Last Thursday, Médecins Sans Frontières Holland received a written order from Myanmar’s Union Government to suspend all operations across the country. On Friday, every MSF clinic closed. Over the weekend, urgent dialogue resulted in permission for some MSF activities to resume. This morning, for instance, HIV/AIDS facilities will reopen in Kachin State, Shan State and Yangon Region. In Rakhine State, however, MSF clinics spread across nine townships remain shuttered following a verbal communication from local authorities.

In part, the government’s order focused on technical violations of the memorandum of understanding required for any NGO to undertake in-country operations. On its side, MSF’s plea for an immediate resumption pointed to 22 years of committed engagement with health need throughout Myanmar.

Fundamentally, though, the suspension was linked to issues in Rakhine that for days had triggered vocal street protests in state capital Sittwe. One was a perceived bias towards “Bengalis”, or Rohingyas. Another was an MSF statement, in response to questions from journalists, that it had provided medical aid to 22 Rohingya patients following a mid-January outburst of Buddhist mob violence. The government contends that MSF has not satisfactorily documented this claim. It also maintains that no such outburst took place.

If true, the first allegation would violate the MSF Charter principle of impartiality and neutrality. It is contested by MSF, which insists that in Rakhine State, as elsewhere, it provides care solely on grounds of need, giving priority to those in most serious danger. The second allegation is not substantially disputed by MSF, for it reflects another Charter principle of bearing witness. This is central to MSF’s global profile, tracing back to its split from the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1971.

In this set of events there is, then, disagreement about the roles and responsibilities of international aid agencies. MSF’s position is that in any operation its priority is to provide tangible medical assistance. At the same time, though, it may speak out publicly if it finds it is the sole observer of extreme acts of violence. The Myanmar government’s position is that any speaking out must be fully substantiated. It also hints that it is not the job of an external agency to intervene in domestic political affairs.

Had the Myanmar government undertaken a credible investigation of the alleged Buddhist outburst in Rakhine State in mid-January, or permitted others to do so, its case against MSF might be sound. But no such investigation has taken place, and none is currently in the works. In circumstances where plausible allegations of extreme violence have yet to be properly probed, it is hard to back its action. Democratizing Myanmar should not allow reports of possibly severe human rights abuse to go unexamined.