Infiltration By Paramilitaries
Since its formation, in 1970, the regiment was criticized for bias during The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The regiment was infiltrated by, and members of it colluded with, paramilitary groups. Weapons assigned to the regiment reported as stolen did reappear during sectarian violence. At various times during its history, official action was taken to try to address the criticisms.
Unlike soldiers from the regular Army, the UDR did not live in barracks. Many lived in Protestant or Catholic enclaves which Potter notes, put them within easy reach of paramilitary or community groups within those areas. The years 1972-73 saw the emergence of paramilitary threats from loyalists and of the 288 incidents of intimidation reported, Potter records, all but twelve were from Protestants who had been threatened from within their own community. Sometimes this was to gain information, he suggests, or to persuade members of the regiment to join (or remain within) loyalist organisations. The intimidation he says, included incidents of threatening letters and phone calls, abduction, shots fired from passing cars and off-duty soldiers being assaulted.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party called for the disbandment of the regiment from as early as 1974 through the media and by applying pressure through the Irish government and was Potter suggests, to become the major conduit for complaints against the regiment from Catholics. The SDLP remained opposed he says to the regiment and continually called for its disbandment due to the failure of the GOC to address the issue of Catholic recruiting and the regimental image. Although no official support was evident he says from the party leaderships various party members (for example Seamus Mallon), did condemn the killing of UDR soldiers and attended their funerals, such as in the case of James Cochrane, a Catholic soldier from 3 UDR in Downpatrick who was killed in a culvert bomb attack on 6 January 1980.
In the wake of the Hillsborough Agreement the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) began a campaign with the apparent motive Potter says, of reducing morale in the regiment and causing mass resignations by "undermining the confidence of soldiers in their officers". During this period Potter notes, Ian Paisley announced to the press that soldiers in Ballymena had been requested to report to barracks to be disarmed prior to the part-time cadre being disbanded. The DUP press office he says, claimed that the use of English officers and senior NCOs was "London and Dublin insisting the UDR could not be trusted". and Peter Robinson, the deputy DUP Leader, advised soldiers not to co-operate with policemen who were attached to their patrols as they were there on the "directions of the Anglo-Irish Council".
Potter believed this political manoeuvring wasn't for the "good of the UDR" but an attempt to make the DUP the "main voice of the Protestant people" and in an effort to address criticisms, the UDR Advisory council decided to hold briefings for the four main political parties at HQUDR. Invitations were issued to the Official Unionist party, the Alliance Party, the DUP and the SDLP he noted but the DUP didn't attend any briefings however the other three parties did.
At the funeral of a member of 2 UDR in Caledon, the Archbishop of Armagh, Robin Eames made an oration to the congregation which included the words:
"....It has received criticism, often from those far removed from the dangers it faces, which has been far from fair or objective. In its increasingly professional approach to its work its members must never forget their duty to all members of the community, irrespective of political or religious outlooks. But the community must never forget what the UDR is doing day and night for it."
The UDR had a problem throughout its history with infiltration of its structures by loyalist paramilitaries. Initially, dual membership of the UDR and Ulster Defence Association (UDA) was acceptable to the military authorities as the UDA was not seen as a threat to the state. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), an illegal organisation, also exploited membership of the UDR and its potential for circulating intelligence files on the nationalist community throughout its ranks. Since the beginning of The Troubles the best source of weapons and the only significant source of modern weapons for loyalist paramilitary groups has been the UDR. In 1972 alone 190 UDR weapons, including 140 SLR rifles were allegedly lost. The vast majority of the weapons were in the hands of loyalist paramilitary groups. In the early years of the regiment's history loyalist paramilitaries raided (or were given access to) several UDR barracks and were able to steal substantial quantities of modern weaponry. Most of these weapons were subsequently recovered in follow up operations by the security forces but some were proven to have been used by loyalist organisations to carry out sectarian crime, including murders. A number of UDR soldiers were convicted of assisting paramilitaries by providing information to enable these raids to take place.
