Chapter 5 examines the genesis of the regional organization G5 Sahel and its Joint Force composed of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. It looks at a group of African actors that set up the organization with extraordinary support by French and other European partners in 2014. Following the discussion on the entanglement of spatial semantics with the issue of distrust and suspicion in politics from Chapter 4, this chapter begins with an analysis of the different narratives about the true ‘origin’ of the G5 Sahel, exploring narratives of French lobbying and different African foreign policy objectives. This links directly to questions of ownership and to how and why this regional organization emerged based on the idea of ‘core countries of the Sahel’, which excluded Algeria and Nigeria. Chapter 5 addresses these questions and shows how different spatial semantics were used in the formation of the G5 Sahel and its Joint Force to draw up a new region, to re-regionalize West African political space, to reposition the involved actors in the best possible way to gain influence on the security and military responses to the escalating armed violence in Mali and neighbouring countries.

This chapter introduces two concepts to understand the dynamics at the Juba Peace Talks between the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement (LRA/M) and the Government of Uganda. For the LRA/M, the main way of approaching the talks was through a mechanism of ‘connect/disconnect’. The LRA/M progressed by alternating its levels of engagement and kept control by maintaining a fluid, often a vague process. Progress and change came through reaching out in certain moments; control was maintained by pulling back in others. In contrast, international actors supporting the Juba Peace Talks function on a mechanism of ‘galvanic surges’: To continue support to the talks needed continuously developing momentum and consensus to remain committed to the peace talks. Running in parallel, the two approaches created a syncopated rhythm. Profound misinterpretation occurred in moments when external momentum hit a period of lesser LRA/M engagement; at other times, strong LRA/M engagement did not coincide with external momentum. The two operational modes mismatched and thus outside support and reassurances for the process were withdrawn just when the LRA/M had entered a time of adjustment.