Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Armenia turkeyfinalreporttesev

1,010

Published on

This project created by ''Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV-Turkey)'' and ''Sociological and Marketing Research Center (HASA-Armenia)'' by funding provided of Center for Global …

This project created by ''Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV-Turkey)'' and ''Sociological and Marketing Research Center (HASA-Armenia)'' by funding provided of Center for Global Peace in 2004.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,010
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. TURKISH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES FOUNDATION –TESEV SOCIOLOGICAL AND MARKETING RESEARCH CENTER -HASA (ARMENIA) Armenian-Turkish Citizens’ Mutual Perceptions and Dialogue Project Project directors: Dr. Ferhat Kentel, Dr. Gevorg Poghosyan Editing: Volkan Aytar (TESEV) Co-Editing and Translations: Derya Demirler, Sinan Erensü, Defne Över (TESEV) Yerevan-Istanbul, 2004 Funding Provided by: Center for Global Peace American University ♦ Washington, D C Special Thanks to: Open Society Institute, Turkey & High Consultative Council of TESEV 1
  • 2. Center for Global Peace American University ♦ Washington, D CIn keeping with American University’s mandate for global education, the university-wide Center for Global Peace wasestablished in 1996 to provide a framework for programs and initiatives that advance the study and understanding ofworld peace within a sustainable world order. By seeking to better understand local, national and global linkages amongsocial, political, cultural, economic, and civic structures whose deterioration can lead to violence and social upheaval, theCenter provides a forum for analysis of a wide range of multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural approaches to peace andconflict resolution and sustainable development.Drawing from talents across the university, and in conjunction with American University’s International Peace andConflict Resolution Division, the Center is committed to innovation in scholarship, teaching, policy analysis andcommunity service. Our activities include:  Track Two Program in Turkey and the Caucasus – a multi-year project to promote improved relations between Armenians and Turks and between Armenians and Azeris. Track two engages civil society in order to enable contact; advance mutual understanding; and promote practical areas of cooperation to create an atmosphere conducive to the success of official diplomatic efforts. AU-CGP’s role involves cultivation of 40 partner NGOs in the region, including capacity building, project development and facilitation. 4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, NW WASHİNGTON, DC 20016-8123 202-885-5988/895-1328 FAX: 202-885 5989 http://www.american.edu/cgp 2
  • 3. TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 4 Objectives of the research 6 Methodology 6I. DEMOGRAPHY 9II. KNOWLEDGE 11 Geography 11 Political order/religion 12 History 15 Foreign relations 16 Achievements 17III. ATTITUDES 21 Relations 21 Democratic development 28 Images and stereotypes 29IV. PRIORITIES 37V. CONCLUSION 41ANNEX 1: Questionnaire – Armenia 48ANNEX 2: Questionnaire – Turkey 61 3
  • 4. TURKISH-ARMENIAN CITIZENS MUTUAL PERCEPTION AND DIALOGUE PROJECTINTRODUCTION The debates surrounding historical relations between Armenians and Turks or the“Armenian question,” have become an important issue in various European countries and theUSA in recent years. This increasing international attention to the question of Armenian-Turkishrelations has made it clear that the sound discussion of this issue in Turkey and Armenia is bothnecessary and obligatory. In Turkey, the “Armenian question” has generated two interrelated sets of issues. Thefirst aspect is the demand for greater transparency by some segments of Turkish society. Amongintellectuals, this demand has spurred initiatives for a re-evaluation of Turkey’s accepted history,as well as a drive to foster dialogue between Turkish and Armenian communities. The secondissue, seen in both countries, is that the increasing prominence of the Armenian question has alsotriggered reactionary tendencies feeding into the reaffirmation of national identity and theformation of an inward-looking national polity. The “Armenian question” in Turkey and in Armenia is of course rooted in the particularhistorical and social dynamics of each country. However this issue has not developed over thelast many decades completely independent of relationship between Turkey and Armenia and thephases of national identity formation that Armenia and Turkey have undergone throughout theirhistory. In other words, the “Turkish” and “Armenian” questions that exist in both countries aremutually constituted and fed from each side. Due to the lack of dialogue and resulting prejudices,the two countries have failed to develop a mutually beneficial relationship of cooperation,including normal travel and trade relations. The end if the bi-polar world order, symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, ledto massive restructuring in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union. Theensuing period of reconstruction and reformation had created effects that reverberated wellbeyond the former communist countries. Placing the Turkish-Armenian question within thelarger context of geopolitical and economic transition reveals the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the issues at stake. Armenia’s economic transition and the Karabagh conflict between Armenians andneighboring Azeris intersect with Turkey’s domestic and international problems and policies. AsTurkish society continues to struggle with issues of national identity and social memory, thequestion of geo-strategic balance in the region contributes to the myriad obstacles to thedevelopment of friendship, trust and trade between Turkey and Armenia. Despite the numerous interests and conflicts that divide these two countries, dialogueremains the most important first step towards a solution to these problems. Although eachcountry is very much concerned with the other, the level of knowledge and information thatpasses between Turkey and Armenia is minimal. And the information that does cross thephysical and political borders is often distorted by mutual prejudices. Such prejudices are furtherreproduced and exacerbated through indirect channels outside the societies of the two countries;that is to say, third party groups that are outside of the local realities effectively perpetuate themisunderstandings between these societies. 4
  • 5. If a comfortable relationship between these two countries is to be established, the firststep will be to combat the perpetuation of prejudices through promotion of greater transparency.To achieve these aims, both parties must work to better understand the other. It is important thatboth sides communicate with each other directly, without the intervention of outside groups/ As these international ties become established, the phases of “acceptance” and“recognition” will become more possible at the societal level. Dialogue between Turkish andArmenian communities within Turkey has the potential to reverberate in positive ways at theinternational level. The establishment of dialogue at multiple levels is an important step incombating the mushrooming of mutual prejudices. In line with the goal of increased understanding explained above, and as an initiativecoming from Turkish and Armenian researchers, we carried out this exploratory project focusingspecifically on mutual perceptions in Turkey and Armenia. We know that the findings of our research are far from giving a complete image of theseperceptions. We know also that, in order to understand deeply the historical reasons of theconflict and move toward reconciliation we must take first steps together towards our goal. Theresults of this study do not point to any answers; the information we gathered may not bepleasing to all readers or easy to incorporate into political discussions of the issue. But in doingthis research we have remained true to the principles of science and trust that the results willmore fully inform the ongoing dialogue between the people of Turkey and Armenia. Despite thechallenges of this project, the joint effort made by the Turkish and Armenian teams testifies tothe fact that cooperation between the nations is possible. 5
  • 6. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH The project has been simultaneously carried out in Turkey and Armenia, in order toinvestigate on the following points:  The levels of knowledge/lack of knowledge and the prejudices that the both societies have about each other,  The mutual perception of two societies and their ‘differences’ (negative and positive),  Common denominators (cultural and political values),  The expectations of Armenian and Turkish citizens from each other and from the state, the society and the media.METHODOLOGY Data collection have been achieved by quantitative (face-to-face interview mediatedthrough a questionnaire) method between December 2002 and January 2003. The questionnaire study have been carried out throughout Turkey and Armenia. In orderto allow for comparison, the survey included the same questions (adapted to local context), aswell as different questions designed to reflect local issues. The infrastructure of the research (design and publishing of the questionnaires, theinterviews and the quantitative analysis using SPSS) was carried out by S.A.M. Research &Consulting Center in Turkey and by HASA (Sociological and Marketing Research Center) inArmenia. In Turkey, a sample of 1200 respondents were selected through a method of multi-stagestratified random sampling. The standard error of such a sample is calculated at ± 2.8 percentwith a confidence interval of 95 percent. The sample represents Turkey’s urban population at or above 18 years of age and is basedon two criteria of stratification: 1. Distribution by geographical regions 2. Distribution by urban and metropolitan areas The primary sampling unit is the “neighbourhood” for metropolitan areas (the three largecities of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir) and the “district” for the remaining urban areas of the sevengeographic regions. These units were selected through sampling with probabilities proportionateto size (PPS). The same method (PPS) is also used in the next step to select “neighbourhoods” innon-metropolitan areas. This is followed by simple random sampling to select streets in eachneighbourhood and systematic sampling to select households at each street. Complying withcriteria of randomness at all stages, an overall congruence is obtained between the generalpopulation and the sample with respect to demography and geography. Distribution of the sample (at or above 18 years of age) is based on the number ofregistered voters in 1999 elections, published by the State Institute of Statistics (DIE). Thenumber of districts to be selected in each category is calculated on the basis of around 10interviews per neighborhood and 20 interviews per district. Thus, two neighborhoods areselected per district. 6
  • 7. Fieldwork was conducted through 34 provinces and 68 districts. Final verification at theSAM head office resulted in the approval of 1219 interviews for analysis.Region Cities Sample SizeMetropoles İstanbul 290 Ankara 102 İzmir 70Mediterranean Adana 41 Antalya 41 İçel 39 Maraş 20Eastern Anatolia Erzurum 25 Malatya 23 Elazığ 19 Bitlis 9Aegean (except Izmir) İzmir 40 Manisa 19 Aydın 20 Denizli 20South-east Anatolia Gaziantep 18 Adıyaman 17 Urfa 20 Diyarbakır 20Central Anatolia (except Konya 39Ankara) Yozgat 19 Karaman 20 Eskişehir 19 Kayseri 19Black Sea Samsun 20 Trabzon 21 Kastamonu 19 Zonguldak 18 Tokat 20 Bolu 10Marmara (except Bursa 60Istanbul) Kocaeli 20 Sakarya 20 Bilecik 21 Tekirdağ 21TOTAL 1.219 In Armenia the nation-wide sociological survey was done using ramdomized territorialproportional sample, based on official data of 2001 Census. (Available on www.armstat.am). 7
  • 8. National sample for Armenia includes all 10 marzes (districts) plus Yerevan-marz,according to a new administrative-territorial division. The Republic has 972 localities: 48 urbanand 924 country settlements. Respondents were selected through a multi-stage stratification sampling design. Armeniawas stratified by region (marz) urban residence. There were eleven Primary Sampling Areas,distributing the 1000 interviews proportional to the distribution of the population in every marz.Armenian Urban Representative Sample 1000 respondentsRegion City Sample size Interviews were Yerevan 1. Yerevan city 329 conducted at a total of 2. Gyimri 75 85 sampling points. Shirak 3. Artik 25 Lori 4. Vanadzor 96 Households were Armavir 5. Echmiadzin 25 selected via random 6. Metzamor 50 route technique 7. Hrazdan 25 (according to the “star Kotajk 8. Charentsavan 25 9. Egvard 25 principle” from 10. Ararat 25 started point). Ararat 11. Artashat 25 Within each 12. Vedi 25 Aragatzotn 13. Ashtarak 25 household only one 14. Talin 25 adult respondent (18 15. Gavar 25 years of age or older) Gegharkunik 16. Vardenis 50 were selected at 17. Chambarak 25 random, according to Sjunik 18. Kapan 25 the Kish method. 19. Dilijan 25 Interviewers were 20. Idjevan 25 Vayots Dzor 21. Ygegnadzor 25 instructed to make Total 1000 three callbacks (at different times of dayand different days of week) in order to complete the interview with the designated respondent. All interviews were conducted face-to-face in the respondent ’s house. All respondentswere citizens of Armenia and the resident of the house/apartment, where they were interviewed. The interviewer’s work was controlled by randomly selecting of 15% of the respondents,and vising them at their addresses or calling them to check whether the interviews were indeedconducted (addresses and phone numbers were writtendown by the interviewer after completingan interview). The margin of error for the sample of this size is (+ -) 3%. 8