Loyalist raids were mounted against 2 UDR, 3 UDR, 5 UDR, 7 UDR, 10 UDR, and 11 UDR battalions. In a raid against 2 UDR's Lurgan company (which later became C Coy, 11 UDR), the guard commander was later charged and convicted of supplying information to loyalists. He was later killed in 1975 during an internal Ulster Volunteer Force feud.
Two soldiers from the 11th Battalion's C Company in Lurgan, who were also members of the UVF, were convicted of the 1975 killing of three members of the Irish cabaret band, the Miami Showband in a UVF/Glenanne gang attack which was led by Robin Jackson, commander of the UVF's Mid-Ulster Brigade and a former UDR member. In the same attack two members of the UDR Portadown company, Harris Boyle and Wesley Somerville, who were also UVF men died in the premature explosion of the bomb they had planted in the group's minibus. In 1999 David Jordan, a former UDR soldier, allegedly broke down in a bar and admitted to being part of a patrol that killed nationalist councillor Patsy Kelly in 1974. Jordan also implicated former DUP Northern Ireland Assembly member Oliver Gibson in the killing.
In 1989, twenty-eight UDR soldiers from the same platoon 7/10 UDR were arrested by the Royal Ulster Constabulary as part of the Stevens Inquiry. Six of those arrested were later awarded damages over their arrests however only one was charged with activities linked to paramilitaries. This caused "intense anger" in the regiment according to Potter as three hundred police had been used to surround the homes. In doing so Stevens had identified the soldiers as members of the UDR to their neighbours, putting their lives at risk. Eleven soldiers moved house as a result and the homes of eighteen others were provided with "additional security measures" at a cost of £25,000.
In June 1987 the Belfast Newsletter reported, that 7/10 UDR had been infiltrated by the IRA. Private Joe Tracey had been shot dead as he started a new job on some flats off the Lisburn Road, Belfast. The UDR, according to Potter, accepted that someone must have informed on him but denied that the IRA had been able to penetrate the battalion calling the allegation a "wild rumour".
Another incident cited by Potter involved William Bogle of 6 UDR who was ambushed and killed on 5 December 1972 at Killeter near the Tyrone/Donegal border. Potter says that he was killed by a former member of his own company "possessed of strong Republican views" and that after the shooting the suspect moved across the border and is not known to have returned to Northern Ireland.
On 29 November 1972, the GOCNI, on instructions from Westminster, announced that dual membership of UDR and paramilitary organisations would not be tolerated and began a purge which saw a thousand members forced to resign from the UDR. Lt Col Dion Beard (1RTR) commander of 3 UDR issued a battalion order: "I will not tolerate any active participation by members of this battalion in any organisation which encourages violence... you cannot play in both teams. Either you believe in law and order applied equally to all men, or you believe in violence as a means of achieving political ends. In this respect the UDA is no better than IRA. Not only should you take no part in UDA activities but you should discourage your fellow citizens ."
- The Bray reforms
Brigadier Michael Bray adopted a zero-tolerance policy for any activity related to loyalism from the beginning of his tenure as Commander UDR. He instituted a number of safeguards including monitoring of entire battalions and six month security reviews of all UDR personnel. Anyone found with even the most tenuous links to loyalist organisations was dismissed from the regiment. An "Out-of-bounds" list was produced which included pubs and clubs known to be frequented by loyalist paramilitaries. Members of the regiment were cautioned as to whom they should socialise with. All of this was a concerted effort to remove anyone with dual membership from the regiment and to prevent peer pressure being applied.
- The Stevens Enquiry
The Stevens Report resulted in a tightening of control on even the most low-rated intelligence documents and heightened accountability. For the first time the RUC were given access to UDR vetting procedures and many members of the regiment found themselves under police observation for extended periods of time, in some cases resulting in the expulsion of soldiers. Stevens agreed that there had been collusion between a small number of UDR soldiers who had "gravely abused their positions of trust" but that the issue was not "widespread or institutionalised".
