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.
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 Special Thanks to: Open Society Institute, Turkey & High Consultative Council of TESEV Funding Provided by: Center for Global Peace American University ♦ Washington, D C
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
Special Thanks to:
Open Society Institute, Turkey & High Consultative Council of TESEV
Funding Provided by:
Center for Global PeaceAmerican University ♦ Washington, D C
2
Center for Global PeaceAmerican University ♦ Washington, D C
In keeping with American University’s mandate for global education, the university-wide Center for Global Peace was established in 1996 to provide a framework for programs and initiatives that advance the study and understanding of world peace within a sustainable world order. By seeking to better understand local, national and global linkages among social, political, cultural, economic, and civic structures whose deterioration can lead to violence and social upheaval, the Center provides a forum for analysis of a wide range of multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural approaches to peace and conflict resolution and sustainable development.
Drawing from talents across the university, and in conjunction with American University’s International Peace and Conflict Resolution Division, the Center is committed to innovation in scholarship, teaching, policy analysis and community 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.
TURKISH-ARMENIAN CITIZENS MUTUAL PERCEPTION AND DIALOGUE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The debates surrounding historical relations between Armenians and Turks or the “Armenian question,” have become an important issue in various European countries and the USA in recent years. This increasing international attention to the question of Armenian-Turkish relations has made it clear that the sound discussion of this issue in Turkey and Armenia is both necessary and obligatory.
In Turkey, the “Armenian question” has generated two interrelated sets of issues. The first aspect is the demand for greater transparency by some segments of Turkish society. Among intellectuals, 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 second issue, seen in both countries, is that the increasing prominence of the Armenian question has also triggered reactionary tendencies feeding into the reaffirmation of national identity and the formation of an inward-looking national polity.
The “Armenian question” in Turkey and in Armenia is of course rooted in the particular historical and social dynamics of each country. However this issue has not developed over the last many decades completely independent of relationship between Turkey and Armenia and the phases of national identity formation that Armenia and Turkey have undergone throughout their history. In other words, the “Turkish” and “Armenian” questions that exist in both countries are mutually 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, led to massive restructuring in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union. The ensuing period of reconstruction and reformation had created effects that reverberated well beyond the former communist countries. Placing the Turkish-Armenian question within the larger 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 and neighboring Azeris intersect with Turkey’s domestic and international problems and policies. As Turkish society continues to struggle with issues of national identity and social memory, the question of geo-strategic balance in the region contributes to the myriad obstacles to the development 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 each country is very much concerned with the other, the level of knowledge and information that passes between Turkey and Armenia is minimal. And the information that does cross the physical and political borders is often distorted by mutual prejudices. Such prejudices are further reproduced 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 the misunderstandings between these societies.
5
If a comfortable relationship between these two countries is to be established, the first step 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 that both 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 and Armenian communities within Turkey has the potential to reverberate in positive ways at the international level. The establishment of dialogue at multiple levels is an important step in combating the mushrooming of mutual prejudices.
In line with the goal of increased understanding explained above, and as an initiative coming from Turkish and Armenian researchers, we carried out this exploratory project focusing specifically on mutual perceptions in Turkey and Armenia.
We know that the findings of our research are far from giving a complete image of these perceptions. We know also that, in order to understand deeply the historical reasons of the conflict and move toward reconciliation we must take first steps together towards our goal. The results of this study do not point to any answers; the information we gathered may not be pleasing to all readers or easy to incorporate into political discussions of the issue. But in doing this research we have remained true to the principles of science and trust that the results will more fully inform the ongoing dialogue between the people of Turkey and Armenia. Despite the challenges of this project, the joint effort made by the Turkish and Armenian teams testifies to the fact that cooperation between the nations is possible.
6
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The project has been simultaneously carried out in Turkey and Armenia, in order to investigate 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 mediated through a questionnaire) method between December 2002 and January 2003.