  • 9. I. DEMOGRAPHYGender Turkey Armenia Frequency % Frequency %Male 629 51,6 456 45,6Female 590 48,4 544 54,4 Total 1219 100,0 1000 100How old are you? Turkey Armenia Frequency % Frequency %18-29 years 425 34,9 237 23,730-44 years 503 41,3 301 30,145-59 years 218 17,9 264 26,460 and over years 73 6,0 198 19,8 Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0 The average age of Turkish sample is 36,4 and younger than the Armenian average whichwas 43,5.What level of education did you Turkey Armeniacomplete? Frequency % Frequency %Illiterate 28 2,3 2 0,2Literate (did not complete any school) 37 3,0Primary school 472 38,7 33 3,3Middle school 170 13,9 395 39,5High school 336 27,6Secondary professional school 25 2,1 245 24,5University 144 11,8 319 31,9Master’s/doctoral degree 7 0,6 6 0,6 Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0 The average level of education of Armenian sample is higher than that of Turkey. Thusthe proportion of those who finished at most the primary school (5 years) in Turkey is 44%, inArmenia the relative figure is 3,5,%. The percentage of those who have obtained universitydegree in Turkey is 11,8%, while in Armenia it is 31,9%. 9
  • 10. What is your occupation or profession? Turkey Armenia Frequency % Frequency %Public or private sector manager, administrator,expert, (including teacher and academic in 53 4,3 6 0,6Turkey)Public sector white collar employee 37 3,0 71 7,1Private sector white collar employee 52 4,3 43 4,3Public or private sector worker 160 13,1 71 7,1Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 12 1,0 57 5,7Shopkeeper/craftsman 161 13,2 47 4,7Teacher (Armenia) 62 6,2Intellectual/Lecturer (Armenia) 11 1,1Housewife, house-daughter 428 35,1 150 15,0Student 74 6,1 67 6,7Retired, pensioner 118 9,7 175 17,5Non-employed with income (landlord/landlady, 4 0,3 40 4,0investor, etc.)Irregular jobs 43 3,5 32 3,2Unemployed 56 4,6 168 16,8Other 21 1,7 Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0 In Armenia, the proportions of public sector employees, pensioners and unemployed aremore important. In Turkey, shopkeepers and housewifes are relatively important groups.What is your total monthly Turkey Armeniahousehold income? Frequency % Frequency %Do not have any income - - 99 9,9Less than USD 50 - - 447 44,7Less than USD 100 128 10,5 272 27,2USD 100-200 415 34,0 113 11,3USD 201-350 357 29,3 20 2,0USD 351-500 171 14,0 9 0,9USD 501-750 84 6,9 3 0,3USD 751-1000 28 2,3 - -More than USD 1000 23 1,9 - -Total 1206 98,9 963 96,3Difficult to answer 13 1,1 37 3,7 Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0 The level of income is much lower in Armenia than in Turkey. 10
  • 11. II. KNOWLEDGE This chapter addresses the awareness of Turkish and Armenian respondents about eachother’s countries in general terms, mainly meaning the respondents’ knowledge of basicgeography, political order, foreign relations as well as the achievements of the neighboringcountry.Geography Table and charts below demonstrate respondents’ estimates of territory and population ofthe countries.Table 1. How would you describe contemporary Turkey/Armenia in terms of territory? Turkey ArmeniaIt is a large country 52,4 7,2It is a small country 4,2 39,8It is neither a large nor a small country 41,0 18,5Do not know 2,4 34,5 As Table 1 shows, majority of Armenian respondents (52,4%) view Turkey as a largecountry, and in the opinion of 41% of the respondents it is neither large nor small. While asignificant number of Turkish respondents (34,5% ) had difficulty to express any opinionregarding the territory of contemporary Armenia, majority of the remaining 65,5% think ofArmenia as a small country. One could expect such estimate, since, when answering thisquestion, respondents have more likely used the territory of their own country as a basis forcomparison.Chart 1. Approximate population of contemporary1.1 Turkey 1.2. Armenia 30% 60% 27,0% 51,3% 25% 50% 19,9% 20% 40% 15,9% 15% 30% 13,0% 11,9% 10% 20% 14,0% 7,8% 11,6% 8,1% 10% 4,4% 5,7% 4,8% 5% 2,3% 2,0% 0,2% 0% 0% Less than 2-3 million 4-5 million 6-7 million 8-10 More than Do not Less 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 More Do not 2 million million 10 million know than 5 million million million million million million than know million 100 million Charts 1.1 and 1.2 testify that both Armenian and Turkish respondents have a very vagueidea about population of each other’s countries. Thus, even though most of the answers ofArmenian respondents regarding population of Turkey are concentrated around the correctinterval of 40-60 million, the dispersion is still very big. At the same time, majority of Turkishrespondents (51,3%) had difficulty to give any approximate estimate to population of Armeniaand only 11,6% gave the correct answer. 11
  • 12. Respondents’ lack of knowledge of each other’s countries is reflected in a number ofquestions that have been addressed in the survey.Table 2. Does Turkey/Armenia have an access to a sea (seas)? Turkey ArmeniaYes 95,9 15,6No 0,9 44,1Do not know 3,2 40,3Table 3. To which sea(s)? Turkey ArmeniaBlack Sea 82,7 45,4The Mediterranean 71,3 2,1Aegean Sea 21,9 5,2Caspian Sea 6,6 29,4Marmara sea 1,3 0,0Do not know 3,0 17,0 Thus, although an overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (95,9%) know thatTurkey has access to seas, a small percent of them could correctly name all those seas (seeTables 2, 3). A very small percent of Armenian respondents know that Turkey has access to Aegean andMarmara seas (21,9% and 1,3% respectively). The tables show that Turkish respondents possesseven less information: 40,3% of them does not know whether Armenia has a sea border, andapproximately each sixth Turkish respondent is sure Armenia has an access to either Black orCaspian Sea.Political order/religionChart 2. Who dominates the government in Armenia? 17,8% President Prime minister44,8% 9,8% Communist Party Clergy 13,5% Other 1,5% 12,7% Do not know As we see, nearly half of the Turkish respondents are not aware of the type of Armeniangovernment. At the same time, majority from the respondents who answered this question havegiven the correct answer (17,8%). It is interesting that second largest group of respondents(13,5%) is sure that Armenian government is still dominated by the Communist Party that is not 12
  • 13. even actually represented in the National Assembly. However, such a result was predictable,considering the lasting influence of the Soviet era on the image of former Soviet republics.Chart 3. Who dominates the government in Turkey? 7,2% 6,2% 6,4% President Prime minister Sultan16,6% Islamic clergy 63,0% Do not know According to the survey results, Armenian respondents also have no precise knowledgeabout political order in Turkey: majority of the respondents (63%), as Chart 3 shows, think thatPresident dominates the Government in Turkey. Analysis of relationships has shown thatArmenian respondents’ knowledge of this issue does not strongly depend on the level of theireducation. 30,6% of Turkish respondents with higher education have answered the question correctly,whereas the percentage of the correct answer of respondents with primary, middle or high schooleducation is around 16-17%. The percentage of respondents who have no idea about the politicalorder in Armenia reaches 62,2% in the group of people without formal education. Compared to the other issues addressed by the survey, respondents have been mostconfident in terms of their knowledge of each other’s religious affiliation.Table 4. What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Turks/Armenians? Turks ArmeniansBuddhism 0,0 1,2Christianity 0,0 54,6Islam 99,2 1,3Judaism 0,0 16,8Other 0,0 25,5Do not know 0,8 0,6 As we see, majority of respondents in both Turkey and Armenia have given correctanswers to the question. (It is however interesting, that approximately each sixth Turkishrespondent believes that the religious affiliation of Armenians is Judaism.) 13
  • 14. Chart 4. Is there an official religion in Turkey/Armenia? 70% 68,5% 60% 50% in Turkey 40,5% 40% in Armenia 40,4% 30% 20% 19,1% 16,8% 10% 14,7% 0% Yes No Do not know In contrast, respondents in both countries have failed to answer correctly whether theneighboring country has an official religion or not. Majority of the respondents in Armenia(68,5%) and 40,4% of respondents in Turkey have, in fact, stated their belief that the neighboringcountry is not secular (see Chart 4). Turkey has a much more “religious” image amongArmenian respondents than Armenia has in the eyes of Turkish respondents. It is interesting that the higher the level of respondents’ education, the more they tend togive the incorrect answer: 70,5% of Armenian respondents with higher education and 67,1% ofthose with secondary education, think Turkey has an official religion. It is possible to observe a quite similar tendency in Turkey, but the ratios are much moreinferior. In Turkey the percentage of those who believe Armenia has an official religion amongthe secondary education is 47%, and 46,5% among the respondents of higher eductaion. 22,9%of Turkish respondents with higher education gave the correct answer. We should add that inTurkey those who don’t know whether Armenia is secular or not reaches 64,9% among therespondents with low level of education.Table 5. Which is the official religion of Turkey/Armenia? Turkey ArmeniaBuddhism 0,0 1,8Christianity 0,3 67,9Islam 99,1 1,0Judaism 0,3 21,5Other 0,0 7,5Do not know 0,3 0,2 The respondents who gave positive answers to the above-mentioned question were thenrequested to specify the religion. The answers have mostly repeated those already mentioned(see Table 5). 14
  • 15. History Overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (94,6%) are sure Armenians have beenfirst to appear on the historical scene, whereas majority of Turkish respondents (60,4%) claimTurks are a more ancient nation. At the same time, quite high percent of Turkish respondents(28,6%) has been more neutral in this question stating that both Armenians and the Turks areancient peoples.Table 6. Which one, the Armenians or the Turks, appeared on the historical scene first? Armenia TurkeyArmenians 94,6 7,6Turks 0,7 60,4They are both ancient peoples 4,7 28,6 Such outcome, in our opinion, was conditioned by at least two factors: a) objective – thatis, different views on world history, reflected in public education, and b) subjective – that is,tendency of people to perceive and transmit certain facts in a manner that is most favorable tothem.Table 6. Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements? Agree Disagree Don’t know Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia TurkeyTurkish and Armenian peoples have 74,2 42,7 22,4 39,7 3,4 17,6common elements of culture such asmusic, folklore and gastronomy.There was no conflict between the Turks 0,6 37,7 97,7 34,4 1,7 28,0and the Armenians until the early 20thcentury.Parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) 97,3 61,3 0,5 15,3 2,2 23,4were inhabited by the Armenians beforethe Turks arrived.Armenians who now live in Turkey came 0,4 30,3 98,0 40,1 1,6 29,6to Turkey after dissolution of the SovietUnion.During World War I, much of the 97,9 47,5 1,3 27,8 0,8 24,7Armenian population living in nowadaysTurkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrateto other places.In the second half of 1910s, hundreds of 99,9 N/A 0,0 N/A 0,1 N/Athousands Armenians were killed innowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deportedout of countryIn the second half of 1910s, the clashes in N/A 72,1 N/A 11,6 N/A 16,3Anatolia claimed many Armenian andTurkish lives.There are Armenian churches and works 97,4 80,3 1,1 6,2 1,5 13,5of art in several places in Turkey. Analysis of data obtained from Table 6 shows that Armenian respondents have been much more consolidated regarding their views on the historical relations between the two 15
  • 16. nations, while Turkish respondents seem to take a rather more neutral stand vis à vis the issue. Based upon Table 6, the following conclusions could be drawn: a) Majority of Armenian and Turkish respondents believe that Turkish and Armenian peoples have common elements of culture such as music, folklore and gastronomy. At the same time, quite a large percentage of Turkish respondents (39,7%) disagrees with the statement. b) Overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (97,7%) disagrees with the statement that there was no conflict between the Turks and the Armenians until the early 20th century. Only one third of the Turkish respondents disagree with the statement, while 28% does not have a clear idea about the subject. c) Majority of respondents in both countries agree that parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) were inhabited by the Armenians before the Turks arrived and disagrees with the statement that Armenians who now live in Turkey came to Turkey after dissolution of the Soviet Union. d) Armenian respondents are absolutelly convinced that during World War I, much of the Armenian population living in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrate to other places. Nearly half of the Turkish respondents also agree with the statement, while more than one fourth of them reject the idea. e) Almost all the Armenian respondents agree that “in the second half of 1910s, hundreds of thousands Armenians were killed in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deported out of country.” As for the Turkish respondents (although the statement was formulated differently in Armenian and Turkish versions of the questionnaire as explained below, under the conclusion), the picture seems to be different: Majority of them think that the clashes during that period in Anatolia claimed many Armenian and Turkish lives from both communities. Both parties agree that there are Armenian churches and works of art in several places in Turkey.Foreign relations In order to reveal the respondents’ perceptions about basic foreign relations of theneighboring country we have requested to characterize the relations of Turkey/Armenia withseveral countries using the scale of bad-neutral-good.Table 7. How would you describe Turkey’s/Armenia’s relations with the followingcountries? Bad relations Neither good, nor Good relations Don’t know bad Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey ArmeniaArmenia 82,8 N/A 15,3 N/A 0,3 N/A 1,6 N/AAzerbaijan 1,4 35,3 3,3 15,8 95,0 15,5 0,3 33,5Bulgaria 19,0 7,0 38,2 19,6 20,8 28,6 22,0 44,8 16
