The US has backed down significantly in the row involving the new international war crimes court which is jeopardising a renewed mandate for UN peacekeeping missions to Bosnia.
Late on Wednesday night the US delegation to the UN in New York announced it would no longer seek an indefinite blanket immunity for US forces from the remit of the court, but diplomatic sources, while welcoming the changed posture as a "good faith" move, said the US concessions were unlikely to go far enough to satisfy the court's many supporters, including the EU.
The US has threatened to veto the renewal of the mandates of the police and military peacekeeping missions in Bosnia unless satisfied its troops will not face prosecution before the court. Last week, the mandates were extended for a week until next Monday to allow time for a compromise.
On Wednesday the UN Security Council held an open debate on the US proposals during which some two dozen nations spoke out against them. Only India took Washington's side, while on the Security Council the US has received overt support only from China.
Speaking for Ireland, Ambassador Richard Ryan said Ireland did not believe US concerns were well-founded and that "the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court already contains adequate safeguards against politically inspired investigations or prosecutions before the court." He referred to provisions in the court statutes which give precedence to the national courts of troop-contributing countries when prosecuting their own soldiers. "The Rome Statute enshrines the principle of complementarity, which rightly accords priority to national judicial processes," he said.
In the context of peacekeeping, that priority role falls to the national judicial processes in the contributing state. Mr Ryan said there was a danger the US position could threaten the credibility of the Security Council but promised to back a "pragmatic and reasonable outcome".
Under the US-proposed compromise the UN Security Council would every year vote to defer for a year any investigations by the court of troops from peacekeeping contributors who were not signatories to the treaty.
A deferral of an investigation is provided for as a possibility in Article 16 of the statutes of the court, and the US is no longer talking of "immunity" or of automaticity in the renewal of the deferral. But the new US position remains controversial because it would provide such a deferral to a whole class of individuals rather than on a case by case basis and only when such cases arose.
"Article 16 was never intended for generic, general immunities," said Mr Hans-Peter Kaul, who led Germany's delegation at the 1998 Rome treaty conference. Instead, he told reporters, the provision was designed to delay indictments while delicate peace negotiations were underway. France's Ambassador Jean-David Levitte told colleagues it was "a step" in the right direction but fell short of getting his country's support.
But although he has not threatened a veto it is still unlikely the US could muster the 9 votes out of 15 it needs in the Security Council. Ireland is unlikely to support the US position as it stands.