UNITED NATIONS – France yesterday presented a U.N. resolution allowing for the prosecution of Sudanese war crimes suspects at the International Criminal Court, forcing America to choose between accepting a body it opposes or casting a politically damaging veto.

The Security Council has been deadlocked for weeks on the issue of holding people accountable in Sudan, drawing criticism that it has become mired in haggling while conflict continues to rage in the country’s western Darfur region.

America circulated three Sudan resolutions Tuesday – one authorizing a peacekeeping force, another imposing sanctions, and a third tackling the issue of where to punish those responsible for atrocities. It said a vote on the final issue would have to be put off because of the divisions in the council over the court.

But France, Britain, and others were determined to handle the issues at once.

At a closed council meeting yesterday, America first introduced the resolution to deploy peacekeepers on which there is broad council agreement.

France’s U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere then introduced a draft resolution that would refer Darfur cases since July 1, 2002, to the International Criminal Court. That was the recommendation of a U.N. panel that had found crimes against humanity – but not genocide – occurred in Darfur.

“We’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that the text on the table is one that was most likely to be acceptable or at least not objectionable to any colleagues,” Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said.

In a clear concession to America, the resolution said citizens of countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the ICC who take part in operations in Sudan wouldn’t be subject to prosecution by the court.

America is not party to the court, and objects to the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal in part because it fears its citizens could face politically motivated prosecutions.

“The United States position on the International Criminal Court is well-known and unchanged,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, refusing to elaborate. America has in the past said it opposes any variant that would refer Sudan cases to the court, even if there were an exception made.

If the vote on the resolution goes ahead, America will have to decide whether to exercise its veto or abstain.

A veto could be politically damaging because it would give the appearance that America opposed the punishment of those responsible for atrocities in Darfur, where the number of dead from a conflict between government-backed militias and rebels is now estimated at 180,000. America itself has declared genocide has occurred in Darfur and demanded swift action.

Meanwhile, council members expressed widespread support for the American draft resolution to send a 10,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force to Sudan. They would monitor a peace accord that ended a 21-year civil war between the government and southern rebels that is unrelated to Darfur.

That resolution would also address Darfur by asking U.N. Secretary-General Annan to make recommendations on strengthening the 2,200-strong African Union force in Darfur.

Diplomats said it appeared likely the peacekeeping and ICC resolutions would come to a vote today.

As for the sanctions resolution, the American draft would extend an arms embargo already in force in Darfur for both black African rebel groups and the Janjaweed to include Sudan’s government. It would also impose a travel ban and asset freeze against those who block peace efforts and threaten stability in Darfur.

But no date has been set for a vote.