Imagine we had a really bad government. I mean morally bad, wicked: a government that wanted to do something terrible, like abduct children from their families or introduce euthanasia of disabled babies. It couldn't happen, right? We wouldn't let it, would we?

This Government isn't morally bad. For all its frequent cock-ups, our ministers are well-intentioned, trying to do right by their own lights. Just now they find themselves caught out in the secular equivalent of simony, the sale of offices and indulgences for cash.

But simony is the natural vice of politics: in the cant phrase, it goes with the territory, where power and money meet. Indeed, the purchase of contracts and peerages used to be part of the normal business of politics, in tim es when human relationships counted for more than abstract individual merit.

We may think this is wrong, but we cannot think it is new.

The real fault of this Government is not its shady dealings, the tennis parties at Michael Levy's house where "Tony" "drops in".

The proper crime, the actual innovation in turpitude, is happening in plain view - like Poe's purloined letter, it is there before us on the mantelpiece, in the laws that Labour is passing.

Tyranny is sidling in. It is entering with face averted, under cover of a host of laws whose ostensible purpose is the reverse of their actual effect.

The Human Rights Act, for instance, was presented as a means of defending the individual against oppression by the state. Similarly, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose stealthy insinuation into British law the Government is conniving at, gives us all entitlements to social and economic "protection".

But these charters comprise sweep ing generalisations whose confusion gives judges the power to create legal precedents ex nihilo; and though they may occasionally be used to frustrate the Government's wishes, their effect is to swell the remit and responsibilities of the state.

The old principles of equity and tort law, by which private individuals could accommodate their interests to each other in a natural and rational manner, is giving way to a system of arbitrary and artificial power.

The same inverted logic applies to the ID card scheme. The Home Office minister Andy Burnham, in a letter to the Observer yesterday, asserted that the cards are there "as a protection", to stop "identity theft".

Never mind that the system will use cheap chip-and-pin technology, which has already shown itself vulnerable to fraud. Ministers evidently believe our identities can be protected only if they are owned by ministers themselves.

For ID cards will not belong to us, but to the state: the Home Se cretary will be able to revoke any individual's card at any moment, by the touch of a Whitehall button, rendering him or her a non-person, cut off from all the transactions in which freedom consists.

It is not exaggeration to say that the National Identity Register will give the government both knowledge of, and control over, your life. A photo of your face, your fingerprints and a scan of the back of your eye will be recorded, as well as 49 separate pieces of information, including your residence and your religion.

Every outpost of the state, and every outlet that operates under licence from the state (including shops selling cigarettes and alcohol), will have access to the register.

You will be required to acquire and carry a card proving your identity. The scheme will be compulsory, by the sly device of making us get one when we renew our passports: people will be banned from travelling abroad unless they register.

But even within Britain, it will soon be impossible to live a normal life without an ID card. Labour's horrible inversion of logic means that if something can be done, it will be done.

Shops and restaurants selling cigarettes and alcohol will find themselves required to demand ID to prove they have not sold to minors, and to log the sale. Banks will jump at the chance to tap into our doings, compiling exhaustive records of our spending habits that they will then sell on to other companies.

The alternatives will soon be submission to this corporate Leviathan, or setting up a barter economy on a Hebridean island.

And then there is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is presented as a means of repealing red tape and therefore restricting the reach of the state.

But the Bill, quite simply, gives any minister of the Crown the power to "make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation", meaning "any public general Act", or indeed "any rule of law".

It cannot be used to impose taxation or create criminal offences bearing a prison term of more than two years, and there is also a cursory requirement for debate in committee.

But given that the Bill has been nodded through by pliant MPs - even the Conservatives let it by without a murmur, imposing only a one-line whip on the second reading - we cannot place much trust in the vigilance of our politicians.

For the final twist of the Bill's logic is that it will apply to itself: ministers may use its powers to remove its own limitations, and enable the government to make or repeal any law whatever.

