Successfully reported this slideshow.

Armenia turkeyfinalreporttesev

1,222 views

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 Peace in 2004.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Armenia turkeyfinalreporttesev

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×