During his October 26 Newsradio 850 KOA show, host “Gunny” Bob Newman told a caller that "[l]iberals in general ... would support" the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and asserted that the treaty is supported by people “further to the left” who believe “the United States must, when it comes to international operations, must abide by global law rather than its own laws.” However, Newman omitted the fact that the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard support a U.S. accession to the convention and ratification of the treaty. Newman also asserted that “President Bush is not going to allow it, I don't believe,” despite various reports that the president also supports ratification of the treaty.

According to an October 3 Associated Press article, “Currently 155 nations, including all major allies of the U.S. and maritime powers such as Russia and China, are party to the convention. The treaty defines rights on uses of the sea, sets rules for navigation, fishing and economic development and establishes environmental standards.” The article continued:

While the U.S. adheres to most provisions, President Reagan opposed the treaty because of a section dealing with deep seabed mining. Even after that section was overhauled in 1994 to satisfy U.S. concerns and President Clinton signed it, Congress has showed little interest in ratification.

Three years ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed it unanimously, but the full Senate never took it up.

Opponents say it would impinge on U.S. military and economic sovereignty.

Responding to a caller's request to explain the effect of the “treaty of the seas” upon U.S. sovereignty, Newman said, "[T]here's a lot to the treaty of the seas, but what it is meant to do is to restrict U.S. military operations on the high seas." Newman continued:

NEWMAN: There are those who would love to do this for obvious reasons, and then there are those who think more clearly about things saying, now, wait a minute, all we would do by signing this new treaty of the seas, or law of the seas, is restrict ourselves. We would be harming our own operations in the global war on terror. This is a disastrous idea and it's, it cannot be allowed to go forward. President Bush is not going to allow it, I don't believe.

However, according to an October 25 AP article, “President Bush is pushing the Senate to ratify the [Law of the Sea] treaty and join the more than 150 nations currently party to it.” Moreover, an October 23 Congressional Quarterly Today article (accessed through the Nexis database) reported that "[t]he Senate minority leader [Mitch McConnell (R-KY)] told a group of conservatives that he would hold up the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a long-pending treaty that the Bush administration supports and has cast as a national security priority." In fact, Bush has favored ratifying the treaty since early in his presidency. On November 27, 2001, Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, Sichan Siv, announced to the U.N. General Assembly the administration's support of the treaty:

The United States has long accepted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as embodying international law concerning traditional uses of the oceans. The United States played an important role in negotiating the Convention, as well as the 1994 Agreement that remedied the flaws in Part XI of the Convention on deep seabed mining. Because the rules of the Convention meet U.S. national security, economic, and environmental interests, I am pleased to inform you that the Administration of President George W. Bush supports accession of the United States to the Convention.

When the caller asked Newman to provide “an example of who's supporting this and why,” Newman responded, “Liberals in general are, would support something like this, but not all liberals.” Newman then asserted that “there are others on the other, you know, further to the left, who see our military as a necessary evil, and an evil that must be controlled by big government, preferably world government; that the United States must, when it comes to international operations, must abide by global law rather than its own laws.” Newman, however, failed to note that in addition to the Bush administration, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard support the Law of the Sea.

As the Navy Times reported on October 4, “The Navy has long supported the 25-year-old proposed treaty, which President Reagan refused to sign in 1982 because of provisions, since modified, which would have limited American options in seabed mining.” President Clinton subsequently signed the treaty and submitted it to the Senate for ratification on October 6, 1994, where it is currently pending.

In April 8, 2004, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark supported the treaty. Clark told the committee, “I know this committee is concerned about whether the Law of the Sea Convention prohibits our naval operations, including the boarding and search of ship and our maritime intelligence activities. It does not.” Clark added, “The Convention's rules in this regard do not change the rules the Navy has operated under for over 40 years under the predecessor 1958 treaties to which the United States is a party, governing the territorial sea and high seas.”

More recently, on September 27, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Patrick M. Walsh testified in favor of the Law of the Sea treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying, “As Deputy Secretary [of State John] Negroponte and Deputy Secretary [of Defense Gordon] England have stated, accession to the Convention is an important priority for the Administration.” Walsh continued:

Statements supporting accession have been made by the President, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Coast Guard, a host of former legal advisors for the Department of State, our current and former Secretaries of the Navy, and former Chiefs of Naval Operations. Their statements outline the compelling reasons for accession. Instead of trying to improve upon them, I want to take this opportunity to focus on why I support accession.

Moreover, Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, issued a press release on May 17 “reiterating long-standing Coast Guard support for joining the Convention on the Law of the Sea”:

The convention greatly enhances our ability to protect the American public as well as our efforts to protect and manage fishery resources and to protect the marine environment. From the Coast Guard's perspective, we can best maintain a public order of the oceans through a universally accepted law of the sea treaty that preserves and promotes critical U.S. national interests.

From the October 26 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

CALLER: Yeah, Gunny, since you're part of the Navy and the Marine Corps --

NEWMAN: Right.

CALLER: I was watching Fox News and they were talking about a treaty of the seas --

NEWMAN: Yes.

CALLER: -- which would take away a bunch of our sovereignty.

NEWMAN: Yes.

CALLER: Can you explain that to me --

NEWMAN: Yeah, well, there are some people --

CALLER: -- because it wasn't clear.

NEWMAN: -- there are some people who want us to sign what's called this new, you know, law of the seas, or treaty of the seas, that would change existing treaties and laws; that would make it much more difficult for us to have, like, naval vessels launching aircraft within, you know, in certain places on seas around the world; our submarines couldn't do particular things. I mean, all -- there's a lot to the treaty of the seas, but what it is meant to do is restrict U.S. military operations on the high seas. There are those who would love to do this for obvious reasons, and then there are those who think more clearly about things saying, now, wait a minute, all we would do by signing this new treaty of the seas, or law of the seas, is restrict ourselves. We would be harming our own operations in the global war on terror. This is a disastrous idea and it's, it cannot be allowed to go forward. President Bush is not going to allow it, I don't believe. But, you know, this is the kind of thing that can come up again and again. Depending on who gets elected in 2008, this thing could become the law of the world, and we are going to have to make major adjustments because of it, and we will be more exposed because of this thing if it becomes the law of the planet.

CALLER: Can you give me an example of who's supporting this and why?

NEWMAN: By name, no, but by genre, yes. Liberals in general are, would support something like this, but not all liberals. Here's an example: Some liberals still back the global war on terror and some liberals back, you know, interrogations, you know, some harsh interrogations and things like this. But there are others on the other, you know, further to the left, who see our military as a necessary evil, and an evil that must be controlled by big government, preferably world government; that the United States must, when it comes to international operations, must abide by global law rather than its own laws. So you're gonna see this argument, [caller]. And this thing is -- we're going to be arguing about this for awhile now.