In Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace - Or War, Mary Anderson collects a compilation of narratives and reports from workers in the aid system who have assisted developing countries amidst war. This book addresses how the experiences of past aid workers, specifically in response to war, can help improve aid in the future. Secondly, this book details how aid, even with the most well-intentioned programs, can assist in contributing to the prolongment of war. Lastly, Anderson suggests strategies that may resolve and ultimately prevent “harm” by actively avoiding any involvement in state building processes by employing the Local Capacities for Peace approach. Much of Anderson’s critical discussions and analysis on war and aid are supported by interviews and remarks from international aid workers in these war zones. However, Anderson also employs the narratives of victims of war and people who have seen and suffered the atrocities of warfare. Although the excerpts of these aid workers vary greatly, the thread of thought shared between these excerpts is that emergency administered in war zones in developing countries can cause, prolong, and reinforce conflict rather than relieve it (Anderson, 38). Although much of Part I of the book relies on the excerpts of experienced international aid and field workers, the beginning of the book, specifically the introduction and chapter one, elaborate and explain the foundation and basis of war, explaining the possible causes and the ultimate impacts of war on locals. It also presents specific examples and cases when aid has done harm, as the title of the book suggests. More so, the first part explains how aid and conflict interact in a way that exacerbates conflict instead of helping to establish aid programs that provide relief and development assistance (Anderson, 3).
In the latter section of part 1 of the book, specifically chapters four and five, Anderson does a thorough job of addressing the larger context of war using specific examples. Ultimately these chapters explain how resource allocation and distribution in aid programming can increase conflict instead of saving lives and promoting development (Anderson, 37). Anderson ultimately does a thorough job in suggesting strategies to mitigate the distress of economic and political resources being used in nefarious ways to aid warfare rather than promote peace (Anderson, 40-41).
Anderson also thoroughly describes the Local Capacities for Peace (LCP) approach to be utilized as a means of lending support to developing countries during times of warfare. The LCP suggests that emergency aid can be successful in alleviating distress if its objective is to stay neutral. It is suggested that aid and field workers engage locals in taking responsibility for the success and prolongment of aid programs. As a result, the final conclusions Anderson makes are sufficient, using evidence from the anecdotes of the aid workers that the LCP approach is less inclusive and more successful long term. Overall aid workers and their agencies interject themselves into the communities they are meant to help and impose their concepts and knowledge.