In a fluid, constantly-evolving set of demonstrations, the role of peacekeepers became particularly unclear. A few stories illustrate the difficulties:

When Matt Guynn and I showed up to be peacekeepers for the Jubilee 2000 march in Seattle, we immediately got into a debate with our team leader about civil disobedience. The Jubilee 2000 march had been organized by the Washington Council of Churches, for the purpose of pressuring WTO delegates to forgive the debt of the world's poorest nations. The churches had worked very hard on this march, and seemed to want it to be a dignified, unified, respectful action. While the WTO delegates had a wine and cheese reception at an exhibition hall near the Kingdome, demonstrators would encircle the Kingdome holding candles and flashlights. Weighing against this legal, carefully-planned vigil was the excitement, determination, and wild energy already building in the streets.

The leader of our team of peacekeepers told us that our assignment was to prevent demonstrators from committing acts of civil disobedience when the march arrived at the Kingdome. This would be a nonviolent march, she said. Having come almost directly from a nonviolence training for affinity groups who were preparing themselves to risk arrest, we objected. Civil disobedience is a form of nonviolent action, we argued, not lawlessness that would ruin the demonstration. Furthermore, we really didn't want our role as peacekeepers to include preventing someone from acting on their conscience. We and the team leader argued ourselves to a stand-off, and the issue of what we would do if someone risked arrest remained unresolved. The incident showed the temptation of making peacekeepers into "peace pigs" in order to head off chaos.

The International Association of Machinists provided peacekeepers for the large labor march the following day, November 30th. They were clearly identifiable, wearing neon orange baseball caps with the word "marshal" stenciled on the front in black print. (I do think that it's more than a semantic difference: "marshal" reflects a different philosophy from "peacekeeper.") The marshals played a crucial role in one of the more second-guessed moments of the labor march.

The marchers planned to go within a block of the convention center where the WTO ministers were supposed to be meeting, and then turn around and return to Seattle Center, where the march had started. As the column of protesters reached the turning point, they could see down a hill to throngs of environmentalists, students, human rights activists, and others in the streets and intersections. Contrary to anyone's expectations, at 2:00 or 2:30 in the afternoon very few arrests had been made, and the people who had set out at 7:00 that morning to prevent the WTO delegates from reaching the convention center still held the streets! The labor march had been envisioned as the second wave, coming through after the first wave of demonstrators had been bused off to jail. Instead, the first wave was still there, still successfully (although they may not have known it at the time) delaying the start of the WTO meetings.

None of this was clear in the moment; all the average labor marcher could tell was that a mass of people was disrupting life downtown. Naturally, many of them wanted to join the action, although the route of the march led to the left, not to the right. At this critical intersection, a team of marshals attempted to direct the labor marchers away from the mass of environmentalists downtown. Some marchers argued with the marshals, some simply broke through their line and headed down the hill anyway. The majority accepted the marshals' authority and turned left.

This incident has been rehashed within the labor movement since then. Solidarity was a major theme of the week-long protests: solidarity between workers in the northern and southern hemispheres, solidarity between farmers and laborers, solidarity between environmentalists and organized labor. And yet here labor literally turned its back on what environmentalists were doing! It should come as no surprise that John Sweeney would be reluctant to lead 25,000 unionists into a mob of 10,000 sea turtles and butterflies! It was enough of an accomplishment that the president of the AFL-CIO was at the head of the march in his quilted jacket, rather than being inside the convention center in his suit and tie! Still, both rank-and-file labor activists and some environmentalists regard it as a tactical mistake, especially after everyone figured out what had actually happened in those confusing moments.

The marshals were right in the middle of this dilemma. A routine left-hand turn became a major tactical choice because of the unexpected success of the 7:00 a.m. marchers. Once again, chaos and order conflicted inside the coalition of protesters, and the marshals were supposed to uphold the side of order. Is this what peacekeeping really should be about? Should peacekeepers limit the spontaneity of a nonviolent direct action, particularly when fate offers us a chance to capitalize on a success? On the other hand, what would have happened if 25,000 people suddenly veered off-course and added their bodies to the chaotic scene in the streets? Perhaps the surprised and irritated police would have resorted to lead bullets instead of the rubber they were already using. Perhaps the marshals simply fulfilled their primary function of keeping the crowd safe and facilitating a clear political message.

Leading up to the IMF/World Bank protests, activists carried on a spirited debate over the Internet about peacekeeping. The anarchist Black Bloc strongly resented the idea that other demonstrators might patrol the demonstrations, limiting anyone’s options for action. They felt that demonstrators in Seattle who had protected Niketown and coached and pressured each other to stick to a nonviolent discipline had undermined the effectiveness of the demonstrations. On the other hand, many D.C. activists and residents objected to the idea that their city might be trashed. Rumors flew on the Internet, fueling the debate. Peacekeepers in Boston had ripped the masks off the faces of anarchists at a demonstration. The Black Bloc was calling for widespread smashing and running in D.C. It seemed quite possible to me that the FBI and/or Secret Service had noticed a rift in our coalition, and was exploiting the opportunity by planting these rumors.

A temporary solution to the peacekeeping question emerged as we arrived in Washington. The legal, permitted rally and march starting from the Elipse in front of the White House would have traditional peacekeepers. The non-permitted direct actions would not. However, affinity groups might choose a couple of people to play peacekeeper-like roles for themselves. "Action elves" would look out for the welfare of the group, start chants or songs when morale flagged, and generally facilitate for their own group. "Ushers" would scout out the street closings, suggest routes for the affinity group to use, and make sure no one got lost. "Police liaisons" might interact with the police force on behalf of an affinity group, usually stalling the police but perhaps negotiating if the affinity group gave them permission to do so. In the actual events, I’m not sure how many affinity groups empowered their members to take these roles. Yet, in one of the more dramatic (and puzzling) events on Monday, a demonstrator dressed as a tree negotiated with the assistant chief of police for the orchestrated arrest of people blocking Pennsylvania Avenue. After two days of reclaiming the streets as their own, four hundred people sedately "crossed the line" in groups of fifteen and went off to jail. It was a surprising switch to a different style of demonstration altogether. Did Tree Lady’s negotiating role have anything to do with the sudden de-escalation of conflict? Were demonstrators and police simply drenched with the rain and exhausted? Two hours before the arrests took place, it looked as if something really nasty might happen at this face-off.