced in South Africa for decades.

As a reporter, I have lost track of the number of times we have watched groups of angry South Africans march, protest and then trash the streets. Just last year, I filmed as police fired rubber bullets and water canons at violently protesting doctors, nurses and teachers on one of Johannesburg’s main roads.

In fact, it happens so often that mobs of people gather to slash, burn and intimidate that South Africans are quite used to these unacceptably high levels of public violence.

When it happens in the land of Big Ben, Trafalgar Square and The Ivy - well, that’s different.

It is vastly different. South Africa has a history of public protest that is deeply-rooted in the anti-apartheid struggle. The legacy of police brutality in those pre-democratic days also left many South Africans with a rather jaundiced view of law and order. The simmering anger felt by many is also said to fuel the ugly violence that inevitably emerges during a protest in South Africa.

These are uniquely South African reasons, social and historical experiences, that continue to scar this nation.

However, there is one similarity between South Africa’s rampaging mobs and those in England. It is a theme that has emerged as Tunisians and Egyptians took to the streets. Again and again, we are seeing the effects of a global problem that will continue to define this century - youth who are dislocated, disenfranchised, poor and, crucially, have no prospects for the future.

Kampala, Uganda (CNN) Along the Entebbe Road, that bustling, traffic-ridden street that links the airport to Uganda’s capital city Kampala, is a small hairdresser called “Obama Salon.”

The name conjures up an ode, a prayer, a little bit of wishful thinking on behalf of the salon owner, who no doubt wanted some of Barack Obama’s yes-we-can-do-it magic to wear off on this neglected avenue in Africa.

For the beleaguered residents of Kampala, a run-down city that tries hard to create some order out of the chaos of poverty, life remains hard. Food prices and transport prices continue to spiral higher and higher, making residents angry that those with so little have to pay so much for the basics.

It will not be like this for much longer, say the optimists.

That’s because beneath Uganda’s soil, in the northern parts of the country in the Lake Albert region, lies an extraordinary oil bounty.

Uganda is about to come online with Africa’s newest resource bonanza; the country has the potential to become a mid-size producer of oil, on a par with Mexico. The riches are potentially a game-changer. Some hype suggests the country will be awash with $2 billion of cash a year in oil revenues.

Powerful, connected people in Kampala talk about the staggering changes that are about to come to Uganda, how the Ugandans don’t realize the implications of the windfall that sits beneath their land. There is a sense from some that the good times are about to start rolling. But are they?

The continent is littered with examples of how the riches beneath Africa’s soil have done little to uplift its people. One only need look to the Congo or Nigeria, two massive treasure troves of natural resources that have been squandered by greed and bad leadership.

How does Uganda avoid that so-called “oil curse?”

The responsibility lies with President Yoweri Museveni, a man who has been in power since 1986. The decisions he is taking right now will define this East African country, and its neighbors, for the rest of this century.

It’s important to not get bamboozled by the potential for development and upliftment of ordinary Ugandans because, many believe, that is not President Museveni’s first priority.

To ensure his political future, observers suggest, Museveni has to control access to the oil wealth, which is why no “oil minister” or “oil ministry” has been formed yet in Uganda. That sector will, according to people familiar with the situation, stay in the presidency.

Secondly, Museveni has to manage the expectations of Uganda’s powerful kingdoms that believe more power should be given to traditional leaders. There are also tribal pressures about where the majority of the oil wealth should be spent – in the local areas where the oil is being drilled, or in the urban areas, where Museveni’s ruling party is based?

Thirdly, there is already criticism that Museveni has “sold-out” Uganda’s oil wealth to the companies that control the major blocks - Total, the French oil giant, Tullow, the Irish player heavily involved in Africa, and CNOOC, the Chinese monolith.

Human-rights campaigners say the Uganda oil contracts are designed towards a “resource extraction program” aimed at company profit and not country development. They insist that the contracts are structured in favor of these companies and not the Ugandan state. Tullow denies that and says that the Kampala contracts are some of the best in the world.

The other challenges are practical as well as political. There are apparently still negotiations on how to extract Uganda’s oil, how to transport it and where to get it refined.

Some want to build a pipeline - a heated, underground transport line out of Uganda. Others want to expand on already-existing railway tracks to the east. Many want the oil to be refined in Mombassa, Kenya. Some worry it will be refined in China or elsewhere.

Decisions and responsibilities that lie ultimately with Uganda’s ageing president. Is it too late? Or is he ready to make bold decisions that will bring a possibility of hope to the hairdressers in the Obama Salon?

(CNN) There is nothing swashbuckling about Somali piracy. The pirates are not romantic anti-heroes with a parrot on their shoulder. Instead, they are recognized as lawless, dangerous criminals who roam East Africa’s waters terrorizing the shipping industry.

The direct impact of the criminality off the Somalia coastline is being felt on the mainland, where critical food aid is not getting through to famine-struck Somalis because 80 to 90% of humanitarian relief arrives by sea, according to a recent report by the African Development Bank (AfDB).

