Suu Kyi Lawyers protest innocence as trial begins

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6312579.ece

May 18, 2009
Lawyers for Aung San Suu Kyi protest innocence as trial begins
Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor

Lawyers for Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese democracy leader, said that she was innocent of any crime as the country’s military dictatorship put her on trial for allowing an eccentric American intruder to stay in her house.

Protesters marched outside Burma’s embassies across the world and European foreign ministers debated imposing new sanctions as Ms Suu Kyi appeared in the closed court room in the grounds of Insein Prison in Rangoon. A delegation of senior foreign diplomats, including Britain’s ambassador to Burma, was turned back by soldiers after attempting to observe the trial.

According to her lawyers Ms Suu Kyi appeared healthy and calm at the hearing in the prison compound where she has been held since her arrest last week. Appearing alongside her were her two friends and housekeepers, a mother and daughter named Khin Khin Win and Win Ma Ma, and John Yettaw, the 53-year-old American who swam across a lake to gain access to her heavily guarded house this month.

Her lawyer, Kyi Win, said that she denied committing a crime. “She just felt sorry for this man as he had leg cramps after he swam across the lake,” he said. “That’s why she allowed him to stay. She did not want anybody to get into trouble because of her.”

“She looked quite well,” said Nyan Win, a spokesman for Ms Suu Kyi’s political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). “She said she was OK. If things go according to the law, we surely will win this case.”

But Burmese courts almost never find in favour of opponents of the Government in political trials. An application by lawyers for Ms Suu Kyi for a public trial was rejected by the judges.

The prosecution called the first of 22 witnesses, Police Colonel Zaw Min Aung, who filed the formal complaint against Ms Suu Kyi. “Madam Aung San Suu Kyi allowed him to stay at her residence until the night of May 5, 2009, spoke with him, and provided him food and drinks,” the charge sheet read. “We found that Khin Khin Win and Win Ma Ma also helped Madam Aung San Suu Kyi’s treatment of Mr Yettaw.”

Mr Yettaw, described by his family in the United States as a well-meaning eccentric, is to be charged with trespass and immigration offences.

Mark Canning, the British ambassador to Burma, along with the ambassadors of France, Germany and Italy, and an Australian diplomat, were turned away without explanation at the military cordon that has been set up around the prison. The charges against Ms Suu Kyi have been denounced as a travesty by Western governments and international human rights organisations.

“There was never any expectation of getting through, but we were making a point,” Mr Canning told The Times by telephone from Rangoon.

“The point is that this whole process should not be going on. The debate over the terms of the house arrest is irrelevant, because she should never have been under house arrest in the first place. This is the only country in the world where someone can break into your home, and you end up being charged.”

The trial, which is taking place behind closed doors in a courthouse inside the Insein Prison compound, could last between a few days and a few weeks.

About 200 members of Ms Suu Kyi’s political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), staged a protest outside the prison, under surveillance by armed and plain-clothes police. One man, a leader of the NLD youth wing, was reported to have been arrested.

Squads of pro-government militia were brought into the area around Insein over the weekend, and local shops were ordered to close, as the authorities acted to pre-empt public anger before the trial.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said that additional sanctions should be brought against Burma as foreign ministers gathered in Brussels. But the proposal will provoke debate about the effectiveness of European and US sanctions against a country that is being eagerly courted by China and India.

“I don’t think additional sanctions will help because you have seen they have not helped,” the EU’s External Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said. “We have to reinforce dialogue with Burma’s neighbours. I think that is the way forward. it should always be a subject of discussion with China, India and others.”

Beast of the Month - December 2007

Beast of the Month - December 2007
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan Dictator

"I yam an anti-Christ... "
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"

Democracy is a funny thing when it comes to American foreign policy: it's really important. It's really important, that is, except when it's not.

