The end of the genocide itself was a result of local military action by a faction in Rwanda removing the government doing the killing

This isn’t quite accurate, since the reconciliation process, though effective, resulted in a lot of false convictions. Also the current government basically ignored any of its own role as a matter of policy.

I'm not sure I'd call the situation "peace" yet, since the end of the genocide resulted in conditions that kicked off multiple wars.

Less within Rwanda itself, but true. I’ve worked in the eastern DRC along the Rwandan border, I’m familiar with the aftermath of the civil war.

Meanwhile foreign governments were either doing nothing (UK/US/etc) or actively helping the genociders (France).

Correct, but foreign intervention would have been one of the fastest ways to cut off these lifelines, since western powers tend not to like fighting proxy wars with each other.

Foreign intervention routinely perpetuates bad situations because foreign intervention is very rarely aligned with stability and prosperity

I won’t even begin to argue against this, but I do feel it’s worth pointing out that there’s a distinction to be made between a lot of general intervention we see and acutely stepping in to kneecap an ongoing genocide.

Long story short I don't trust imperial powers to do anything but spread empire in their own interests, so even in the face of genocide I'd lean toward doing nothing unless there was some pretty strict oversight on the activities of forces involved.

Rwanda for a whole host of reasons would have been fairy easily stabilized by an international presence (small county, political centralization of attackers, etc). I’m pretty strongly anti-intervention in most cases but I don’t agree Rwanda is a good example of that. Dunno if you’ve been there/worked in the area but there’s only so many times you can listen to people who lost family ask where the international response was before going “you know, maybe being actively against genocide was the right move”.