ArmenPress
April 28 2004
MARGARIAN MEETS FESB DELEGATION
YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Armenian prime minister Andranik
Margarian received today a delegation of the Federation of European
Biochemistry Societies (FEBS), led by Professor Guy Dirheimer.
Welcoming members of the delegation, Margarian said he was pleased to
see prominent scientists representing different countries to have
come to Armenia to explore ways for assisting its biochemistry’s
development.. Margarian thanked FEBS for its assistance to several
Armenian research institutes and helping the Armenian Association of
Biochemists to become FEBS member.
Margarian was also quoted by government’s press office as saying
that he expects FEBS’s to identify most perspective achievements of
Armenian biochemists and outline ways for attracting European funds
to support new studies.
Founded in 1964, the Federation of Biochemical Societies is one of
the largest organizations in European life sciences, with nearly
40.000 members distributed among 36 Constituent Societies and 5
Associated Member Societies throughout Europe seeking to promote,
encourage and support biochemistry, molecular cell biology and
molecular biophysics throughout Europe in a variety of different ways
through funding advanced courses, providing various types of
fellowships, publishing primary research through their publications,
facilitating the exchange of information and awarding prizes and
medals in recognition of scientific distinction.

Baku Today
Aliyev meets Kocharyan
Baku Today 28/04/2004 19:46
Azerbaijani president Aliyev has met with his Armenian counterpart Robert
Kocharyan today to consider the ways of settling Karabakh conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to ANS.
The two presidents have hold close meeting which lasted about two hours.
This is the second time Aliyev and Kocharyan have met over Karabakh issue.
Their first meeting was in December 2003 in Geneva of Switzerland.
Aliyev is now meeting with OSCE Minsk group’s chairmen.
Since 1997 United States, Russia and France have been jointly mediating
peaceful solution for Karabakh conflict in a group of three.
United States has recently appointed new chairman to the group.
Chairman of Washington based Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Frederick Starr
said, in interview to Azerbaijan’s Lider TV, new US spokesman at the Minsk
group Steven Mann is quite professional and knowledgeable person to advance
the group’s efforts for settling the conflict.
Yet Minsk group, Starr said, might have solved the problem long ago. As if
three chairmen have agreed orally to meet sometimes, he said, “to talk and
drink some wine.”
“This is cynicism,” said Starr adding “If the United States or Russia or
Europe wanted to solve this problem they could do that 10 years ago. Each
for some reason did not (solve)”.

ArmenPress
April 28 2004
VLADIMIR SPIVAKOV TO VISIT ARMENIA
YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: The conductor of Moscow Virtuosi
ensemble, Vlidimir Spivakov, will visit Armenia next month. Spivakov
will perform a solo concert at Aram Khachatrian concert hall on May
5, Armenian association on cultural ties with foreign countries
reported. He will perform Brahms, Shnitke and Straus.
Spivakov is the winner of the International Tchaikovsky
Competition, Paganini International Violin Competition and Montreal
Competition, Vladimir Spivakov enjoys an international career as one
of Russia’s preeminent violinists. He also is a respected conductor
who founded the renowned Moscow Virtuosi, and since 1999 he has been
Music Director and Principal Conductor of the Russian National
Orchestra.
Vladimir Spivakov has been decorated with Russia’s highest prize,
the National Cultural Heritage Award, and is Ambassador of the Arts
at the World Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He established the
International Charity Foundation in 1994 to offer creative and
financial support to talented young people and needy children from
his homeland. He is married to Armenian.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
April 28, 2004, Wednesday
THE MAGNET OF BRUSSELS: PROS AND CONS
SOURCE: Izvestia, April 28, 2004, p. 5
by Fedor Lukianov, chief editor of “Russia in Global Politics”
magazine
On May 1, the European Union (EU) will make the most important
breakthrough in the history of European integration. Never before has
the Old World been so close to fulfilling its dream of complete
unity, which has been promoted ever since the Renaissance by
philosophers and rulers of various nations. By admitting ten new
member states from the Baltic, Mediterranean, and East-Central
Europe, the EU will unite almost all the territory which is generally
considered to be part of European civilization, in terms of culture
and history. Switzerland and Norway, while not official EU members,
are actually integrated into the political and economic system of the
united Europe. As for the Balkans, it’s only a matter of time until
the EU swallows them up as well. Next in line are Bulgaria and
Romania, which have been promised membership in 2007. Romania is
considered a very problematic candidate, and Brussels does not rule
out that its preparation period may be extended; but the basic
decision to admit those two countries has been made.