The questionnaire study have been carried out throughout Turkey and Armenia. In order to allow for comparison, the survey included the same questions (adapted to local context), as well as different questions designed to reflect local issues.
The infrastructure of the research (design and publishing of the questionnaires, the interviews 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) in Armenia.
In Turkey, a sample of 1200 respondents were selected through a method of multi-stage stratified random sampling. The standard error of such a sample is calculated at ± 2.8 percent with a confidence interval of 95 percent.
The sample represents Turkey’s urban population at or above 18 years of age and is based on two criteria of stratification:
1. Distribution by geographical regions2. Distribution by urban and metropolitan areas
The primary sampling unit is the “neighbourhood” for metropolitan areas (the three large cities of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir) and the “district” for the remaining urban areas of the seven geographic regions. These units were selected through sampling with probabilities proportionate to size (PPS). The same method (PPS) is also used in the next step to select “neighbourhoods” in non-metropolitan areas. This is followed by simple random sampling to select streets in each neighbourhood and systematic sampling to select households at each street. Complying with criteria of randomness at all stages, an overall congruence is obtained between the general population 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 of registered voters in 1999 elections, published by the State Institute of Statistics (DIE). The number of districts to be selected in each category is calculated on the basis of around 10 interviews per neighborhood and 20 interviews per district. Thus, two neighborhoods are selected per district.
7
Fieldwork was conducted through 34 provinces and 68 districts. Final verification at the SAM head office resulted in the approval of 1219 interviews for analysis.
Region Cities Sample Size
İstanbul 290Ankara 102
Metropoles
İzmir 70Adana 41
Antalya 41
İçel 39
Mediterranean
Maraş 20
Erzurum 25
Malatya 23
Elazığ 19
Eastern Anatolia
Bitlis 9
İzmir 40
Manisa 19
Aydın 20
Aegean (except Izmir)
Denizli 20
Gaziantep 18
Adıyaman 17
Urfa 20
South-east Anatolia
Diyarbakır 20
Konya 39
Yozgat 19
Karaman 20
Eskişehir 19
Central Anatolia (except Ankara)
Kayseri 19
Samsun 20
Trabzon 21
Kastamonu 19
Zonguldak 18
Tokat 20
Black Sea
Bolu 10
Bursa 60
Kocaeli 20
Sakarya 20
Bilecik 21
Marmara (except Istanbul)
Tekirdağ 21
TOTAL 1.219
In Armenia the nation-wide sociological survey was done using ramdomized territorial proportional sample, based on official data of 2001 Census. (Available on www.armstat.am).
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 urban and 924 country settlements.
Respondents were selected through a multi-stage stratification sampling design. Armenia was 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 Sample1000 respondents
Interviews were conducted at a total of 85 sampling points.
Households were selected via random route technique (according to the “star principle” from started point).
Within each household only one adult respondent (18 years of age or older) were selected at random, according to the Kish method.Interviewers were instructed to make three callbacks (at different times of day
and 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 respondents were 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 indeed conducted (addresses and phone numbers were writtendown by the interviewer after completing an interview).
The margin of error for the sample of this size is (+ -) 3%.
Region City Sample sizeYerevan 1. Yerevan city 329
Aragatzotn 13. Ashtarak 2514. Talin 2515. Gavar 25
Gegharkunik 16. Vardenis 5017. Chambarak 25
Sjunik 18. Kapan 2519. Dilijan 2520. Idjevan 25
Vayots Dzor 21. Ygegnadzor 25Total 1000
9
I. DEMOGRAPHY
Turkey ArmeniaGender
Frequency % Frequency %
Male 629 51,6 456 45,6
Female 590 48,4 544 54,4
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100
Turkey ArmeniaHow old are you?
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 which was 43,5.
