Defence Forces Review 2010

Defence Forces Review 2010numbers of refugees, military vehicles, and relief shipments that pour into these areas in timesof disaster.” 43System-wide, the military commanders and humanitarian managers could encounter deliveryoptions ranging through ships, aircraft, rail, and trucks. At the same time, those routes may beclosed or clogged limiting distribution:Accurate assessment of the road infrastructure is critical…a road maybe a five-foot wide strip of mud only inches above the water line thatcan accommodate only scooters and livestock, or it can be an eight-lanehighway pocketed with bomb craters. 44These are obstacles that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis due to the unpredictableeffects of disasters and the vulnerability of the infrastructure.CommunicationsA major barrier to delivery of aid is poor communication. Not only are there obviousdifficulties associated with speaking to someone using a different language, but as in Haitithe communications infrastructure may be crippled. Relief agencies may not be able tocommunicate upstream with headquarters or donors during a disaster. Military forces however,can supply specialised capabilities in communications such as communications equipmentand information technology and information sharing capabilities.Technologies are indispensable tools for many essential mission tasks. Modern technologiescan extend the range of observation and communication, improve the safety of personnel,and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the mission. 45 For civil-military cooperation,technologies of both organisations should be compatible. For example, the use of incompatiblecommunications equipment (field phones, satellite phones, short wave radios) was awidespread problem in the former Yugoslavia. Some UN military contingents possessed moretechnically advanced equipment than that of NGOs or even other military contingents, makingcommunications in the field difficult and often impossible. 46Long and Wood explain that organisational language and terminology may hamper the aidprocess. For example, some organisations estimate need on a family basis and others use aper person basis. 47 Organisations may use different names and definitions for transportationmodes, supplies, the composition of worker teams, etc. Long and Wood observe that:Ironically, inter-organisational relations are usually a challenge to therelief effort instead of a source of support. Each organisation has its ownoperating methods and goals, and it is only with great effort that theycoordinate their plans and share resources. 4843 Gooley, T., B. (1999), “In Time of Crisis, Logistics is on the Job.” Logistics Management and Distribution Report, 38, pp. 82-86.44 Long and Wood; Op Cit, p. 225.45 Wheatley, G. and S.D. Welsch (1999). “The use and limitations of technology in civil-military interactions.” in: The Cornwallis IV: Analysis of civilmilitaryinteractions, Nova Scotia: The Lester B. Person Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre.46 Beauregard, A. (1998) Civil-Military Cooperation in Joint Humanitarian Operations: A Case Analysis of Somalia, the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Waterloo, Canada, Ploughshares Monitor.47 Op Cit, p. 218.48 Ibid, p. 216.58