Author: Hovhannisian John

RUSSIA REQUESTS AZERBAIJAN FOR COPY OF DOCUMENT ON ARMAMENT DELIVERY TO ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
16.01.2009 14:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Azerbaijani media reports on delivery of military
hardware to Armenia were studied and turned out to be untrue, Russia’s
Foreign Minister said.

"We have carried out an investigation. The man whose last name is
mentioned in Azeri reports has never signed any documents," Sergei
Lavrov said when commenting on recent publication of a list of military
hardware allegedly delivered to Armenia by Russia.

"We requested our Azeri counterpart to provide us with a copy of this
document for an expertise," he added.

At the same time, Mr. Lavrov emphasized that Russia implements military
cooperation programs both with Armenia and Azerbaijan. "At that,
Armenia, as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
enjoys preferential terms, and Azerbaijan is well aware of this fact,"
the Minister said, RIA Novosti reports.

SITTING OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMISSION AT THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE

p;p=0&id=709&y=2009&m=01&d=15
13.0 1.09

On January 13,2009 the recurrent sitting of the interdepartmental
commission to organize and conduct the jubilee events dedicated to the
20th anniversary of withdrawing the Soviet troops from Afghanistan
took place at the Ministry of Defense chaired by Defense Minister
Seyran Ohanyan.

Discussed were issues connected with the visit of the participants
of the event to Armenia, as well as the details of the organization
of arrangements in Armenia within this framework.

The program of events envisages an exhibition titled the "Afghan
War," meetings with servicemen, students of military educational
establishments, teachers and pupils of secondary schools, visits
of the veterans of the Afghan and Artsakhi wars to memorials to
the soldiers killed in the wars, visit to the Yerablur Pantheon and
"Haghtanak" Park, screening of archive video materials, concerts, a
Holy Mass at St Gregory the Illuminator Church, as well as a meeting
with mass media representatives.

At the end of the meeting RA Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan stressed
the importance of such events, noting that those contribute to the
patriotic upbringing of the younger generation.

Members of the commission later determined the programs for the
near future.

MOST EXPERTS BELIEVE RUSSIA DELIVERS AMMO TO ARMENIA: POLL

Trend News Agency
Jan 14 2009
Azerbaijan

A range of media sources released an information about Russia has
delivered ammunition to Armenia from the Russian 102nd military unit
in Gumru with cost $800 million.

Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Vasiliy Istratov was invited to the
Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry on Jan. 13. Russia’s Defense Ministry
dismissed reports that $800 million in ammunition was delivered
to Armenia

– What is your attitude to the information that Russia delivered
ammunition to Armenia?

Trend News correspondents turned to experts and political scientists
for comments on the mater.

MP Asim Mollazade, Chairman of the Democratic Reforms Party of
Azerbaijan:

– The refutation by the Russian Ministry of Defense causes
contradiction to the management of the second Russian contingent
in Armenia that stated that the ammunition was delivered under the
bilateral agreement, including the list of ammunition, i.e. the exact
number of tanks, APCs and artillery mounts.

There is nothing new. In the mid of 1990s an illegal transmission of
ammunition was carried out. And official agencies were not informed
about it. Today the situation is repeated. Russia provides Armenia with
armament in fact. Russia turned Armenia to a military unit. Armenia
is Russia’s key arm in the region.

Today Armenia’s policy is the main factor hindering the development of
the region. Russia, being the co-chairman of the Minsk Group, assists
in settling of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, on the other hand,
arms one of the conflicting sides.

I think that Azerbaijan should rise the issue in international
organizations, and especially in the OSCE.

Svante Cornell, Caucasus Institute Research Director:

-The ammunition delivery once more proves that Russia remains Armenia’s
ally. This is not new, as Russia and Armenia have cooperated during
the history. In 1990s Russia has already delivered $1 billion in
ammunition to Armenia. Sometimes Russia wants to attract Azerbaijan
to itself by possible settling of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

We must understand that Russia has huge investments in Armenia and the
Kremlin carries out pro-Armenian policy in the South Caucasus. If the
information about Russia’s ammunition deliveries to Armenia is proved,
then Azerbaijan will have to re-consider its relations with Russia.

