Author: Andres-Papazian

PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN ATTENDED THE FINALS OF THE FOOTBALL TOURNAMENT, DEDICATED TO THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF RPA

president.am
Nov 8 2010
Armenia

Today, at the Mika stadium in Yerevan President Serzh Sargsyan
attended the finals of the football tournament, dedicated to the 20th
anniversary of the Republican Party of Armenia. The tournament was
organized by the Youth Organization of the RPA.

After the match, President Sargsyan congratulated the football teams
of Shirak, Armavir and Vayots Dzor, which won first three places,
and handed them the awards.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA: ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE BUILDING IN YEREVAN
by Marianna Grigoryan

EurasiaNet.org
Nov 8 2010
NY

An animal rights debate is building in Armenia, centering on plans to
open a dolphinarium in Yerevan. Local environmental activists and some
city residents contend that the project’s owner, who remains anonymous,
is prepared to sacrifice marine mammal welfare and environmental
sustainability for the sake of commercial gain.

The dolphinarium, which will come with four dolphins, two fur seals
and one sea lion, is expected to open on December 15 in Yerevan’s
Komitas Park. Able to handle 900 guests, it will be open-air in summer
and covered with a glass dome when the weather becomes cooler.

The Yerevan city government has presented the dolphinarium as a way to
jumpstart the park’s rehabilitation. The grounds, which also contain
the tombs of prominent Armenian cultural figures, have become derelict
in recent years.

“Dolphinariums are wonderful recreation sites in many developed cities
of the world,” the Yerevan mayor’s office observed in a September 30
statement. “Yerevan should also have such a nice place of leisure.”

The structure is not a first for the Caucasus; a dolphinarium opened
last month in Baku as well.

But while some Yerevan residents say they are excited by the prospect
of seeing dolphins “in real life,” the dolphinarium’s plans to
have five-meter-deep, 36-meter-wide tank is sparking concern. Local
ecologists and environmentalists argue that Armenia does not have the
right conditions for holding sea mammals in captivity. “How are they
going to feed them in a country without a sea — with frozen fish?”

asked Silva Adamian, the head of an alliance of 50 non-governmental
organizations that oppose the dolphinarium.

The dolphinarium’s glass dome does little to reassure Adamian and the
alliance that the dolphinarium’s inhabitants will be easily able to
survive Yerevan’s winter temperatures of 16 degrees Fahrenheit (-9
degrees Celsius). “We must do our best to protect the interests of
these mammals,” said Adamian, head of the Bird Center, a Yerevan-based
NGO.

Transporting the dolphins, fur seals and sea lion to Armenia could
prove another challenge. Land access to the country is possible only
via mountain roads through Georgia and Iran. The Ukrainian company
charged with building the dolphinarium declined to discuss with
EurasiaNet.org details about how the mammals would be delivered to
Yerevan, or their country of origin.

The identity of the owner of the dolphinarium also remains unclear.

The order to clear Komitas Park for the building’s construction was
given by Yerevan Mayor Gagik Beglarian, but the city has no ownership
stake in the project. The pro-opposition news outlet A1 had earlier
reported that Beglarian’s predecessor, Yervand Zakharian, owns the
property, but the reports could not be independently confirmed.

The lack of transparency over the dolphinarium’s ownership has
created a potential stumbling block for opponents of the project. In
late September, the anti-dolphinarium NGO alliance sent letters
to the mayor’s office and Ministry of Environmental Protection,
expressing concern about the dolphinarium and requesting a project
review by experts who can testify that the sea mammals can survive
in Yerevan’s climate. The group also requested to see documents
authorizing the import of the four dolphins to Armenia and their use
in an entertainment center. Alliance members say they have not yet
received a response.

The chief executive officer of the Ukrainian company building the
Yerevan dolphinarium maintains that the dolphinarium will contain
the right living conditions for the dolphins, fur seals and sea lion.

“Armenia’s climate is favorable for sea mammals. I confirm this,”
said Alexander Merlian, head of Nerum, which has built dolphinariums
in the Ukrainian cities of Kyiv, Odessa and Kharkov. “I don’t have an
opinion from experts, but I have read some literature and I know that
the climate is suitable. If the environmentalists disagree with this,
that’s their opinion.”