Take, for example, the hissy fit the Bush Team and korporate media has had over Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He has long been described as a would-be-dictator by these forces, and a recent public referendum had been widely labeled as an attempted constitutional coup. Never mind that he's won 3 elections as El Presidente and one referendum to stay in power, which means he's won four more elections legitimately than Bush ever has. Never mind that a failed plutocratic coup that tried to oust Chavez in 2002 with the Bush Administration's backing was the greatest threat to democracy in Venezuela since he took office. Never mind the public referendum voted on this month was constitutional and was decided by direct democracy: it involved changes in labor and property laws and executive power, including the big contention, removal of term limits for the office of President. Never mind the "controversial" attempted removal of term limits would hardly put it out of the norm of democracies in the Western world. And never mind that after voters legitimately concerned at the increase in executive power proposed (it also would have allowed Chavez to redraw political maps and appoint some local leaders, given him power over the central bank and allowed him to suspend civil liberties during states of emergency) voted against it 51 to 49 percent, Chavez announced: "I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense." So much for Mr. Dictator. But then again, most honest observers would admit the controversy isn't about democracy but of a Latin American leader with a vision for the future in conflict with the neoliberal agenda - and the petrodollars to fund it.

Compare this to the coverage of Mikheil Saakashvili in the nation of Georgia. When he took over in January 2004 after the Rose Revolution (which preceded Ukraine's Orange Revolution) he was widely admired in his country, winning over 96 percent of the vote. He was even more widely admired in the Western media establishment, being an admitted pro-Western politician. Like in the Ukraine, however, it appears he may have bet on the wrong side, and he has fallen from favor. Demonstrations against the government on charges of corruption, assassination and authoritarianism were met with riot police armed with batons, tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, as Misha declared a state of emergency. (Boy, that will get rid of those charges of authoritarianism!) Of course, there is more to this story that a Cliff Notes version can do justice (Saakashvili claims, with good justification, that the protests are being financed and promoted by the Kremlin) but it is odd that the disturbing attacks on democratic rights occurring in Georgia right now are not receiving the same outrage in the korporate media as the Chavez referendum. Odd, that is, until one considers Georgia's geographic importance in regards to the Caspian Sea oil reserve.

Or look at Burma. While officially the US government has never been in favor of the dictatorship that has ruled since 1962, opposition has been mild at best. Even after political protests involving Buddhist monks and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the regime hardly has risen on the pundit outrage-o-meter back in the USA. Perhaps that is because the dictatorship has long been friendly to American korporations, most notably Chevron.

Hmm, that's odd: all these examples have oil involved with them, and the side the US is on is coincidentally the side that the oil money is on. In fact, it appears that "democracy" has no importance in deciding which side the US government is on. Iraq under Saddam and Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: bad. Saudi Arabia: good. Russia under Vlad Putin: bad. Georgia and the Ukraine: good. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: bad. Burma under General Than Shwe: good.

Perhaps the most naked example of political cynicism in the past month, however, is the case of Pakistan, which is led by General Pervez Musharraf, The Konformist Beast of the Month. This is because there is no question that Pakistan is a dictatorship, and there is no question that the US government supports it despite its lack of democracy.

Pakistan fell into dictatorship in October 1999, which is over eight years ago and back when Britney Spears was still jailbait. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted by the military coup after he tried to remove Musharraf as Army chief. Instead, Sharif and members of his cabinet were arrested, forcing Sharif in exile to Saudi Arabia. Despite this, Pakistan remains a noted ally to Team America and the Bush Administration.

Of course, even before the 2000 election, Bush was on record as being supportive of Musharraf. Soon after the coup in 1999, Bush was asked to name the new leader of Pakistan and three other world leaders: he could only muster up "Lee" for Taiwan (his full name is Lee Teng-hui.) Despite not scoring well on the quiz if the game was Jeopardy, he had some revealing comments about the leader of Pakistan, declaring, "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected – not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the subcontinent." So there you have it: Bush in 1999 declared a military coup in Pakistan was good news.

As far as Bush and his minions are concerned, Musharraf is still good news, especially after 9/11. After all, the US needs a friendly neighbor bordering Afghanistan if it wants Operation Enduring Freedom to be a success (even if, as a success, Enduring Freedom has been marginal at best.) So in the name of Freedom, the USA has been in bed with a dictatorship. This continues even after last month, when Musharraf suspended the Constitution and declared martial law through the country, shutting down all private television stations and jailing dissidents. Among those jailed were members of the Supreme Court, including chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who were about to rule that a sham "election" handing Musharraf the presidency was invalid, which apparently led to the state of emergency declaration. Later a kangaroo Supreme Court appointed by Musharraf dismissed all challenges to the election.