Next are Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania; with the more distant
prospect of Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. It’s worth noting that
Bosnia, which exists as a united state only on paper, has a better
chance than Serbia and Montenegro, which don’t wish to follow
European principles. In fact, however, the nations of the Balkans
have no other option: they have no room for maneuver, whether in
political or (more importantly) economic terms.
The Balkans round off the territory which has been traditionally
included in Europe’s zone of influence. Any further expansion would
mean the EU venturing out onto new and uncertain ground. Not
surprisingly, therefore, Brussels is much more cautious about the
other nations that wish to become part of the Greater Europe project.
The main problem which the ideologues of the united Europe will have
to resolve in the near future is Turkey. Ankara was promised EU
membership as far back as the 1960s, but no one seriously imagined
that there would ever be any question of Turkey actually joining the
EU. In recent years, Turkey has made gigantic efforts to carry out
the reforms demanded by Europe. In terms of politics and its economy,
modern Turkey is no worse than Albania or Romania, and no one is
questioning their right to EU membership. Off the record, many
European politicians are saying that Turkey will never be admitted –
because it’s part of a different culture and civilization; Europe
simply fears this large, rapidly-developing Muslim state, and prefers
to keep it at a distance.
Those who support EU membership for Turkey argue that a refusal would
alienate Turkey from Europe, and from Western values in general; it
would provide substantial impetus for pro-Islamic attitudes.
Washington is lobbying for Turkey to be admitted into the EU, since
Washington needs a powerful, strongly pro-West ally in the Greater
Middle East region. The decision on whether to open negotiations with
Turkey should be made at the EU summit towards the end of this year.
Even if the verdict is positive, the negotiations will take a very
long time, no less than a decade. It’s worth noting that Turkey’s
fate is of great interest to its northern neighbors: Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Georgia and Armenia have stated on more than
one occasion that they wish to become part of the European
integration process. A senior Armenian diplomat once told me that if
the EU is prepared to discuss membership with Turkey, then Armenia
ought to be a natural choice.
All the same, Turkey is last on the list of potential candidates.
After that, there are questions which directly concern Russia. Will
the EU cross the “red line” – the current borders of the CIS? And
what will be the basis of relations between Brussels and Russia in
the coming decades?
“Europe represents an attempt by small and medium-sized nations to
reach agreement in order to decide their fate together. A superpower
would be out of place among them, even if it is not an economic
giant, and perhaps even no longer a political giant. The common home
of Europe will not be built according to Gorbachev’s design; it will
be located to the west of the disintegrating empire and its heirs.”
When those words were written, all this seemd a distant and not
entirely obvious prospect. Even though the Soviet Union had less than
a year of life remaining, few believed it would fall apart so soon.
But less than fifteen years later, not a trace remains of the
erstwhile geopolitical architecture of the Old World. Only one aspect
has been unaffected by the changes: people’s impressions of where the
walls of that common home of Europe are, the home those former
ideological opponents appeared to start building together in the
Gorbachev era.
“On his own initiative, Silvio Berlusconi has attempted to win
President Putin’s goodwill by promising him EU membership. This is a
short-sighted move. We should not hesitate to admit that borders do
exist. The European Union should not encourage hopes it has no
intention of fulfilling.” That is a quote from “The Borders of
Europe,” a book that came out in late 2003 and immediately became a
best-seller. Its author is Fritz Bolkestein, EU commissioner for
domestic markets, taxation, and the customs union; the person
responsible for the very foundations of how this enormous territory –
stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean – functions.
