I notice that newsreaders and reporters have dropped the name Myanmar, and gone back to calling that unfortunate country Burma. I suppose this is their way of expressing disapproval of the military thugs who demanded that the world use Myanmar. It could also be interpreted as a withdrawal of the approval they accorded those same thugs previously. Certainly criticism of these people, who have acted in the same way as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (or Kampuchea?), but didn't label themselves "Communist", was muted. So that's OK then, carry on killing. Which cold warrior was it who said of Suharto "He may be a sonofabitch but he's our sonofabitch"? Half a million slaughtered, but by an anti-communist slaughterer. There's a difference, you know. Ask any US politician.
Sir George Yule's Hobson Jobson ("The Anglo-Indian Dictionary"), s.v. Burma, informs us "The name is taken from Mran-Má the national name of the Burmese people, which they themselves generally pronounce Bam-má, unless when speaking formally and emphatically."
It is interesting that these power-mad generals are so partial to the formal in speech and writing. I recall that the generals who once held Greece in a firm and fascistic grip banned the use of Dhimotiki, popular language, in newspapers, permitting only the literary Katheravousa as a medium for their communiqués to the masses.

An American University has banned Bishop Desmond Tutu from speaking there because he dared to criticise Israel.