The Regulatory Reform Bill is an Enabling Act, identical in spirit to the one the Nazis passed in 1933. On that occasion, Hitler promised that "the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...

The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is a limite d one." Our Government says much the same about the legislation it is passing today.

But our concern should not be with today or tomorrow, but with the day after tomorrow, when different, nastier politicians might be in power, and the habits of decency and common sense have been even further eroded.

We have already seen how officious policemen have used legislation designed to deal with terrorists to arrest protesters armed with nothing more lethal than placards.

Perhaps I was wrong when I said our Government isn't morally bad - that it wouldn't abduct children or enforce euthanasia of disabled babies.

Already there is legislation going through Parliament to set up state nurseries - "children's centres" - for under-fives. And a Royal College is actively campaigning to let babies born under 25 weeks die, rather than receive costly intensive care.

Both ideas are bad enough. But it is only a small step - a twist of logic of the sort this Government is adept at, and which its laws will make perfectly possible - to make state nursing compulsory, and extend infanticide to babies born with defects.

"Surely some revelation is at hand." Yeats's rough beast is moving its slow thighs, slouching towards Bethlehem to be born.

Asked in an interview with the Guardian if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, Dr Rowan Williams said: "Ah, not very."

However, he said this did not mean that it should not be discussed.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said creationism was not taught as a subject in schools.

He said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.

"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
Dr Williams said: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.

"Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said: 'Well, how am I going to explain all this... I know: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

"So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories. It's not what it's about."

Asked if it should be taught, he said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching what creation means.

Darwinism

"For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."

Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."

OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, recently announced that creationist theories were to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.

Theory

The exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre- and post-Darwin's theory of evolution.

A spokesman said: "Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."

The area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them.

In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.

'Faith position'

Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.

In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."

In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach.

Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer.

In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.

Shamsul Gani sits in his home, in the northern English city of Leeds, a proud father cradling his six-month-old son.

I ask him about the three young men from Leeds who carried out the London bombings last year.

"You'd have left your house keys with them and gone away for a year," he told me.

For many people, what motivated the bombers is still a mystery.

But Shamsul grew up with the three - all British Muslims from Pakistani families. (The fourth was a Caribbean convert to Islam.)

Shamsul admires the courage of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the group, even though he condemns what he did.

France has betrayed the young people of the suburbs. When you're called Ali you can't get a job - Ali, 24, from France

Khan left a videotape explaining his action as a response to Western policy in Iraq and other parts of the Muslim world.

"I have no reason to doubt the credibility of that tape," Shamsul told me.

"What you have to understand is his belief in what he was doing. He was prepared to put his life on the line for that."

Voices of alienation

My visit to Leeds marked the beginning of an odyssey in search of the roots of Muslim anger.

Western Europe is now home to some 15 million Muslims, most of them under 30.

Is a new angry, alienated generation of European Muslims now being drawn to radicalism?

That's certainly a widespread fear.

The London bombings were followed a few months later by the Paris riots. And then, more recently, the controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. All these have reinforced that fear.

In the suburbs on the northern rim of the French capital, I found young Muslims, from Arab and African families, who feel excluded by the French state.

When during the riots President Chirac belatedly intervened, telling the people of the suburbs they were all sons and daughters of the French republic, many of them saw it as a bad joke.

France, unlike Britain, tries to keep religion out of public life. Everyone is supposed to be equal, regardless of cultural background.

Try telling that to Ali, who is 24 and unemployed.

"France has betrayed the young people of the suburbs. When you're called Ali you can't get a job. The French don't accept Islam. Politicians promise us mosques and so on, but at the same time they smear us and call us terrorists."

A double culture

I visited Clichy sous Bois, where the riots began after the accidental death of two teenagers during a police chase.

At a youth club, an audition was under way for budding stand-up comedians.

Fifou, a lively young French-Algerian student, did a sketch poking fun at the "double culture" in which she and her friends live.

At home they must be good Muslim kids; but outside they want the good life, just like their non-Muslim friends.

