Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
3/14/2014
A pair of Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee are accusing Pentagon policy nominee Brian McKeon of providing “misleading” answers to questions about Senate notification of potential Russian violations of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty during debate on the New START Treaty in 2010. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) asked Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to delay a vote on McKeon’s nomination to be Principal Under Secretary of Defense for Policy until he responds in an unclassified form to a series of questions from the Senators about information provided to the Senate in 2010 about the potential Russian violations. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 25, McKeon said an “issue” was “flagged” by the intelligence community in mid-September 2010 about potential Russian violations of the 1987 INF Treaty, and he said the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees were notified of the issue a day before the Foreign Relations Committee voted on the New START Treaty.
McKeon: Senate Was Notified
The violations of the treaty, linked to alleged Russian tests of a new land-based cruise missile that violates the treaty, are believed to have occurred beginning in 2008. The INF Treaty that was signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987 required each country to get rid of missiles with ranges of 300 and 4,000 miles, and the accord also prevents each country from testing or building such weapons. During debate on New START, McKeon was the top liaison to Vice President Joe Biden on New START. He is currently the chief of staff for the National Security Council. “The IC [intelligence community] and the executive branch were committed to providing timely information about potential concerns,” McKeon said in testimony before the committee Feb. 25, adding that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also raised the issue during an all-Senators briefing in late September 2010.
The Senators said they reviewed McKeon’s Feb. 24 classified response to the committee, his Feb. 25 testimony before the committee, and the testimony of Clapper Feb. 26 before concluding that McKeon had been “misleading” in his answers. “We do not come to this conclusion lightly,” the Senators wrote. “However, we are convinced—based on a thorough review of these materials and other documents in the Committee’s custody—that the administration did not inform the Senate, as was its obligation, of a potential material breach of one arms control treaty while asking for the ratification of another.”
Senators Seek Unclassified Answers
The Senators asked that prior to scheduling a vote on McKeon’s nomination, he provide a written an unclassified response to questioned posed by the Senators in February. Those questions include whether McKeon knew of any intelligence about potential Russian violations of the INF in 2010 and whether he thinks the Senate should have been made aware of the potential violations during debate on the New START Treaty. The Senators also sought details about efforts to inform the Senate of the potential violations during consideration of the New START Treaty, and asked McKeon whether the U.S. should continue to comply with the INF Treaty if in a year Russia was not in compliance with the agreement. “Mr. McKeon has been nominated by the President for one of the most senior positions in the Department of Defense,” the Senators wrote. “We know you agree the President’s nominees to such senior DoD positions must have the trust and confidence of our committee. We seek your support to receive prompt written and unclassified answers to these questions before our committee votes on Mr. McKeon’s nomination.”
In their Feb. 20 letter to McKeon, Wicker and Ayotte expressed concern that the Administration hadn’t fully informed the Senate of the potential violations as the chamber was considering the New START Treaty. “We are concerned that the relevant committees of the United States Senate may not have been fully briefed by the Obama administration on the potential Russian treaty violations during consideration of the New START Treaty in 2010,” Ayotte and Wicker wrote. “If the administration knew about potential violations of the treaty and did not fully inform the Senate of these violations while it debated New START, this would represent a serious abrogation of the administration’s responsibilities.”
