Prince Sihanouk - Cancer Survival, Cambodian National Symbol and Controversial Alliances

Following the publication of the first blog entry, Prince Sihanouk has  passed away peacefully on 15 Oct 212 at the age of 89.  The current Cambodian monarchy has lost much of its former glory and influence to the elected government headed by a ruthless, repressive and powerful Prime Minister Hun Sen. 

* * * 

Prince Sihanouk may be frail, but he has survived cancer and diabetes for three decades. He is a VIP of Chinese hosts who were instrumental in ensuring he enjoyed both quantity and quality of life. 

Most diagnosed with the C illness believed their days are numbered. But it is amazing that Prince Sihanouk managed to live another three decades despite having the terminal illness since the 1980s. The latest removal of a prostate tumour is the third or fourth bout of cancer Sihanouk has endured. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sihanouk-has-tumour-removed-1510413.html

Even the most ardent supporter of TCM would not claim that there is a miracle cure, but it certainly would convinced many that there is hope and proven efficacy of TCM.  If patients maintain a positive thinking and perseverance, more will have success in winning over the battle over illnesses. Regular and continued checkup and treatment would be necessary to keep relapse of cancerous growth at bay. 

Has Sihanouk lived a fruitful life with borrowed time extended? He is widely respected by Cambodians, and many leaders in Southeast Asia. He has been pivotal in cobbling a peace settlement that ended the war in Cambodia. 

Nevertheless, like any leader, Sihanouk has been criticised for his controversial decisions.  He was condemned by some for a marriage of convenience with the genocidal Khmer Rouge. This is in spite of the fact that the alliance included non-communist resistance groups in the fight against Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia with Soviet backing. 

The circumstances are more complex and difficult for any leader to choose between the lesser of the two evils. In fact, some argue that the US bombings and subsequent withdrawal from Vietnam spurred the rise of the radical Khmer Rouge. Certainly, Sihanouk was forced to walk the tight rope, performing a dangerous balancing act. Members of royalty had been victims of genocidal elimination, and Sihanouk himself was at risk of being killed too.  

http://wn.com/Norodom_Sihanouk

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-wu/press-coverage-of-the-cam_b_1469187.html

Naturally, the Khmer Rouge was solely responsible for systematic murder. However, many scholars, including Noam Chomsky, very publicly criticized the U.S. for contributing to the genocide as well. These scholars published long editorials regarding the issue of responsibility.
Firstly, they believed the U.S. played a large role in creating the political atmosphere from which the Khmer Rouge grew. Due to U.S. bombing and Lon Nol's inefficacy, Cambodians suffered immensely in a dysfunctional society. Their growing frustration drove them to support the Khmer Rouge, who promised to help the nation recuperate.
Secondly, the U.S. was strongly criticized for the extensive bombing, which destroyed vital resources. Critics of American foreign policy blamed the U.S. for the deaths related to disease and starvation. Even if the Khmer Rouge had not taken over, these deaths still would have occurred due to destruction.
In defense of all the people who stood by without taking action, one could ask, "What could we have realistically accomplished?" After Vietnam, no one in the U.S. wanted to see troops in Cambodia. It was an enormously complicated situation that couldn't easily be resolved simply with money or soldiers. Stopping the Khmer Rouge was one thing; rescuing the Cambodian population was another. Cambodia was burdened with a decade of fighting, corruption, famine, and murder. Saving Cambodia would mean a complete reformation of Cambodia's society, government and economy. There were no simple solutions.