The key question the EU faces in post-Soviet territory is its policy
on Ukraine: a country which is undoubtedly European, and suited to
the EU in terms of its size. Kiev has announced its “choice in favor
of Europe” on numerous occasions: its intention to integrate itself
into European structures, eventually becoming a member of the EU. The
Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly expressed disappointment that
their sincere wish to become part of the West is not being met with a
worthy response from the EU. Ukrainian Senior Deputy Foreign Minister
Alexander Chalyi, responsible for European integration issues in the
government, has long been pestering people with this question: Why
has Russia been recognized as a nation with a market economy, even
though the European Commission itself admits that Russia’s energy
sector is not based on market principles and is heavily subsidized by
the state – but Ukraine has not been recognized, even though it has
long been paying world prices for energy?
Brussels says reforms in Ukraine are making slow progress, and points
to problems with the functioning of democratic institutions, freedom
of the press, and transparency during elections. Off the record,
European diplomats say the European Commission is trying to walk on
the razor’s edge in its relations with the “western CIS” nations:
Ukraine, Moldova, and (to a lesser extent) Belarus. In other words,
it is trying to motivate those countries to get as close to Europe as
possible, drawing them into Europe’s orbit, while refraining at all
costs from promising them EU membership (the Turkey experience has
been instructive). This is a very difficult task, since the leading
motivation for all transformations in Eastern Europe has been the aim
of fulfilling all the criteria for joining the “club.” In the absence
of that prospect, the will to make changes declines perceptibly.
Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are officially called the EU’s “new
neighbors,” implying a special relationship. The form and content of
that relationship are now a topic of discussion within the EU, and a
new policy will be developed over the next year or two. One thing is
clear: the EU is serious about continuing to expand the “European
idea” eastward, and this idea will be the main rival to an idea now
taking shape in Russia: restoring the economic (for a start) unity of
post-Soviet territory. It should be noted that the EU, which until
now has been a weak, unskilled player in the global geopolitical
arena, is acting with precision, being goal-directed, not making any
mistakes – when it’s a matter of looking after its own direct,
immediate interests. The situation along the EU’s borders is
undoubtedly among those interests.
No one now disputes the fact that Russia has no intention of joining
the EU and the EU doesn’t want Russia as a member. Russia –
especially the kind of Russia being created by Vladimir Putin, with
the support of most citizens – will not share sovereignty with anyone
else (this being a cornerstone principle of European integration); it
has no intention of adopting Europe’s laws in any significant
quantity; and it will not make human rights a priority in its
policies. Both in Moscow and in Brussels, people are starting to say
that the model of relations set down ten years ago in the Russia-EU
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) is no longer appropriate
for the current state of affairs. Back then, both the Europeans and
Russia’s liberals assumed that Russia would become similar to Europe,
even if this process was slow and difficult. The PCA was based on the
idea of gradual integration. But now it’s clear that Russia and the
EU represent different political-economic systems – and most
importantly, Russia is not developing in the direction that was
assumed at the dawn of Russian democracy. As a result, the PCA’s
emphasis on integration is tending to become a factor leading to
conflicts, rather than motivation for development.
What kind of problems will Russian-European relations encounter over
the next few years?
Firstly, there is Europe’s reaction to Russia’s domestic political
situation. The EU is a very ideology-heavy project, based on a system
of “European values”: the rule of law, the priority of human rights,
the ideals of social justice and civic responsibility. What’s more,
these concepts are not empty cliches for the Europeans, but real
factors influencing real-world politics. Thus, the undemocratic
phenomena that accompany Russia’s “authoritarian modernization” will
draw a negative response from Europe. Bureaucrats in the foreign
affairs ministries of EU member states and at the European Commission
might wish to turn a blind eye to events in Chechnya, or trials of
spies and oligarchs, but public opinion and the legislatures that
supervise them will not permit them to do so. This problem will be
exacerbated once the Baltic states and Eastern European countries,
with their habitual dislike of Russia, become EU members.
Secondly, the interest of the EU in post-Soviet territory holds great
potential for conflicts with Russia. Moscow reacts nervously to the
West’s activity in the regions which are important for it – in the
European part of the CIS and in the South Caucasus. The first direct
conflict took place last November, when the EU essentially scuttled
Russia’s proposal for resolving the Trans-Dniestr conflict and
accused Russia of acting unilaterally. Such conflicts will continue,
especially if we take into account the fact that the CIS countries
are becoming a priority for Russian foreign policy. Thus, Europe has
a negative attitude toward the CIS Common Economic Zone which was
initiated by Moscow, saying that such integration is incompatible
with striving for EU membership, for example, in the case of Ukraine.
