You have been sent the interview summary prepared by one of your colleagues. It is an objective brief that describes the interview respondent’s opinion of the best humanitarian action they have taken in their lifetime. Read the summary. Use your personal values and moral code, together with your understanding of many of the common pitfalls of attempts to “do good” to critique the intervention or action described. How does the principle of “do no harm” appear in the action? What potential negative unintended consequences do you foresee, and are they acknowledged? What are the positive and negative benefits you identify in this action, and is there a better one that the person might have taken that would have had a greater net benefit? What assumptions were made about who merits (or needs) a humanitarian response, and who is qualified to deliver it? (Please react very positively and humble, and use deep analysis with this framework: https://conflictsensitivity.org/conflict-sensitivity/do-no-harm-local-capacities-for-peace-project/ Context about about me: I’m a latin second generation immigrant, I’m a democrat and wish I could have voted for Bernie but I am voting for Biden because it’s the right thing to do.