WASHINGTON, Dec 1: Press reports on Friday suggested that the United States was not ready at this stage for the deployment of other coalition forces in Afghanistan as peacekeepers.

The Washington Post, quoting Bush administration officials, said the US central command, which is in charge of the military operation in Afghanistan, “has put the brakes on the imminent deployment of international peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern that this could encumber military operations”.

The New York Times said the head of the central command, Gen Tommy Franks, believed that the extent of coalition involvement right now “is just right” and more forces would be put in “when the timing is appropriate”.

The US caution is said to be attributed to its wish that an international force in Afghanistan should not consist entirely of Western troops but should also include representation from Arab and other Muslim countries to ensure a favourable response from ordinary Afghans. The only coalition troops currently inside Afghanistan other than the US military comprise a small group of British commandos.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Friday the induction of peacekeeping forces into Afghanistan was a complex issue and was dependent on first creating a stable situation in the country. The make-up of an international force also depends on the political talks being held in Bonn and the wishes of the Afghans who are in actual control of various chunks of territory.

But the defence secretary stressed, significantly, that the US obviously would not want anything to happen that would inhibit its objective of pursuing Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership.

The United States obviously wants to be in a position where it can dictate the composition of a peacekeeping force, and how this will impinge on the Bonn intra-Afghan talks now in progress remains to be seen.

A Russian contingent also landed in Bagram near Kabul earlier this week, ostensibly to help rebuild the Russian embassy in Kabul and aid in reconstruction work, but the US has apparently reconciled itself to the Russian presence, although the Russians are far more likely to cause offence to Afghan sensibilities than other Western soldiers in view of the country’s past history.

US spokesmen on Thursday, seeking to downplay news stories that Washington is concerned about the sudden Russian deployment, said Secretary of State Colin Powell was in regular contact with his Russian counterpart and there was no element of surprise in the arrival of the Russian forces, which were sent for humanitarian and rebuilding purposes but some of whom “had a military rank attached” to them.

The US, it was stated, was “quite comfortable” with the Russian move, and Moscow had communicated to Washington its intention to start flights to Afghanistan. The spokesmen stressed that the US and Russia had been closely collaborating in the Afghan operation and both were members of the Six-plus-Two group.

When it was pointed out that the Russians were fully aligned with the Northern Alliance and a Russian presence in Afghanistan could be politically loaded, State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker told foreign correspondents that many countries, clearly, had different histories with regard to various Afghan groups, but all of them, including Russia, agreed on the need for a broad- based and multi-ethnic government in Kabul.

At the Pentagon, Defence Department spokesman Rear Admiral Stufflebeam said the Russians in Afghanistan had indicated they intended to build a hospital and their embassy. “I take what forces that they may have on the ground as security forces, not unlike what we have there.”