  • 17. France 45,4 3,9 34,3 10,5 9,9 49,1 10,4 36,5Georgia 2,1 17,3 29,3 17,7 64,3 21,0 4,3 44,0Germany 5,0 5,9 31,4 13,8 51,6 41,4 12,0 38,9Greece 48,6 5,7 27,4 10,9 9,8 46,5 14,2 36,8Iran 28,0 27,5 35,2 16,5 27,8 12,9 9,0 43,2Israel 13,1 11,3 38,4 13,0 33,2 34,7 15,3 40,9Russia 16,4 7,9 62,8 14,4 16,6 40,4 4,2 37,3Turkey N/A 40,1 N/A 42,2 N/A 11,5 N/A 6,2USA 5,4 7,1 12,3 11,2 78,7 47,4 3,6 34,4 According to Armenian respondents, Turkey has the worst relations with Armenia, Greeceand France, mostly neutral relations – with Russia, Israel and Bulgaria, and best relations – withAzerbaijan, USA and Georgia. According to Turkish respondents, Armenia is in worst relations with Azerbaijan and Iran,in neutral relations – with Bulgaria and Georgia, and in best relations – with France, USA andGreece. One should note, that nearly equal percent of Turkish respondents characterizeArmenian’s relations with Turkey as bad and neutral (40,1% and 42,2% accordingly). It is alsoworth mentioning that according to the Turkish respondents, Armenia’s relations with Turkeyare worse than with Azerbaijan. In our opinion, answers to this question were shaped not by the respondents’ actualknowledge of foreign relation of the neighboring country but rather by a) their knowledge offoreign relations of their own country and b) their mutual prejudice. The former (a) means thatthe respondents tend to think that the better relations of a certain country are with Turkey theworse they are with Armenia and vice versa. The latter (b) mainly refers to respondents’ beliefthat the religious belonging is the most decisive factor in foreign policy. Turkish respondentshave shown an obvious manifestation of this form of prejudice believing Armenian-Iranianrelations to be nearly as bad as Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Despite the fact that amongother neighboring countries Armenia actually has the best relations with Iran, each fourthTurkish respondent thinks the relations are bad.Achievements In the opinion of Armenian respondents, top five fields that the Turks have been mostsuccessful are: trade/business, diplomacy, agriculture, sports/wrestling and light industry.Table 8. What are the professions or fields that the Turks have been most prominent orsuccessful?Trade/Business 23,8Diplomacy 22,3Agriculture 14,6Sport – wrestling 9,8Light industry 9,6Eastern music/art 6,9Tourism 6,9Industry/economy 5,3Cruelty 6,4 17
  • 18. Other 4,6No sphere 3,4Don’t know/diff. to answer 14,8 According to Turkish respondents, Armenians have been most prominent in the followingfields: commerce, art, goldsmithery and artisanry.Table 9. What are the professions or fields that the Armenians have been most prominentor successful?Commerce 16,7Art 7,9Goldsmithery 5,7Artisanry 5,7Business, industry 2,0Medicine 1,2Architecture 1,1No profession 0,4All professions 0,7Negative expressions 0,8Other 5,5Do not know 52,3Can you name a prominent Turkish person or institution? (Armenian respondents) Frequency Valid PercentAtatürk – Enemy of Armenian people 178 17,8Talat – Enemy of Armenian people 137 13,7Enver – Enemy of Armenian people 98 9,8Sultan Hamid – Enemy of Armenian 66 6,6peopleYoung Turks - Enemy of Armenian 25 2,5peopleDemirel 86 8,6Turgut Özal 69 6,9Ecevit 40 4,0Hasan Şaş 44 4,4Tansu Çiller 29 2,9Tarkan 13 1,3Other 84 8,4There aren’t any 31 3,1Don’t know/diff. to answer 390 39,0 Top three prominent Turkish persons, in the eyes of Armenian respondents, are Atatürk(17,8%), Talat (13,7%) and Enver (9,8%) all of whom have been mentioned as “enemies ofArmenian people”. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents (81,9%) could not name anyprominent person of Armenian nationality. 18
  • 19. Let us conclude this chapter with the respondents’ evaluation of their knowledge ofneighboring countries.Table 10. How well do you think you know the neighboring countries? Well Somewhat Not at all Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.Azerbaijan 21,5 12,4 78,4 63,7 0,1 24,0Armenia/Turkey 10,8 4,7 88,8 51,4 0,4 44,0Georgia 25,1 5,3 74,8 47,7 0,1 46,9Iran 11,3 11,2 84,9 59,8 3,8 29,0Iraq N/A 11,6 N/A 61,3 N/A 27,1Syria N/A 10,2 N/A 55,9 N/A 33,9Bulgaria N/A 9,7 N/A 55,4 N/A 34,9Greece N/A 12,5 N/A 57,3 N/A 30,2 As we see, respondents in both countries have been quite modest in their self-evaluation.The table shows that most of the answers are concentrated at the middle of the scale. Two questions are, however, interesting for analysis: a) which of the neighboring countriesthe respondents think they know best and worst and b) how respondents evaluate theirknowledge of each other’s countries. According to the table, Armenian respondents evaluate their knowledge of Georgia to bethe best (25,1%). The list continues with Azerbaijan (21,5%) and Iran (11,3%) and concludeswith Turkey (10,8%). Turkish respondents who are more modest about their level of knowledgethink they know Greece and Azerbaijan the best (12,5% and 12,4%) and the percentages of thoseconfessing they don’t know at all the cited neighbouring countries are far higher than the relativepercentages of Armenian respondents. Georgia (46,9%) and Armenia (44%) appear to be thecountries Turkish respondents are least aware of. Such evaluation is very interesting, since judging from the answers of the respondents toall questions of the “Knowledge” block, Turkish respondents are far less aware of Armenia as acountry than Armenians are about Turkey. The fact that Turkish respondents acknowledge theirlack of knowledge about Armenia, gives them much less clear and consolidated idea aboutArmenia.Table 11. What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that youknow? Azerbaijan Turkey/ Georgia Iran Iraq Syria Bul Gree Armenia g ce Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Tur. Tur. Tur. Tur.History books 49,1 22,0 71,5 24,3 48,9 23,5 54,6 22,7 21,5 23,1 23,0 24,3Media/TV 95,5 48,0 92,7 48,0 93,9 52,8 91,6 50,0 51,4 51,7 48,6 45,4Older 27,5 5,9 58,1 7,2 28,6 4,7 18,0 4,9 4,3 4,7 7,0 7,0generations/family membersFriends / 27,2 10,0 18,8 8,2 34,2 7,1 16,8 7,7 7,5 7,8 9,2 7,7 19
  • 20. relativesPoliticians 17,0 6,4 8,5 5,7 12,1 5,4 4,6 5,5 8,5 5,5 5,4 8,2Clergy / Church 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,1 3,3 2,0 1,1 4,5 3,0 2,9 2,0 2,3Art/Literature 18,5 4,0 20,1 3,7 22,1 3,3 19,0 3,6 2,5 2,6 2,7 3,6Personal visits 6,1 0,0 3,9 0,0 9,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0and contactsOther 2,1 1,5 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,2 0,2 1,7 2,1 1,5 Most popular sources of information about all of the neighboring countries for bothArmenian and Turkish respondents are Media/TV and history books. Older generations andfamily members are also important sources for Armenian respondents to get information aboutTurkey and Georgia. Such outcome once again speaks for the crucial influence that Mass Media currently haveon forming the attitudes of people. It also proves that spreading fair and unbiased informationcan be a huge contribution both to raise the awareness of nations about each other and toeliminate the existing negative stereotypes. 20
  • 21. III. ATTITUDES This chapter generally addresses mutual perceptions and attitudes of Armenian andTurkish citizens. Answers to a number of direct and indirect questions help uncovering theopinion of the respondents about past, present and future state of Armenian-Turkish relations, aswell as revealing the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of each other.RelationsTable 12. How would you describe contemporary Armenian-Turkish relations in general? Very bad Bad Neither good Good Very good Difficult to nor bad answerArm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. 18,9 6,6 60,4 30,8 17,9 45,4 0,5 10,9 0,0 0,2 2,3 6,2 As the table shows, majority of Armenian respondents characterize Armenian-Turkishrelations as bad, while nearly half of the Turkish respondents think the relations as neither goodnor bad. One should also note that only 5 out of 1000 of Armenian respondents have evaluatedthe relations between Armenia and Turkey as good and none of them – as very good. At thesame time, in the opinion of each fifth Armenian respondent, the relations are very bad, whileeach tenth Turkish respondent believes they are good.Table 13. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relationsbetween Armenian and Turkish peoples today? Armenia TurkeyTurks/Armenians generally get along well with 0,9 14,2Armenian/Turkish peopleTurks/Armenians generally feel threatened by Armenian/Turkish 14,0 14,9people.Turks/Armenians generally dislike Armenian/Turkish people. 51,3 33,6Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations 30,0 24,4between Armenian and Turkish peoplesDifficult to answer 3,8 12,8 The feeling that “Turks generally get along well with Armenian people” is almost absentamong Armenian respondents, whereas for 14,2% of Turkish respondents “Armenians generallyget along well with Turkish people”. Similarly, majority of the respondents (51,3%) in Armeniathink that Turks generally dislike Armenian people, whereas in the Turkish side this stereotype isweaker (33,6%). But among the Armenian respondents, the percentage of people who accept thatprejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkishpeoples is higher (30% vs 24,4%) (see Table 13). It is interesting that majority of female respondents in Armenian survey have beensupportive of the idea that the Turks generally dislike Armenians, and in contrast, higher percentof male respondents tend to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the way of improvement ofArmenian-Turkish relations. The differences of attitude are lower among Turkish respondentsand male respondents have been slightly more supportive of the idea that the Armeniansgenerally dislike Turks, but also their percentage to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the wayof improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations is higher. (see Chart 5). 21
  • 22. Chart 5. Relationship between the respondents’ gender and their opinion of therelations between Armenian and Turkish peoples Armenian respondents: 60% 50% 54,6% Female 47,4% Male 40% 30% 32,2% 28,1% 20% 10% 0% Turks generally Prejudice prevents dislike Armenians improvement of the relations Turkish respondents: 60% 50% Female 40% Male 30% 32,0%35,1% 20% 23,6% 25,3% 10% 0% Arm enians Prejudice generally dislike prevents Turks im provem ent of the relations We also have to note that in the two countries older respondents are more inclined to agreethat “dislike” best describes relations between Armenians and Turks. But should be noted alsothat the respondents above 45 in Turkey think more than the others that Armenians get along wellwith Turkish people. Whereas in Armenia 32,2%, and in Turkey 28,7% of respondents aged 18-29 think it is prejudice that is characteristic of the relations. Another fact worth mentioning is that in Armenia, majority of state employees (56,3%),housewives (54,7%) and pensioners (57,7%) think Turks dislike Armenians, while majority ofintellectuals (36,4%) and professionals (40,4%) thinks prejudice prevents the improvement ofrelations. (Although to a lesser extent) in Turkey as well, pensioners (39,8%), workers (40%),housewives (37,1%) think Turks dislike Armenians, while majority of students (48,6%) andshopkeepers / craftsmen (32,3%) think prejudice prevents the improvement of relations. (SeeChart 6) Chart 6. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of therelations between Armenian and Turkish peoples Armenian respondents: 22
  • 23. 60% 54,7% 57,7% 56,3% 50% 40% 40,4% Turks generally 36,4% dislike Armenians 30% 35,2% 33,3% Prejudice prevents 23,4% 23,9% 25,3% improvement of the 20% 10% 0% Pensioners State Housewives Academicians Professionals employees Turkish respondents: 60% 50% 48,6% 40% 40,0% 37,1% Arm enians 39,8% generally dislike 32,3% Turks 30% 30,4% Prejudice prevents im provem ent of the 23,8% 20% 23,0% 16,1% 15,4% 10% 0% Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers Among the Turkish respondents, the most significant relationship can be found in relationwith the level of education. The percentage of respondents thinking that Armenians dislike Turksis 16,7% among the people with lower education, whereas this percentage decreases to 9,7%among university graduates. There is also a drastic difference concerning the opinion “prejudiceprevents the improvement of relations”. 46,5% of the university graduates share this opinion.(See Chart 7) Chart 7. Relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinion of therelations between Armenian and Turkish peoples Turkish respondents: 23
  • 24. 60% 50% 46,5% 40% Armenians generally dislike Turks 30% 30,7% Prejudice prevents 25,9% improvement of the 20% 16,7% 13,4% 14,4% 12,4% 10% 9,7% 0% Primary school Middle school High school UniversityOpinions of Armenian and Turkish respondents coincide also in terms of evaluation of theArmenian-Turkish state relations.Table 14. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relationsbetween contemporary Armenian and Turkish states? Armenia TurkeyTurkey/Armenia considers Armenia/Turkey as a friendly 0,4 12,7neighboring state.Turkey/Armenia is a bordering country, with which 36,0 23,5Armenia/Turkey has no diplomatic relations.Turkey/Armenia is a potential danger for Armenia/Turkey. 27,6 20,6Turkey/Armenia is a country hostile to Armenia/Turkey. 33,6 23,4Difficult to answer. 2,4 19,8 As the table shows, the main difference between Armenian and Turkish respondents lies inthe fact that among Turkish respondents there is a non-negligeable percentage of people whothink that “Armenia considers Turkey as a friendly neighboring state” (12,7%); but also anotherimportant percentage of people who has no clear idea on the question (19,8%). Besides this, two opinions, shared by respondents come to the fore both in Armenia andTurkey: a) Turkey and Armenia are bordering countries with no diplomatic relations and b)Turkey and Armenia are countries hostile to each other. But it has to be mentioned thatArmenian respondents evaluate Turkey as “a country hostile to Armenia” (33,6%) more thanTurkish respondents do reciprocally (23,4%). In Armenia, a relationship between the answers of the respondents and their gender, ageand occupation is similar to the one presented above with respect to relations between Armenianand Turkish peoples. Thus, male respondents are more inclined to the neutral position, whilefemale respondents tend to have a relatively more aggressive approach. Depending on their age,respondents have been more or less inclined to think Turkey is a country hostile to Armenia:36,4% of respondents aged 60 and above think the statement is most suitable, while only 25,1%of those aged 18-29 do so. It is interesting that in this question as well, quite similar to the 24