For a moment, I forgot about those thousands of cars, and hundreds of buildings, destroyed in three weeks of rioting last year.

But not for long.

Sitting in the youth club was Samir, a young activist who has set up a group to keep alive the memory of the two dead teenagers.

I asked him what his aim was. His answer: "To give voice to the pain."

There have been riots before, and nothing changed. This time he wants the message to get through.

Spiegel Online reports in a preview of the Spiegel weekly printed edition that conservatives from Germany, France and the European Parliament are plotting a scheme for reviving the EU constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums last year.

According to the plans, the charter should be reduced to its first two parts, setting out the EU's competences and the charter of fundamental rights of the union.

These core parts should be boosted with the addition of a political declaration and be put to a fresh poll in bot h France and the Netherlands.

The remaining third part of the text, detailing the EU's policies, should be ratified by the French and Dutch parliaments, completing the ratification of the entire constitution as it has been approved by 14 member states so far.

The operation to resuscitate the charter would be started under the German EU presidency in the first half of 2007.

Franco-German rapprochement? Der Spiegel's report is in line with earlier reports from Berlin, but raises questions about Paris' position on the issue.

Ms Merkel earlier proposed attaching a declaration on the "social dimension of Europe" to the failed EU constitution, in a bid to save the charter in its entirety.

The non-binding declaration would call upon the EU institutions consider the social implications of EU internal market legislation more thoroughly and is seen as being designed to soothe French voters' fears over the alleged neo-liberal character of the union.

But French conservative politicians in favour of the constitution seem reluctant to put the charter to voters a second time - instead preferring the adoption of single elements of the treaty.

British media reported last month that president Chirac would like to see a stronger role for Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, who would be asked to effectively operate as the union's foreign minister as envisaged in the EU constitution.

But Mr Chirac's recent statements have mainly indicated an interest in new EU action in concrete policy areas under the union's existing treaties, instead of new constitutional designs.

Mr Chirac's main political rival, French interior minister and presidential-hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy, favours a more institutional approach.

Mr Sarkozy last month proposed a three-stage plan for a better-functioning union on the basis of the ideas of the EU constitution.

According to Mr Sarkozy, the EU could implement a number of propo sals in the constitution enjoying a "large consensus," such as the new system of voting weights, a limiting of the national veto, creation of an EU foreign minister and increased checks against over-regulation by national parliaments.

Referring to the negative outcome of last year's French referendum on the constitution, Mr Sarkozy said "I will not be the one who will tell the French that they have misunderstood the question."

But supporters of the constitution hope that the French 2007 presidential election will change the political landscape and pave the way for a fresh referendum on the constitution.

The move will "create antagonism and conflict within Taiwan and across the strait," China's ruling Communist Party and government said in a statement. Mr Chen announced on Monday that the National Unification Council and its guidelines would "cease to function" due to China's "military threat". China said Mr Chen was pushing Taiwan towards formal independence.

China and Taiwan have been governed separately since a civil war ended in 1949, but China still sees Taiwan as its territory and has threatened to use force if the island moves towards declaring independence. The US, Taiwan's closest ally in the face of this threat, has made clear that it supports the status quo. The US State Department said on Monday that it would take Mr Chen at his word that his latest move meant no change to the situation.

"It's our understanding that President Chen did not abolish it, and he reaffirmed Taiwan's commitment to the status quo," spokesman Adam Ereli told Reuters. Mr Chen took care to use the phrase "cease to exist" rather than abolish when he made the announcement, possibly because he promised in 2000 that he would not abolish the council or its guidelines. China dismissed the diffference as a "play of words".

No military threat

In a joint statement carried by China's official Xinhua news agency, the ruling Communist Party and the cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office said Mr Chen's determination to push for independence "will only bring disaster to Taiwan society". The comments did not include any threat of military action, or say what sort of disaster Beijing was predicting.

