The Responsibility of the International Community in the Crisis in Eastern DRC: Diplomatic Ambiguity, Deliberate Inaction, and Moral Failure.

The Responsibility of the International Community in the Crisis in Eastern DRC: Diplomatic Ambiguity, Deliberate Inaction, and Moral Failure.

Introduction: A Deepening Crisis Worsened by International Silence

The crisis in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has reached a critical point, marked by intensifying violence, the occupation of vast territories by the M23 rebel movement, the active involvement of Rwanda, and a humanitarian collapse affecting millions of civilians.
One of the most striking symbols of this situation is the persistent refusal to reopen Goma International Airport—an essential infrastructure for the survival of the local population and for the sovereignty of the DRC.

Yet during the Conference for Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region, held in Paris on 30 October 2025, states and international institutions unanimously recommended the immediate reopening of the airport. This measure was meant to ensure humanitarian access, restart economic activity, and gradually restore Congolese state authority.
Despite this consensus, no government, no international organisation, and no global power demanded its implementation. Rwanda categorically rejected the recommendation, and the international community accepted this rejection through its silence.

This situation raises a fundamental question: how can such a grave and well-documented crisis persist under the watch of the international community without it fulfilling its moral and legal obligations?
This article offers an in-depth analysis of international responsibility, highlighting the behaviour of leading powers, regional organisations, and the United Nations, and examining their moral, political, and legal implications.

Major Powers: Geopolitical Calculations and Diplomatic Incoherence

The United States: A Powerful Actor Choosing Ambiguity

The United States, as the world's leading power, wields significant political influence in the Great Lakes region. Rwanda remains a key ally of Washington, especially in regional security and counter-terrorism operations. Yet despite multiple reports proving Rwandan involvement in supporting the M23 and occupying Congolese territory, Washington has never demanded the reopening of Goma airport.

U.S. official communications rely on cautious diplomacy, calling for peace and dialogue without imposing any coercive measures or political pressure on Kigali. This attitude reflects a political priority: preserving a strategic alliance, even at the expense of Congolese sovereignty and the lives of millions of civilians.

France: Proclaimed Leadership Without Follow-Through After the Paris Conference

By organising the Paris Conference, France presented itself as a central actor for peace in the Great Lakes region. President Emmanuel Macron, who chaired the conference alongside facilitator Faure Gnassingbé, stressed the importance of defending Congolese sovereignty and promoting a lasting solution.

Yet when Rwanda publicly rejected the conference's key recommendation—the reopening of Goma airport—Paris remained silent.
No statement, no diplomatic brief, no official comment demanded implementation of the commitments taken in Paris.

This incoherence weakens France's credibility and demonstrates that the conference was, in essence, a rhetorical exercise without the political will to enforce its own decisions.

Qatar: Passive Neutrality that Sustains the Status Quo

Qatar, now a significant international actor in regional diplomacy, played a supportive role in financing and facilitating discussions. Yet its active diplomatic involvement did not translate into clear demands for the implementation of the Paris recommendations.
Qatar opted for passive neutrality, avoiding confrontation with Kigali and thereby allowing the Rwandan refusal to stand unchallenged.
This stance reinforces the status quo and contributes to the paralysis of international action.

The African Union: An Institution Paralyzed by Consensus Politics

The African Union (AU), which should champion African interests and defend the sovereignty of its member states, proved incapable of acting effectively in the Congolese crisis.

Its official statements referred to the need for African dialogue, de-escalation, and concerted solutions. Yet no concrete measures were taken to demand the reopening of Goma airport, condemn Rwanda's actions, or protect Congolese civilians.
This paralysis stems from the AU's internal logic of avoiding direct confrontations among member states, including when one of them blatantly violates international law.
Non-interference, in this context, becomes a tool that protects governments—not people.

The United Nations: The Collapse of a System Supposed to Guarantee Peace

The posture of the United Nations in the Congolese crisis reflects a system losing its authority.
In 2024, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2773, requiring the cessation of support to armed groups, the immediate withdrawal of the M23 from occupied zones, the opening of humanitarian corridors, and the restoration of Congolese state authority.

This resolution, passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is legally binding. All UN member states, including Rwanda, must comply with it.

Yet Kigali openly ignored it. The M23 did not withdraw—on the contrary, it strengthened its military and administrative presence in several strategic areas. Human rights violations multiplied. Roads and Goma airport remained closed, preventing humanitarian access.