Merlian conceded that the project faces “both subjective and objective”
challenges, as well as “both internal and external” obstacles, but
said that the problems are not expected to delay the dolphinarium’s
opening. He did not elaborate.

Like other alliance members, the chairman of the Greens Union of
Armenia, Hakob Sanasarian, suspects that environmental well-being
will ultimately play second fiddle to commercial profit for project
stakeholders. “This is a well-known practice: First, turn the park
into a dump, abandon the grounds, then cut down the trees and destroy
the flora, put aside ethics, and build an entertainment area next to
the Pantheon,” said Sanasarian. “Is this at all acceptable?”

The lack of public discussion about how the project will affect
Yerevan’s longstanding shortage of indoor water supplies has added
to that skepticism. Some city residents wonder if the 1,500 cubic
meters of water required for the dolphinarium’s tank will come at
their own expense.

“I’m carrying water from the yard in buckets in the morning and
in the evening, and they will spare no water for the dolphins,
right?” fumed 50-year-old homemaker Hamest Yeghoian. “Do you think
that’s reasonable?”

Yerevan’s government-run water company, Yerevan Djur, maintains that
the dolphinarium will not infringe upon the water needs of Yerevan’s
1.1 million human residents. “They will also become [our] client,”
said Yerevan Djur spokesperson Murad Sargsian in reference to the
dolphinarium, “but we must manage it so that others do not suffer.”

Despite those assurances, the NGO alliance pledges to keep on fighting
against Yerevan’s dolphinarium. “Armenia’s climate is tough, and,
therefore, not suitable for dolphins. It’s clear they will exploit
these mammals for two to three years to reimburse their expenses, and
they don’t care what happens next,” charged Adamian, in reference to
the dolphinarium’s unknown owner. “But we’ll do our best to prevent
this.”

Editor’s note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based
in Yerevan

From: A. Papazian

MOSCOW IN THE MIDDLE
By Justin Lyle

RussiaProfile.org

Nov 8 2010

Is Moscow’s Involvement in Mediating the Escalating Conflict Between
Armenia and Azerbaijan Helping or Hurting the Peace-Building Process?

The conflict over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is
populated by ethnic Armenians and, although located within Azerbaijan,
has been beyond Baku’s control for two decades, shows no signs of
abating. On the contrary, recent months have seen an intensification
of both skirmishes along the ceasefire line and bellicose rhetoric
from Baku and Yerevan. The intransigence of the two adversaries is
making finding a solution difficult, while the strategic calculations
of both sides and the modalities of the abortive peace process are
increasingly influenced by Russia’s growing predominance in this
strategic area of the post-Soviet space.

In a joint declaration issued by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargsyan at Russian-mediated talks
in Astrakhan on October 27, the parties agreed to begin exchanging
prisoners and repatriating the dead from the Karabakh conflict. This
small public step is intended to alleviate the heightening tension,
which is threatening to break the fragile peace that has held since
the 1994 ceasefire agreement. The full-scale war that broke out in
this former autonomous region of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in
the death of over 20,000 people and the displacement of more than a
million. It has remained an open wound in relations between Armenia
and Azerbaijan ever since.

Moscow’s success in drawing this limited and largely symbolic
humanitarian concession from the two sides marks a contrast to the
conspicuous failure of recent OSCE negotiations. Importantly, the
stalled talks overseen by the OSCE’s Minsk Group, which Russia also
co-chairs alongside the United States and France, have not elicited
commitment from the parties to a 2007 Basic Principles document. The
principles call for the return of Armenian-occupied territories
surrounding Karabakh to Azerbaijan, in exchange for provisional
self-governance guarantees for the breakaway region. They also
foresee the return of refugees and internally displaced persons,
the introduction of an international peacekeeping force and the final
resolution of the dispute through a legally binding status vote.

Far from engaging in a substantive structured dialogue, Baku
and Yerevan seem increasingly caught up in a spiraling exchange
of provocations, which has onlookers fearful of a new outbreak of
conflict in the region. Small-scale incidents in the ceasefire zone are
on the rise: of the more than 20 soldiers reported killed this year,
roughly half have died in the last two months. Yerevan has stated that
recognition of Karabakh’s independence is the only possibility for a
peaceful resolution of the conflict, and Baku is clearly dissatisfied
with the continuation of the status quo. The current situation plays
in favor of the Armenians, as the passing of time only cements their
hold on the occupied territories.