  • 25. previous one, state employees, pensioners and housewives tend to have a negative, whileacademicians and teachers – rather neutral position (see Chart 8). In Turkey, the case of state relations present a different reflection on gender. Even if malerespondents are more inclined to the neutral position comparing female respondents, especiallyfor the third option (“Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey”) male respondents stressed moreimportance (25,9%) compared to female respondents (20,7%). But one also needs to notice thatamong female respondents, the proportion of those who have no idea about the issue is very high(25,4%). As for the age groups, among the older respondents the proportion of those who aremore inclined to think “Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey” is higher: 28% of those aged 45-59 and 41,1% of respondents aged 60 and above agree with this statement. Only 20,9% of thoseaged 18-29 share this idea while they mostly opt for the relatively neutral position (26,6%). InTurkey, pensioners (34,7%), workers (26,9%), housewives (21,5%) chose to think “Armenia is acountry hostile to Turkey”. As in the previous observation, majority of students (41,9%) and aslightly higher percentage of shopkeepers (27,3%) have opted for the neutral position. (See Chart8) Chart 8. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of therelations between Armenian and Turkish states Armenian respondents: 60% Turkey is a bordering 50% 54,5% 53,2% country, with which Armenia has no diplomatic relations 40% 38,9% 39,4% 40,7% 36,7% Turkey is a potential 36,0% 35,2% danger for Armenia 30% 25,4% 24,2% 21,7% 20,7% 20% 18,2% 22,6% Turkey is a country hostile to Armenia 10% 9,1% 0% Pensioners State Housewives Academicians Teachers employees Turkish respondents: 25
  • 26. 60% Armenia is a bordering country, with which 50% Turkey has no diplomatic relations 40% 41,9% Armenia is a potential 34,7% danger for Turkey 30% 26,9% 25,5% 22,5% 21,3%21,5% 23,0% 27,3% 20% 19,5% 20,6% 17,3% 20,3% Armenia is a country 17,8% hostile to Turkey 16,1% 10% 0% Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers In the Turkish case, at the level of education, it seems that there is a quite significantdifference between the attitudes towards the Armenian people and state. For example the attitudeof the university graduates who were clearly more positive towards the Armenian people,becomes more uncertain about the Armenian state. These respondents think that “Armenia is apotential danger for Turkey” more (31,9%) than the others, but also think that “Armenia is acountry hostile to Turkey” less (17,4%) than the others. (See Chart 9) Chart 9. Relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinion of therelations between Armenian and Turkish states Turkish respondents: 60% Armenia is a bordering country, with which 50% Turkey has no diplomatic relations 40% Armenia is a potential 31,0% danger for Turkey 31,9% 30% 24,2% 25,9% 21,4% 20% 18,6% 18,8% 17,4% Armenia is a country 15,9% 11,9% hostile to Turkey 14,6% 10% 10,4% 0% Primary school Middle school High school University Finally we can add that there is one detail worth mentioning. Judging from the percentageof Turkish respondents, who chose the first options (positive attitude) of the answers to both ofthe questions, it appears that they have been more tolerant in their evaluation than Armenianrespondents have, especially concerning the attitude towards the Armenian people. On the 26
  • 27. contrary, the Turkish respondents’ lack of trust vis-à-vis the Armenian state is seen in the chartbelow. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents think that, given an opportunity, Armeniawould press for territorial claims from Turkey. (See Chart 10)Chart 10. Do you feel that, given an opportunity today, Armenia would press for territorialclaims from Turkey? (Question was asked only to Turkish respondents.) 10,8% 10,5% Yes No Do not know 78,7% The respondents opinion concerning the past and future of Armenian–Turkish staterelations is quite interesting. Majority of Armenian respondents think the relations remainedunchanged in the last 10 years and will remain unchanged in the next 10 years. In contrast,Turkish respondents tend to think the relations have changed for the worse and will remainunchanged in the future (see Table 15, 16).Table 15. Relations in last 10 years Table 16. Relations in next 10 years Armenia Turkey Armenia TurkeyChanged for the better 22,6 14,4 Will change for the better 14,7 24,7Remained unchanged 52,5 31,3 Will remain unchanged 37,4 30,8Changed for the worse 21,0 35,0 Will change for the worse 25,3 17,6Don’t know 3,8 19,3 Don’t know 22,6 26,9 However, with a more detailed glance on the distribution of the answers other interestingfacts are revealed. It appears that while Armenian respondents are to a certain degree moresatisfied with the past progress of Armenian-Turkish relations, Turkish respondents are to thesame degree more optimistic about the future of these relations. Answers of the respondents to the following question help explain the above-mentioneddifference of opinions.Chart 11. Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization ofrelations between Armenia and Turkey? 27
  • 28. 100% Armenia 95,5% 80% Turkey 60% 40% 36,8% 33,8% 29,5% 20% 1,6% 2,9% 0% Yes No Do not know As we see, overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents is sure there is an importantobstacle on the way of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations, whereas Turkishrespondents remain quite undecided in this respect. Still one should note that less than 40% ofthe Turkish respondents believe that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalizationof relations between the two countries. It is now quite clear that Turkish respondents have been more optimistic about the future ofArmenian-Turkish relations and why Armenians believe no change will occur. The fact that aportion of Armenian respondents thinks the relations have improved can also be explained in thisframes: some improvement (most probably speaking of economic cooperation) has beenachieved. To the request to name the most important obstacle preventing the improvement ofArmenian-Turkish relations the following answers were given by Armenian respondents: a) Armenian question/Genocide – 81,7% b) Armenian/Azerbaijani relationships/Problem of Artsakh - 9,8% c) Different religions - 2,8% d) Aggressive Pan-Turkism – 1,4% e) Other – 3,7% f) Don’t know/diff. to answer -0,6% According to the Turkish respondents those obstacles are: a) “Genocide” claims on the Armenian side – 19% b) Land – 12,1% c) Religious difference – 11,2% d) History – 9,4 % e) Foreign powers – 7,8 % f) Armenias territorial claims from Azerbaijan – 6% g) Politics – 5,1% h) Prejudice – 4,5% (Note: The questions have been formulated in multi-reponse form in Turkey; so the sum ofthe answers is higher than 100%.)Democratic development It can be argued that the democratic or non-democratic image of the country can be animportant factor to nourish the stereotypes. In this perspective, respondents were asked theiropinion on the level of democracy in both countries. As the table below shows, generally 28
  • 29. speaking, Armenian and Turkish respondents don’t think that the level of democraticdevelopment in both countries is high. For the respondents, as an average figure, the level ofdemocracy (especially in their country) is medium (46%); but it can be stated also that Armenianrespondents are more pessimistic about the democracy in both countries. Whereas amongArmenian respondents those who think that “the level of Turkish democracy is very low”(12,5%) is relatively higher, 22,8 % of Turkish respondents believe that the level of democracyin Turkey is high. In Turkish survey, one also notes that there is an important rate (30,5%) ofrespondents who have no idea about the level of democratic development in Armenia.Table 27. What is the level of democratic development in Armenia and Turkey? Armenia TurkeyDemocratic in Turkey in Armenia in Turkey in Armeniadevelopment..Very low 12,5 9,7 4,9 5,0Low 27,3 29,8 18,9 19,1Medium 36,8 46,0 46,1 34,8High 9,2 10,6 22,8 9,9Very high 1,2 2,1 3,0 0,7Don’t know 13,0 1,8 4,3 30,5Images and stereotypes Respondents were asked to describe their feeling or opinion about each other using thefollowing five-grade scale: very negative (1), negative (2), neutral (3), positive (4), very positive(5). Calculating the mean estimate, it appears that Armenian respondents’ opinion about theTurks in general is rather negative (1,96), whereas Turkish respondents’ attitude is close toneutral (2,73).Table 17. Your opinion about the Turks/Armenians Table 18. Their opinion about you Mean MeanArmenia 1,96 Armenia 1,73Turkey 2,73 Turkey 2,33 Such results, as subsequent reverse question revealed, did not match the expectations of therespondents on each other’s attitudes. Thus, Armenian respondents think Turks in general havenegative opinion on Armenians (1,73 on the same five-grade scale) and the Turkish respondentsbelieve Armenians’ attitude towards the Turks is somewhat better than it actually is (2,33). We have to emphasize that answers to this question as vary depending on the respondents’occupation as well. Thus, according to mean estimates, in Armenia, state employees andpensioners have the worst, while professionals, teachers, and intellectuals have the better attitudetowards the Turks. Whereas in Turkey, comparing to housewives and workers, students,pensioners and shopkeepers have better attitudes towards Armenians (see Chart 12). 29
  • 30. Chart 12. Relationship between the Armenian respondents’ occupation and their opinionabout the Turks 2,1 2,08 2,09 2,07 2,05 2 1,95 1,9 1,88 1,87 1,85 1,8 1,75 State Pensioners Professionals Teachers Intellectuals employeesRelationship between the Turkish respondents’ occupation and their opinion about theArmenians 2,9 2,88 2,85 2,8 2,75 2,75 2,7 2,7 2,68 2,65 2,62 2,6 2,55 2,5 2,45 Pensioners Workers Housew ifes Students Shopkeepers Another important relationship can be found in relation with the education level. Turkishrespondents’ opinion about the Armenians become clearly much more positive at the level ofuniversity graduates (3,03). (See Chart 13).Relationship between the Turkish respondents’ education and their opinion about theArmenians 30
  • 31. 3,1 3,03 3 2,9 2,8 2,76 2,73 2,7 2,63 2,6 2,5 2,4 Primary school Middle School High Scool University In order to uncover the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of eachother, we have asked the respondents to find one word characteristic of each others peoples.Tables below incorporate characteristics most frequently mentioned by the respondents. As wecan see, 2/3 of the characteristics for Turkish people presented by Armenian respondents arenegative; whereas only 1/3 of the chracteristics for Armenian people presented by Turkishrespondents are negative.Table 19. If you were asked to characterize the Turkish people in one word, what would itbe?Negative characteristics 68,7- Blood-thirsty 6,4- Enemies 10,1- Barbarians 9,1- Killers 6,4- Invaders 2,6- Savage 3,6- Other 30,5Positive characteristics 6,0Neutral characteristics 9,5Do not know 15,8Table 20. If you were asked to characterize the Armenian people in one word, what wouldit be?Negative characteristics 34,3Enemy 7,8Negative prejudices 7,2Evil 7,0Egoist, selfish, prejudiced 4,5Other 7,8Positive characteristics 10,8Good person 4,2Friendly nation 1,4 31
  • 32. Diligent, hard working 1,2Very intelligent 0,9Other 3,1Neutral characteristics 13,6Human 5,7Christian 2,0Armenian 1,6Other 4,3Do not know 41,0 It is worth mentioning that respondents of age 18-29 in Armenia have most frequentlyascribed negative characteristics to Turks (70,9% of the respondents of the given age group),whereas age group 30-44 was the one to chose neutral and positive traits more than the other agegroups (18,3% of the respondents mentioned neutral or positive characteristic). The most significant characteristic about this question for Turkish respondents lies in thefact that an important part of young generations couldn’t answer it. Whereas 46,6% of 18-29 agedidn’t express an opinion, only 28,8% of the respondents above 60 years failed to answer. This“awareness” of older respondents has been reflected in their answer and they were those whoattributed most negative (41,1%), positive (12,3%) and neutral (17,8%) traits to Armenians. Itshould also be added that compared to the other age groups the respondents of age 18-29,attributed negative characteristics to Armenians (32,5%) to a lesser extent. With an aim to get a fuller picture of how Armenian and Turkish respondents see eachother the following questions have been addressed:Table 21. How similar do you feel the Turks are to the citizens of the following countries? Not similar at all Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.Azerbaijan 2,0 7,7 19,6 49,9 78,0 31,7 0,4 10,7Bulgaria 36,8 41,7 37,7 36,9 9,3 5,3 16,2 16,2Georgia 39,4 26,8 44,4 44,8 12,8 8,8 3,4 19,6Iraq 15,1 39,0 43,1 40,1 30,4 4,8 11,4 16,1Iran 16,7 38,6 47,9 40,3 29,5 5,0 5,9 16,2Russia 92,5 70,2 4,7 11,1 1,2 1,5 1,6 17,2Syria 23,9 46,4 47,7 31,8 16,0 3,3 12,4 18,5Greece 60,4 52,8 27,9 26,2 2,4 4,0 9,3 17,0Armenia 68,9 59,8 28,5 25,1 1,7 1,8 0,9 13,3Table 22. How similar do you feel the Armenians are to the citizens of the followingcountries? Not similar at all Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.Azerbaijan 71,8 48,8 25,9 20,2 2,1 2,1 0,2 29,0 32
  • 33. Bulgaria 34,5 29,4 49,2 32,0 7,4 3,7 8,9 34,9Georgia 28,7 32,7 61,1 28,1 9,1 3,4 1,1 35,7Iraq 75,9 54,0 14,7 10,5 1,6 1,8 7,8 33,7Iran 62,2 53,2 32,4 11,5 2,7 1,7 2,7 33,6Russia 67,9 18,4 29,4 38,1 2,3 11,9 0,4 31,7Syria 62,9 40,9 27,5 20,9 1,8 3,8 7,8 34,5Greece 23,4 20,8 49,7 34,5 23,1 13,0 3,8 31,6Turkey 68,7 59,8 28,7 25,1 1,7 1,8 0,7 13,3 As Table 21 shows, there is almost total coincidence of opinions of Turkish and Armenianrespondents regarding the question. According to both Turkish and Armenian respondents, theTurks are not similar at all to Russians, Armenians and Greeks, and are somewhat similar toGeorgians, Iraqis and Iranians. According to Armenian respondents, the Turks are alsosomewhat similar to Syrians and very similar to Azerbaijanis, while in the opinion of Turkishrespondents the Turks are only somewhat similar to Azerbaijanis. According to Table 22, both Turkish and Armenian respondents think Armenians aresomewhat similar to Greeks and Bulgarians. Turkish respondents also feel Armenians aresomewhat similar to Russians, whereas majority of Armenian respondents deny this. Therespondents agree that Armenians are not similar at all to Turks, Azerbaijanis, Iraqis andIranians. In order to get a clearer understanding of the attitudes of respondents towards each other,we have asked them to describe their attitude to several possible situations.Table 23. What would your attitude be to the following? Negative Neutral Positive Don’t know Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk Arm. Turk. .Finding out that a Turkish/Armenian family 37,1 19,7 52,9 55,9 8,4 20,7 1,6 3,7settled in your cityA Turk/Armenian living in your apartment 44,8 26,4 46,0 50,4 8,1 20,2 1,1 3,0bloc or neighborhoodA Turk/Armenian working in your workplace 43,9 25,8 47,0 49,7 7,8 19,9 1,3 4,5A Turkish/Armenian doctor attending to you 66,9 22,9 22,8 46,4 6,1 27,2 4,2 3,5in hospitalYour son marrying a Turk/Armenian 92,9 63,6 4,6 19,7 1,2 10,3 1,3 6,5Your daughter marrying a Turk/Armenian 94,1 68,1 3,6 17,4 1,1 8,6 1,2 5,9 As the table shows, we can primarily say that both Turkish and Armenian respondentshave mostly neutral attitude to the fact of a possible, somewhat distant presence in their lives ofpeople of the other’s nationality. However, a possibility of a closer relationship is favorableneither for Armenians nor for Turks, especially for the children marrying a Turk or an Armenian.It could to be stated that Turkish respondents have less prejudice than Armenian respondents.This can be seen for the case of a “doctor attending”; majority of Armenian respondents (66,9%)would negatively react to being attended by a Turkish doctor in the hospital, while 73,6 % ofTurkish respondents would show neutral or positive attitude in case Armenian doctor takes careof their health. 33
