"Mediated International Relations"

What is the relationship between North Korea and Nepal? In the globalizing world, is this such a absurd question? The absurdity is rather the fact that there is a 'non-relation' between these two nations when both are small, both can inform one another etc. There indeed must be some kind/level of flow of information, bodies, communication between the two countries, but, at least in the popular media, the nature of the relationship remains mysterious. Rather, what we seem to have is bursts of North Korean images suddenly coming through to us, on the day of some particular occasion. These images are of such a nature that we cannot seem to understand them, they are not invested with that much meaning (for us), but rather seem to be pure semblances that show us how the North Koreans live their lives...it is not a question of us understanding and connecting, but rather serving only as an audience. Why is there such detachment? 

The main assumption here is that there is such a thing as a North Korea (NK)-Nepal relationship, but that this relationship is mediated by Western powers who dominate the scene of geopolitics in different garbs: either as nations, or as organizations etc...We are at a model of international relations which emphasizes mediated international relations, which governs the relationships between two small countries by a (third) superpower.

This third superpower which dominates the relationship has access to streams of information and flows from both nations, but does not allow such a stream to flow to the other country directly. Rather, these flows pass through significant filters before they are seen in a third country. (And why particularly NK and Nepal? Perhaps because the dominoes theory is still in effect, that the superpower believes one 'troublesome' nation could influence the other...)

The Lacanian declaration that “there is no such thing as a sexual relation” applies here. There is no relationship between NK and Nepal, precisely because any type of information or statement from one towards the other never reaches the other, but reaches the superpower in between. There are not just two parties, but always a third party which performs the function of a mediator.

This mediating third party may not even be a nation-state, but rather something bigger and more faceless, something which can only be referred to as the “master signifier,” the signifying actor in control of all signs that flow from one nation to the other, which thrives in the cracks between two actors which desire to have relations with one another. And what is the nature of the master signifier? That it is absent from the scene, it is behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the lesser powers. The study of international relations as relationships between two nations never works if both the nations are small: in this case there is the need to realize what we call mediated international relations; a “non-relation” between two small nations as soon as there enters a mediating third party. The question we should ask is not “What is the real North Korea?” but rather “What is North Korea as seen by the North Koreans themselves?” This allows us to conceive of the role of the mediating third party in the NK-Nepal non-relation.