"We will continue to uphold and promote peaceful and stable development of cross-strait relations? and strive for the prospect of peaceful unification," the statement said. Chinese newspaper editorials on Tuesday also slammed Mr Chen's decision.

The official China Daily newspaper said his actions were "risky and provocative" and threatened "to destroy peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region". Despite China's reaction, Mr Chen signed the documents which officially disbanded the council on Tuesday. Taiwan complains that China has been building up its military offensive capability across the Taiwan Strait, and has at least 700 ballistic missiles targeting the island.

Mr Chen's wish to get rid of the Council and its guidelines has long been known. Last week he reaffirmed this view when he told visiting US Congressman Robert Simmons that the National Unification Council and its National Unification Guidelines were "absurd products of an absurd era". "It deprives the Taiwan people's rights to freely decide on cross-strait relations and the future direction of our country," he said.

The National Unification Council was set up in 1990 as an attempt to convince the Chinese authorities that Taiwan was committed to reunification, and it helped kick-start landmark talks between the two sides in the early 1990s.

Discrimination against religious Jews who wish to visit the Temple Mount continues. A group was turned away today, as non-Jews passed freely through.

A small group of Jewish tourists from Los Angeles attempted to ascend to Judaism's holiest site this morning, after immersing in a mikveh and taking the other Halakhic precautions. They were stopped at the entrance, however, and told they could not enter because they did not have identification.

"The most frustrating part," said their tour guide, Yossi Maimon, "was that lots of other tourists, clearly not Jewish, were allowed up without even being checked." Maimon said he asked the local police commander about the discrimination against Jews, and was told that this is in fact the official policy.

Long-time Holy Temple activists Rabbi Yosef Elboim of Jerusalem and Yehuda Etzion of Ofrah said that this policy is a long-running one.

"Not only are there different rules for religious Jews and others," Rabbi Elboim told Arutz-7, "but the police treat the religious Jews with tremendous disrespect. Recently, a large group of students from the Birkat Moshe yeshiva in Maaleh Adumim wished to ascend [to the holy site], and the police took aside the Rosh Yeshiva [dean], who is not a young man, and totally checked every part of him. Would they ever treat a priest or a kadi that way?"

"A sheikh can call for world-wide Moslem rule from the Temple Mount," Rabbi Elboim continued, "but if a Jew whispers Yibaneh HaMikdash (a prayer that the Holy Temple should be rebu ilt), they immediately take him away for questioning and restrict him from visiting the site again. Where are we living?!"

At present, religious Jews are permitted to enter the Temple Mount, if they are approved, from 7:30 to 10:00 Am, and for another hour beginning at 12:30.

Etzion said that a special booth has been set up at the Mugrahbim Gate entrance to the Temple Mount, adjacent to the prayer area of the Western Wall, for the purpose of checking religious Jews. "The way they check Jews, under their yarmulke and all over the body, for any type of prayer, is simply humiliating," he said.

Sheikh Ismail Nawahda, preaching to Moslem masses on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Friday, has brought it out into the open: the call to restore the Moslem Khalifate, or, "Genuine Islamic Rule."

A plan for the "Return of the Khalifate" was published secretly in 2002 by a group called "The Guiding Helper Foundation." The group explained that it wished to "give direction to the educated Muslim populace in its increasing interest in the establishment of Islam as a practical system of rule."

This past Friday, Feb. 24, however, the plan went public. Sheikh Nawahda called publicly for the renewal of the Islamic Khalifate, which would "unite all the Moslems in the world against the infidels."

The Khalifate system features a leader, known as a Khalif, who heads worldwide Islam. Assisted by a ten-man council, his decisions are totally binding on all Moslems.

According to the Foundation's vision of the Khalifate, significant punishment can only be meted out for 14 crimes, including "accusing a chaste person of fornication," "not performing the formal prayer," and "not fasting during Ramadan."

