It's interesting, we had an in-class debate and I was tasked to argue for non-interventionism in Kosovo, which wouldn't have been my initial stance. But then, I realized who would be doing the intervention-- a bunch of U.S. shitheads with a history of colonialization... and I was like, actually, maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to come in and air-bomb the perpetrators only to leave right after; or worse, to stay and ruin things further.

So, I think genocide is a very real global issue and U.S. efforts need to be made to intervene before situations arise, in cooperation with the rest of the world (and that's vital-- but it's also easier for us to get involved when we don't have to deal with being on the same continent as those we're attacking. So that's not an easy feat). In the initial Bosnian war case, I would probably have begrudgingly endorsed the "logical" route of implementing a large-scale air + land military intervention. But the probably too-real-for-most-countries-to-commit-to global solution I would argue for is to work through U.N to redress the problems underlying genocide; like world hunger and poverty and education, through mandating universal minimum income, placing high taxes on the meat manufacturing industry in hopes of reducing the amount of environmental resources wasted/creating more land for farming food to feed all people, and finding a way to mandate universal high school-equivalent education while allowing each country to create their own curriculum.

It's complicated, as a director I'm used to working through structural problems and getting people together to work it out, but trying to end genocide on a global scale is worthless without a variety of perspectives to inform my understanding of the world first. I was never trained to think that globally, hahaha, but I'm really passionate about making the world a better place.