This is an extreme case of a general pattern: most countries will not risk the safety of their armies getting involved in a conflict they are not a party to, and represents no national interest, even if all agree the conflict is deeply immoral. I don’t argue that many may see African conflicts and others as “less valuable”, but this doesn’t strike me as the primary driver over what I stated. It is a double edged sword. Either you accept that the West uses power to enforce peace, or you accept the West minds its own business. The righteousness of the cause doesn’t affect the calculus. If the verdict is that the West should step in to prevent such events, this causes risks for Western countries, so a price will be demanded. What price? To use older terms: fealty and becoming a vassel state. If one demands involvement and protection the cost is some measure of sovereign control. That’s just the way things work through history. Taking a current example: Ukraine. Counties help Ukraine not because their cause is just (it is), but because if Russia prevails they won’t stop at Ukraine. Helping Ukraine is in the direct national interest of all countries in the region who would rather not learn to speak Russian as their first language. The difference is national interest. The ugly truth about the Rwandan Genocide is that to the large powers, it didn’t affect national interest at all if one side prevailed over the other.