  • 34. In order to try to reveal the sources of the respondents’ attitude towards each other, severalquestions have been asked. It appeared that half of the Turkish respondents (51,2%) have/had an Armenian friend,associate or acquaintance, and only 28% of Armenian respondents stated they do/did have aTurkish acquaintance. This might help explaining the fact that Turkish respondents have beenmore positive in their evaluation of Armenians than Armenians have been of Turks. Following chart proves the fact that the respondents’ attitude depends on whether or notthey have personal contacts with the Turks: those Armenian respondents, who have Turkishacquaintances, have a better attitude towards the Turks than those who do not. 34
  • 35. Chart 14. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not theyhave acquaintances 50% 49,0% Have Turkish 40% 39,7% 36,2% acquaintances 30% 29,5% Do not have 20% Turkish 15,4% acquaintances 10% 17,2% 6,9% 6,0% 0% Very Negative Neutral Positive negative Chart 15. Opinion of respondents about the Armenians depending on whether or notthey have acquaintances 50% Have Armenian 40% 39,1% acquaintances 34,8% 38,1% 30% 30,5% 23,0% Do not have 20% 21,9% Armenian acquaintances 10% 8,4% 4,3% 0% Very Negative Neutral Positive negative The difference in attitudes becomes clearer when we calculate the mean estimates: forthose who have Turkish acquaintances it is 2,32, whereas for those who don’t 1,97. The relativefigures for Turkish respondents are 3,13 and 2,69. Members of families of 24,5% of the Armenian respondents have been born in Turkey andsubsequently came to settle in Armenia, which means the attitudes of these respondents towardsthe Turks have been formed mostly according to the opinion of their relatives. Only 3,8% of Armenian respondents have personally visited Turkey and only 0,4% ofTurkish respondents have been in Armenia, which means that personal experience did notinfluence the formation of the respondents’ attitudes towards each other’s countries in frames ofthe survey. However, we have to note that those Armenian respondents who had been in Turkeyhave better attitude towards the Turks than those who had not (see Chart 16). 35
  • 36. Chart 16. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not theyhave been in Turkey 50% 47,4% 45% 47,2% Have been in 40% Turkey 35% 31,6% 30% 28,5% Have not been 25% in Turkey 20% 15% 19,3% 10,5% 10% 5% 10,5% 3,2% 0% Very Negative Neutral Positive negative As the chart shows, each third respondent who visited Turkey has neutral opinion about theTurks and each tenth has positive opinion, whereas only 19,3% of the respondents who have notbeen in Turkey have neutral attitude and 3,2% have positive attitude. 36
  • 37. IV. PRIORITIES This chapter presents the priorities that the respondents have in certain aspects of economicand political relations between Armenia and Turkey. As the survey has shown, majority of Armenian respondents would buy products made inTurkey and 60,3% of Turkish respondents would buy goods produced in Armenia.Chart 17. Would you buy products made in Turkey/Armenia? 80% 70% 73,7% 60% 60,3% 50% 40% Made in Turkey 38,6% 30% Made in Armenia 26,3% 20% 10% 0% Yes No Armenian and Turkish surveys have shown that readiness to buy Turkish / Armenianproducts depends on the respondents’ age and on their opinion on the Turks/Armenians ingeneral. Thus, quite logically, those respondents who have better attitude towards the Turks /Armenians are more likely to buy Armenian / Turkish products. Positive answer was given by100% of those who have very positive opinion, 91,4% of those who have positive opinion,88,9% of those with neutral opinion, 72,0% of those with negative opinion, and only 62,2% ofthose whose opinion is very negative are ready to buy Turkish products. In Turkey, 85% of thosewho have positive opinion, 71,6% of those with neutral opinion, 43,7% of those with negativeopinion, and only 22,2% of those with very negative opinion are ready to buy Armenianproducts. Within age groups, also expectedly, older respondents are less willing to buy Turks /Armenians products than the younger respondents are (see Table 24). Table 24. Would you buy products made in Turkey / Armenia? Armenia Turkey Yes No Yes No18-29 years old 78,5 21,5 66,8 33,230-44 years old 77,7 22,3 63,3 36,745-59 years old 73,1 26,9 48,4 51,660 and above 62,6 37,4 49,3 50,7 Majority of Armenian respondents expressed their willingness to go to Turkey for tourismand vacation (73,5%) and overwhelming majority of them (94,8%) would like to visit Turkey tosee the land of their ancestors. Majority of Turkish respondents (50,4%) would go to Armeniafor business and trade. 37
  • 38. Table 24. Would you go to Turkey/Armenia for the following? Yes, I would go No, I wouldn’t Don’t know go Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Tourism, vacation 73,5 43,6 25,2 51,8 1,3 4,6 Business, trade 31,5 50,4 66,2 45,2 2,3 4,4 To work 17,4 38,8 79,7 56,6 2,9 4,6 School, education 5,0 33,7 93,2 60,9 1,8 5,4 Medical treatment 5,7 45,4 90,6 49,4 3,7 5,2 To see the land of my ancestors 94,8 0,0 5,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 Other 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 As the table shows, Armenian respondents would definitely not go to Turkey to study, pass a medical treatment or to work, whereas they consider Turkey as a tourism/vacation country (73,5%). Turkish respondents would rather not choose Armenia for education, work and tourism. But parallel to this, it is also possible to read the table from another perspective: 45,4% of Turkish respondents are ready to trust “Armenian medical treatment” and 33,7% of them are ready to go Armenia for school/education, whereas in Armenia these figures are 5,7% and 5% respectively. Although majority (77,7%) of Armenian respondents do not speak Turkish and only 18,5% of them know just few words, most of them (73,7%) gave positive answer to the question of whether or not they watch Turkish movies, TV channels or read Turkish magazines. This speaks for the fact that the respondents mainly meant Turkish sports programs, which are quite popular in Armenia. The survey shows that overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents approve establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey, whereas on the Turkish side, the approvals are diminishing, reflecting an important rate of undecided respondents. Table 25. Do you approve or disapprove of the following?Armenian respondents Approve Disapprove Don’t knowOpening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 62,7 31,1 6,2Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 87,7 8,1 4,2Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without 60,1 33,1 6,8waiting for the resolution of political and historical problemsTurkish respondents Don’t Approve Disapprove knowOpening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 50,9 32,2 16,9Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 64,6 20,6 14,8Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without 54,0 29,0 17,1waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems 38
  • 39. The respondents also support opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey anddevelopment of economic cooperation between two countries. In the opinion of majority of Armenian and Turkish respondents, diplomatic relationsbetween Armenia and Turkey should be most emphasized in order to develop relations betweenthe countries.Table 26. Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations betweenArmenia and Turkey to the advantage of both countries? Armenia TurkeyDiplomatic relations between the states 74,8 57,8Academic relations / relations among universities 1,4 3,0Commercial relations – among businessmen 6,1 13,5NGO relations 0,2 7,3Relations between the parliamentarians 2,1 3,1Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 6,0 7,7Fair solution of the Armenian question 6,0 - According to the distribution of answers, issue of second importance is the development ofcommercial relations. Respondents in both countries have also emphasized the necessity todevelop tourism. One can also note that, unlike Armenian respondents, Turkish respondentsbelieve that the development of NGO relations is an important tool, while a certain percent ofArmenian respondents claim fair resolution of the Armenian question is to be most emphasized.Respondents in both countries think that relations between parliamentarians and academicrelations are least important for the improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations. As a concrete case example presented to the respondents, the efforts of Armenian-TurkishBusiness Development Council were not evaluated unambiguously. However, Turkishrespondents tend to show positive and Armenians rather neutral attitude towards the actions ofthe Council (see Table 26). At the same time, approximately each fifth Armenian respondent andeach fourth Turkish respondent had difficulty to define their position regarding this issue.Table 27. Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council is taking steps towards cooperation.They feel, for example, that Mount Ararat and Ani Ruins could become a “region of peace”between Armenian and Turkish peoples. What do you think about these efforts? Armenia TurkeyPositive 23,7 37,7Neutral / indifferent 30,1 11,6Negative 26,4 23,7Difficult to answer 19,8 26,9 Quite expectedly, the attitude of respondents towards the issue depends on their generalattitude towards the Turks – the better it is the more they support the measures that the Councilundertakes (see Chart 15). 39
  • 40. Chart 18. Relationship between respondents’ general attitude towards the Turksand their opinion about the efforts of Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council Very positive 100,0% Positive 82,9% 11,4% 2,9% Positive Neutral 71,2% 10,1% 10,6% Neutral Negative 54,0% 14,2% 16,3% Negative Very negative 47,1% 11,2% 30,9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chart 19. Relationship between respondents’ general attitude towards theArmenians and their opinion about the efforts of Armenian-Turkish Business DevelopmentCouncil Very positive 71,4% 14,3% Positive 66,2% 3,7% 13,9% 41,5% Positive Neutral 14,5% 17,8% Neutral Negative 27,2% 12,8% 33,6% Negative Very negative 11,1% 17,3% 48,1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 40
  • 41. CONCLUSIONA first experience...When we conclude, what we need to definitely emphasize, and what values this research is that itis a first experience. On the one hand, it represents an attempt to unravel mutual perceptions inTurkey and Armenia and on the other; it creates the knowledge, which came out of an initiativeand collective work of Turkish and Armenian researchers. In addition, although the twocountries are neighbors, the difficulties of communication also have led our experience. Hence,this research is a first attempt with a hope to trigger the newcomers.“Treason” via Scientific ResearchFrom the outset, it was obvious that a slowly progressing research, which would take two yearsto complete, would be hard to do. The first difficulty emerged while the questions were beingprepared. As it is well known, researchers engaged in fieldwork ask questions accompanied byhypotheses while using research techniques. In quantitative researches, questionnaires aredirected to the interviewees. Close-ended questions in questionnaires include hypotheses on theissue studied, thus all potential answers are found within the options. However, this study titled“Armenian and Turkish Citizens’ Mutual Perceptions and Dialogue Project,” some options werenot included. Sine qua non options for Armenia were not included to the Questionnaire forTurkey, in other words some questions could not be asked and even at the outset, “self-censorship” has been applied.For instance although it did not include the word “genocide”, the following question was notasked in Turkey:“In the second half of 1910s, hundreds of thousands Armenians were killed in nowadays Turkey(Anatolia) and deported out of country.”Instead, the following two questions were asked to Turkish participants“During World War I, much of the Armenian population living in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia)was forced migrate to other places.” 41