The recent escalation centers on Baku’s decision to double its military
spending in 2011, fulfilling president Aliyev’s 2007 prediction that
the latter would soon outstrip the entire Armenian state budget. The
military budget approved by Parliament on October 22 amounts to
$3.12 billion, a sum made possible by Azerbaijan’s great oil and gas
wealth. Armenia, by contrast, does not boast similar energy resources
and relies chiefly on Russia for security guarantees.

Yerevan has responded to Baku’s provocative move by stating its
willingness to bomb energy pipelines in Azerbaijan in the event of war.

This belligerent rhetoric and the possibility of rash action on either
side have alerted some observers to the risk of a new war, similar
to the conflict in South Ossetia in August 2008, which likewise
followed a cycle of provocations. “The current dynamic is worrying
because it could lead to major powers getting drawn into a conflict,”
cautioned Lawrence Sheets of International Crisis Group. As a fellow
CSTO member, Armenia enjoys a security guarantee from Russia, which
might force Moscow to intervene in the case of conflict even against
its better judgement.

While these aggressive developments are driven by the staunch
attitudes and frustrations of the countries’ leaders, Moscow’s steps to
advance its own interests in the region have done little to ease the
tension. On August 20 Russian and Armenian defense ministers signed
a protocol extending Russia’s lease on the military base at Gyumri,
120 kilometers north of Yerevan, until 2044. To assuage Baku’s concerns
about a possible shift in the strategic balance toward Armenia, Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev visited Aliyev two weeks later. Shortly
thereafter, Gazprom – Russia’s majority state-owned gas supplier –
signed a deal doubling its purchases from Azerbaijan starting in 2011,
which will bring Baku a useful $5 billion per year.

In securing these sought-after geopolitical advantages, Moscow has
thus also provided the means for the escalation of the conflict.

But even if Russia is in this sense supporting the armament of
both sides, this does not necessarily make large-scale conflict
more likely. Crucially, war would be disastrous to Baku’s hopes of
diversifying its energy partnerships through the EU’s proposed Nabucco
pipeline project. Aware of the international community’s desire to
avoid another South Caucasus war, Aliyev may be issuing international
onlookers a firm signal of his dissatisfaction with the present
situation. Reminding major players such as the United States and the EU
of the imminent potential for full-scale war could stimulate supportive
responses for Baku. Azerbaijan has been particularly irritated by
its traditional ally Turkey’s recent steps toward rapprochement with
Armenia, which have conspicuously sidestepped the Karabakh issue. The
decisive factor, however, is likely to be Moscow’s engagement.

Medvedev’s recent activities have proved Moscow’s influence on the
countries’ military capacities. As Archil Gegeshidze, a senior analyst
at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies,
suggests, Russia’s geopolitical aims in what it considers its “sphere
of privileged interests” are best served by a continued stalemate.

“Armenia is hostage to the Karabakh issue, as it relies on Russia for
its hard security guarantees. Russia is not sure that Armenia would
remain pro-Russian without competition over Karabakh,” he noted.

As the Astrakhan meeting demonstrated, an important difference between
the current stand-off and the build-up to the 2008 South Ossetia war
lies in the positioning of major powers around the conflict. Russia’s
success in bringing the leaders together for even that limited
gesture of cooperation illustrated Moscow’s centrality not only
to the strategic calculus of the parties, but also to mediation of
the negotiations themselves. In the absence of similar achievements
through the stalled OSCE talks, Moscow seems to have the developments
in its grasp.

The ongoing struggle over questions of responsibility and entitlement
in this contested corridor of the post-Soviet space thus seems to
be playing out in Russia’s favor. In light of recent rhetoric and
the long-standing centrality of Karabakh in the neighbors’ fraught
relations, however, Moscow must take care not to underestimate the
possibility of spontaneous conflict between these staunch rivals. If
the Kremlin fails to do so, it could find itself in the eye of
the storm.

