That is the central tragedy of the crisis: Africa is structurally unable to prevent foreign armies, rebel groups, and economic predators from carving up the Congo, largely due to conflicting economic interests among African states and a prioritization of the principle of sovereignty over collective humanitarian security.

While African institutions like the African Union (AU) and SADC routinely issue strong communiqués condemning all armed groups and reaffirming the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity , the reality on the ground is that key African states are complicit in the economic and military destabilization of the country, thereby actively undermining any unified continental response.

The Sovereignty Trap: The AU's Primary Barrier

The African Union's structure, designed to prevent a return to colonialism, ironically paralyzes its ability to protect a member state from internal and regional predation.

1. Protecting the "Club of Incumbents"

The AU's Constitutive Act grants it the "right to intervene in a Member State" in grave circumstances, including genocide and crimes against humanity (Article 4(h)), a provision drafted specifically to overcome the perceived failures of the UN Security Council (UNSC). However, in the DRC, the AU has consistently chosen to uphold the principle of non-interference.

• Political Risk: Directly and aggressively sanctioning or militarily confronting African states (such as Rwanda and Uganda) accused of sponsoring the M23 rebel group is viewed as a severe political risk. Such an action would shatter regional political unity and create a precedent that other leaders fear could be used against them in the future.

• A Call for Dialogue: The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) habitually opts for diplomatic engagement through the Luanda and Nairobi Processes, stressing that there is "no military solution to the conflict" and calling for all parties to "prioritize diplomatic and political engagement". This rhetoric manages expectations and avoids the high political and financial cost of enforcing peace against peer states.

2. Conflicting Regional Missions

The AU has ceded the responsibility for the DRC to the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), primarily the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). This "subsidiarity" principle has led to a fragmented and often contradictory response:

• The EAC Failure: The East African Community Regional Force (EACRF), which included troops from Kenya and Uganda, was deployed with a peacekeeping/stabilization mandate, focusing on facilitating the withdrawal of armed groups through dialogue. The DRC government was frustrated by the force’s unwillingness to engage the M23 offensively, viewing it as protecting the rebels' gains, and forced its withdrawal.

• The SADC Failure: The SADC Mission in the DRC (SAMIDRC) was deployed with a more offensive, counter-insurgency mandate. However, it suffered from severe underfunding, logistical deficiencies, and a lack of critical aerial support. Crucially, it was outgunned and outmanoeuvred by M23 and its alleged patrons, suffering casualties and ultimately failing to push back the rebels from key areas before commencing a phased withdrawal.

The failure of successive African-led military efforts proves that the current African collective security architecture lacks the capacity, cohesion, and political will to successfully execute a high-intensity stabilization mission against state-backed forces.

The Economic Predators: Foreign and African

The second key reason for the impunity is that the conflict benefits powerful economic actors both within and outside of Africa.

3. African Elites Profiting from Instability

While African leaders loudly condemn historical Western exploitation, they are divided and silent on the role of their own neighbors because key African elites are active economic predators.

• Mineral Smuggling: UN reports consistently allege that neighboring countries profit immensely by acting as transit hubs for illegally mined Congolese minerals (gold, coltan, cobalt). The instability in North Kivu and Ituri creates a low-regulation environment where these resources can be acquired cheaply, smuggled across porous borders, and then laundered into global markets. This economic reality ensures that instability is profitable for regional elites, overriding any moral or political imperative to enforce peace.

• Realpolitik: African states prioritize their strategic and economic ties with one another and with powerful global players (who require the minerals). Confronting a neighboring state over its actions in the DRC risks economic retaliation or a security vacuum on their own borders, which they are not prepared to endure.

4. Global Complicity in Resource Exploitation

The global demand for cobalt and coltan for electric vehicles and tech giants forms the final layer of impunity. While Western governments condemn the violence, they stop short of imposing the stringent, targeted sanctions that would cripple the African state sponsors of the militias.

• This lack of decisive action is rooted in the fear of disrupting the global mineral supply chain. As long as the world can buy the minerals cheaply and maintain a thin veneer of plausible deniability, the crisis in the DRC will remain marginalized.

In conclusion, the African continent is not comfortable with the devastation in the Congo, as evidenced by the diplomatic efforts and the loss of life suffered by SAMIDRC troops. However, discomfort has not translated into effective action because the political will is fractured by the economic self-interest of powerful regional actors, and the institutional mechanisms are too weak to enforce a military solution.