  • 42. “In the second half of 1910s, the clashes in Anatolia claimed many Armenian and Turkish lives.”The second question above was not asked to Armenian participants. In other words, researchersdid not ask questions which would have given them the chance to compare attitudes on “1915”.The researchers were obliged to take into consideration the points of “sensitivity” of the societiesthey lived in, or more appropriately of the official discourses.In spite of this, researchers faced many difficulties in the fieldwork. Many people rejected to takepart in the interview when they learned that the study was on Armenia and Armenians. Theysaid, “We do not mess with these kinds of issues” and shut their doors. Some claimed those“having us do” this study “would incite turmoil”. Some asked the interviewers “who is havingyou do this study and why?” “Are Armenians behind this?” “Are you an Armenian?” “Do youwork for the Armenians?”Actually, we can say that even those very observations bespeak of the existence of more negativeprejudices than those we eventually unraveled. However, one could also read this statement fromthe other way around. People indeed said, “We may get into trouble”. Public employees utteredthat they were worried about losing their job and showed uneasiness while answering thequestions. But one could think that while doing so, they may also be uncovering a dominant or“learned” fear: “In order to comply with the valid discourse, and to go with the wind, do not talkabout Armenians, or if you do talk, talk in a negative way.”Beside those anxieties observed during interviews, interviewers also experienced tangibleproblems. In some cities and districts, interviewers were placed into custody, and after theinterrogation, they were released. In some places, interviewers were escorted out of the districtlimits. That is why we had to alter some districts, which were in the initial sample quota.Similar problems also arose in Armenia. When the research became public, nationalist groupsdeclared that it was a “scandal,” and they claimed, “Turks were behind it”. They also declaredthat researchers were “traitors”.To sum up, the very implementation of the research itself was a “sensitive” issue, and it revealedthat the Turks and Armenians had a potential to shake each other’s national identities. 42
  • 43. Despite those difficulties, one of the important findings of the fieldwork was that the interestlevel was high at neighborhoods with higher socio-economic levels. In those neighborhoods,there were those who favored such a research. Those positive attitudes stood in contradistinctionwith those prevalent at the lower socio-economic strata that are relatively more receptive of thepopulist and nationalist discourses. Doubtless, this could be a sign of a potential for developmentof the bilateral relations through channels such as trade, business, education and tourism, or atleast point out to the fact that bilateral relations could be “normalized” through pluralization.Fear and Suspicion down below...Doubtless, other comparative studies might show that the low level of knowledge of Turkishsociety on Armenia would be similar for other neighboring countries as well. However, if onesuperimposes this lack of knowledge on Armenia with biases that are historically constructedand sustained by linking Armenia to ASALA (Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) andthe Kurdish / PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) problems, a very negative image on Armeniaemerges.For Turks, the neighboring Armenia is an unknown country. It is striking to note that most Turkshave a very low level of knowledge on Armenia, as revealed by the interviews. A low level ofknowledge emerges on following points: Armenia’s area, population (half of participants do nothave any idea on it); geographical situation (40 % of the participants do not know whetherArmenia have an access to sea while 1/6 of the participants believe that Armenia have an accessto Black Sea or to the Caspian Sea) and political order (half of the participants do not have anyidea on it). The negative prejudices stem from a lack of knowledge. In other words, this lack ofknowledge becomes all the more apparent as a source of fear and, thus, hatred.Furthermore, this study provides important hints on how variously fed stereotypes could be usedsimultaneously. For instance, some belonging to the lower socio-economic stratum believe thatArmenians came to Turkey as “tourists” just like the Romanians and the Russians. Save for thosewho know that the Armenians are indeed from Anatolia (40 % of participants), most attribute tothese “aliens” any negative characteristics. There are also participants who believe that thereligious affiliation of Armenians is Judaism, and that the Communist Party (which even doesnot have any legislative seats) still runs Armenia. In other words, cultural capital contains those“malignant” portrayals, adjectives and concepts referring to “malignant” situations readily 43
  • 44. available for quotidian use. One could count the characterizations such as the “Armenian”,“Jewish” and “communist” among those. One could use those for a taboo country that could beproblematic to talk about and thereby a “good we” is constructed through a “malignant them”.To compare the mutual perceptions, while for the Armenian citizens’ perceptions of theirproblem with the Turks had to be historically resolved, for the Turks Armenians constitute afigure of the “other and “alien”.National Identity and PrejudicesFrom another angle, mutually held prejudices inform us about the “religious” dimension of thenational identity on either side. First, in both countries, a significant level of religiosity isassigned to the other country. This is more pronounced in Armenia where a majority ofparticipants (68,5%) believes that Turkey does not possess a secular structure. In Turkey, thosethinking the same about Armenia ranges approximately to 40%. In both countries, the religiousdimension of their own national identity is assigned to the other; the other country is constructedas the “other” in religious terms.It seems like the religious differences between the two countries play an important role in theconstruction of prejudices. One could see the signs of a significant level of religious dimensionin the roots of the national identity and nationalist.Prejudice increases when the sources of knowledge production get singular. For those brought upsolely by the indoctrination of the official history, the only legitimate language belongs to thestate. As an example of perceiving the other through the memorized and internalized language ofthe state, one could provide the case of the knowledge and image the citizens of either countrieshave on the other country or the relations of the other country with the others. Even if thecitizens do not have any knowledge on the relations of the Turkey (or Armenia, for that matter),an estimate is made on the basis of what that should be like. For example if Turkey’s relationswith a country is bad, Armenia’s should be good and vice versa.One of the relative important findings of the research is correlation between level of knowledgeand level of prejudice in Turkey. Lack of “constructed” knowledge lower the level of prejudice,and makes it unstable and increases the proportion of the respondents with no opinion. It iscertain that different perspectives on historical events of 1915 have been handled in terms of 44
  • 45. state policy is very effective for the above finding. In other words, as Armenian national identityhas been constructed on the axis of “genocide”, all generations socialize within the givenframework, in Turkey however Armenianness has been constructed as “otherness”, and “1915”has remained as a stigmatized issue until today; caused lack of knowledge about historical eventsand being neutral on the issue.Turkish citizens are aware of their lack of knowledge that leads to a confused image ofArmenians. On the contrary, Armenian citizens’ knowledge on Turkey is more definite. Theirknowledge comes from the information about Atatürk, Talat Pasha, Sultan Hamit, Young Turksas “enemies of Armenians” and leads to formation of “historical and national consciousness”.PerceptionsBecause the knowledge about other country is canalized through state in both country, state andsociety are always confusing concepts for citizens of each country.In general as Armenian citizens’ evaluation of Turkish citizens can be called as negative;Turkish citizens’ evaluation of Armenian citizens falls into the scale of “negative”, close to the“neutral”. Two thirds of the adjectives used by the Armenian for Turk citizens are negative, andthis proportion for Turkish participants is only one third. Armenian question for Turkish sidebecomes relevant firstly through ASALA and secondly through the Kurdish Question becomesthe source of prejudice.The research shows that mutual perceptions have “similarities”. As for Armenian citizens thereis no doubt that Turkish citizens have negative image of Armenians, Turkish citizens believe thatArmenians do not think in a negative way about Turkish citizens. Armenians and Turkishcitizens misunderstood each other in a sense; Armenian citizens do not know the level ofpositivity among Turkish citizens and Turkish citizens do not know the level of negativityamong Armenians. Highly educated segments of Turkish citizens seem in a more positive moodtowards the Armenians.The research also shows that highly educated segments of Turkish citizens separate Armenianstate from Armenian society more clearly. The negative or at least hands off attitude over statemay not be transferred to attitudes over society. 45
  • 46. On of the factors that differentiates the attitudes of Turkish citizens from Armenian citizens is,the moderate knowledge of Turkish citizens thanks to Armenians living in Turkey. For instance,being treated by an Armenian doctor is a very “normal” fact.The source of one of the important findings of the research derives from participants who havecontacts in Armenia or Turkey. The opinion of Armenian citizens who have Turkishacquaintance is neutral and opinion of Turkish citizens who have Armenian acquaintance is closeto positive. Even in Armenia, have trouble with national identity, the level of prejudice islowered among above mentioned people.RelationsCertain findings of the research give the motivation of dreaming a potential positive future. Inboth countries, there is a room of psychological infrastructure for communication with “other,”even it derives from different motivations.For instance, for the statement as a concern of confidence, “being treated by an Armeniandoctor” Turkish citizens can think free from bias. On the other hand, many highly prejudicedArmenian would still buy products made in Turkey and come to Turkey for vacation.As the level of education increases, the approach to establishing diplomatic relations betweentwo countries reflects Armenian view of separation of state from society, among Turkishcitizens. The proportion of those agreeing is lower among Turkish citizens that also reflect theclarity of lack of trust to Armenian state. On the other hand, Armenians wishes establishingdiplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey.Doubtless, the most sensitive issue between two countries is the evaluation of “1915”. Accordingto Armenian citizens, the main problem between Armenia and Turkey is the “ArmenianQuestion/Genocide”, with a proportion of 82%. In Turkey, on the other hand, while the “so-called genocide claims by the Armenians” are frequently addressed, the relative proportion is amere 19%.If one takes the differences between the levels of prejudices and the severe role of “1915” and“otherness” in construction of national identities into consideration; it seems more possible tomake the first steps from out of Turkey. While most data seem negative there still are signs for 46
  • 47. potential dialogue. For those sections of the Turkish society that we may call as agents of a“positive approach,” (corresponding to 30% of the respondents), racist prejudices have mostlybeen marginalized. Those Turkish participants are neutral on the following statement; “BothArmenians and Turks are ancient peoples”. Although carrying more signs of the prejudices andof history, same psychological background to make the first step also exists among thoseArmenians stressing their commonalities with the Turks. Hence, it is critical that those actorswho could pass the psychological threshold make their voices heard and make their knowledgemore visible. And the empathy here is not a structure of feeling that could be attained byrequesting reciprocity.In other words, Turkish citizens can make the first step due to their lower levels of prejudice, butArmenians also have ability of making steps although they seem to have many prejudices. Thatis to say, for Armenians there is a historically experienced suffering which could not beforgotten. Turks at least need to respect this suffering. Unless this respect is shown, the “TurkishQuestion” will never cease to exist. Still, Armenians seem to have made a step in their minds:“Diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey should be established.”Considering that main sources of information either society has on the other are media/TV andhistory books, if channels of media –which are relatively closer to the civil society whencompared with history books that are mainly controlled by the state- could contribute to a greatextent to the formation of knowledge on the other and efface those negative biases, provided thatthey could broadcast in an ethical, unbiased and just manner, free from populist approaches. Bythe provision of such knowledge through multiple channels, “democratization” of both societies’minds could be attained. Therefore, historical events could be discussed beyond the hegemony ofnationalist discourses and passions.In conclusion, with all its imperfections, the most significant benefit of this study is that it couldhelp counter the prejudices formed by bits of information and lack of information. By knowingwhat the “other” side thinks, we could help pluralize “knowledge”. By pluralizing knowledge,we can help citizens of two neighboring countries open up alternative paths of communication. 47
  • 48. ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE - ARMENIAI-KnowledgeHow would you describe contemporary Turkey in terms of territory? Frequency Valid PercentIt is a large country 524 52,4It is a small country 42 4,2It is neither a large nor a small country 410 41,0Do not know 24 2,4 Total 1000 100,0What is the approximate population of contemporary Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentLess than 5 million 23 2,35-10 million 78 7,810-20 million 119 11,920-40 million 199 19,940-60 million 270 27,060-80 million 130 13,080-100 million 20 2,0More than 100 million 2 0,2Do not know 159 15,9Who dominates the government in Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentPresident 630 63,0Prime minister 166 16,6Sultan 64 6,4Islamic clergy 62 6,2Other 6 0,6Do not know 72 7,2Does Turkey have an access to a sea (seas)? Frequency Valid PercentYes 959 95,9No 9 0,9Do not know 32 3,2 48
  • 49. To which sea(s)? Frequency Valid PercentBlack Sea 793 82,7The Mediterranean 684 71,3Aegean Sea 210 21,9Caspian Sea 63 6,6Marmara Sea 12 1,3Other 3 0,3Do not know 29 3,0What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Turks? Frequency Valid PercentBuddhism 0 0,0Christianity 0 0,0Islam 992 99,2Judaism 0 0,0Other 0 0,0Do not know 8 0,8Is there an official religion in Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentYes 685 68,5No 147 14,7Do not know 168 16,8Which one? Frequency Valid PercentBuddhism 0 0,0Christianity 2 0,3Islam 679 99,1Judaism 2 0,3Other 0 0,0Do not know 2 0,3 49