The punch line is, as an ally, Pakistan is certifiably two-faced. While officially they support the "War On Terror", they have been a not-so-secret hiding place for Al Qaeda and the Taliban ever since. It is also widely believed that Osama bin Laden, if still actually alive, is hiding in Pakistan (though considering the supposed videos of "bin Laden" speeches in recent years appear to be unconvincing forgeries, his status among the living is rather dubious.) Apparently, a subtle agreement exists between Musharraf and the Al Qaeda-Taliban members: if we give you sanctuary, you agree not to unleash terrorism against Pakistan. Which is understandable, after all: sometimes diplomacy requires one to do business with those you'd prefer not to. It's a shame the Bush Team can't owe up to this obvious truth, and declare that foreign policy is decided by Mammon instead of morality. But that would open up a can of worms, as it would give official evidence that nearly four thousand American soldiers and billions of dollars have been wasted in Iraq over lies.

In any case, we salute Pervez Musharraf as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Pervez!!!

10 humanitarian crises forgotten (but not gone)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article3266598.ece

10 humanitarian crises forgotten (but not gone)
If doctors edited newspapers... The frontline physicians at Médecins Sans Frontières have chosen the 10 humanitarian crises that should have been given more coverage in 2007. By Claire Soares and Daniel Howden
Published: 20 December 2007

Colombia

While the cocaine trade regularly features in the headlines, little attention is devoted to the scale of the internal refugee crisis. After four decades of civil conflict that has evolved from a war of political ideologies to a struggle for territory and control over the narcotics trade, large numbers of Colombians live in areas controlled by militia or guerrillas. With basic human rights under threat and unpredictable violence endemic in many rural areas, millions have fled to the shantytowns – or barrios – that ring every major town. Nearly four million people live in these insecure settlements cut off from basic state services such as mains electricity, water and health care. In the endless slums that now choke the capital, Bogota, areas are divided up and fought over by the same paramilitaries and left-wing rebels that blight and dominate the countryside.

Sri Lanka

After a quarter of a century of fighting, this year will be remembered among the bloodiest in Sri Lankan history. The civil war between the government forces and the separatist Tamil Tigers flared back into life last year and has kept worsening. International efforts to resolve the conflict have made no headway as key figures on both sides appear to have decided that a military solution is possible. Targeted bombings, mine attacks, suicide bombings, abductions, recruitment of child soldiers have all followed. The civilian toll in a country already flattened by the 2004 tsunami has been horrendous. Hundreds of thousands of people in need of humanitarian aid have been forced to flee to makeshift camps and the situation has been compounded by a climate of hostility and suspicion towards aid agencies. MSF is among the few agencies still operating in frontline areas, such as Point Pedro and Vavuniya, where doctors are desperately needed.

Somalia

Violence in Somalia hit some of the worst levels in more than 15 years in 2007, prompting UN officials to declare it the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa, surpassing even Darfur in its horror and hopelessness. Ethiopia invaded Somalia on Christmas Day last year and easily overpowered the Union of Islamic Courts, but ever since insurgents have been staging increasingly ferocious guerrilla style attacks, particularly in the capital, Mogadishu. Aid workers say one million people have fled their homes, including 60 per cent of Mogadishu's population. This week mortar shells slammed into a crowded market in the capital, killing a dozen people including a mother and her three children, and a foreign journalist was kidnapped. This precarious security situation means reaching those in need is increasingly difficult. Just yesterday, the UN called for the creation of "safe zones" so that aid could get through to the most vulnerable, particularly children.

Burma

The extraordinary democracy protests by the Buddhist monks in one of the most repressive countries on earth put Burma back atop the news agenda this year. But the nature of ordinary life under the military junta has remained a dim part of the picture. High levels of malaria and HIV are made unimaginably worse by the negligence of a regime that spent only 1.4 per cent of its budget on health care. Despite the overwhelming need, there are few humanitarian groups able to work within the country and those that do so have to operate under severe restrictions. Comparatively few donors are willing to fund operations in the country for fear of indirectly supporting the regime. Further complicating the situation is the absence of any clear statistics on the health situation. The UN says that as many as 360,000 Burmese, out of 50 million, are living with HIV.