Russian MP Gennadiy Gudkov, Deputy Chairman of the Duma Security
Committee:

– This is the attempt to play anti-Russian map. I can accurately spay
about the position of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence
Ministry. We occupy neutrality in this issue. Even when the issue about
withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia was being solved, and many
spoke that Russia would deliver weapon and armaments e directly to
Armenia – this did not occur. Russia waits, when the sides of conflict
– Armenia and Azerbaijan – negotiated agreement, and the country will
be ready ensure the guaranty of this agreement to both republics.

Russia will never realize ammunition deliveries to Armenia damaging
safety of Azerbaijan and vice versa, because Russia is not interested
in retention of tension in the Caucasus region, especially in
repetition of armed conflict between two former brother republics.

I think that this of weft, but I do not think that it appeared
randomly. Such rumours periodically were thrown to the information
field, and it seems to me that this is the sequential attempt
to complicate the Russia- Azerbaijan relations. I think that such
attempts to provoke worsening in the relations between our countries
will continue, we would relate to this issue quietly, by giving
proper rebuff and by preserving constant course on the development
of relations between Azerbaijan and Russia.

Tofig Abbasov, expert of Lider media holding analytical group Lider:

– The freelance visit of Russia’s ambassador to the Foreign Ministry of
Azerbaijan is not groundless. The confirmation of the new deal between
Moscow and Yerevan is the fact that the Russian side takes unawares and
is covered by the curtain of "inter-governmental agreement", when has
not yet set the final point in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In this case, Moscow roused Yerevan to again roughly violate
the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and to also
ignore quotas for the armaments, established by the corresponding
reports of the United Nations.

This incident must be considered in the context of the last
peacemaking initiatives of Russia, which attempted to be affirmed as
the determining force in the post-Soviet territory.

The shady Russian armament deliveries to Armenia, under whatever
pretext they were realized, will negatively affect the fate of
Azerbaijani-Russian co-operation agreements, and also will make
it necessary for Baku to re-consider its views on the prospect in
light of expectations, which were connected with the energy sector,
transport and telecommunications.

Sergey Markov, Russian MP, director of Political Studies Institute:

– I think that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved in a
more successfully peaceful way. The matter is that within the peace,
Azerbaijan is considerably stronger than Armenia.

Certainly, delivering Russian arms will negatively affect the
Russian-Azerbaijani relations. I have not detailed information the
recent delivery of the Russian arms to Armenia, but this event is not
some extraodinary. We know well that Russia repeatedly transferred
the armaments to Armenia, including fulfilling its some obligations.

Senan Ogan, director of Turkish-based TURKSAM studies center:

– This is not news that Russia arms Armenia. There are many facts
that Russia arms not only Armenia, but also, for example, Greek Cyprus.

This fact is especially dangerous now, since after August war in
Georgia this can break balance in the region. It needs to take into
account that an agreement on military reconciliation was signed between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, but this does not mean that in reality there
is peace between them.

Despite that Russia was against the armament of Georgia by the West,
now Moscow itself pursues this policy with respect to Caucasus. This
fact destroys the hopes of Turkey for peace in the region.

Rashad Rzaguliyev, president of Azerbaijani-based Social Researches
Fund:

– Undoubtedly, Russia’s supply of arm and ammunition in amount of $800
million to Armenia is an unpleasant fact for Azerbaijan. However, it is
possible to make certain conclusions. Russia will increase its military
presence in the region, having demonstratively answered the signing of
not less demonstrative American-Georgian agreement. The opposition of
Russia and the USA in the region will present numerous surprises to us.

The events force Azerbaijan to use the entire political-diplomatic
potential to ensure the format of national security fully. I do
not think that sharp worsening in the Azerbaijan-Russian relations
looming at the horizon, but undoubtedly certain tension appeared,
of which it is necessary to regret only.

R.Agayev (Moscow), R.Hafizoglu, B.Hasanov (Baku) contributed to
the article.