  • 50. Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements? Agree Disagree Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Turkish and Armenian peoples have 742 74,2 224 22,4 34 3,4common elements of culture such asmusic, folklore and gastronomy.There was no conflict between the 6 0,6 977 97,7 17 1,7Turks and the Armenians until theearly 20th century.Parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) 973 97,3 5 0,5 22 2,2were inhabited by the Armeniansbefore the Turks arrived.Armenians who now live in Turkey 4 0,4 980 98,0 16 1,6came to Turkey after dissolution of theSoviet Union.During World War I, much of the 979 97,9 13 1,3 8 0,8Armenian population living innowadays Turkey (Anatolia) wasforced to migrate to other places.In the second half of 1910s, hundreed 999 99,9 0 0,0 1 0,1of thousands Armenians were killed innowadays Turkey (Anatolia) anddeported out of country.There are Armenian churches and 974 97,4 11 1,1 15 1,5works of art in several places inTurkey.How would you describe Turkey’s relations with the following countries? Bad relations Neither good, Good Don’t know nor bad relations Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Armenia 828 82,8 153 15,3 3 0,3 16 1,6Azerbaijan 14 1,4 33 3,3 950 95,0 3 0,3Bulgaria 190 19,0 382 38,2 208 20,8 220 22,0France 454 45,4 343 34,3 99 9,9 104 10,4Georgia 21 2,1 293 29,3 643 64,3 43 4,3Germany 50 5,0 314 31,4 516 51,6 120 12,0Greece 486 48,6 274 27,4 98 9,8 142 14,2Iran 280 28,0 352 35,2 278 27,8 90 9,0Israel 131 13,1 384 38,4 332 33,2 153 15,3Russia 164 16,4 628 62,8 166 16,6 42 4,2USA 54 5,4 123 12,3 787 78,7 36 3,6 50
  • 51. What are the professions or fields that the Turks have been most prominent or successful? Frequency Valid PercentTrade/Business 238 23,8Diplomacy 223 22,3Agriculture 146 14,6Light industry 96 9,6Sport – wrestling 98 9,8Eastern music/art 69 6,9Tourism 69 6,9Industry/economy 53 5,3Cruelty 64 6,4Other 46 4,6No sphere 34 3,4Don’t know/diff. to answer 148 14,8Can you name a prominent Turkish person or institution? Frequency Valid PercentAtaturk * 178 17,8Talat * 137 13,7Enver* 98 9,8Sultan Hamid * 66 6,6Young Turks * 25 2,5Demirel 86 8,6Turgut Ozal 69 6,9Ecevit 40 4,0Hasan Sas 44 4,4Tansu Ciller 29 2,9Tarkan 13 1,3Other 84 8,4There isn’t such 31 3,1Don’t know/diff. to answer 390 39,0*All this persons were mentioned by the respondents as an Enemy of Armenian people.II-AttitudesWhich one, the Armenians or the Turks, appeared on the historical scene first? Frequency Valid PercentArmenians 946 94,6Turks 7 0,7They are both ancient peoples 47 4,7 51
  • 52. How would you describe contemporary Armenian-Turkish relations in general? Very bad Bad Neither good Good Very good Difficult to nor bad answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 189 18,9 604 60,4 179 17,9 5 0,5 0 0,0 23 2,3What is the level of democratic development in Armenia and Turkey? Very low Low Medium High Very high Difficult to answer Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq. % . . . . . Armenia 97 9,7 298 29,8 460 46,0 106 10,6 21 2,1 18 1,8 Turkey 125 12,5 273 27,3 368 36,8 92 9,2 12 1,2 130 13,0How would you describe your feeling or opinion about the Turks in general?Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 278 27,8 472 47,2 198 19,8 35 3,5 2 0,2 15 1,5How, in your opinion, do the Turks feel or think about the Armenians in general?Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 334 33,4 572 57,2 34 3,4 21 2,1 1 0,1 38 3,8Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between Armenianand Turkish peoples today? Frequency Valid PercentTurks generally get along well with Armenian people 9 0,9Turks generally feel threatened by Armenian people. 14 14,0Turks generally dislike Armenian people. 513 51,3Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations 300 30,0between Armenian and Turkish peoplesDifficult to answer 38 3,8 52
  • 53. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations betweencontemporary Armenian and Turkish states? Frequency Valid PercentTurkey considers Armenia as a friendly neighboring state. 4 0,4Turkey is a bordering country, with which Armenia has no 360 36,0diplomatic relations.Turkey is a potential danger for Armenia. 276 27,6Turkey is a country hostile to Armenia. 336 33,6Difficult to answer. 24 2,4Do you feel that the relations between the Armenian and Turkish states changed for the better,remained unchanged or changed for the worse in the last 10 years? Frequency Valid PercentChanged for the better 226 22,6Remained unchanged 525 52,5Changed for the worse 210 21,0Don’t know 38 3,8Do you feel that the relations between the Armenian and Turkish states will change for the better,remain unchanged or change for the worse in the next 10 years? Frequency Valid PercentWill change for the better 147 14,7Will remain unchanged 374 37,4Will change for the worse 253 25,3Don’t know 226 22,6Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations betweenArmenia and Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentYes 955 95,5No 16 1,6Don’t know 29 2,9What is the main obstacles to the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentArmenian question/ genocide 780 81,7Armenian/Azerbaijanian relationships/ Problem of 94 9,8ArtsakhDifferent religions 27 2,8Aggressive Pan-turkism 13 1,4Other 35 3,7Don’t know/diff. to answer 6 0,6 53
  • 54. If you were asked to characterize the Turkish people in one word, what would it be? Frequency Valid PercentNegative CharacteristicsBlood-thirsty 64 6,4Enemies 101 10,1Barbarians 91 9,1Killers 64 6,4Invaders 26 2,6Wage 36 3,6Other 305 30,5Positive characteristics 60 6,0Neutral characteristics 95 9,5Don’t know 158 15,8Have you ever seen a Turkish person in real life (not seen on screen, TV, etc.)? Frequency Valid PercentYes, I have 277 27,7No, I haven’t 723 72,3Have you ever talked to a Turkish person? Frequency Valid PercentYes, I have 207 20,7No, I haven’t 70 7,0Have you ever had Turkish friend, associate or acquaintance? Frequency Valid PercentYes 58 28,0No 149 72,0Where? Frequency Valid PercentIn Armenia 16 27,6In Turkey 16 27,6In another country 26 44,8Was any member of your family/kin born in Turkey and subsequently came to settle in Armenia?If yes, please specify how you are related to that person. Frequency Valid PercentYes 245 24,5No 755 75,5 54
  • 55. Please specify how you are related to that person.Relation Frequency Valid PercentParents 26 10,6Father 17 6,9Mother 7 2,9Grandmother and grandfather 21 8,6Grandfather 86 35,1Granmother 33 13,5Grandfather ancestors 38 15,5Grandmother ancestors 4 1,6Husband’s parents 8 3,3Wife’s parents 3 1,2Myself 2 0,8Have you personally ever been in Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentYes 38 3,8No 962 96,2When? Year Frequency Valid Percent >1920 1 2,61921 – 1990 2 5,31991 – 1995 10 26,31996 – 1997 9 23,71998 – 2002 15 39,5Don’t remember 1 2,6Is there anybody in your family/kin who is married or engaged to a Turk? Frequency Valid PercentYes 4 0,4No 996 99,6How are you related to this member of your family/kin?Relation Frequency Valid PercentGrandmother 1 25,0Aunt 2 50,0Daughter of grandmother’s brother 1 25,0 55
  • 56. What would your attitude be to the following? Negative Neutral Positive Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Finding out that a Turkish family settled in 371 37,1 529 52,9 84 8,4 16 1,6your cityA Turk living in your apartment bloc or 448 44,8 460 46,0 81 8,1 11 1,1neighborhoodA Turk working in your workplace 439 43,9 470 47,0 78 7,8 13 1,3A Turkish doctor attending to you in hospital 669 66,9 228 22,8 61 6,1 42 4,2Your son marrying a Turk 929 92,9 46 4,6 12 1,2 13 1,3Your daughter marrying a Turk 941 94,1 36 3,6 11 1,1 12 1,2III- PrioritiesWould you buy products made in Turkey? Frequency Valid PercentYes 737 73,7No 263 26,3Would you go to Turkey for the following? Yes, I would go No, I wouldn’t go Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Tourism, vacation 735 73,5 252 25,2 13 1,3Business, trade 315 31,5 662 66,2 23 2,3To work 174 17,4 797 79,7 29 2,9School, education 50 5,0 932 93,2 18 1,8Medical treatment 57 5,7 906 90,6 37 3,7To see the land of my 73 94,8 4 5,2 0 0,0ancestorsOther 1 100 0 0,0 0 0,0Do you watch Turkish movies or TV channels or read Turkish magazines? Frequency Valid PercentYes 737 73,7No 263 26,3Do you speak Turkish? Frequency Valid PercentYes, fluently 6 0,6Yes, well enough for basic communication 32 3,2Not really, I only know some words 185 18,5No 777 77,7 56
  • 57. Do you approve or disapprove of the following? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 627 62,7 311 31,1 62 6,2Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and 877 87,7 81 8,1 42 4,2TurkeyDeveloping economic collaboration between the two 601 60,1 331 33,1 68 6,8countries without waiting for the resolution of political andhistorical problemsHow similar do you feel the Turks are to the citizens of the following countries? Not similar at all Somewhat Very similar Don’t know similar Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 20 2,0 196 19,6 780 78,0 4 0,4Bulgaria 368 36,8 377 37,7 93 9,3 162 16,2Georgia 394 39,4 444 44,4 128 12,8 34 3,4Iraq 151 15,1 431 43,1 304 30,4 114 11,4Iran 167 16,7 479 47,9 295 29,5 59 5,9Russia 925 92,5 47 4,7 12 1,2 16 1,6Syria 239 23,9 477 47,7 160 16,0 124 12,4Greece 604 60,4 279 27,9 24 2,4 93 9,3Armenia 689 68,9 285 28,5 17 1,7 9 0,9How similar do you feel the Armenians are to the citizens of the following countries? Not similar at all Somewhat Very similar Don’t know similar Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 718 71,8 259 25,9 21 2,1 2 0,2Bulgaria 345 34,5 492 49,2 74 7,4 89 8,9Georgia 287 28,7 611 61,1 91 9,1 11 1,1Iraq 759 75,9 147 14,7 16 1,6 78 7,8Iran 622 62,2 324 32,4 27 2,7 27 2,7Russia 679 67,9 294 29,4 23 2,3 4 0,4Syria 629 62,9 275 27,5 18 1,8 78 7,8Greece 234 23,4 497 49,7 231 23,1 38 3,8Turkey 687 68,7 287 28,7 17 1,7 7 0,7 57
  • 58. How well do you think you know the neighboring countries? Well Somewhat Not at all Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 215 21,5 784 78,4 1 0,1Turkey 108 10,8 888 88,8 4 0,4Georgia 251 25,1 748 74,8 1 0,1Iran 113 11,3 849 84,9 38 3,8What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that you know? Azerbaijan Turkey Georgia Iran Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %History books 491 49,1 712 71,5 489 48,9 525 54,6Media/TV 954 95,5 923 92,7 938 93,9 881 91,6Older generations/ family 275 27,5 579 58,1 286 28,6 173 18,0membersFriends / relatives 272 27,2 187 18,8 342 34,2 162 16,8Politicians 170 17,0 85 8,5 121 12,1 44 4,6Clergy / Church 20 2,0 24 2,4 33 3,3 11 1,1Art/Literature 185 18,5 200 20,1 221 22,1 183 19,0Personal visits and contacts 61 6,1 39 3,9 90 9,0 9 0,9Other 21 2,1 1 0,1 1 0,1 0 0,0Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations between Armeniaand Turkey to the advantage of both countries? Frequency Valid PercentDiplomatic relations between the states 748 74,8Academic relations / relations among universities 14 1,4Commercial relations – among businessmen 61 6,1NGO relations 2 0,2Relations between the parliamentarians 21 2,1Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 60 6,0Fair solution of the Armenian question 60 6,0No relationships 16 1,6Don’t know/diff. to answer 18 1,8 58
  • 59. Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council is taking steps towards cooperation. They feel,for example, that Mount Ararat and Ani Ruins could become a “region of peace” betweenArmenian and Turkish peoples. What do you think about these efforts? Frequency Valid PercentPositive 237 23,7Neutral / indifferent 301 30,1Negative 264 26,4Difficult to answer 198 19,8DEMOGRAPHYGender Frequency Valid PercentMale 456 45,6Female 544 54.4How old are you? Age groups Frequency Valid Percent18-29 237 23730-44 301 30,145-59 264 26,460 and over 198 19,8What level of education did you complete? Frequency Valid PercentIlliterate 2 0,2Elementary school 33 3,3Secondary school 395 39,5Secondary professional school 245 24,5University - High 319 31,9Master’s/doctoral degree 6 0,6 59
  • 60. What is your occupation or profession? Frequency Valid PercentPublic or private sector manager, administrator, expert 6 0,6Big businessman, merchant, industrialist 0 0,0State employee (excluding teacher and academic) 71 7,1Private or public sector employee 43 4,3Worker 71 7,1Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 57 5,7Private owner/pritave businessman 47 4,7Housewife 150 15,0Teacher 62 6,2Intellectual/lecturer 11 1,1Student 67 6,7Pensioner 175 17,5Unemployed, but having income (having land plot, 40 4,0investor etc.)Unemployed 168 16,8Irregular jobs 32 3,2What is your total monthly household income approximately? Frequency Valid PercentLess than USD 50 447 44,7USD 50-100 272 27,2USD 101-200 113 11,3USD 201-350 20 2,0USD 351-500 9 0,9USD 501-750 3 0,3USD 751-1000 0 0,0More than USD 1000 0 0,0We don’t have any income 99 9,9Difficult to answer 37 3,7 60
  • 61. ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE - TURKEYI-KnowledgeHow would you describe contemporary Armenia in terms of territory? Frequency %It is a large country 88 7,2It is a small country 485 39,8It is neither a large nor a small country 226 18,5Do not know 420 34,5 Total 1219 100,0What is the approximate population of contemporary Armenia? Frequency %Less than 2 million 54 4,42-3 million 142 11,64-5 million 171 14,06-7 million 69 5,78-10 million 59 4,8More than 10 million 99 8,1Do not know 625 51,3Who dominates the government in Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentPresident 217 17,8Prime minister 119 9,8Communist Party 164 13,5Clergy 155 12,7Other 18 1,5Do not know 546 44,8Does Armenia have an access to a sea (seas)? Frequency Valid PercentYes 190 15,6No 538 44,1Do not know 491 40,3 61
  • 62. To which sea (seas)? Frequency Valid PercentBlack Sea 88 46,3The Mediterranean 4 2,1Aegean Sea 10 5,3Caspian Sea 57 30,0Other (please 2 1,1specify)Do not know 33 17,4What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Armenians? Frequency Valid PercentBuddhism 15 1,2Christianity 665 54,6Islam 16 1,3Judaism 205 16,8Armenian 3 0,2Other 285 23,4Catholic 10 0,8Orthodox-Gregorian 13 1,1Do not know 7 0,6Is there an official religion in Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentYes 492 40,4No 233 19,1Do not know 494 40,5Which one? Frequency Valid PercentBuddhism 9 1,8Christianity 334 67,9Islam 5 1,0Judaism 106 21,5Armenian 2 0,4Other 22 4,5Catholic 7 1,4Orthodox-Gregorian 6 1,2Do not know 1 0,2 62