Malnutrition

There may not have been a headline-catching food crisis in 2007 on a similar scale as the one that beset Niger last year, but malnutrition is still a disturbing way of life for many in west and east Africa and south Asia, and is associated with the deaths of five million children under the age of five. MSF is campaigning for international donors to scale up their funding for ready-to-use foods, milk and peanut-based pastes that do not need to be kept in a refrigerator, so can be sent out into the rural mud-hut villages where mothers can feed them to their babies at home, rather than being forced to trek miles to the nearest clinic. In Maradi, Niger aid workers are using these pastes to boost the diets of 62,000 children during the seasonal lean period and stop them becoming malnourished in the first place.

Chechnya

Ninety-nine per cent of the electorate here turned out to vote for Vladimir Putin in the recent Russian presidential election. Such a result defies belief in the breakaway Muslim republic crushed by Mr Putin's forces in the second Chechen war. The Putin-installed strongman who rules the republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, made sure that his boss would not be disappointed. Under his authoritarian rule, Mr Kadyrov has cowed the separatists and terrified their families through torture and abduction. The capital, Grozny, flattened by Russian bombs, has been rebuilt, and the airport reopened. But two wars have left psychological and physical scars on the civilian population with large numbers of people suffering from high levels of anxiety, insomnia and depression. As the military conflict with Russia fades into the background with only sporadic clashes now reported, and western leaders no longer openly challenge Russia on its human rights abuses in the republic, humanitarian needs remain critical.

Zimbabwe

With each new headline warning of economic meltdown in Zimbabwe the litany of impossible statistics has grown this year: inflation at 12,000 per cent, three million fleeing the country, 85 per cent unemployment. Under this extraordinary strain, what had been among the best healthcare systems in Africa has collapsed. As many as 3,000 people are dying every week from HIV/Aids and the chronic absence of life-extending antiretroviral drugs is accelerating this death march.

As many as four million people are in danger of starvation according the World Food Programme and the fuel crisis means that rural clinics are treating patients who have sometimes walked for days in search of medical treatment. The fate of the 83-year-old President, Robert Mugabe, continues to dominate coverage of the country that was once seen as the poster boy of post-colonialism, but it is the impoverished people of this beautiful southern African country paying the price of a man-made crisis.

Central African Republic

While neighbouring Chad and the western Sudan region of Darfur have made their way into global media coverage, the tiny landlocked Central African Republic finds itself starved of attention. This "phantom state" in the middle of Africa has no government institutions functioning outside the capital, in the north bandits and warring factions constitute the law of the land. Rights groups say hundreds of civilians have been executed and at least 100,000 people caught in the crossfire of rival armed groups have fled their villages and are hiding in forests and bush. Complicating a perilous internal situation are the CAR's unpredictable neighbours. The potential for the whole region to tip over into chaos is immense. A small contingent of EU peacekeepers is due to be deployed in the New Year.

Democratic Republic of Congo

With the country's first democratic elections in decades successfully completed in 2006, the Congolese might have been forgiven for expecting an easier time in 2007. But those out in the east, in the North Kivu region, have seen little sign of the stability that re-elected President Joseph Kabila promised. Instead, fighting between armed groups has raged for much of the year and the government is in open combat with rebel leader Laurent Nkunda. Hundreds of thousands of homeless people are hiding in the forest because their villages are no longer safe. They are scavenging food to stay alive and trying to dodge the cholera that is rampant throughout much of the region. And for the women living in this area, there is another nightmare to face: sexual violence is alarmingly high. A peace conference has been scheduled for next week to try to calm the troubled region, but few are optimistic of a rapid solution.

Tuberculosis

Kairat, from Uzbekistan, on the right, was among the 500,000 people to be diagnosed with multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis this year. But he was one of the lucky ones, moving to one of the few hospitals in the region to get specialist care. But even those who do get treatment have to rely on a highly toxic and expensive cocktail of drugs that often trigger violent side-effects and has to be taken for two years. Amazingly, there have been no major advances in treatment of the disease since the 1960s, and the most commonly used test to diagnose TB was developed at the end of the 19th century and detects only half the cases. An estimated $900m is needed every year for research and development but only $206m has been made available.