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by Jean Ipdjian

Gibrahayer
Jan 14, 2009
Nicosia

On December 19, 2008 the Turkish TV program ’32nd Day’ organised a
live debate regarding the infamous ‘Apology Statement’ by a group of
Turkish academics and ex diplomats.

The program’s producer was Mr. Ridyan Akar and the moderator of
the debate was Mr. Mehmet Ali Birand. The panel consisted of three
doves and four hawks. All are distinguished pillars of society or
distinguished statesmen.

I should also inform that an Internet site has been set up where
people can co-sign the above mentioned statement and post comments.

It is a fact that one of the greatest challenges faced by world
leaders is finding solutions to a handful of unsolved historical
problems which refuse to go away and creep up to the surface whenever
negotiations over regional and geopolitical are attempted to launch
or positively conclude. These ‘unsolved’ problems invariably have
their roots deeply buried in the pages of history and invariably have
religious intonations.

Often outsiders cannot understand the deep emotions that are stirred
from seemingly not so important or relevant issues.

It is also a fact that world leaders would love to be able to forget
about these problems and if possible force, persuade, bribe or sweet
talk one or both sides into accepting a settlement formulae

without really caring for their content.

After all, who likes to wash his neighbours’ or acquaintance’s dirty
underwear?

Such a problem is the Armenian Question. Being a substantial member of
the Christian or ‘giavour’ minority in the Ottoman Empire, throughout
the years the Armenians, together with the other minorities, had
suffered p ogroms and massacres, their women were frequently raped and
misused, their possessions and riches confiscated by officials. They
were deprived of all kinds of protection by the state and were at
the mercy of the hordes of often crazed fanaticised mobs. Through
the decades, and especially after the successful Greek Revolution
and the independence of the some Balkan states, Armenians came more
and more under the illusion that the European, Christian powers such
as Great Britain, France and Russia would intervene with the Sultans
and enforce reforms and provide deliverance for them from the heavy
yoke of the Ottomans.

So, it was this continuous threat of intervention on the part of the
Europeans on behalf of the minorities that was the root cause for
the decision taken by the leadership of the Ittihad ve Terakki ruling
party known as the Young Turk movement, to look for a final solution
of the Armenian Problem. The beginning of the First World war saw the
Turks fighting on the side of the Axis Powers against the Entente =0
D comprising of Great Britain, France and Russia, the same Powers who
had presented themselves as the protectors of the depressed, and who
could do nothing as they were on the other side of the high fence
erected around the Turkish mainland and the Anatolou. And thus the
opportunity was created to solve the Armenian Problem by the sword,
behind the thick curtains of war.

Thus the idea of the systematic deportation, annihilation and slaughter
of the Armenian in Turkey was born, planned and executed using all
means under the disposition of the state. What was not possible to
achieve by hand, was left for nature to complete through deprivation
and exposure in the arid expanses of the deserts of northern Syria.

Furthermore, it is a fact that Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire
had no aspirations of independence and considered themselves as being
loyal citizens of the empire, if only allowed to do so and not be
forced to seek deliverance from outside powers. Eventually, having been
denied that too, in some areas they took up arms and heroically fought
in a futile attempt to save themselves and their villages and cities.

So this is what the Statement and Debate are all about. This, and
all the legal and moral obligations which must follow.

The Debate, as it evolved, made interesting reading (in my case),
though it offered no new insights or revelations as regards the

beliefs of the participants.

In essence, it was a chatting exercise between the three trends of
thought that exist in Turkey today regarding the path that will take
Turkey into the 21st century. On one side were the representatives
of the projected modern face of Turkey. They are those, who believe
that Turkey will mature, albeit belatedly, to become part of Europe,
in peace with itself, without the burden of its often violent and
dark history. They believe that in order for Turkey to take her (a)
place in the civilised world, she has to pursue its European dream
and thread the path leading her into the family of truly European
Nations and the EU, rejuvenated and looking into the future with
clear eyes and having left its past behind.

Then there were the representatives of the more conservative people,
who want Turkey in Europe and the European Union, who want Turkey to
be perceived as a willing and accepted member of the higher echelons
of power and world politics, but refuse to shed its chauvinistic
self and refuse to change. They are those who believe that Turkey’s
economic potential, her unsaturated market, her geographical position
and her military strength combine to make her acceptance into the EU
and among the powers to be, a proposition no on e dare refuse.