- The Bennett Report
As working conditions and wages improved in the regiment many young people Potter suggests, saw it as an alternative to unemployment rather than just a means of expressing their wish to defend Northern Ireland. Professionalism expanded and there was less tolerance of members with dual membership. The Bennett Committee report of 1989 stressed this acutely and recommended that the regiment be disbanded. A view echoed by Lord Hunt who had made the original recommendation for the formation of the force. In Hunt's view the times had changed, the regiment's role was no longer required, and it was a time to return the duties of the UDR to the police.
- Anglo-Irish Agreement
Some suggestions were made as a result of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement:
- An RUC officer to accompany each patrol.
- The part-time element to be discontinued.
- The removal of powers of arrest.
- Restriction to operations carried out in support of the RUC.
- A more professional officer corps and better numbers of experienced NCO's.
As a result of these recommendations the post of Deputy Commander UDR was restored, ten additional senior NCO's were posted in from the regular army, officer training was increased to six months at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. According to Potter, efforts were made to increase the number of RUC officers on patrol with the UDR and the initial training for part-time soldiers was increased from eight to fourteen days. In his memoirs Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald noted that by 1986 there had been "a notable reduction in complaints of harassment of the Nationalist community by the security forces".
On 1 January every year the The National Archives (TNA) —formerly this was done by the Public Record Office (PRO) — in Kew releases government documents under the thirty year rule. A draft document, entitled Subversion in the UDR, was amongst documents catalogued as DEFE 24/835, released in 2005 and was uncovered in the PRO by researchers working for the Pat Finucane Centre (PFC) and the group, Justice for the Forgotten. Contents from the document first came to public attention when they appeared as a series of articles in The Irish News on 2 and 3 May 2006. The document is believed to have been prepared by British military intelligence in August 1973, and explores the issue of overlapping membership between the UDR and loyalist organisations in the early years of the regiment's history.
For the purpose of the paper subversion was considered to include a "strong support for, or membership of, organisations whose aims are incompatible with those of the UDR" and "attempts by UDR members to use their UDR knowledge, skills, or equipment to further the aims of such organisations." The 1973 report stated that an estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were directly linked to loyalist paramilitary groups. That the "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR" and that the British Government knew that UDR weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries, including the killing of a Roman Catholic civilian and other attacks.
It estimated that over 200 UDR weapons passed to loyalist paramilitaries by 1973. The authors of the report expressed concern that UDR troops may be loyal to "Ulster" alone, rather than to "Her Majesty's Government". One case cited as "indicative, but not typical", was that of a member of 1 UDR, described as "a good citizen (the Deputy Chairman of a District Council)". The report explained how he lived a "double life" as the OC of Ballymena UDA, had obtained ammunition for the UDA and was suspected of illegal arms dealings. He was however, described by his Commanding Officer as "a model soldier".The report accepted that very little was known, from an "intelligence point of view," but that subversion had certainly resulted in arms losses to loyalist groups on a "significant scale", though the rate of loss had decreased by 1973 when the report was written.
The report found less evidence of subversion from Republican paramilitaries. It describes "isolated incidents where Catholic UDR soldiers have 'lost' weapons in suspicious circumstances", but explained that "neither the number of weapons nor the threat is thought to be great". The report concludes that the danger of subversion in the UDR was "enormously heightened" by comparison with other British Army regiments. It considered a number of reasons for this, including the circumstances in which it was set up, the communities from which it recruits, the task it is expected to fulfil and the political circumstances that have prevailed in the first two years of its existence. However, it suggested that any effort to remove members who in the "foreseeable political circumstances" could possibly operate subversively would have resulted in a regiment that was "very small".
Read more about this topic: Ulster Defence Regiment