It is paradoxical that the Bush administration, which launched its military adventure in Iraq after sidelining the United Nations, now wants the world body to pull its chestnuts out of the fire.
It wants a Security Council resolution to endorse its plan to transfer power in Iraq. But the UN role has not been clearly defined so far. The UN special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, has been consulting the American authorities and leading Iraqis about forming a caretaker government.
But the secretary-general has not concealed his disenchantment with the US policy. Neither has he been in a hurry to appoint a new special representative in Baghdad in place of Mr Vieira de Mello, who was killed in a bomb attack in August. Which also prompted the withdrawal of the UN presence from the beleaguered country.
One can well understand and sympathize with Mr Kofi Annan's reluctance to get involved in what is essentially an American expedition designed to benefit some members of the Bush administration. America's contempt for the world body is pretty well known.
Since the end of the cold war, Washington has also tried to use the UN as its handmaiden where it suited its purpose. It is plain that Mr Bush is desperate to have the UN bail his troops out of trouble by providing them legal cover.
With the high rate of US casualties in Iraq as the conflict there intensifies, the administration feels the UN could provide it a respectable cover. But few would be deceived by this ruse and Mr Annan knows this better than anyone else.
In the present situation the UN tends to be identified with the US - why else should the UN compound in Baghdad have been targeted by Iraqi rebels in August? If the US agrees to genuinely pull its troops out of Iraq, the UN might agree to play a role there.
But for that it is essential that the UN distances itself from the US to establish its credibility. It is also important that for the transitional period decisions on Iraq should be taken by the UN and not the US.
Fuel price increase
The all-round rise in fuel prices announced by the Oil Companies Advisory Committee (OCAC) on Friday is bad news for the common man. Petrol prices have risen by Rs1.55 to Rs36.92 per litre while prices of diesel and kerosene have also registered an increase.
These increases are bound to have a domino effect as fuel is an input in a wide range of goods and services. The prices of essential foodstuff, items of daily use and transport will go up as will that of power.
What is worrying is that an increase in such essential items is usually higher in proportion to the actual rise in fuel rates. There is an element of profiteering in such activity but the government usually remains indifferent.
Further, when fuel prices do come down in the future, there is little chance that the prices of essential items that will be hiked now will follow suit.
In its defence, the government says that it is unable to control the rise in fuel prices as these are now linked to international oil prices and not arbitrarily fixed by it.
Friday's increase was also due to the rise in international fuel prices as a consequence of stock-building in the United States as well as the uncertain geopolitical situation in the Middle East.
But this argument does not completely absolve the government of its own responsibility. For one, there have been instances in the past where a drop in international oil prices has not been followed up here.
One reason for the high price of fuel in the country is the heavy surcharge imposed by the government. In situations like the present one, the government should absorb some of the impact of the price increase and not routinely pass it on to the already hard-pressed common man.
The wider implications of such a rise needs to be considered before burdening the common man even further.