Finally, there were as well representatives of those who are the
ugly face of Turkey, who are so blinded=2 0by the ‘turkism’ and
arrogant self-perceptions, that they cannot accept any deviation
from her age-old policies of intimidation and terror, refusal of
compromise and denial of all things that do not conform to their
extreme nationalistic doctrines.

As such, there was a marked effort on the part of the doves to
de-politicise their Statement and distance themselves from any form
of demand or request for the Government to recognise the Genocide
as Genocide.

Also, I found their translation of the term ‘Medz Yeghern’, a term
around which a lot of discussion evolved, intentionally simplistic
and misguiding, because I believe that a more accurate translation
would have been the ‘Great Calamity’, which essentially is another
way of calling a holocaust.

The hawks, as expected, refused all and any kind of compromise. It
was clear that for them this was a sorry development and a grave
error. I am sure given the chance they would have gladly accused
the doves of treason, which a few years ago they could have easily
done, put them against a wall and solve the problem neatly by simply
shooting their mouths close. In their funny way of thinking, they
were trying to argue the massacres by rhetorically asking the panel
what they thought about the supposed killing of some villagers by
Armenian fighters, by the recent war in Azerbaijan, or the killing
of Turkis h diplomats by ASALA and other groups! This would be the
mother of lopsided logic ever expressed!

The fact that in Turkey today such a debate is being conducted and that
it was even possible to gather this group and finish the discussion
in a civilised matter should be considered extremely heartening that
maybe, just maybe this country and this nations with whom faith or
chance has dictated that we should live as neighbours, has started
taking the very first tentative steps into becoming a country that
can coexist peacefully with its neighbours, a society that can
accept different ideas and beliefs, a society that accepts variety,
a country where the rule of law is paramount and where all people
whatever their creed or religion are equals. The next and decisive
step is to be taken by the Government of Turkey, who has to find
the courage and boldness to recognise the Genocide and by accepting
the guilt of the perpetrators of the Genocide (the leadership and
government of Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century) close that
very ugly and sad page of its history.

I sincerely wish that the likes of Mr. Birand and Mr. Aktar will
eventually prevail and we will finally be able to make peace with
them and once and for all the souls of the hundreds of thousands of
victi ms of the Genocide will rest in peace.

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN RECEIVES CSTO SECRETARY GENERAL NIKOLAY BORDYUZHA

ARMENPRESS
Jan 13, 2009

YEREVAN, JANUARY 13, ARMENPRESS: President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan
received today Secretary General of Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) Nikolay Bordyuzha.

Presidential press service told Armenpress that currently Armenia
is CSTO chairing country, and the chairman of the CSTO Council Serzh
Sargsyan discussed with Nikolay Bordyuzha issues connected with the
preparation of the regular summit of CSTO, formation of the agenda.

President of Armenia underscored the permanent improvement of the
activity of CSTO and noted that it will give an opportunity to confront
the contemporary challenges more effectively and according to Serzh
Sargsyan, the non-official meeting of the heads of CSTO member states
held December 2008 in Kazakhstan was directed towards it.

Considering the military-political partnership a core direction of
the activity of the CSTO, the leader of the country said that Armenia
will continue its efforts towards coordinating the joint work and
using the partnership potential more effectively.

During the meeting the sides also spoke about the issues the
organization is facing and ways of their solution.

IN THE U.S.

A1+
[06:47 pm] 13 January, 2009

Member of the PACE Armenia delegation, leader of "Heritage" party
Raffi Hovhannisyan will most probably not leave for Strasburg in late
January, told "A1+" Hovhannisyan’s press speaker Hovsep Khurshudyan.

According to Khurshudyan, Hovhannisyan refuses to participate in the
PACE session to be held on January 26 because none of his demands
have been fulfilled.

Let us recall that after the adoption of the resolution on Armenia
in June of last year, Raffi Hovhannisyan ceased to participate in
the PACE plenary sessions and monitoring until "Europe carries out
its values, rights and guidelines".

