But, after widespread pro-democracy protests in 1988, things changed and Burma became Myanmar, or, more specifically, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar; Rangoon became Yangon.
Some countries recognised the change. Others, such as the US and the UK, did not. As both names are used in the country – Burma is more popular, Myanmar is more literary – the decision was rooted more in a desire to show disapproval for the noxious regime.
from an account of Obama’s visit.
CNN has used Myanmar since the generals changed the name which doesn’t hold with the above US government policy. Why? Burma can’t be much of a source of advertising revenue to them. Are they conforming with UN nomenclature or defying the American governmeant as a matter of principle? What about the rest of the American press? The Thai English-language papers use Burma.
As I may have said before, I have yet to see an adjectival form of Myanmar (-ian? -ese?) in English (which wouldn’t have been a concern of the regime when they changed the name to counter negative perceptions). There’s “a Burman” which one rarely hears or reads nowadays (I think it’s in Orwell’s Burmese Days) but not “a Burmese”. “The Burmese” for the people is standard English, however, and everyone is familiar with it. You’d have to say “a Burmese person” as with “a Chinese person” but not with an Ecuadorian, an Australian, a Thai, etc. A Spaniard, a Briton, an Icelander (?).