"They have asked the Honduran government for information and we have given it. What happened a decade ago for us is something that has already been adjudicated," Corrales said. "We expect the investigation to be completed as quickly as possible."
According to U.S. Ambassador Lisa Kubiske, "We take human rights very seriously." Obviously, she can't say anything differently, but it's only one part of the story in Honduras and elsewhere when examining US foreign policy. And just because the US State Department is critical of Honduras' human rights situation doesn't mean that US policy towards the country seems to have been affected much by it.
Be sure to read RAJ's push back against my commentary on the US's temporary suspension of aid in the comments to my last post and her new post on Leticia Salomón's criticism of policing in Honduras.
I stand by my doubts about how effective the letters signed by academics was in causing the US to act. I say that primarily because the US government would reject almost all of the letter's criticisms of what the US has done and is currently doing in Honduras. In addition, there's very little likelihood that the US will do what the letter asks it to do - cut off aid to to the "forces of disorder" in Honduras, stop its occupation of the country, close its bases and then when conditions on the ground change, hold a referendum on the re-opening of those bases.
I'm not saying that their letter played no role. I was just questioning what the AP article wrote where it placed those letters front and center in causing the change in US policy.
Now, the question remains - what happens to Bonilla?