The FARC were released a statement yesterday that show, for the first time in the peace process, their disagreement. The discomfort of the FARC is framed by recent political actions of President Santos: welcome to Capriles, the visit of Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, a ruling on the admission to NATO and its role in the "Pacific Alliance" .

"These attitudes contribute little to building an atmosphere of peace. Dialogues So what?" Say the FARC in the statement.

The following is the full text of the statement:

Public Declaration FARC-EP

We can still hear the echoes of the fair complaint of the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for Santos’ meeting with opponent Capriles in the Nariño Palace.

A lot of people believe that Joe Biden’s (vice-president of the US) visit to Bogotá was the source of Santos’ whim. And they associate it with a plan of Washington led by a Trojan horse called "Trans Pacific Partnership" to destabilize and derail popular governments such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Uruguay, among others. What would drive Santos to announce that fanciful entry of Colombia to the NATO? Does he want to threaten Venezuela or Brazil?

We shouldn´t believe those who qualify the president’s behavior as naïve, because Santos is no fool. As a statesman, he needs to always measure the consequences of his decisions.

Juan Manuel Santos knew that his provocation against the legitimate government of Venezuela would explode like a bomb at the Havana dialogue table, because the issue Venezuela, companion and facilitator of the process, was very sensitive to the FARC, who see the Venezuelans as the main trustful element, and so as the key architects of the peace process.
All this is why Santos invitation to Capriles produces so much perplexity, precisely when the enthusiasm for peace stationed his flag on the Everest peak of reconciliation of all Colombians, because of the partial agreement on land issues, the core of the conflict. Santos’ attitude deflated optimism and the atmosphere conducive to peace that had been constructed so carefully in Havana. We could resume this whole matter saying that if not for Venezuela, the peace talks in the Cuban capital wouldn´t have taken place.

It is contradictory, abysmally contradictory, to pretend to go down in history as the president who made peace, while constantly attacking the peace process. The cold-blooded murder of Alfonso Cano, our commander- champion of reconciliation, has become an indelible stain. On the other hand, nobody understands why the government rejects the necessary bilateral truce proposed by the FARC since the start of the talks, if this is about stopping the war. During the last six months the minister of defense has acted like a sectarian sniper against the process, leaving the impression that there is a lack of consensus on the government’s side. And even the President himself doesn’t miss an opportunity to disqualify the participants with unfounded accusations or to threaten them with leaving the table.
There are other elements that are bugging the dialogue and the construction of an agreement like that annoying clap of the time-and-rhythms- whip in government’s hands. What do they hurry for, to precipitate a useless agreement, a shoddy peace? The progression of such a momentous agreement should not be interfered by electoral calculations or by legislative deadlines. Alongside the table sessions, someone from above designs media campaigns that spread, with some degree of perfidy, the idea of ​​a guerrilla- victimizer on one hand, and the idea of a seraphic, innocent State, without any historical responsibility for violence and institutional terrorism, on the other hand.

If the government really wanted peace, it wouldn’t be permanently marking the red lines of its narrow-mindedness, of its indisputable issues; it would act with greatness to facilitate understanding. Where is the inventiveness; where is the common sense? There’s a big inconsistency here. And there is also a great stinginess in defending despicable privileges with stubborn arguments. These attitudes contribute little to the construction of an atmosphere of peace. So what are the dialogues for?

We should understand that this is not a process of submission, it´s a process of peace-building. We are not talking about the insurgency’s incorporation to the current political system, the way it is now, without any transformations for the excluded majorities. What did we fight for then? The best epilogue of this war must be sealed with structural political, economic and social changes, to overcome poverty and inequality.

We must defend this peace process, this hope. Everyone, resolutely, the government, the FARC and the social and political organizations of the country should make a big effort to reach, after decades of military confrontation, the desired reconciliation with social justice. What do we care about Uribe and FEDEGAN if we are determined to achieve peace.
Secretariat of the Central High Command of the FARC-EP