The Foundation recommends working to restore the Moslem dict atorship using a system of small groups around the world. The purpose is so that the "enemies of Islam" who "will definitely try to stop us" will have a "much harder task, if not impossible, if they are faced with a myriad of small groups of differing locations, ethnicities," etc. This method also "ensures that if one group... is found and cut off, other similar groups will remain undetected."

Sheikh Nawahda reminded his Temple Mount audience that the first step taken by Muhammed in stabilizing his rule was to form the nucleus of the first Islamic country in the city of Medina. Nawahda also said that the status of Moslems around the world has dropped drastically ever since the collapse of the last Khalifate in 1924, after Turkey became a democratic republic.

Nawahda called upon the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority to rise above their personal and party interests, and said that Moslems must return to Islam and join forces in the struggle against the West. He praised th e worldwide protests against the anti-Muhammed cartoons, and encouraged the Moslem public to continue such activities. He implied that those who insulted Muhammed are liable for death. The Sheikh designated the Moslem masses as a strong point that can be utilized in the fight against the West.

Concern is growing for flora and fauna in some parts of the UK because rainfall levels are well below the average for winter months. Scientists say trees and fish could suffer in the summer because of the lack of rain to replenish water stocks.

A second successive dry winter has left some areas with groundwater and river levels well down on what they should be for this time of the year. South-east England is the area worst affected by the lack of rainfall. Speaking at a briefing in central London, a team from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology said it was too early to predict an ecological crisis, but warned that only well above average rainfall in the coming weeks would help ease the situation.

Growing concern

"The amount of rainfall over the winter affects how much water is in the soil for plants and animals to draw upon," said Mike Morecroft, an ecologist from the centre. "If you get dry weather during the summer, how long plants and therefore the whole ecosystem can go on drawing water really does depend on how much is already there at the start of the summer."
Dr Morecroft said the unseasonably dry weather for a second successive winter had led to growing concern.
"We are seeing a situation where the ecology of Britain is going to be very vulnerable to even quite a dry spell over the summer months.

"The death of trees is possible; beech and birch are particularly susceptible. Even the trees that survive are likely to loose their leaves earlier than normal," he added. "The drying of water courses can also have an impact on species such as salmon. The small feeder streams where young fish develop may dry out, forcing the juveniles to go more quickly into the main river where they are more vulnerable to mortality."

Dr Morecroft also said low moisture content in soil could increase the risk of forest fires, and grasslands dying, all of which could affect the ecological balance of an area.

1976 benchmark

But the scientists quickly added that this scenario was not a certainty.

They say the situation is not as bad as in 1976, when millions of trees in England and Wales did succumb to the driest 16 month period on record.

"The 1976 drought is a benchmark drought, not only in the UK but across many parts of Europe," said Terry Marsh, a hydrology expert from the centre. "While flows in some chalk rivers are fairly similar to levels in 1976, it is only in some, not many."
Mr Marsh pointed out that the focus of their concern was south-east England, not the whole of the UK.

While south-east England was in the grips of a winter drought, receiving only 25% of its average rainfall; he said areas such as west Scotland and North Wales were getting above average rainfall.

Figures from the Environment Agency, responsible for regulating water abstraction in England and Wales, also show that the south-east is facing the toughest challenge to meet demand for supplies.

Groundwater provides 75% of the area's public water supplies, yet some sites are recording levels lower than in January 1976.

River flows are also worryingly low. Many are running at half the level normally expected at this time of year.

About 3.4 million residents in Kent and Sussex are already subject to restrictions on their water use, with 2.7 million of them banned from using hosepipes.

The agency warns that if the amount of rain falling from the skies does not increase, it is likely that more restrictions will be introduced.

'Expect surprises'

A small water firm in Kent feels the problem has already reached the stage where drastic action is required.

Folkestone and Dover Water, which supplies about 160,000 residents, has asked the government to allow it to install compulsory water meters in customers' homes.

It has to convince ministers that it has exhausted all avenues for water sourcing and will have problems with supplies for the next 10 years.

If granted, it will become the first water company in the UK to be granted "water scarcity status".