Few ships and aid organizations are willing to take the risks involved in delivering tons of food aid, says the AfDB report. Owners and aid workers fear the ships will be seized and crews kidnapped for ransom. For now, despite the dangers, some humanitarian agencies still operate, often with protection from NATO warships.

The critical needs of feeding Somalis today, as well as the long-term implications of creating a sustainable agriculture sector, are often discussed by political scientists and economists. What to do about the state of anarchy in the failed state that is Somalia?

It is a question that has been debated for many years now, and I fear is not about to be imminently solved, even as African Union troops continue to do a brave job in defending Mogadishu against Al-Shabaab militias.

The issue of piracy, though, is not a purely hopeless problem, because its roots lie in the collapse of the fishing industry in Somalia.

A confluence of events in 1991 created a vacuum that laid the ground for the birth of Somali piracy. As the Siad Barre regime collapsed and plunged the country into civil war it left the Somali coastline unprotected. Around the same time the EU tightened fishing controls in Europe, pushing some fishing ships to look for new waters.

So fleets from Europe and Asia - many operating illegally - moved into the open East African waters to fish. And fish they did, ­ plundering, according to many reports, the oceans of fish stocks. The ripple effect was enormous, decimating the livelihoods of many Somali fishermen.

Many of these formerly destitute Somali fisherman “took matters into their own hands,” according to the AfDB, and turned to hijacking ships to make up for lost income.

The new “industry” was quickly co-opted by the Somali warlords and is now an organized, hierarchical gang-like operation.

However, the AfDB and other observers still point to the many ships that continue to fish illegally in East African waters.

There is concern that this root cause of the Somali piracy issue has been badly managed by the international community. For example, NATO warships that police the passageway of the Gulf of Aden are not tasked with shutting down these offshore fisheries that continue to operate without jurisdiction, say observers. Allowing fish stocks to replenish, some say, might just mitigate the need for Somalis to earn a living out of piracy.

Others say this is just naïve, that the Somali coastline is a dangerous but strategic piece of maritime real estate, which will continue to destabilize the region no matter the state of fishing stocks.

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) Many here in Africa are still struggling to come to terms with the increasing realization that the Gadhafi regime is all but over.

South Africa recently recommitted itself to the African Union’s “roadmap” as a way to resolve the crisis in Libya. For South Africa, the solution involves an “interim government” in which “nobody must be left out,” according to a government spokesperson.

It is unclear just how inclusive South Africa would like this ideal Libyan government to be. Do they suggest Gadhafi or just Gadhafi loyalists share power with the rebel leaders?

This vision of a negotiated settlement, where enemies and friends hammer out a political compromise over a table, not a desert battle field, is a model South Africa has championed across the continent.

Zimbabwe and Kenya, for example, are both laboring under “governments of national unity.” For critics, this kind of government allows the loser or incumbent to hold onto power while giving the opposition a place in the seat of government.

Each of these examples is a special case and has their own unique context, but there is criticism that South Africa prefers a one-size-fits-all approach to any conflict or crisis on the continent.

The reason for South Africa’s dogmatic insistence on “negotiated settlements” is, they say, based on the historic agreement that saw the creation of a democratic South Africa in 1994.

This came after years of talking and compromise between the apartheid government and the liberation movements. South Africa believes its “miracle” of a peaceful political transition should be replicated and encouraged where possible.

Cynics like to helpfully remind the apparently idealistic South Africans that in the prelude to negotiations there were decades of violence in apartheid South Africa; even the now-ruling ANC committed itself to an “armed struggle” that was only rescinded just before the first democratic elections.

However, based on their own moral victory at the negotiating table and their standing in the continent, South Africans like to see themselves as punching above their weight in the United Nations and other multilateral institutions.

They believe they deserve a seat on the U.N. Security Council and suggest the country’s recent admission to the developing club of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations is another example of South Africa’s soft power on the international stage.

However, just how realistic is this foreign policy? As South Africa digs its heels in regarding Libya’s future, many worry that the country’s stubborn refusal to see beyond a framework of negotiations and interim governments is harming the Southern African nation’s reputation.

One news report suggested “South Africa’s out-of-sync foreign policy may cost it dearly.” Another newspaper suggested that South Africa’s policy towards Libya has been “inconsistent and arguably naïve.”

There will be many who agree with South Africa’s so-called “principled” stance towards Libya – even though they voted for the initial U.N. resolution on humanitarian grounds President Zuma has repeatedly said the NATO bombing campaign is being misused to push for “regime change.”

Since it emerged as a democratic nation, South Africa’s diplomats have sought to align themselves with the developing world or the “South.”

They have steadfastly refuse to abandon old liberation friends, such as Gadhafi, and have consistently become more aggressively anti-Western in their outlook.

This approach earns traction from Africans who feel mistreated or misunderstood by the “North.” Others suggest the policy is based on an “us-versus-them” attitude, which is not helpful to any of the role players.

As the last days of Gadhafi appear to draw to a close, is this type of policy a morally principled stand or just confused and naïve wishful thinking?