Why Burma is not Iraq

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2530.shtml

Why Burma is not Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 15, 2007

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has enabled two important realisations. First, that imperial powers act only to preserve their interests, and second, that humanitarian intervention -- i.e., humanitarian imperialism -- is touted and encouraged by the media and official circles mostly to circumvent the true self-serving intents of aggression.

Granted, many Americans are still under the impression that Iraq harboured Al-Qaeda, developed weapons of mass destruction and threatened America's security. But who can blame them? Compare the relentless campaign of fabrication and half-truths prior to the invasion -- courtesy of the Bush administration and its willing allies in the media -- to the dismal follow-ups on whether such military adventurism actually achieved any of its declared objectives.

Every facet in America's propaganda machine was in ceaseless motion to make a case for war; aside from the obvious pretext, Iraq's horrors under Saddam were repeatedly emphasised. Also showcased were Iraq's exiled elites who "proved" that the US war was in tune with the desperate pleas of the Iraqi "masses." Forget the actual masses thereafter butchered with impunity. Compare again the attention given to Saddam's victims to the subsequent attention given to victims of the US war (estimated to number more than one million), who were not even validated as victims but instead presented as grateful beneficiaries. A few months into the invasion, a leading US neoconservative claimed to me in an interview that the Iraq democracy experiment was so successful that "Iranians are calling me at my office angrily saying, 'How come you liberated the Iraqis and are yet to liberate us?'"

So why aren't the US and Britain responding to the situation in Burma with the same determination that they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran? Why haven't media pundits rushed in to make a case for war against the brutal regime of General Than Shwe who has denied his people not only political freedom but also the basic requisites of a dignified life? To maintain their extravagant lifestyles in the midst of crushing poverty, junta generals jacked up fuel prices by 500 per cent in August. This even provoked Burmese monks -- legendary symbols of peace and endurance -- to demonstrate en masse, demanding greater compassion for the poor. The protests, starting in a rural town 19 August, culminated in massive rallies of hundreds of thousands and lasted for weeks.

The media correctly drew parallels between the most recent Safrron Revolution and the 1988 uprising, when students in Rangoon triggered nationwide demonstrations that were suppressed brutally by the army, claiming 3,000 lives. General Than Shwe became the head of the junta in 1992 and continued to rule with an iron fist. However, his subversion of democracy was not a strong enough reason to prevent large multinationals from seeking lucrative contracts in the gas-rich country. He accumulated wealth and his officials continued to roam the globe with few hindrances, while the Burmese people continued to suffer. This eventually led to the most recent revolt, which was once again crushed without remorse. The number of dead this time remains unknown; estimates range between 200 and 2,000. Thousands have also been arrested and many monks have reportedly been tortured, their monasteries ransacked. From a media angle, no revolution could be as sentimental or appealing. But, of course, it takes more than tens of thousands of monks leading hundreds of thousands of the country's poor in mass rallies to make Burma relevant for long.

Western leaders, aware of the criticism that awaits them, have paid the necessary lip service, but little else. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use of violence against protesters and demanded European sanctions. President Bush declared that Americans "stand in solidarity with these brave individuals." Israel, on the other hand, denied its military links to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia -- Burma was the first South Asian country to recognise Israel. The UN sent its envoy to Burma to meet General Than Shwe and Ibrahim Gambari was left waiting for days before he was allowed to express the concerns of the international community. And that's that.

Burma is as important to China as the Middle East is to the US. China cares more about the political stability of its neighbours than human rights and democracy; the US cares about such a nuisance insofar as its ability to serve its own militaristic and economic interests is affected. China is the world's fourth largest economy, and will soon be the third; its holds $1.4 trillion in reserve, mostly in US treasury bonds. Its sway over the global financial system is undeniable, and under no circumstance will it allow America a significant role in a country that shares with it a 2,000-kilometre border. The US, on the other hand, pays lip service to democracy in Burma, and its continued "support" of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy is aimed at maintaining a foothold in Burma for a future role, should the relationship between the West and China turn sour.

