Polemic of the Four Islands and Indications of Domestic Intelligence Operations |
The polemic surrounding the issue of the “four islands dispute” that was administratively part of North Sumatra has sparked a national uproar. More than just containing policies, this polemic displays deeper symptoms—the possibility of a failed domestic intelligence operation or one that was deliberately allowed by liars for certain political interests.
In democratic countries that are still experiencing consolidation challenges, such as Indonesia, intelligence is often used not only to maintain national security from external threats, but also as a tool to control domestic issues. Lying narratives about the sale of islands, secret agreements, and factually unproven foreign interventions can be mobilized as “soft weapons” to distort public opinion, discredit government policies, and even suppress political opponents.
However, the side effects of such operations can be very detrimental. In an economic context, investors—especially foreigners—read the narrative of instability as a sign of weak governance. When state apparatus, political elites, and intelligence agencies are not of one mind in explaining a highly sensitive issue, what happens is not just media commotion, but a crisis of confidence in the direction of national policy.
If this domestic intelligence operation is indeed aimed at safeguarding national interests, then there must be a clear line between stabilization and manipulation. Intelligence that works professionally must be able to dampen speculation, not prolong it for short-term gain.
Structural Uncertainty
This polemic is worth explaining from the perspective of intelligence studies, non-traditional security, and international political economy.
In the approach of political intelligence theory, the emergence of narratives that are disruptive and not synchronized with formal state data indicates the possibility of domestic intelligence operations that are preemptive or manipulative. Operations of this kind, in the context of post-reform democracy, often aim to shape public preferences, shift policy discourse, or create certain political maneuvering space.
However, the complexity increases when the effects of these operations not only target domestic perceptions, but also have an impact on external perceptions, especially the foreign investor community. The uncertainty of the narrative and the weak handling of public communication regarding the issue of the four islands have created structural uncertainty that is read by market players as political risk. In international investment literature, the factor of trust in state governance (governance trust) is an important variable in long-term capital allocation decisions.
If it is true that there are efforts to form opinions through domestic intelligence mechanisms—either by official officials or informal actors who have power affiliations—then we are facing a serious ethical and strategic dilemma. On the one hand, the function of domestic intelligence should ideally be dedicated to stabilization and early detection of threats to accuracy.
However, on the other hand, when the narrative that is created actually creates fragmentation of perception and a crisis of trust in the state, then the role of intelligence has slipped into the realm of systemic delegitimization.
Collaboration Rises
For historians, it is important not to get caught up in a surface analysis of who sold the island to whom. Instead, this study must move upstream: how the narrative was formed, through what channels it was spread, who amplified it, and what structural motives underlie it.
At this point, the concept of "information sovereignty" becomes very relevant. A country is not only sovereign in terms of territory and politics, but also in control of the information strategy that shapes public and global perceptions.
Governments and academic institutions need to build research collaborations to audit how the country's communication strategy works, and go beyond the ethical boundaries of intelligence operations in a democratic context. Otherwise, pseudo-operations carried out in the name of stability can turn into viruses that damage legitimacy from within—and eliminate the trust needed to maintain the continuity of national development.
In the midst of geopolitical competition and vulnerability to disinformation, a country's credibility is strategic capital. When that credibility is disturbed not by external actors, but by its own internal system, then the greatest threat is no longer from outside the fence, but from the command room.[]