In fact, Raffi Hovhannisyan is currently in the U.S.

NA SPEAKER MEETS COE REPRESENTATIVE TO ARMENIA

armradio.am
14.01.2009 16:13

The President of Parliament of the Republic of Armenia, Hovik
Abrahamyan received the Special Representative of the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe to Armenia, Silvia Zehe.

During the meeting the parties discussed issues related to the
cooperation between the National Assembly and the Council of Europe
in 2009. Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan noted that there are a number of
programs to be implemented this year.

Mr. Abrahamyan referred to the visit of the co-rapporteurs of the
Monitoring Committee to Armenia, presenting the steps our country
has taken to meet the requirements of Resolutions 1609 and 1620.

OSCE PLANS MONITORING OVER AZERBAIJANI, ARMENIAN BORDER REGIONS

Trend News Agency
Jan 12 2009
Azerbaijan

The OSCE acting chairman’s personal representative will monitor the
line of contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces in the Tartar
and Agdara border regions for the first time this year on Jan. 14,
the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry told Trend News.

The monitoring will be held on the Azerbaijani side by the OSCE
acting chairman’s personal representative Imre Palatinus and Vladimir
Chountulov.

The monitoring will be held on the Armenian side by the OSCE acting
chairman’s field assistants Pieter Ki, Antal Herdich and Irji Aberli.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed
forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including
the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts. Azerbaijan
and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. – are currently
holding the peace negotiations.

Newsweek
Jan 10 2009

Trial Of The `Deep State’

Prosecutors in Turkey’s Ergenekon trial are rounding up top military leaders.

Grenville Byford
Jan 9, 2009

The Ergenekon "Gang," Turkish prosecutors say, schemed to remove the
country’s governing AK Party by promoting public chaos and,
subsequently, a military coup. Among their chosen methods:
murder. Over the past year prosecutors have arrested or put on trial
two retired four-star generals and 84 other people. On Wednesday, they
arrested 37 more, including two more retired four-stars. They also
rounded up nine serving officers, which required the permission of the
General Staff. Wednesday’s raids led police to a large cache of arms
and explosives. Even in Turkey, where coup rumors flourish and
generals regularly make political statements, this is sensational
stuff.

Gen. Ilker Basbug, chief of the General Staff, met with the commanders
of the Army, Air Force and Jandarma for six hours on Wednesday. Their
wives were dispatched to call on the wives of arrested former
generals. The following day, Basbug requested a meeting with Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and went on to see President Abdullah
Gul. Deniz Baykal, leader of the main opposition party CHP, claimed
again that the Ergenekon probe is a government attempt to silence
opposition. That can hardly be true because in Turkey, prosecutors are
not supervised by the government. That job belongs to the Supreme
Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a body composed of five senior
judges, a civil servant and the justice minister. Rumors are now
circulating that the council is under pressure to investigate the
Ergenekon prosecutor. This would not be a first. In 2006 it disbarred
a prosecutor in eastern Turkey who was investigating whether anyone
was behind two Jandarma NCOs convicted of bombing a bookstore in
Semdinli and killing a man.

Amid all this activity, what is actually going on? Ergenekon in a
broad sense is a "political trial," though not in the crude way Baykal
means. The guns and explosives are all too real. So too are the
murders allegedly instigated by those in the dock. They stand accused,
for example, of procuring the murder of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink
last year and a senior judge in 2006. This was dressed up as an
Islamist crime, and blame was attached to the (allegedly Islamist) AK
Party for inspiring such things. The evidence against some of the
accused is persuasive. This trial is not something cooked up by the
government. To be sure, some of those who’ve been arrested may be
guilty of nothing more than expressing their wish to the wrong people
that the AK Party would vanish. Even if the prosecution is holding
some innocents, though, it doesn’t mean there is no fire beneath the
smoke. That some of those arrested have been held for six months
without charge is not a scandal in Turkey as it would be in the United
States; Turkish criminal procedure, for better or worse, allows
it. Rarely, though, are retired generals treated thus.