Climate models forecast drier summers and wetter winters in the UK, but the current lack of winter rain seems to contradict this.

Dr Richard Harding, a climate expert from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, said this was to be expected because of increasing variability in rainfall in Britain.

"We are entering a regime the Earth has not been in for 100,000 years or beyond, so we can expect surprises."

MAPUTO, Mozambique -- When a major earthquake rocked central Mozambique early Thursday morning, a remarkable thing happened.

Only a couple of homes collapsed. Just two people died, one of a heart attack. No one needed to rush emergency aid to the area.

That's mainly because the magnitude 7.5 quake hit one of the most thinly populated regions of the country, near Espungabera, a town of fewer than 10,000 people near the Zimbabwean border. But two peculiarities of Mozambican history and culture also helped the nation come through its first earthquake in a century virtually unscathed.

In 1755, an enormous earthquake rocked Portugal, Mozambique's former colonial power, killing 60,000 to 90,000 people. In its aftermath, Portuguese authorities began insisting on tough safety codes for building construction, codes that eventually made their way to the country's colonies in Africa.

Today, more than 250 years after Lisbon's disaster, Mozambique, which has little history of tremors, retains some of the toughest building codes in southern Africa, rivaled only by South Africa, which has regular small quakes as a result of mining activity rather than tectonic movement.

Architects and engineers often complain about the costs associated with building thick reinforced-concrete structures, the norm in urban Mozambique. But in the wake of the quake, "now I think they're very happy," said Jose Forjaz, a leading architect and head of the architecture department at Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo.

The region has had below-average rainfall 14 months in a row, with water companies in Kent, Sussex and London appointing drought planning teams.

But areas in the North and West have had no such problems.

The Environment Agency said the contrast was solely down to the regional difference in rainfall levels.

The Consumer Council For Water backed those claims, agreeing that outside of the South East, East Anglia and parts of central England there were no real problems.

'Driest since 1920s'

Last month was the driest January since 1997 across England and Wales.

But the general trend since the end of 2004 has been for the South East, East Anglia and central Southern England to receive far less rain than other parts of the UK.

While the South East has had only about 40% of its average rainfall over the winter, some regions have had more rain than they would normally expect to get.

US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri. Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said. Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.

As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.
There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.

At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves. "Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and taxpayers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn. "It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other. They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."

'Who's kidding whom?'

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep the teaching of evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Some have already heeded the warning. "The intelligent design movement belittles religion. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. "Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"

Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact. Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way. Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.

These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.
"The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.
Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."

However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design. "[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life? if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."

Economic risk

The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case. "I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."
Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design would deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy. "At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said.

( This is a long article - but it clarifies the true state of the "almighty Dollar." )

A hundred years ago it was called "dollar diplomacy." After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into "dollar hegemony." But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.
First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn't long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin -- always hoping their subjects wouldn't discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires.

This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations -- those with powerful armies and gold -- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.
Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: "He who prints the money makes the rules" -- at least for the time being.

Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses. Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency.

The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation's people -- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one's actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules -- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.
"Dollar Diplomacy," a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft's aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad.

This earned the popular title of "Dollar Diplomacy." The significance of Roosevelt's change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere "appearance" that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government "obligation" to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the "gunboat" diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the "dollar diplomacy" of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn't too long before dollar "diplomacy" became dollar "hegemony" in the second half of the 20th century.
This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.
Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress -- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world's gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalised for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the pre-eminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was said to be "as good as gold," and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfil our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it -- not even a pretence of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup.

This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by L B Johnson's claim that we could afford both "guns and butter."

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favourable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money -- i.e. the dollar system -- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt's first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can't fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to-all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that's the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars -- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the pre-eminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.
The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to "rule" the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can't last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble -- generated by easy money -- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world's rejection of the dollar. It's bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime.

We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a pre-eminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged-as it already has been.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein - - though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O'Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat-out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.
Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the "axis of evil," has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979.

Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn't do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn't seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran.

With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there's little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn't stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern-day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she's made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It's not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar's importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel's influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That's not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony -- it's dominance as the world reserve currency -- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the "tax" that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high.
If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy "bread and circuses" just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources -- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the "backing" of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today's "gold." This is why countries that challenge the system -- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela -- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That's why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the pre-emptive war promoters. It's only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.
But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.
And once again there's this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed.

The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or it equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros.

The sooner, the better.

As the three-month anniversary of "gay weddings" approaches, retailers and wedding companies could be congratulating themselves on their swelling coffers. With an estimated 121 civil partnership ceremonies taking place each day, one survey suggests the pink wedding industry could be worth as much as £600m by 2010.

For Pink Products, which offers gay and lesbian wedding products and services, January was the busiest month in the group's three-year history. "The business has been growing at 60% a month, I'll be taking more staff on in March to cope with demand," founder Ben Spence says.

"Last year, most people were having a ceremony and then going off for dinner, nothing lavish. This year the majority of weddings are planned for the middle or end of the year with around £15,000 to £20,000 being spent." That compares with estimates ranging from an average of between £11,000 and £16,500 for a heterosexual marriage from various wedding publications.

Big spenders

Getting on the "pink bus" early in the game could prove to be a smart move, the homosexual community has huge spending power with an estimated £70bn earned and spent in the UK last year by the country's three million-strong homosexual community.

Big names like Barclays, BT and HMV have already been trying to lure in gay customers with adverts in the pink press - only too well aware of the huge spending power of the community. A recent survey for Gay Times and Diva magazine, carried out by Out Now Consulting, found that the average gay man earns up to £9,000 more than his straight counterpart. Add to this the fact that most gay couples have no children, and it means they have plenty of cash to splash around.

Lesbians also earn up to £4,000 more than their female counterparts, the poll of 1,118 readers of Diva and Gay Times found.

Wider market

But not only do gay men and women have more disposable cash, the gay wedding market is less restricted to a certain age groups like the heterosexual thirty-somethings, says Modern Commitments creative director Richard Jones.

Of the several hundred gay weddings Mr Jones is organising, taking him through to 2008, the most expensive is nudging the £50,000 mark - and he warns that figure could rise even further as the big day nears.
The government estimates that 22,000 partnership ceremonies will take place over the next five years, while

Out Now estimates that as many as 275,000 could be held in that time. So its no surprise that companies are vying for a slice of the market.

US Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Saturday that high energy prices are a risk to the global economy, as finance ministers from the Group of Eight (G-8) countries focused on ways to defuse the threat from persistently high oil and gas prices.

Volatile energy prices have pre-occupied the finance ministers in their meetings over he past several years. Past statements have emphasized raising investment in production, curbing consumption and making oil market data on reserves and inventories more transparent.

Snow said Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin was right to put a heavy emphasis on energy prices in the meetings in Moscow, the first to be hosted by Russia as the G-8's new chairman.

There are many sides to energy security, but, as finance ministers, we emphasized market-based solutions, transparency, and the institutional framework necessary to encourage a friendly investment climate in energy development and infrastructure, Snow said.

We are all concerned about the risks of rising energy prices and what this could do to growth, he said. The ministers had very useful discussions on energy security, he said. Snow said he briefed ministers on President George W Bush's plans for increasing investment and research in clean-burning fuels. He also noted that costly energy is a particular problem for developing countries.

Snow alluded to another long-standing risk faced by the world economy: large-scale trade imbalances. Last week, the US government reported its trade deficit grew to a record $725.8 billion (euro606.3 billion) in 2005 and many economists worry the deficits are unsustainable and could lead to volatility of currency and bond markets.

The Bush administration has blamed diverging growth rates between the US and its major trading partners over the past decade for the chasm.

The United States is drawing up plans for bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a 'last resort' to block Teheran from developing nuclear weapons, a media report said on Sunday.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph reported.