I'll start with Haiti, but I would also like to reflect on Sri Lanka, for example, and Pakistan, because those are the three cases I know of.
The Haiti earthquake is exactly the situation where involvement of militaries other than the host country military can be justified. We have no problem with that. The scale of the crisis in Haiti was so great that it was clear that the Government of Haiti, United Nations, and all of the NGOs that were already there didn't have the capacity to respond quickly enough and at the scale that was required immediately. However, where we had a problem with the engagement of the militaries, especially the army of the United States, is in the form of their engagement. I will elaborate and then compare it to Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Instead of using the military, the only one that has a capacity to potentially fix the airport, on day one the airport got clogged by the U.S. military, for weeks. Oxfam had three planes that were supposed to land. There were a number of them over a number of days. They were diverted from landing on the Saturday after the earthquake as they were approaching Port-au-Prince airport and they were sent to Santo Domingo. I know we were not the only ones. I know MSF was the same, and so on.
The airport was basically useless for the usual humanitarian actors, who were prevented from doing their work for about two weeks, while the same United States army, which has fantastic capacities, could have used those same people and the same capacity to fix the airport. They did eventually expand the airport, create the things that the Government of Haiti didn't have capacity for--the United Nations on the ground were decimated--and NGOs never have the capacity for.
The lift brings staff in, the way that the ships were used post-tsunami in Indonesia--helicopters as well. In Pakistan, the Pakistani army was doing most of the lifting capacities, and then some of the other governments provided helicopters and lifting equipment.
In terms of Canadian engagement, I haven't been to Haiti yet--I'm going on Tuesday--so I only know what I have been told by colleagues on the ground. But given the scale and my experiences from elsewhere, I would say that water purification was justifiably needed. Oxfam is heavily involved in provision of water in emergencies. For example, the DART team coordination following the Pakistan earthquake was excellent. Because the civilian organizations, the government, and all of the NGOs didn't have capacity to provide water for everybody immediately, DART was providing water in one town, while Oxfam was fixing the water system and providing emergency water in another one. Then as DART had to leave after 40 days, there was an orderly handover. It was all coordinated really well.
I would say that using certain rescue operations like lift capacity and so on.... For example, no country in itself has enough capacity to do search and rescue at the speed that's required after a crisis like Haiti, and no civilian organizations do. Those are the areas where I think strategically using the military capacities and developing them in that way is very justified.
I have also heard that as the DART team arrived in either Jacmel or Léogâne, there was a news report that there was a shortage of medical assistance. There was only a small MSF clinic, and because there was a news report that went around the world, the next week there were five health clinics in a small town. The militaries and the governments of the donor countries behaved very much in the way that NGOs have a reputation for: running after the media's attention. They all flocked there and then MSF picked up on that. There was no need for five hospitals.
I'm saying there are instances when it's needed, and it should be very strategic, not led by the media pressures but the needs and using the advantages the military has.