Trickle-down works, says the St. Petersburg Times

What, you thought I meant trickle-down (supply-side) economics? No, of course not! Obviously we're talking about trickle-down nuclear restraint as a partial solution to North Korean belligerence:

The [Korean] crisis also underscores the need for Senate Republicans to support ratification of the new START arms control treaty with Russia. Placing further limits on strategic nuclear warheads and reinstating mutual inspection regimens would have a trickle-down effect by inducing smaller and less stable states such as North Korea to redefine what it takes to have global influence.

Um--by making it easier for North Korea to quickly build the world's largest nuclear arsenal?  That redefinition?  The North Koreans are supposed to reason that if the U.S. and Russia weaken themselves then it is in their best interest to likewise weaken themselves?  Otherwise, I don't get it.  Maybe there's more of an explanation in there someplace.  Let's finish the paragraph:

Stronger ties with Russia also would further build international support for immediate action to forestall North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Sanctions have not worked. Neither has the routine of paying North Korea a bounty every time it backs down from a belligerent threat.

Good grief.  Russia is hardly the ringleader of a group of nations whose help is required for "international support."  Russia can be trusted to act in Russia's self-interest and that's pretty much it.   A good number of Russia's neighbors keep hoping for an international coalition to confront Russia.

It's true that sanctions haven't worked.  But it's not hard to figure out why:

This study finds that North Korea's nuclear test and the imposition of UN Security Council sanctions have had no perceptible effect on trade with its two largest partners, China and South Korea.

I can't think of a truly effective UN sanctions regime.  Maybe the informal one against South Africa should count.

The Times admits that appeasement hasn't worked either?  Strike me pink.  While not rocket science, it's a least a more realistic view of foreign policy than I would have expected.

Unfortunately, from there we just get more apocalyptic hilarity from the Times:

The Obama administration may not have many good options, but it needs to press forward on a broad political front. This week's crisis underscores the dangerous thinking by many conservatives who in the recent election cycle called on the United States to withdraw from the United Nations. As long as North Korea remains a threat, America must remain engaged. Its diplomatic partners have an essential role to play, and the United States should be reminding them of it.

So let's get this straight.  According to the Times:

• sanctions don't work
• appeasement doesn't work

The Times makes no recommendation of something that does work, other than the following:

• remain diplomatically engaged with N. Korea
• by all means work through the UN
• sign the START treaty

Maybe the plan is to get a bunch of nations to unilaterally disarm and thus shame North Korea into doing likewise.

Other than pointing out the obvious fact that appeasement and sanctions don't work, the editorial is another waste of space and/or bandwidth from the Times.


Find a serious opinion about the Korean conflict here.