In April 2025, the Indonesian Ministry of Home Affairs issued a decree under Kepmendagri No. 300.2.2-2138/2025 that sparked controversy in the province of Aceh. The decree, intended to update administrative boundaries and codify territorial data, reassigned four islands previously claimed by Aceh to the jurisdiction of North Sumatra, specifically to Tapanuli Tengah Regency. These islands, Pulau Lipan, Pulau Panjang, Pulau Mangkir Besar, and Pulau Mangkir Kecil, had long been administratively and culturally associated with Aceh Singkil. The decision was met with immediate backlash from Acehnese stakeholders who viewed it as a direct challenge to their regional autonomy and territorial rights.
The dispute gained traction rapidly as Acehnese politicians and civil society figures voiced their opposition. Many argued that the central government’s unilateral move was not only legally questionable but also politically insensitive, given Aceh’s long and painful history of conflict with the Indonesian state. Memories of marginalization, military operations, and the struggle for independence under the Free Aceh Movement resurfaced in public discourse. The perception that Jakarta had once again ignored Acehnese voices fueled widespread resentment, turning the administrative issue into a symbol of deeper unresolved grievances.
In response to the growing unrest, President Prabowo Subianto held a closed-door cabinet meeting on June 17, 2025, involving key actors from both Aceh and North Sumatra. The meeting included the Minister of Home Affairs Tito Karnavian, Aceh Governor Muzakir Manaf, and North Sumatra Governor Bobby Nasution. Following this high-level dialogue, the government reversed its earlier decision and confirmed that the four islands in question rightfully belonged to Aceh. Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi cited official documentation supporting Aceh’s administrative claims as the basis for the final verdict.
While the resolution seemed to bring closure, it highlighted the fragility of Aceh’s post-conflict peace. This dispute, though seemingly administrative in nature, reopened sensitive wounds tied to historical injustices, autonomy, and identity. It served as a critical reminder that post-conflict peace is not only about ending violence but also about addressing the structural and relational dynamics that once gave rise to conflict. This article explores the implications of this dispute through the lens of peace and conflict theory, using concepts such as Protracted Social Conflict, negative and positive peace, and conflict transformation to analyze the deeper significance of this episode in Aceh’s fragile peacebuilding journey.
Protracted Social Conflict and the Legacy of GAM
Edward Azar’s (1978) theory of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) is particularly relevant in understanding the roots of the Aceh conflict and the sensitivity surrounding issues of territorial sovereignty and administrative control. PSC emphasizes how identity groups in multiethnic societies experience long-term conflict due to unmet basic needs such as security, recognition, political access, and development. Azar (1978) posits that when these needs are consistently denied by the state, and when groups are politically excluded and economically marginalized, tensions solidify into enduring conflicts.
The Aceh conflict from 1976 to 2004, led by the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), fits squarely into Azar’s PSC framework. Aceh’s population long felt marginalized by Jakarta, particularly in relation to resource extraction, governance, and cultural recognition. Although the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005 formally ended hostilities and granted Aceh special autonomy, the deeper grievances around identity, historical justice, and political agency have never been fully resolved. The dispute over the four islands reveals the persistence of these unresolved issues and demonstrates how administrative decisions can rekindle underlying grievances.
In the context of the island dispute, Acehnese reaction can be interpreted as more than just resistance to administrative reclassification. It reflects a broader sense of historical exclusion and fear that the special autonomy status guaranteed by the 2005 peace agreement is being gradually undermined. Azar’s theory helps us understand why this issue gained such traction so quickly and why it became a matter of collective memory and identity. The perception of being overlooked or overridden by central authorities is consistent with the very dynamics that previously fueled Aceh’s separatist sentiment.
Negative and Positive Peace: The Limits of Formal Agreements
Johan Galtung, a key figure in peace and conflict studies, distinguishes between negative peace—the absence of direct violence—and positive peace, which entails the presence of justice, equality, and harmonious social relationships. The Aceh peace process has successfully achieved negative peace, as evidenced by the cessation of armed conflict and the integration of former GAM leaders into the political system. However, the recent island dispute reveals the fragile nature of this peace, indicating that positive peace remains elusive.
The administrative decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs represented a form of structural violence, a concept also introduced by Galtung (1969). Structural violence refers to social structures or institutions that harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs or exercising agency. For Acehnese communities, the reallocation of islands to another province without adequate consultation was perceived as a denial of their rights and a violation of the autonomy promised under the Helsinki agreement. This act, while nonviolent, disrupted trust and reinforced feelings of political exclusion.
A positive peace in Aceh would require not just the absence of guns and militias, but also a governance framework that respects local identities, engages communities in decision-making, and upholds the spirit of decentralization. The island dispute serves as a case study for understanding the limitations of peace agreements that focus only on political arrangements without addressing the deeper cultural, relational, and institutional roots of conflict. Galtung’s framework compels us to question whether the peace in Aceh is truly sustainable or merely superficial.
Conflict Transformation and the Need for Participatory Peacebuilding
John Paul Lederach’s (2005) approach to conflict transformation offers a pathway for moving beyond short-term conflict resolution toward long-lasting peace. Lederach (2005) emphasizes the importance of building relationships, addressing root causes, and creating new social spaces where former adversaries can collaboratively shape the future. In contrast to traditional conflict resolution, which seeks to settle disputes through compromise, conflict transformation focuses on reshaping the very structures and relationships that produce and sustain conflict.
The resolution of the Aceh-Sumut island dispute, while important, did not emerge from participatory dialogue at the grassroots level. It was the result of a top-down political negotiation involving elites and national leaders. While such a solution may be expedient, it does little to build long-term resilience or transform the historical mistrust between Aceh and Jakarta. Lederach’s framework would suggest that true peace in Aceh requires inclusive mechanisms that allow local voices to be heard and institutional reforms that reinforce local agency.
Moreover, conflict transformation entails the development of social capital and the fostering of collective memory that includes healing and acknowledgment. In Aceh, many communities still carry trauma from past military operations and unresolved questions around justice and reconciliation. The sudden flare-up around the island dispute could have been an opportunity to foster dialogue and trust-building rather than merely reversing an unpopular decision. Lederach’s (2005) insights remind us that peacebuilding is not a one-time event but a continuous process of reweaving relationships and institutions over time.
Conclusion
The recent dispute over the four islands between Aceh and North Sumatra reveals more than an issue of territorial administration. It unveils the delicate and layered process of post-conflict peacebuilding in regions with complex historical grievances. While the government’s reversal of its decision may have defused immediate tensions, it did not address the underlying issues of marginalization, representation, and trust that continue to shape Aceh’s relationship with the Indonesian state. This episode stands as a critical case in understanding how formal peace can be easily unsettled by administrative insensitivity or lack of inclusive governance.
Sustainable peace in Aceh requires more than political accommodations or elite negotiations. It demands a comprehensive effort to transform structures of exclusion, foster meaningful participation, and rebuild trust through justice and dialogue. As new administrative challenges arise in other post-conflict regions, one must ask: are we merely keeping the peace, or are we truly building it?
