近日，韓國政府宣布對柬埔寨部分地區發布旅遊禁令，理由是當地存在「安全風險與治安不穩」的狀況，提醒韓國公民避免前往相關地區。此舉立即引起柬埔寨政府強烈不滿與正式抗議，認為韓國此項措施「毫無根據、誤導國際輿論」，甚至損害柬埔寨的國家形象與旅遊產業。這場外交摩擦迅速成為區域輿論焦點，折射出東南亞各國在治安與國際形象之間的微妙平衡。

根據韓國外交部的公告，首爾方面在10月中旬調整其全球旅遊警示系統，將柬埔寨境內部分地區列為「第三級警戒區」（即建議撤離或避免旅行），主要包括位於西北部接近泰國邊境的部分省份，以及若干被指「涉有詐騙、綁架與非法拘禁風險」的區域。韓國方面表示，此舉是根據近期發生的多起針對外國旅客與勞工的犯罪事件所作出的安全判斷，尤其關注「網絡詐騙園區」、「人口販運」與「非法拘禁」等問題。

然而，柬埔寨政府對此反應極為強烈。柬埔寨外交與國際合作部立即召見韓國駐金邊大使，正式提出抗議，指責韓方的說法「缺乏事實依據，誇大零星事件，導致國際社會對柬埔寨安全形勢產生誤解」。柬方在聲明中強調，柬埔寨大部分地區治安穩定，政府對外籍人士與觀光客提供充分保護，韓國此舉「不僅影響兩國友好關係，也損害柬埔寨作為旅遊目的地的國際形象」。

柬埔寨官方媒體與多位官員更進一步批評，韓國政府引用的資訊「過時且片面」，並將近期發生於緬北與中南半島其他地區的犯罪問題「誤導性地與柬埔寨掛鉤」。柬方指出，柬埔寨政府近年來已大力打擊跨國電信詐騙與人口販運行為，逮捕並遣返多名涉案外國人，顯示出對此問題的「零容忍態度」。因此，他們認為韓國外交部的旅遊警示屬於「政治化操作」，意在迎合國內民意與媒體輿論壓力，而非出於真實安全考量。

在韓國國內方面，部分輿論支持政府的決定，認為韓國公民在海外，特別是東南亞地區，的安全確實需要更嚴格的警示與防範。韓國媒體近來頻繁報導有韓國青年被詐騙集團以高薪為誘餌騙往柬埔寨、緬甸、寮國等地，最終遭非法拘禁或強迫從事電詐活動的事件，這些報導在社會上引發強烈關注，也促使政府加快更新旅遊安全名單。

不過，也有分析指出，韓國此舉可能忽略外交層面的敏感性。柬埔寨長期以來與韓國保持穩定合作關係，兩國在投資、建設與旅遊領域往來密切，韓國更是柬埔寨重要的外資與觀光客來源國之一。此次旅遊禁令一旦持續，恐導致柬埔寨旅遊業進一步受創，特別是在疫情後仍處於恢復階段的背景下，這對金邊政府而言是極大的打擊。

目前，柬埔寨外交部已要求韓方「重新評估有關決定」，並邀請韓國安全專家赴柬實地考察，以「真實情況」取代「媒體誤導」。同時，柬埔寨也透過國際媒體強調本國「安全、友善、穩定」的形象，企圖挽回受損的國際信譽。

整體而言，這起事件不僅是一次單純的旅遊警示風波，更反映出區域國家在「治安現實」與「外交形象」之間的拉鋸。對韓國而言，確保國民安全是必要的責任；但對柬埔寨而言，這樣的標籤若被放大，可能對其國家形象與經濟命脈造成長期影響。事件未來如何發展，將取決於雙方能否在外交層面找到平衡，並以更透明、客觀的方式處理安全與合作議題。

Recently, the South Korean government announced a travel ban on parts of Cambodia, citing “security risks and instability” in certain regions. The decision quickly provoked a strong protest from the Cambodian government, which denounced Seoul’s move as “baseless and misleading,” accusing it of distorting the country’s image and misleading international opinion. The dispute has since become a focal point of regional attention, highlighting the delicate balance between security concerns and national image in Southeast Asia.

According to a statement released by South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the updated travel advisory classifies several regions in northwestern Cambodia—particularly near the Thai border—as Level 3 Alert Zones (advising citizens to avoid travel or consider evacuation). Seoul explained that the decision was based on recent reports of crimes targeting foreign travelers and workers, such as online scams, human trafficking, and unlawful detention, some allegedly linked to transnational crime networks in the region.

The Cambodian government reacted sharply, summoning the South Korean ambassador in Phnom Penh to lodge a formal diplomatic protest. In its statement, Cambodia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation condemned the Korean travel warning as “inaccurate and exaggerated,” claiming it “distorts isolated incidents into a false perception of insecurity.” The ministry stressed that Cambodia remains largely safe and stable, with its government providing strong protection for foreigners and tourists. Phnom Penh warned that Seoul’s decision could “harm the friendly relationship between the two nations” and undermine Cambodia’s reputation as a global tourist destination.

Cambodian state media and senior officials went further, accusing the South Korean government of relying on “outdated and selective information.” They argued that Korea had wrongly associated Cambodia with criminal activities occurring in other parts of mainland Southeast Asia, particularly northern Myanmar, where online scam syndicates have drawn widespread attention. Cambodian authorities pointed out that the government has, in recent years, launched large-scale crackdowns on cybercrime and human trafficking, arresting and deporting numerous foreign suspects—evidence of a “zero-tolerance” approach to such crimes. Phnom Penh therefore viewed Seoul’s warning as a politicized act, intended more to appease domestic media and public pressure than to reflect genuine safety conditions.

In South Korea, public opinion over the move remains divided. Many citizens and media outlets support the government’s decision, citing a growing number of reports about Korean nationals being lured to Cambodia, Myanmar, or Laos by fake job offers and then forcibly detained or coerced into online scam operations. These stories have stirred strong emotions domestically and prompted Seoul to update its travel alerts more aggressively.

However, critics and analysts argue that South Korea’s decision overlooked the diplomatic sensitivity of such a move. Cambodia and South Korea have long enjoyed stable bilateral relations, with close cooperation in infrastructure, trade, and tourism. South Korea is also one of Cambodia’s largest sources of foreign investment and visitors. Prolonged travel restrictions could therefore damage Cambodia’s post-pandemic tourism recovery and strain bilateral ties.

In response, Cambodia has urged Seoul to reassess its travel advisory and invited Korean security experts to conduct on-site inspections to gain an accurate understanding of the situation. At the same time, Phnom Penh has launched a public diplomacy campaign through international media, emphasizing that Cambodia remains a “safe, friendly, and stable” destination.

Overall, this controversy extends beyond a simple travel warning—it underscores a broader regional dilemma between ensuring public safety and preserving diplomatic goodwill. For South Korea, safeguarding its citizens abroad is a legitimate duty; for Cambodia, however, being labeled unsafe threatens both its national image and economic recovery. Whether the issue can be resolved smoothly will depend on both countries’ ability to strike a balance between security realism and diplomatic respect in the coming months.