The document summarizes a discussion at the Dayton Peace Accord 20th Anniversary Forum about different approaches the United States could take in helping countries deal with crises. A political reporter named Dejan Sajinovic sat in with the author's group and provided valuable insights. Sajinovic believed the second approach of only intervening where it is clearly in the US's interest was most logical. He also noted the importance of maintaining strong relationships with allied countries and not being perceived as worse than threats like ISIS. The author found the third approach of countries being their "brothers' and sisters' keepers" by financially helping others to make the most sense, as good favors will be returned.

1. Joe Crain
Dayton Peace Accord 20th Anniversary Forum
Should the United States involve themselves in helping out other countries that are
dealing with a crisis? Three approaches to this question were discussed during the Dayton
Peace Accord 20th Anniversary Forum. The students in my group offered a wide variety of
perspectives on these approaches and even those that disagreed with one another did so in a
respectful manner. Dejan Sajinovic, a political reporter for the Nezavisne Novine and
correspondent for the Deutsche Welle, was the guest that sat in with my group. I particularly
paid close attention to the points that he made and he was the one person that really made me
think outside of the box and offered great insight.
The first approach that my group discussed was if the U.S. should be the unwavering
leader and champion of freedom. Sajinovic mentioned that there should be a system already in
place that provides information to the decision makers before you begin to discuss any of the
approaches. I was fascinated by the real world examples he provided and he gave us context by
talking about how people in the Balkans would react to a requirement of military service. When
there is fighting taking place in your backyard in the Balkans, you don’t give much thought
about whether to involve yourself in the conflict or not. Sajinovic stated how the leadership in
the country prescribes a list of what to do and if you aren’t in favor of it, prison is always an
option.
Sajinovic believed that the second approach, going where and when it is clearly
in our interest, was the most logical of the three. This approach is most favorable for the United

2. Nations and all countries should sit and decide where you should be going and where you go
when there’s a crisis. If there isn’t a way to measure specifically what the people of a country
want then how will you know? When he began discussing how Europe feels about the U.S., I
zoned in and listened to what he said. Europe, in general, believes that the U.S. caused the
current refugee problem and the U.S. doesn’t want to deal with it. It’s important for the U.S. to
keep relationships strong with countries that the U.S. is friendly with and when you refuse to
take refugees, countries can point the finger at you and believe you’re just as bad as ISIS.
The third approach, that we are our brothers and sisters keepers, seemed to make the
most sense to me. If you help out other countries financially, good favors will eventually be
returned. Sajinovic said that American corporations shouldn’t go to countries like Bosnia and
start up corporations for Bosnians but should show them how to properly run a business
because it could appear to Americans that jobs are being shipped overseas. This forum was
really helpful and informative and helped to give me a new perspective on issues that I had
previously given little consideration for. I only wish that I could have spoken with more of the
visiting speakers but it was satisfying to listen to someone that had firsthand experience of
global issues.