And at a press conference, the head of the U.S. delegation, David Scheffer, said it was not just Washington but other members of the Security Council and other countries that were unhappy with the draft Statute, so that an ICC Statute that left them out would be an ineffective one.

"If there are people walking around in a dreamy sort of way about the utility of an International Criminal Court without the US and several permanent members of the Security Council and several other populous democracies. . .I simply beg to differ," said Scheffer.

Reading from a prepared statement, he expressed fear "that governments whose citizens make up at least two-thirds of the world's population will find the emerging text of the treaty unacceptable". Strange Bedfellows With that, he confirmed an alliance of countries composed of what a delegate called "strange bedfellows". While members of the U.S. delegation refused to specify the governments, they did not contest that Scheffer might have had, apart from the U.S., Russia, France, China, India and Pakistan in mind.

The first four are among the P5 - the five permanent Security Council members. China and the U.S. have tussled for years on human rights issues.

The two South Asian nations - who want to be regarded at par with the P5 - tested nuclear weapons in May, drawing sharp criticism from Washington, which has since suspended aid to them. But like the U.S., both India and Pakistan are opposed to providing the ICC the power to bind both parties and other non-parties to submit to ICC jurisdiction.

At the same time, Scheffer held out a carrot to the states who favour an independent ICC which might operate independent of the U.N. Security Council.

Should the ICC Statute be one acceptable to the US and it signs on, the Court system would benefit from the Americans' political and financial support and help in backing "critical investigations and prosecutions in the future", Scheffer explained.

Asked to explain the US' objections to the emerging Statute, he pointed to provisions that extend the Court's jurisdiction even to non-state parties, allow Court action even without government consent or Security Council referral and those on state cooperation.

His views were echoed by a US spokesman, who said: "To suggest that the Court act outside the Security Council is to suggest that it act outside the international system."

France, another Security Council member that has come under fire for its position in the ICC talks, spoke out in favour of a key Council role in a dialogue with NGOs Tuesday evening.

"France has always kept the same position in favour of a respectable and effective ICC," said Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, alternate head of the French delegation.

"Let's recall that the statute needs to be applied in practice. The Security Council has a role unparalleled by any other mechanism. As far as I know, there is no evidence of interference of the Security Council in the ad hoc tribunals (for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda). I see no reason why they should be any different in the future," he added. "Without the Security Council, there would simply be the law of the jungle."

At the same time, de Brichambaut said Paris was not in favour of having the Court "live by references from the Security Council alone", saying the Court needs to have the "prerogative to initiate investigations."

Scheffer also underlined the bridge-building efforts by "key governments" to hammer out a statute "that would allow the permanent members of the Security Council and populous democracies in all regions of the world to be active participants in an international criminal court".

No other country had shown so much support for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as the U.S., he argued. This is why, he added, "we have been hoping, as a potential state party of an international criminal court, that the full weight of the United States could be used to support its critical investigations and prosecutions in the future."

"The United States and other countries have critical responsibilities around the world that are crucial to the protection of civilian populations. A scheme that ignores these responsibilities is not going to serve the vital interests of the court," he said.

So far, however, "we stand on the eve of the conference's conclusion without having found a solution." Scheffer said, in remarks that some said appeared to be directed as much to a domestic American audience as to delegations in Rome.

Funding

Still, the carrot offered by the US might in fact turn into a stick in the absence of adequate attention being paid to an issue that is crucial to the functioning of the ICC - its funding. That as much as been hinted at by Scheffer, when he said the United States has always wanted "an appropriate court that it can back with diplomatic, financial and other resources".

"There can be no question in any one's mind how significant such support could be, because the United States has demonstrated repeatedly its resolve to pursue international justice," the American diplomat pointed out.

Will the ICC be funded by the states parties to the treaty, or will it have to rely on the United Nations budget, whose largest contributor remains the U.S., despite the fact that its unpaid dues have piled up to 1.5 billion dollars? Or, will the European Union - feeling stronger now after its decision to introduce the single European currency, Euro, care for the funding? Likewise, will the tribunal be in a position to build up the strategic and logistical infrastructure without which those accused of heinous crimes against humanity cannot be brought to the book?

While diplomats pondered on the obstacles to a viable Court Statute, the expectation prevailed that the Bureau's resolve to conclude a general agreement on a statute for the ICC might yet work wonders. Ramesh Jaura with Alison Dickens