What makes the trial political is something Turks call the "deep
state." This, almost every Turk believes, exercises real power in
their country alongside, and usually in opposition to, Turkey’s duly
elected governments. Actually, however, there are two deep states: a
clean one and a dirty one. The former comprises many members of
Turkey’s secular elite. These are, on the whole, decent
people’generals, bureaucrats, judges, businessmen and
academics. Commonly referred to as "Kemalists," they see themselves as
the guardians of the secular republic. In intent they follow a slogan
from Ataturk’s time: government "for the people, despite the people."
And because they believe that AK Party threatens secularism, they have
no respect for its democratic mandate’nor do they have any serious
evidence. I doubt Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would be a Kemalist today. "We
are going," he said "to advance our country to the level of the most
civilized and prosperous countries." In modern parlance, he wanted
Turkey to join the First World, with all that implies about freedom
and democracy. The dirty deep state is the evil twin. It kills people,
among other things. The political question is whether the clean deep
state will protect the dirty one to ensure its own survival. Or
whether, indeed, it should survive at all. Its fate rests with three
key players: the judiciary, the generals and the AK Party.

The judiciary can offer protection to the deep state by replacing the
prosecutor with a more compliant one, as it did in the Semdinli
case. They might also quash some or all convictions on appeal. There
has been a blizzard of comment alleging technical infractions by
Ergenekon prosecutors. Certainly the Constitutional Court has shown
little intellectual integrity in the past. It tried to prevent
Abdullah Gul from becoming president, and then, frustrated by the AK
Party’s overwhelming victory in the 2007 election, agreed to hear the
closure case against AK in 2008. (The court blinked, though, when
confronted with the prospect of removing a democratically elected
government with solid popular support.) On the other hand, not all
judges are willing to twist the law for political ends, especially in
public. And they must be uncomfortably aware of that dead senior
judge.

The generals also got a bloody nose in 2007. Their e-memorandum
threatening a coup if Gul became president merely resulted in an
election that they lost. They were notably silent during last year’s
closure case. What did they talk about at their Wednesday meeting? Did
they wonder what their former colleagues had been playing at’or seek
ways to protect them, and therefore themselves? Everyone accepts the
generals are the core of the clean deep state. The questions are: Do
they know the dirty one exists? Do they just look the other way? Or
are they actively involved?

Although the AK Party had nothing to do with starting the Ergenekon
probe, it would surely like to see the back of both deep states (as
would the European Union). The lesson Erdogan and his colleagues seem
to have taken from 2007 and 2008 is that to remain in power, not only
do they have to win elections, but they also must do so
overwhelmingly. This is why they are hesitant in pushing for the
further reforms needed for EU membership. They cannot afford to offend
their nationalist supporters, and must hope their liberal ones will
not desert them. They are still more liberal than any alternative. The
same applies to Erdogan’s recent dealings with the Kurds. He is tough
on PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) terror to please the nationalists,
but holds out economic development to the southeast. That Kurds tend
to be conservative and religious helps, too. The economic situation,
by contrast, makes this balancing act harder.

Strangely enough, the people who will ultimately decide are the
Turkish electorate, albeit indirectly. Local elections are coming up
in March and are generally a referendum on government performance. If
the voters stick with the AK Party, the Ergenekon investigation will
probably continue. The dirty deep state will be dealt a severe blow
and the clean one will suffer by association. If AK does poorly,
expect the whole thing to be swept under the rug.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR OF OSCE PA ON NAGORNO KARABAKH ISSUE G. LENMARKER PLANNING TO VISIT THE REGION FEBRUARY 9

ARMENPRESS
Jan 8, 2009

YEREVAN, JANUARY 8, ARMENPRESS: Special rapporteur of OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly on Nagorno Karabakh issue Goran Lenmarker
plans to visit the conflict region February 9.

Senior consultant of the international department of Swiss parliament
Ann-Sofi Lindenbaum told Armenpress that G. Lenmarker will be in
Armenia and Azerbaijan and will discuss issues on South Caucasian
development and Karabakh conflict regulation.

G. Lenmarker is expected to present an oral report on the results of
his visit and the present stage of Karabakh conflict regulation during
the winter session of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in late February.