When Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) won the historic 2015 elections, some observers wondered if it would resolve one of her country’s most symbolic issues on the international stage: what to call it. Changed by the military government in 1989 from Burma to Myanmar, much of the international community agreed to recognize the name change. Yet, the United States and the United Kingdom, among a small group of countries, continue to use the name Burma. Why?

Citizens line up outside a polling station in Yangon to vote in the historic 2015 elections. (Adam Dean/The New York Times)
Citizens line up outside a polling station in Yangon to vote in the historic 2015 elections. (Adam Dean/The New York Times)

The U.S. and others that have not recognized the name change generally argue that it was made without the consent of the people and was thus illegitimate. The military regime, however, has said that “Burma” only refers to its largest ethnic group and is not inclusive of the country’s other 134 ethnic communities. In practice, however, both terms have been used for centuries. Burma, which became the country’s official name under British colonial rule and stuck after independence, was used primarily in spoken language, whereas Myanmar was the formal term generally used in written communication.

The Military’s Move to Myanmar

After the Myanmar armed forces crushed a nationwide pro-democracy uprising in September 1988, the country’s official name (in English) was changed from its post-1974 form, the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, back to the Union of Burma, which had been adopted when Myanmar regained its independence from the United Kingdom in January 1948.

In July 1989, the new military government changed the country's name once again, this time to the Union of Myanmar, long the country’s vernacular name. At the same time, a number of other place names were changed to conform more closely to their original pronunciation in the Burmese language. For example, Rangoon—then the country’s administrative capital—became Yangon. Not only were the new names considered more accurate, but they also shed any implied connection to the country’s colonial past. In 2008, after promulgation of a new national constitution, the country’s official name was changed yet again, this time to the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

The new names have been accepted by most countries, the United Nations, and other major international organizations. A few governments, activist groups, and news media outlets, however, still cling to the old forms, primarily as a protest against the former military regime's refusal to put the question of a name change to the people of Myanmar. Some countries, like Australia, have taken a mixed approach, at times using both names as a way of registering concern over human rights abuses and offering a gesture of support for the country's embattled democracy movement, while also bowing to the formal demands of diplomatic protocol. The old names were also believed to be the preference of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Despite Democratic Progress, Nothing New on the Name

On November 8, 2015, a general election was held which, by most accounts, was reasonably free and fair. The result was a landslide for the NLD, which gave it a majority in the combined Union Assembly (Pyidaungsu Hluttaw). As a result, it was able to elect a new president in 2016 and pass a law creating the position of state counselor for Aung San Suu Kyi (who under the 2008 constitution is unable to become president).

Questioned about the official name of the country soon after her party took office in 2016, Aung San Suu Kyi stated her continuing preference for the colonial-era term Burma, but said that both names were acceptable.

Indeed, in April 2016, she told the foreign diplomatic corps that it did not matter whether her country was called Burma or Myanmar, as “there is nothing in the constitution that says you must use any term in particular”—in fact, the constitution clearly states that the country is called the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. She told the assembled foreign officials that she personally preferred “Burma” but would use “Myanmar” from time to time, to make everyone “feel comfortable.”

Nearly three years since the NLD’s electoral victory, the U.S. seems no closer to changing its policy on what to call the Southeast Asian nation. Like all other countries, it uses “Myanmar” in formal correspondence with the Naypyidaw government, but the U.S. still publicly refers to “Burma.” Given Aung San Suu Kyi’s tolerance of “Burma” and current tensions between the two countries over the Rohingya question, a decision by the U.S. to accept the name Myanmar seems unlikely any time soon.


This article is an adapted excerpt from Andrew Selth’s forthcoming Peaceworks report, “Myanmar’s Armed Forces and the Rohingya Crisis.”

Andrew Selth is an adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, in Brisbane, Australia. He has been studying international security issues and Asian affairs for 45 years, as a diplomat, strategic intelligence analyst and research scholar. Dr. Selth has published six books and more than 50 peer-reviewed works, most of them about Burma and related subjects.

Related Publications

Nonviolent Action in Myanmar: Challenges and Lessons for Civil Society and Donors

Nonviolent Action in Myanmar: Challenges and Lessons for Civil Society and Donors

Friday, September 18, 2020

By: La Ring; Khin Sandar Nyunt; Nist Pianchupat; Shaazka Beyerle

The National League for Democracy’s decisive victory in Myanmar’s 2015 elections inspired hopes of a full transition from military rule and an opening of civil space. Neither has materialized, and the groups working to advance social, political, and economic change in Myanmar continue to face significant challenges. Focusing on three cases of organized nonviolent action in Kachin, Mandalay, and Yangon, this report explores the divide that has opened between civil society and the NLD government and the rifts emerging within civil society itself.

Type: Special Report

Nonviolent Action

The Dangers of Myanmar’s Ungoverned Casino Cities

The Dangers of Myanmar’s Ungoverned Casino Cities

Thursday, August 6, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

As a struggling, incomplete democracy, Myanmar and its elected leaders face challenges that would confound any country. The best-known involve the military’s uneven loosening of a 50-year dictatorship; ethnic tensions and armed conflicts; the lack of a common national identity; entrenched poverty; and the complications of borders with five nations, including China. Less well known is an emerging threat that touches each of these vital concerns. Over the past three years, transnational networks with links to organized crime have partnered with local armed groups, carving out autonomous enclaves and building so-called “smart cities” to tap into the huge, but illegal, Chinese online gambling market. Myanmar’s leaders at every level and in every sector should pay serious attention to the alarming national implications of these developments.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Democracy & Governance

Myanmar: Casino Cities Run on Blockchain Threaten Nation’s Sovereignty

Myanmar: Casino Cities Run on Blockchain Threaten Nation’s Sovereignty

Thursday, July 30, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

On January 20, a young venture capitalist named Douglas Gan sat down in a Philippine television studio to discuss, in part, an exciting new “Smart City” project his firm had become involved in. Sporting a black hoodie over a white tee-shirt, Gan described how one of his companies, Building Cities Beyond Blockchain, was already at work in Myanmar’s Yatai New City, recording instantaneous property transfers and showing the potential of blockchain technology. It’s a start, the anchor said. Gan agreed.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Myanmar’s Casino Cities: The Role of China and Transnational Criminal Networks

Myanmar’s Casino Cities: The Role of China and Transnational Criminal Networks

Monday, July 27, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

Seeking to profit from China's lucrative but illegal gambling market, a shady web of actors has begun building resort cities in Myanmar’s Karen State to cater to Chinese gamblers. This report casts light on the actors behind Myanmar’s illegal gambling sector, their linkages to Chinese government entities and to Myanmar's armed groups and military, and how their actions could upend Myanmar’s prospects for peace.

Type: Special Report

Economics & Environment

View All Publications