Thirdly, there is a domestic European factor which will complicate
the relations between Moscow and Brussels. The EU is on the threshold
of a very difficult period. On the one hand, the process of
“digesting” of new members and, on the other hand, of intensification
of integration with conversion to the federative structure will
occupy the majority of the EU’s strength and energy in the near
future. The EU will be responsible for resolving various problems
after the entry of 10 new members. These are the economic
backwardness of the new members, labor migration from these countries
to more developed states, the situation in Cyprus, inter-ethnic
problems in the Baltic states, the growth of populist anti-European
attitudes in Poland, and so on. The series of referendums on a
European Constitution will lead to heated debates in old member
states. However, the main sponsor of integration – Germany – is
unable to emerge from economic recession. In this situation, it is
difficult to believe that relations with Russia would be among the
main priorities of Europe.
Finally, nobody can say today what the EU will be like five or ten
years from now. Its prospects depend not only on internal issues, but
also on the development of the global situation. The plans of today’s
united Europe – the plan for a territory of peace, law, and
prosperity – was drawn up before the era of new global instability
called the “war on international terrorism.” The “Greater Middle
East,” which the EU borders on, is a potential arena for operations
and it will be impossible for the EU to fence itself off from them.
The explosions in Madrid destroyed the glass dome which had covered
Europe. It is impossible to predict what tasks the EU will be faced
with in the near future.
Jacque Delaure, former chairman of the European Commission and
architect of the present phase of integration, expressed serious
anxiety about the future of the EU. In his opinion, Brussels has been
too hasty with expansion and admitted the countries which don’t
strengthen, but weaken the alliance. In other words, not “producers”
but “consumers” of “stability and prosperity.” Delaure fears that the
EU will die as an integration mechanism and will be turned into one
large free trade zone.
Only towards 2010 will it be clear whether the prophecy of the
patriarch of integration will come true or not. As for us, the fact
that the EU will be Russia’s main partner, largest neighbor, and
customer in the foreseeable future is the determining factor.
The key to success in Russian-EU relations is understanding the logic
and mechanisms of the EU’s operations. Moscow should learn to use all
possible opportunities and loopholes in the European Constitution in
order to promote, defend, and lobby for its interests – from quotas
and tariffs to the rights of Russians in Latvia. This requires some
significant increase in material and intellectual resources directed
towards Europe. Otherwise, Russia will always be too late in making
correct decisions in its relations with the EU and will try to solve
various problems at the last moment, when it is impossible change
anything. The more complex the partner, the more attention should be
paid to it.
Translated by Gregory Malyutin

Armenian General Benevolent Union
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Tel: 212.319.6383
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
AGBU GENERATION NEXT MENTORSHIP PROGRAM MEMBERS TRACE THE ROOTS OF
THEIR ANCESTORS IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
On April 18, 2004, the AGBU Generation Next Mentorship Program
convened at the AGBU Pasadena Center to participate in a group
activity dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. Mentors, mentees, and
task force members were asked to determine where their grandparents or
great grandparents were from before the Genocide. Program members
placed pins on a map of historic Armenia and/or a world map indicating
the origins of their ancestors and the subsequent journey of their
family throughout the world. This activity not only demonstrated how
the Genocide forced Armenians outside of their homeland, but it also
encouraged the mentees to learn more about their family history and in
turn themselves. This powerful visual effect also showed that we are
still unified as a people despite being dispersed across the world.
Guest speaker and task force member Armen Tamzarian led the group in a
discussion about the Genocide by asking probing questions and
highlighting important events in Armenian history. After
Mr. Tamzarian’s overview, the program members joined together to share
their own struggles and experiences in dealing with the Armenian
Genocide’s impact today. While everyone shared personal stories,
members also suggested constructive ways of coping with the tragedy’s
painful history.