From: A. Papazian

GWYNNE DYER: HERE COME THE ISLAMIST NUCLEAR TERRORISTS
By Gwynne Dyer

Straight.com

Nov 8 2010

You probably noticed reports recently about the secret trial in Georgia
of two Armenian men who tried to sell highly enriched uranium (HEU)
to a man purporting to be an Islamist terrorist. The apparent buyer
was actually an undercover policeman and the whole thing was a sting
operation from start to finish, but it offers some interesting insights
into the current state of play in the world of counter-terrorism.

The would-be sellers of the HEU were two naïve losers, a 63-year-old
failed businessman called Sumbat Tonoyan who had gambled his money away
and a 59-year-old physicist named Hrant Obanyan who was chronically
ill. They both wanted to score a big win in order to finance their
retirement, and they fell right into the Georgian police trap.

A petty criminal called Garik Dadayan first approached Obanyan
in 2002 with a packet of metallic powder, asking whether it was
highly enriched uranium. Obanyan, a scientist at the Yerevan Physics
Institute, confirmed that it was uranium though he could not say how
enriched it was-and Dadayan was subsequently arrested trying to cross
the frontier into Georgia with 200 grams (about 7 oz.) of HEU.

Dadayan was out of jail again by 2005, so Obanyan knew where to go
when his friend Tonoyan suggested that they could make a fortune by
peddling HEU to terrorists. Dadayan told them that he had friends
in Russia who could supply them with unlimited amounts of HEU, and
suggested that they start by finding a buyer and selling him a sample
amount of, say, 100 grams. The poor fools believed him.

It’s almost certain that Dadayan was working for the Georgian
intelligence service by this time (how else would he get out of jail
so fast?). The fact that in the end he only gave them 18 grams (half
an ounce) of HEU to take to Georgia reinforces that suspicion. And
of course it was the Georgian police who supplied the “buyer”, a
Turkish-speaking undercover policeman who said he was in the market
for nuclear material on behalf of “serious people”.

Last March the two mugs took the night train from Yerevan to Tbilisi,
with the 18 grams of HEU hidden in a cigarette box that was lined
with lead strips to fool the American-supplied radiation detectors
at the border. When Tonoyan showed up at a Tbilisi hotel the next day
to close the sale (he was asking $50,000 per gram), the police filmed
the whole transaction and then arrested him and his partner-in-crime.

Georgia’s motivation in all this is clear. Prime Minister Mikheil
Saakashvili is trying to rebuild the close relationship he used to
have with the United States before his rash failed attempt to seize
South Ossetia by force in 2008. He will do anything he can do to make
himself useful to the American intelligence services, and this serves
that purpose.

Why do the U.S. intelligence services want to emphasize the risk of
nuclear material falling into the wrong hands? Because that would be
a bad thing, of course, but also to underline the fact that thwarting
nuclear terrorism is entirely a job for the intelligence services.

The alleged threat of nuclear terrorism is used to justify the whole
U.S. policy of invading countries that might provide “bases” for
such terrorist attacks. It was the main (although utterly false)
justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and it continues to
be used to justify American threats to attack Iran. But what do the
intelligence people want us to conclude from this episode? That the
U.S. should invade Armenia? Obviously not.

They want us to conclude that the military should not be allowed
anywhere near counter-terrorist operations, partly because the tools
they use-infantry, artillery, etc.-are entirely inappropriate for
the job, and partly because invading countries tends to radicalize
people and turn them into your enemies.

The little show-and-tell in Georgia serves the purposes of the more
intelligent American intelligence officers, who know that the military
must be excluded from their operations but have trouble in fending
them off. It also helps to justify their budgets, although the threat
they are seeking to protect us from is smaller than they claim.

It is smaller because it is almost inconceivable that terrorists could
assemble a weapon that would result in an actual nuclear explosion.

The technologies needed are just too challenging, and the amount of
highly enriched uranium needed is too large: around 50 kg. (110 lbs.),
or 2,500 times the amount that the Armenian pair were trying to sell.

A “dirty bomb” that just spreads radioactive material over some part
of a city is more feasible, but also far less dangerous. It would
cause widespread panic and make that district inaccessible for a time,
but a well-placed car bomb would probably kill more people.

