U.S. Policy on Burma: A Point for Semantics; Now What?

The brutally repressive regime of the country referred to in English by the name Myanmar (its name in the Burmese language had never changed, according to the notes on etymology in the Wikipedia article) is still known as Burma (from Bama or Bamar) by the U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, and Australia. And for good reason, I think.
Colonial history aside, the name change was instituted by an illegitimate government that has been holding the democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest indefinitely.
The U.N. uses the name Myanmar.

But regardless of what you call it, a tragedy is unfolding there, while once again the world stands by and looks on sadly, as if there's nothing it can possibly do. Where's the sense of urgency that always seems (now that "radical Islamic regimes" and their oil have replaced Russia and the Red Scare as Bogeyman #1 on our radar) to surround crises in countries a bit to the west of Southeast Asia, a bit to the north of Africa?

Buddhist monks are being rounded up by the thousands, with possibly 200 or more protesters killed.

This assessment by a Swedish diplomat is heartbreaking in its sense of hopelessness for the country's future:

Liselotte Agerlid, who is now in Thailand, said that the Burmese people now face possibly decades of repression. "The Burma revolt is over," she added.

"The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy. The people in the street were young people, monks and civilians who were not participating during the 1988 revolt.

"Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear."

So that's it? It's "over?" Just like with Tiananmen Square, only, without economic prosperity, even less hope?