A nice thought Ed, but a bit unrealistic, I think.  Most of these companies had assets in Burma prior to the junta.  What were they supposed to do, up and pull out as much of the world did in Gaza when Hamas won an election?  How well did that work?  Likewise, should Toyota have suddenly fired all its workers and ceased production in the US when it was suspected that the Republicans stole the election in Ohio?

I think boycotts have their place, but to expect these companies to turn and run from investments of these sizes (for example, hotels . . .) doesn't really help. 

Frankly, this is the kind of situation that could use United Nations intervention if the collective nations in that body had any backbone.  Of course, were it to come to a vote in the security council, the US would be for doing something and would get labelled "Imperialist" for its efforts.  Meanwhile, Russia and China would stonewall in order to prevent similar actions against their own outrages . . . and around and around we go. 

Many of these companies have assets that would just get nationalized by the junta if they pulled out.  The argument against (and prominent featuring of) Chevron among many companies is reminiscent of how Shell is blamed in Nigeria for generating billions of dollars that are summarily wasted and skimmed by the Nigerian government.  Of course, if Shell were to try to intervene, they would be accused of trying to re-colonize the country.  They can't win either way.