Never mind. I’m happy to have them play their intelligence games,
because it just might prevent something like a “dirty bomb” from
exploding in an American city. If that did happen, the popular
pressure on President Obama to invade some other Muslim country would
be well-nigh irresistible. That’s not what we need right now.

From: A. Papazian

MONITORS FAULT AZERI VOTE WON BY ALIYEV LOYALISTS

Moscow Times
Nov 8 2010
Russia

BAKU, Azerbaijan – International monitors on Monday criticized weekend
parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan that tightened President Ilham
Aliyev’s grip on power.

Aliyev loyalists swept the board in Sunday’s election, described by
one Western diplomat who observed voting as an “absolute sham.”

“The conduct of these elections overall was not sufficient to
constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of the
country,” monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, the Council of Europe and European Parliament said in
a statement.

The head of the OSCE observation mission, Ambassador Audrey Glover,
criticized “restrictions of fundamental freedoms, media bias, the
dominance of public life by one party, and serious violations on
election day.”

With almost all the votes counted, Aliyev’s New Azerbaijan Party had
increased its share in the 125-seat parliament to at least 71 seats
from 64 previously, and a host of small parties and “independents”
loyal to the government took almost all the rest.

The leading opposition party, Musavat, failed to win a single seat in
the assembly, and it criticized the vote on Monday as “illegitimate.”

Opposition Popular Front leader Ali Kerimli told reporters: “It’s a
challenge to the democratic Western community.”

The ruling party said the vote was “free and fair,” and the Central
Elections Commission said “no serious violations were registered that
could affect the result.”

Besides economic growth, the government argues it has also brought
long-term stability to the country in a volatile neighborhood. But
Western diplomats are unnerved by a 90 percent hike in military
spending ordered by Aliyev for 2011. The country remains locked with
Armenia in an unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, where ethnic
Armenians broke away from Azerbaijan two decades ago.

From: A. Papazian

KARABAKH CONFLICT STAYS FROZEN
by Artem Ananian

Voice of Russia
Nov 8 2010

Nagorny Karabakh is an Armenian-backed and Armenian-populated
self-governing enclave inside Azerbaijan. In the period since 1994,
when its latest truce came about, it has been catching breath after
a six-year armed conflict in which it defended an independence bid.

The conflict is frozen, but with a possible re-eruption around
the corner.

To prevent this from happening, the Russian, the Armenian and the
Azeri presidents, Dmitry Medvedev, Serge Sargsian and Ilham Aliev
sat down for a discussion on Karabakh at a meeting in the Russian
Caspian port of Astrakhan on October 27th.

We have the details from the leading analyst of the Russian ‘Regnum’
portal Dr Stanislav Tarasov:

The summit produced agreements to swap the bodies and the POWs from
the Karabakh conflict. It also appeared to have opened the way to
even deeper Azeri-Armenian reconciliation.

Unfortunately, this was not to be. A decision by Karabakh to rename
the city of Agdam to Aknu prompted a thinly-veiled threat of force
from the Azeri President.

The American political scientist Dr Ariel Cohen suspects domestic
politics at work:

Apparent intransigence on both sides and unwillingness to compromise
are consequences of strong domestic opposition to reconciliation. The
hopes are pinned on Russia. As an age-old presence in the South
Caucasus, it is interested in lasting peace in this troubled area.

Indeed, as America shows considerable indifference, the strongest
peace influences on the conflicting sides are now Russia and Turkey.

The former is now on good terms with Azerbaijan as well as Armenia,
and the latter, on the path towards neighbourhood with Armenia,
as well as Azerbaijan.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJAN, WITH TURKEY’S HELP, GETS A JUMP START ON ITS DEFENSE INDUSTRY
by Joshua Kucera

EurasiaNet
Nov 8 2010
NY

Turkey’s relationship with Azerbaijan may be strained over the former’s
attempts at rapprochement with Armenia, but cooperation between the
two countries’ defense industries seems as strong as ever.

Turkey’s defense minister visited Baku last week, and the two countries
signed a whole raft of agreements on setting up joint ventures in
Azerbaijan to produce rockets, drones, grenade launchers, camouflage
material and possibly helicopters.