Humanitarian imperialism has proved more destructive than the injustices it supposedly eradicates. But expect none of that in the case of Burma, because intervention does not serve the interests of the influential parties -- not the West's, or China's, or Russia's. We may see a few sentimental meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of the generals, and perhaps a few gestures of goodwill by the latter, at the behest of China and the West. But they will bring no sweeping reforms, nor meaningful democracy or human rights. These can only be achieved by the people of Burma, their monks, civil society activists, and by ordinary people.

If Iraq has been a lesson of any worth it is that the Burmese are much better off without American bombing raids or British napalm in the name of intervention. True reforms and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the determined dispossessed. Indeed, Burma is not Iraq, and thank God for that.

Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: ramzybaroud.net.

Should it be Burma or Myanmar?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7013943.stm

Should it be Burma or Myanmar?
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...

Protest marches in Burma have entered a ninth day. But why is the country not known in the UK by its official name, Myanmar?

The eyes of the world's media are focused on Rangoon, where tensions are rising in the streets, yet news organisations and nations differ in what they call the country.

The ruling military junta changed its name from Burma to Myanmar in 1989, a year after thousands were killed in the suppression of a popular uprising. Rangoon also became Yangon.

THE ANSWER
It's known as Myanmar in many countries and at the UN
But the UK doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the regime that changed the name

The Adaptation of Expression Law also introduced English language names for other towns, some of which were not ethnically Burmese.

The change was recognised by the United Nations, and by countries such as France and Japan, but not by the United States and the UK.

A statement by the Foreign Office says: "Burma's democracy movement prefers the form 'Burma' because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised."

It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar. The same goes for Rangoon, people in general are more familiar with this name than Yangon.

But look in a Lonely Planet guidebook to Asia and the country can be found listed after Mongolia, not Brunei. The Rough Guide does not cover Burma at all, because the pro-democracy movement has called for a tourism boycott.

HOW IS MYANMAR PRONOUNCED?
There are various ways
'My' may be 'mee' as in 'street' or 'my' as in 'cry'
And stress can be on the first, second or third syllable

So does the choice of Burma or Myanmar indicate a particular political position?

Mark Farmener, of Burma Campaign UK, says: "Often you can tell where someone's sympathies lie if they use Burma or Myanmar. Myanmar is a kind of indicator of countries that are soft on the regime.

"But really it's not important. Who cares what people call the country? It's the human rights abuses that matter.

"There's not a really strong call from the democracy movement saying you should not call it Myanmar, they just challenge the legitimacy of the regime. It's probable it will carry on being called Myanmar after the regime is gone."

Colloquial name

The two words mean the same thing and one is derived from the other. Burmah, as it was spelt in the 19th Century, is a local corruption of the word Myanmar.

They have both been used within Burma for a long time, says anthropologist Gustaaf Houtman, who has written extensively about Burmese politics.

"There's a formal term which is Myanmar and the informal, everyday term which is Burma. Myanmar is the literary form, which is ceremonial and official and reeks of government. [The name change] is a form of censorship."
If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use 'Myanmar', but speaking they use 'Burma', he says.

This reflects the regime's attempt to impose the notion that literary language is master, Mr Houtman says, but there is definitely a political background to it.

Richard Coates, a linguist at the University of Western England, says adopting the traditional, formal name is an attempt by the junta to break from the colonial past.

The UN uses Myanmar, presumably deferring to the idea that its members can call themselves what they wish
Richard Coates, Linguist

"Local opposition groups do not accept that, and presumably prefer to use the 'old' colloquial name, at least until they have a government with popular legitimacy. Governments that agree with this stance still call the country Burma.

"The UN uses Myanmar, presumably deferring to the idea that its members can call themselves what they wish, provided the decision is recorded in UN proceedings. There are hosts of papers detailing such changes. I think the EU uses Burma/Myanmar."

Other countries to rename themselves like this include Iran (formerly Persia), Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) and Cambodia (Kampuchea).

"They've substituted a local name for an internationally acknowledged one for essentially nationalistic and historical reasons."