Since its establishment in 1997, AGBU Generation Next mentors and
staff have served over 100 Armenian students ranging from the seventh
to eleventh grades. Adult volunteers from AGBU Generation Next assist
these students with issues involving academics, behavior, and
acculturation. By providing positive role models, our volunteer
mentors help these young Armenians become responsible, self-sufficient
young adults. To receive more information about AGBU Generation Next,
please call 626.794.7942 or send an email to [email protected].

RIA OREANDA
Economic Press Review
April 28, 2004 Wednesday
Opposition Meeting in Armenia
Yerevan. GAZETA.RU
On Tuesday evening another opposition meeting, organized by the
Justice and National unity parties, with the only demand to shift the
authorities of the republic took place in the downtown of Yerevan.
Twenty five thousand people were reported to take part in the meeting
whereas according to information given by the police, the meeting
counted roughly 3 thousand men. Setting out the Armenian opposition s
vision in the Parliament, the Justice faction deputy, Stepan Zakarayn
said that they put in a claim to the Parliament majority to accept
the opposition demands and let the Armenians move freely about the
country according to the Constitution. More over, the Justice party
leader considered the discussion of Armenia s situation at the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) meeting to be
required. Copyright (c) 1997-2004 RIA “OREANDA”

City News Service
April 27, 2004 Tuesday
Man Pleads Innocent to Nephew’s Slaying
PASADENA
A man accused of killing his 18-year-old nephew in Glendale six
months ago and fleeing to Armenia before returning voluntarily to the
United States pleaded innocent today to a murder charge. Gaik
Shakhmuradyan, 33, was jailed on $2 million bail pending a Friday
appearance in Pasadena Superior Court. A date is scheduled to be set
then for a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to send
him on to trial. Shakhmuradyan is charged with murder for the Oct. 20
shooting death of Edvin Isagulyan. Isagulyan was gunned down in the
500 block of South Glendale Avenue. After the crime, detectives
determined the suspect was the victim’s uncle, but received no
cooperation from the family, Glendale police Lt. Jon Perkins said
yesterday. The detectives eventually learned the suspect had fled to
Abovyan, Armenia, Perkins said. Glendale detectives went to Armenia
and, with help from the United States Embassy and Armenian law
enforcement officials, found and spoke with Shakhmuradyan, according
to the detective. Shakhmuradyan returned to Los Angeles last
Thursday, accompanied by a Glendale police detective who went to
Armenia to question him, the lieutenant said. “During interviews, the
suspect offered to voluntarily return to the United States and face
the pending charges against him,” Perkins said. “We believe this is
the first time that an individual who has fled to Armenia has
returned to the United States to face murder charges,” he added.

A1 Plus | 00:59:30 | 29-04-2004 | Politics | PACE SPRING SESSION |
ARMEN RUSTAMYAN: “BOTH OPPOSITION AND AUTHORITIES MUST STOP”
“Ayb-Fe”: “Did the events occurring in Armenia hamper you?”
Armen Rustamyan: “I don’t think that we could get assistance in Yerevan. We
must not try to solve our problems in PACE. We must stop for a while, come
to ourselves and realize that the process for the European integration must
be expedited. By the way, Opposition and Authorities must do it jointly. And
if we don’t manage we will lose”.

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 28, 2004
CONSOLIDATION IS THE ALTERNATIVE
According to the minister of agriculture B. Bakhshiyan, the progress
in the sphere of agriculture is rather quantitative than qualitative.
Then why is the progress so slow despite the fact that there are no
problems in the legislative sphere, and everything is done to promote
the development of agriculture? The actuality, however, arouses
anxiety. To find out the opinion and approach of the legislators in
reference to the problems and development rates of the sphere of
agriculture we talked to the chairman of the permanent committee of
industry and industrial infrastructures of NKR National Assembly Kamo
Barseghian. – Mr. Barseghian, what is your evaluation of the situation
in the sphere of agriculture? What is, in your opinion, the reason for
slow rates of development of NKR agriculture? – Of course, the
collapse of the Union was followed by inevitable consequences,
moreover, it was necessary to adjust to the new production
relationships, which by the way, went on through great difficulties.