Azerbaijan seems to be following the same strategy as Kazakhstan — get
foreign companies to come and bring their superior military technology
so that local companies can eventually produce that equipment by
themselves, in an attempt to diversify the economy beyond just oil
and gas. In fact, Azerbaijan started this a while ago, setting up a
Ministry of Defense Industry in 2005 and setting up its first big
joint venture, to produce a South African mine-protected vehicle
in late 2009. So it seems likely that Kazakhstan may be following
Azerbaijan’s example.

Whatever the case, assuming these agreements actually come to fruition,
there are now two burgeoning defense industries on either side of
the Caspian.

From: A. Papazian

TURKISH ACTOR OF ARMENIAN DESCENT DIES UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN ISTANBUL

news.am
Nov 8 2010
Armenia

Turkish actor of Armenian origin Misak Toros died under mysterious
circumstances at the entrance of Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted
Masons in Beyoglu district of Istanbul.

The 70-year-old actor felt bad while entering the elevator of the
building, Haberturk website reports. Security staff gave him a first
aid, however the doctors failed to save his life.

After the examination, the police officers said Misak Toros died
under questionable circumstances. According to some information,
he suffered a heart attack.

The funeral of the well-known actor will be held in the Armenian
cemetery of Sisli, on November 10.

Misak Toros was one of the famous actors of Turkish theatre. He
performed in a number of popular films and was also engaged in
teaching.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SHOULD INTERFERE WITH TURKEY’S PROCESSES, RULING PARTY MP SAYS

news.am
Nov 8 2010
Armenia

Ruling Republican Party and President Serzh Sargsyan are flip-floppers,
Vladimir Karapetyan, member of the Armenian National Congress, told
the journalists today.

“Serzh Sargsyan said he would go to Turkey only if the border is open
or is on the threshold of opening, but went when it was closed showing
the world he lacks backbone. The same refers to the Karabakh issue,
his election campaign mentioned that Armenia must establish common
border with Karabakh, but in an interview with the Al Watan newspaper
President Sargsyan spoke of a corridor,” he said.

In his turn Republican Party MP Hovhannes Sahakyan stated that Armenian
President is not to blame for unscrupulous political leaders of the
neighboring states who do not keep their word. “If Turkish authorities
do not keep their word, with world powers standing behind them,
Serzh Sargsyan should interfere with Ankara’s processes and introduce
principle stance,” Sahakyan stated.

From: A. Papazian

MOSCOW HAD ‘KEYS TO KARABAKH’ BEFORE 1992

news.az
Nov 8 2010
Azerbaijan

Alexander Karavayev News.Az interviews Alexander Karavayev, deputy
director general of Moscow State University’s Information and
Analytical Centre.

How do you assess the results of negotiations between the presidents
of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia?

Conclusions can be drawn after 2 December. According to President
Medvedev, the sides were given time until the OSCE summit to prepare
proposals on a coordinated variant of the general principles for a
settlement. Only then will it become clear whether we are witnessing
the latest failure or real progress.

How do you explain Russia’s recent activity on a Karabakh settlement?

Judging by the number of meetings in the trilateral format
and Medvedev’s personal, very attentive participation in these
negotiations, the Russian president believes this issue is an important
component of Russia’s policy in the South Caucasus. This distinguishes
Medvedev’s diplomacy from the diplomacy of former President Putin.

Do you believe the 2+1 format (Azerbaijan and Armenia plus Russia)
is more effective than the 2+3 format (Azerbaijan and Armenia plus
Russia, the USA and France, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group)?

It is not the format but the people, the strong political leaders
taking part in negotiations, that matters. They alone are able to
adopt geopolitically important decisions and bear responsibility
for them. A lucky coincidence of factors is needed too, a successful
confluence of global vectors that will cause a shift in borders at
local level of Karabakh.

Do you agree that “the keys to the Karabakh conflict are in Moscow”?

Yes, they were there but until 1992. Then the Karabakh lock became
more complicated and acquired many autonomous dimensions. Making use
of your analogy, I would like to say that this lock now has a great
many bolts. Along with the Moscow keys, there are keys in Yerevan,
Baku and America. The lock can be opened only with a combination of
all these keys.

From: A. Papazian