  • 63. Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements? Agree Disagree Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Turkish and Armenian peoples have 521 42,7 484 39,7 214 17,6common elements of culture such asmusic, folklore and gastronomy.There was no conflict between the 459 37,7 419 34,4 341 28,0Turks and the Armenians until theearly 20th century.Parts of Anatolia were inhabited by the 747 61,3 187 15,3 285 23,4Armenians before the Turks arrived.Armenians who now live in Turkey 369 30,3 489 40,1 361 29,6came to Turkey after dissolution of theSoviet Union.During World War I, much of the 579 47,5 339 27,8 301 24,7Armenian population living in Anatoliawas forced to migrate to other places.In the second half of 1910s, the clashes 879 72,1 141 11,6 199 16,3in Anatolia claimed many Armenianand Turkish lives.There are Armenian churches and 979 80,3 75 6,2 165 13,5works of art in several places inAnatolia.How would you describe Armenia’s relations with the following countries? Bad relations Neither good, Good relations Don’t know nor bad Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Turkey 489 40,1 514 42,2 140 11,5 76 6,2Azerbaijan 430 35,3 192 15,8 189 15,5 408 33,5Bulgaria 85 7,0 239 19,6 349 28,6 546 44,8France 48 3,9 128 10,5 598 49,1 445 36,5Georgia 211 17,3 216 17,7 256 21,0 536 44,0Germany 72 5,9 168 13,8 505 41,4 474 38,9Greece 70 5,7 133 10,9 567 46,5 449 36,8Iran 335 27,5 201 16,5 157 12,9 526 43,2Israel 138 11,3 159 13,0 423 34,7 499 40,9Russia 96 7,9 176 14,4 492 40,4 455 37,3USA 86 7,1 136 11,2 578 47,4 419 34,4 63
  • 64. What are the professions or fields that the Armenians have been most prominent or successful? Frequency Valid PercentCommerce 230 18,9Goldsmith 78 6,4Artisan 79 6,5Farmer 6 0,5Mining, extraction 3 0,2Tavern, barkeeping 3 0,2Businessman, industrialist 28 2,3Arms manufacturer 3 0,2Doctor 17 1,4Engineer 2 0,2Architect 15 1,2Manager 1 0,1Educator 2 0,2Banking 2 0,2Artist 81 6,6Author 3 0,2Painter 2 0,2Musician 24 2,0Historian 4 0,3Scientist 6 0,5Priest 4 0,3Sportsperson, athlete 4 0,3Soldier 3 0,2Politician 10 0,8Lobbyist 2 0,2Journalist 3 0,2Worker 2 0,2Actor/Actress 5 0,4No profession 5 0,4All professions 9 0,7Negative expressions 11 0,9Other 9 0,7Do not know 719 59,0 64
  • 65. Can you name a prominent Armenian person or institution? Frequency Valid PercentUzeyir Garih 28 2,3Matild Manukyan 22 1,8Coskun Sabah 9 0,7Nubar Terziyan 9 0,7Alarko 8 0,7ASALA 8 0,7Cem Karaca 7 0,6Ishak Alaton 6 0,5Fedon 6 0,5Charles Aznavour 6 0,5Cher 5 0,4Etyen Mahcupyan 5 0,4Elia Kazan 5 0,4Other Armenian person 40 3,3Other Turkish person 25 2,1Other Jewish person 10 0,8Armenian institutions 9 0,7Turkish institutions 7 0,6Clergy 7 0,6Other 9 0,7Do not know 1047 85,9II-AttitudesWhich one, the Turks or the Armenians, appeared on the historical scene first? Frequency Valid PercentArmenians 93 7,6Turks 736 60,4They are both ancient peoples 349 28,6How would you describe contemporary Turkish-Armenian relations in general? Very bad Bad Neither good Good Very good Difficult to nor bad answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 80 6,6 375 30,8 553 45,4 133 10,9 2 0,2 76 6,2 65
  • 66. What is the level of democratic development in Armenia and Turkey? Very low Low Medium High Very high Difficult to answer Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Armenia 61 5,0 233 19,1 424 34,8 121 9,9 8 0,7 372 30,5 Turkey 60 4,9 230 18,9 562 46,1 278 22,8 36 3,0 53 4,3How would you describe your feeling or opinion about the Armenians in general?Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 81 6,6 375 30,8 393 32,2 216 17,7 14 1,1 140 11,5How, in your opinion, do the Armenians feel or think about the Turks in general?Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answerFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 130 10,7 564 46,3 202 16,6 126 10,3 6 0,5 191 15,7Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between Armenianand Turkish peoples today? Frequency Valid PercentArmenians generally get along well with Turkish people 173 14,2Armenians generally feel threatened by Turkish people. 182 14,9Armenians generally dislike Turkish people. 410 33,6Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations 298 24,4between Armenian and Turkish peoplesDifficult to answer 156 12,8Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations betweencontemporary Armenian and Turkish states? Frequency Valid PercentArmenia considers Turkey as a friendly neighboring state. 155 12,7Armenia is a bordering country, with which Turkey has no 287 23,5diplomatic relationsArmenia is a potential danger for Turkey 251 20,6Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey 285 23,4Difficult to answer 241 19,8 66
  • 67. Do you feel that the relations between the Turkish and Armenian states changed for the better,remained unchanged or changed for the worse in the last 10 years? Frequency Valid PercentChanged for the better 176 14,4Remained unchanged 381 31,3Changed for the worse 427 35,0Don’t know 235 19,3Do you feel that the relations between the Turkish and Armenian states will change for the better,remain unchanged or change for the worse in the next 10 years? Frequency Valid PercentWill change for the better 301 24,7Will remain unchanged 375 30,8Will change for the worse 215 17,6Don’t know 328 26,9Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations betweenTurkey and Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentYes 448 36,8No 412 33,8Don’t know 359 29,5What is the main obstacles to the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentHistory 42 9,4War 4 0,9“Genocide” claims on the Armenian side 85 19,0Land 54 12,1Religious difference 50 11,2Hostility 15 3,3Nationalism 5 1,1Disagreement 11 2,5Prejudice 20 4,5Prejudice of Armenians 12 2,7Foreign powers 35 7,8Problem of Cyprus 6 1,3They support PKK 4 0,9Terror 2 0,4Armenias territorial claims from Azerbaijan 27 6,0Politics 23 5,1Politicians and Clergy 5 1,1Interests 16 3,6Excessive lobbying 8 1,8Turkeys domestic problems 4 0,9Other 4 0,9Do not know 16 3,6 67
  • 68. Do you feel that, given an opportunity today, Armenia would press for territorial claims fromTurkey? Frequency Valid PercentYes 959 78,7No 128 10,5Don’t know 132 10,8If you were asked to characterize the Armenian people in one word, what would it be? Frequency Valid PercentNegative prejudices 88 7,2Irreligious, heathen 4 0,3Enemy 95 7,8Enemy of Muslims 13 1,1Separatist 4 0,3Land 2 0,2Antagonistic country 18 1,5Domestic politics in Armenia 2 0,2Evil 85 7,0Conservative, behind the times 10 0,8Unfaithful 5 0,4Liar 4 0,3Stingy, penny pincher 4 0,3Egoist, selfish, prejudiced 55 4,5Unfeeling, rigid, hard 7 0,6Pawn of other countries 6 0,5An evil Greek 3 0,2Nationalist 9 0,7Foreign 6 0,5Christian 24 2,0Very intelligent 11 0,9Diligent, hard working 15 1,2Competent 9 0,7Honest 8 0,7Community spirit 8 0,7Good person 51 4,2Wonderful, great person 5 0,4Friendly nation 17 1,4Unfortunate, ill-understood, overlooked 23 1,9people, surviving against all oddsHuman 70 5,7Neutral expressions 23 1,9Loyal to Turkey 7 0,6Armenian 19 1,6Other 9 0,7Do not know 500 41,0 68
  • 69. Have you ever seen an Armenian person in real life? (not seen on screen, TV, etc.)? Frequency Valid PercentYes, I have 531 43,6No, I haven’t 688 56,4Have you ever talked to an Armenian person?Talked to Frequency Valid PercentYes, I have 389 31,9No, I haven’t 142 11,6Have you ever had Armenian friend, associate or acquaintance? Frequency Valid PercentYes 272 51,2No 259 48,8Where? Frequency Valid PercentIn Armenia 2 0,7In Turkey 259 95,2In another country 11 4,0What is the citizenship of your Armenian friend(s), associate(s), acquaintances(s)? Frequency Valid PercentTurkish citizen 220 80,9Armenian citizen 49 18,0Germany 3 1,1France 1 0,4England 1 0,4Cyprus 1 0,4Russia 2 0,7Syria 2 0,7Greece 1 0,4Denmark 1 0,4Turkmenistan 3 1,1Switzerland 1 0,4 69
  • 70. Have you personally ever been in Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentYes 5 0,4No 1214 99,6When?Year Frequency Valid Percent1995 1 20,01997 1 20,01998 1 20,02000 1 20,0Don’t know 1 20,0Is there anybody in your family/kin who is married or engaged to an Armenian? Frequency Valid PercentYes 29 2,4No 1190 97,6How are you related to this member of your family/kin? Frequency Valid PercentBrother/Sister 1 3,4Cousin 4 13,8Nephew/Niece 1 3,4Paternal aunt 1 3,4Grandmother 1 3,4Grandfather 3 10,3Fathers cousin 1 3,4Parents 2 6,9Uncles wife 7 24,1Son/Daughter 1 3,4Mother-in-law 1 3,4Other 2 6,9Dont know 4 13,8 70
  • 71. What would your attitude be to the following? Negative Neutral Positive Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Finding out that an Armenian family settled in 240 19,7 682 55,9 252 20,7 45 3,7your cityAn Armenian living in your apartment bloc or 322 26,4 614 50,4 246 20,2 37 3,0neighborhoodAn Armenian working in your workplace 315 25,8 606 49,7 243 19,9 55 4,5An Armenian doctor attending to you in 279 22,9 566 46,4 331 27,2 43 3,5hospitalYour son marrying an Armenian 775 63,6 240 19,7 125 10,3 79 6,5Your daughter marrying an Armenian 830 68,1 212 17,4 105 8,6 72 5,9III- PrioritiesWould you buy products made in Armenia? Frequency Valid PercentYes 735 60,3No 470 38,6No answer 14 1,1Would you go to Armenia for the following? Yes, I would go No, I wouldn’t go Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Tourism, vacation 532 43,6 631 51,8 56 4,6Business, trade 614 50,4 551 45,2 54 4,4To work 473 38,8 690 56,6 56 4,6School, education 411 33,7 742 60,9 66 5,4Medical treatment 554 45,4 602 49,4 63 5,2Other 3 0,2Do you approve or disapprove of the following? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 621 50,9 392 32,2 206 16,9Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and 788 64,6 251 20,6 180 14,8TurkeyDeveloping economic collaboration between the two 658 54,0 353 29,0 208 17,1countries without waiting for the resolution of political andhistorical problems 71
  • 72. How similar do you feel the Armenians are to the citizens of the following countries? Not similar at all Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 595 48,8 246 20,2 25 2,1 353 29,0Bulgaria 358 29,4 390 32,0 45 3,7 426 34,9Georgia 399 32,7 343 28,1 42 3,4 435 35,7Iraq 658 54,0 128 10,5 22 1,8 411 33,7Iran 648 53,2 140 11,5 21 1,7 410 33,6Russia 224 18,4 464 38,1 145 11,9 386 31,7Syria 498 40,9 255 20,9 46 3,8 420 34,5Greece 254 20,8 421 34,5 159 13,0 385 31,6Turkey 729 59,8 306 25,1 22 1,8 162 13,3How similar do you feel the Turks are to the citizens of the following countries? Not similar at Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know all Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 94 7,7 608 49,9 387 31,7 130 10,7Bulgaria 508 41,7 450 36,9 64 5,3 197 16,2Georgia 327 26,8 546 44,8 107 8,8 239 19,6Iraq 475 39,0 489 40,1 59 4,8 196 16,1Iran 470 38,6 491 40,3 61 5,0 197 16,2Russia 856 70,2 135 11,1 18 1,5 210 17,2Syria 566 46,4 388 31,8 40 3,3 225 18,5Greece 644 52,8 319 26,2 49 4,0 207 17,0Armenia 729 59,8 306 25,1 22 1,8 162 13,3How well do you think you know the neighboring countries? Well Somewhat Not at all Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Azerbaijan 151 12,4 776 63,7 292 24,0Armenia 57 4,7 626 51,4 536 44,0Georgia 65 5,3 582 47,7 572 46,9Iran 136 11,2 729 59,8 354 29,0Iraq 142 11,6 747 61,3 330 27,1Syria 124 10,2 682 55,9 413 33,9Bulgaria 118 9,7 675 55,4 426 34,9Greece 152 12,5 699 57,3 368 30,2 72
  • 73. What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that you know? Azerbaijan Armenia Georgia Iran Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %History books 352 38,1 286 41,9 243 37,7 331 38,3Media/TV 769 83,1 564 82,6 545 84,5 730 84,5Older generations/ 94 10,2 85 12,4 48 7,4 71 8,2family membersFriends / relatives 160 17,3 96 14,1 73 11,3 112 13,0Politicians 102 11,0 67 9,8 56 8,7 80 9,3Clergy / Mosque 36 3,9 25 3,7 21 3,3 66 7,6Art/Literature 64 6,9 43 6,3 34 5,3 53 6,1He/she have relatives 5 0,5from this countryAll 1 0,1 2 0,3Other 18 1,9 8 1,2 12 1,9 17 2,0 Iraq Syria Bulgaria Greece Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %History books 319 36,0 307 38,2 312 39,4 387 45,5Media/TV 764 86,1 686 85,4 659 83,3 724 85,2Older generations/ 64 7,2 63 7,8 95 12,0 111 13,1family membersFriends / relatives 112 12,6 103 12,8 124 15,7 123 14,5Politicians 127 14,3 73 9,1 73 9,2 130 15,3Clergy / Mosque 45 5,1 39 4,9 27 3,4 37 4,4Art/Literature 37 4,2 35 4,4 36 4,6 57 6,7He/she have relatives 1 0,1 6 0,8 3 0,4from this countryAll 1 0,1 1 0,1 1 0,1 2 0,2Other 17 1,9 20 2,5 22 2,8 19 2,2Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations between Turkeyand Armenia to the advantage of both countries? Frequency Valid PercentDiplomatic relations between the states 704 57,8Academic relations / relations among universities 37 3,0Commercial relations – among businessmen 164 13,5NGO relations 89 7,3Relations between the parliamentarians 38 3,1Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 94 7,7All 16 1,3Other 14 1,1 73
  • 74. Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council is taking steps towards cooperation. They feel,for example, that Mount Ararat and Ani Ruins in Kars could become a “region of peace” betweenTurkish and Armenian peoples. What do you think about these efforts? Frequency Valid PercentPositive 460 37,7Neutral / indifferent 142 11,6Negative 289 23,7Difficult to answer 328 26,9DEMOGRAPHYGender Frequency Valid PercentMale 629 51,6Female 590 48,4How old are you? Age groups Frequency Valid Percent18-29 425 34,930-44 503 41,345-59 218 17,960 and over 73 6,0What level of education did you complete? Frequency Valid PercentIlliterate 28 2,3Literate (did not complete any school) 37 3,0Primary school 472 38,7Middle school 170 13,9High school 336 27,6Secondary professional school 25 2,1University 144 11,8Master’s/doctoral degree 7 0,6 74
  • 75. What is your occupation or profession? Frequency Valid PercentPublic or private sector manager, administrator, 53 4,3expert, teacher, academicPublic sector white collar employee (excluding 37 3,0teacher and academic)Private sector white collar employee 52 4,3Public or private sector worker 160 13,1Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 12 1,0Shopkeeper/craftsman 161 13,2TeacherAcademic/LecturerHousewife, house-daughter 428 35,1Student 74 6,1Retired, pensioner 118 9,7Non-employed with income (landlord/landlady, 4 0,3investor, etc.)Irregular jobs 43 3,5Unemployed 56 4,6Other 21 1,7What is your total monthly household income? Frequency Valid PercentWe don’t have any income - -Less than USD 50 - -Less than USD 100 128 10,5USD 100-200 415 34,0USD 201-350 357 29,3USD 351-500 171 14,0USD 501-750 84 6,9USD 751-1000 28 2,3More than USD 1000 23 1,9Total 1206 98,9Difficult to answer 13 1,1 75

×