Naturally we could not have advanced by the former rates of
production, especially after the war. The rates of reproduction also
had dropped. Being separated from the Soviet Union, then Russia,
adopting the line of independence, we were to access the international
market where our products were inferior in quality. According to the
new economic relationships privatization was to become the strategic
issue. However, the implementation of privatization was carried out,
in my opinion, from a wrong standpoint. Privatization should be
started with shops and then only proceed to the sphere of
agriculture. What is more, the agricultural machinery should not have
been included in the process. In other words, privatization should
have been implemented stage by stage. And what happened in reality?
Mistakes were made in the very beginning, and those were rather
serious mistakes. – Could you enumerate them? Not could but I should
enumerate them. Starting with consumption cooperatives. I want to
emphasize that the consumption cooperatives had been established even
before the revolution. In the Soviet years these cooperatives were not
modified and remained as cooperative property. In our times it is only
in NKR (in Armenia HayCoop still operates) that the consumption
cooperatives, on a vague basis, were announced as state property, then
privatized and the receipts were directed at filling the budget
gap. The next mistake was that the whole population of Karabakh
profited from privatization except for the inhabitants of
Stepanakert. The whole population of the villages and regional centers
received farming land 6000 square meter or 0.6 hectare. The
inhabitants of Stepanakert who worked all their lives in factories
received only living area. The general dissolution of collective farms
should have been prevented. The agricultural machinery should not have
been dissolved as neither Armenia, nor Karabakh produce
machines. Living in blockade for a long time we were to use the
machines which we inherited from the Soviet rule. And we took and
privatized the machinery. There were very few owners who could afford
to repair the machines. These are used intensively, and the new ones
are not available for the ordinary land farmer. Therefore machines
are dispersed and in a bad condition. And it is impossible to consider
seriously the development of agriculture without agricultural machines
and modern ones. – During this session the National Assembly adopted
land, forest and water codes, the laws “On Seed Farming” (which has
not been passed in Armenia yet), “On Tax on Land”, “On Nature
Preservation”, “On Flora”, “On Fauna” etc. there is an intention to
present to the National Assembly the bill “On Hypothec”. There are
laws, now it is the turn of the executive to bring them in effect. –
Certain progress was achieved in agriculture in the recent years,
especially in the sphere of production of grain. – Yes, there is
certain success. But only with the large landowners. It is a fact
that without consolidation agriculture does not have serious
possibilities for development. The only way out from the situation is
consolidation of private farms and cooperation. Otherwise the
government will have to aid farmers permanently by granting low
interest long-term loans and sell the new acquired agricultural
machines though hypothec. In recent years Armenia has started the
import of new machines, naturally at the current high prices. Is an
ordinary farmer (supporting a family of five members) who has in
average 3 hectares of land, able to buy any new machine? And such
farmers are very many in our country. Either the government should aid
them to buy machines through the hypothec method, or as I mentioned,
they have to join efforts and means. If we have successful farmers, we
will be a developing country. And being an agrarian country we must
have a state strategic program of development of agriculture.
SUSANNA BALAYAN

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 28, 2004
SYMBOL OF THE DAY IS UNITY
On April 24 as every year thousands of Artsakh people paid tribute to
the memory of the victims of the genocide of the Armenian nation
implemented by the Ottoman Empire. In the evening of April 23 the
youth organizations and student unions of Stepanakert organized a
memory march with torches and slogans which started in the Garegin
Nzhdeh Street and finished at the memorial complex of Stepanakert.
Thus the young people of Artsakh confirmed their determination and
high morale always to keep in mind the genocide of the Armenians
unless it is recognized internationally. The march of Stepanakerters
to the memorial complex started early in the morning of April 24. The
educational institutions, public and political organizations and
offices joined to the claim of condemning the genocide of the
Armenians. At 11:00 NKR prime minister Anoushavan Danielian, vice
speaker of the National Assembly Moushegh Ohanjanian, members of
parliament, members of government, military officials, and others
visited the memorial complex to commemorate the victims of the
Genocide. Flowers were laid on the memorial of the victims of the
genocide by the NKR authorities, the Artsakh Diocese and different
agencies. The priests of the Artsakh Diocese performed the service of
commemoration. The symbol of the day, as the participants of the march
mentioned, is unity.
LAURA GRIGORIAN