Despite this flagrant violation of international law, the Security Council took no action: no sanctions, no coercive measures, no formal warnings.
This behaviour undermines the multilateral system and shows that UN resolutions can become symbolic documents when not accompanied by political will.

Rwanda's De Facto Control Over Goma Airport: A Direct Attack on Sovereignty

Statements by Rwandan officials following the Paris Conference confirmed a dangerous reality: Rwanda speaks as though it has authority over Goma airport. By declaring that "conditions do not permit the resumption of flights," Kigali positioned itself as a decision-maker over an infrastructure belonging to a sovereign state.

This is a grave violation of international law, but it reveals a truth the international community refuses to confront: Rwanda exercises de facto control over part of Congolese territory, including strategic infrastructure.
Global silence in the face of this reality confirms the passive complicity of numerous states and institutions.

Moral and Legal Responsibility of International Powers: Law, Ethics, and Collective Failure

Moral Responsibility: Silence that Kills

International powers cannot claim ignorance. They possess irrefutable evidence documenting the violations in eastern DRC: atrocities, mass displacement, Rwanda's support to the M23, the illegal exploitation of mineral resources, and the establishment of parallel administrative structures.

In the face of these facts, their silence is a profound moral failure.
Failing to act when one knows the violations and possesses the means to stop them is a form of participation in those crimes.
No nation can claim to defend human rights while tolerating the humanitarian collapse of an entire region.

Legal Responsibility: International Law Violated and Not Enforced

Resolution 2773 imposes a legal obligation on all states to ensure its enforcement. By allowing Rwanda to ignore it, the powers sitting on the Security Council—especially those with veto power—violate their own obligations.

International humanitarian law requires the protection of civilians, unhindered humanitarian access, and the prohibition of support to armed groups.
The closure of Goma airport violates these foundational principles. The international community, by refusing to demand its reopening, becomes legally complicit in these violations.

International jurisprudence recognises the concept of responsibility by omission: when a state is able to prevent a grave violation but chooses to do nothing, it bears responsibility.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Adopted in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine obliges states to act—diplomatically, politically, or legally—when civilian populations face mass crimes.
The millions of displaced people, documented atrocities, and the humanitarian isolation of Goma fulfil all criteria of this doctrine.
Yet no power has invoked it.
This absence represents a historic failure and undermines the credibility of R2P itself.

Conclusion: The International Community as a Contributor to the Crisis Rather Than a Guarantor of Peace

The crisis in eastern DRC is not only the outcome of regional tensions or historical rivalries. It is also the product of the moral and legal failure of the international community.
By failing to enforce Resolution 2773, by allowing Rwanda to control a strategic Congolese airport, by accepting Kigali's refusal to reopen it, and by remaining silent in the face of mass displacement and atrocities, global powers become complicit in the gradual fragmentation of the DRC.

This crisis reveals a collapse of fundamental principles of the international system: sovereignty, equality between states, protection of civilians, and enforcement of law.
As long as the international community prioritises strategic alliances and economic interests over justice, law, and human life, eastern Congo will remain abandoned to violence, occupation, and global indifference.

References

1. European External Action Service (EEAS). "Conference for Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region." 30 October 2025. Available at: eeas.europa.eu.
2. French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. "Conference in Paris on 30 October, in support of peace and prosperity in the Great Lakes region." 16 October 2025. Available at: diplomatie.gouv.fr.
3. United Nations Security Council. "Resolution S/RES/2773 (2025): The Situation Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo." Adopted 21 February 2025. Available at: docs.un.org.
4. Human Rights Watch. "Paris Meeting Should Prioritize Promoting Aid and Justice in Congo." 30 October 2025. hrw.org.
5. EJIL:Talk! – Blog of the European Journal of International Law. "Three Legal Issues on First Reading of Resolution 2773 (2025) on Eastern DRC." 7 March 2025. ejiltalk.org.
6. UK Government (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office). "The United Kingdom urges the parties in eastern DRC to continue to engage in the ongoing peace processes… including the demands of the Council set out in Security Council resolution 2773." Speech delivered at the UN Security Council, 13 October 2025. gov.uk.

Prepared par :

Sam Nkumi, Chris Thomson & Gilberte  Bienvenue

Africa Realise, London, UK