Turkey ArmeniaWhat level of education did you complete? Frequency % Frequency %
Illiterate 28 2,3 2 0,2
Literate (did not complete any school) 37 3,0
Primary school 472 38,7 33 3,3
Middle school 170 13,9 395 39,5
High school 336 27,6
Secondary professional school 25 2,1 245 24,5
University 144 11,8 319 31,9
Master’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. Thus the proportion of those who finished at most the primary school (5 years) in Turkey is 44%, in Armenia the relative figure is 3,5,%. The percentage of those who have obtained university degree in Turkey is 11,8%, while in Armenia it is 31,9%.
10
What is your occupation or profession? Turkey Armenia
Frequency % Frequency %
Public or private sector manager, administrator, expert, (including teacher and academic in Turkey)
53 4,3 6 0,6
Public sector white collar employee 37 3,0 71 7,1
Private sector white collar employee 52 4,3 43 4,3
Public or private sector worker 160 13,1 71 7,1
Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 12 1,0 57 5,7
Shopkeeper/craftsman 161 13,2 47 4,7
Teacher (Armenia) 62 6,2
Intellectual/Lecturer (Armenia) 11 1,1
Housewife, house-daughter 428 35,1 150 15,0
Student 74 6,1 67 6,7
Retired, pensioner 118 9,7 175 17,5
Non-employed with income (landlord/landlady, investor, etc.)
4 0,3 40 4,0
Irregular jobs 43 3,5 32 3,2
Unemployed 56 4,6 168 16,8
Other 21 1,7
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0
In Armenia, the proportions of public sector employees, pensioners and unemployed are more important. In Turkey, shopkeepers and housewifes are relatively important groups.
What is your total monthly household income?
TurkeyArmenia
Frequency % Frequency %
Do not have any income - - 99 9,9
Less than USD 50 - - 447 44,7
Less than USD 100 128 10,5 272 27,2
USD 100-200 415 34,0 113 11,3
USD 201-350 357 29,3 20 2,0
USD 351-500 171 14,0 9 0,9
USD 501-750 84 6,9 3 0,3
USD 751-1000 28 2,3 - -
More than USD 1000 23 1,9 - -
Total 1206 98,9 963 96,3
Difficult 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.
11
II. KNOWLEDGE
This chapter addresses the awareness of Turkish and Armenian respondents about each other’s countries in general terms, mainly meaning the respondents’ knowledge of basic geography, political order, foreign relations as well as the achievements of the neighboring country.
Geography
Table and charts below demonstrate respondents’ estimates of territory and population of the countries.
Table 1. How would you describe contemporary Turkey/Armenia in terms of territory?
Turkey Armenia
It is a large country 52,4 7,2
It is a small country 4,2 39,8
It is neither a large nor a small country 41,0 18,5
Do not know 2,4 34,5
As Table 1 shows, majority of Armenian respondents (52,4%) view Turkey as a large country, and in the opinion of 41% of the respondents it is neither large nor small. While a significant number of Turkish respondents (34,5% ) had difficulty to express any opinion regarding the territory of contemporary Armenia, majority of the remaining 65,5% think of Armenia as a small country. One could expect such estimate, since, when answering this question, respondents have more likely used the territory of their own country as a basis for comparison.
Chart 1. Approximate population of contemporary
1.1 Turkey 1.2. Armenia
2,3%
11,9%
19,9%
27,0%
13,0%
2,0%0,2%
15,9%
7,8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Lessthan 5million
5-10million
10-20million
20-40million
40-60million
60-80million
80-100million
Morethan100
million
Do notknow
Charts 1.1 and 1.2 testify that both Armenian and Turkish respondents have a very vague idea about population of each other’s countries. Thus, even though most of the answers of Armenian respondents regarding population of Turkey are concentrated around the correct interval of 40-60 million, the dispersion is still very big. At the same time, majority of Turkish respondents (51,3%) had difficulty to give any approximate estimate to population of Armenia and only 11,6% gave the correct answer.
4,4%
14,0%
5,7% 4,8%8,1%
51,3%
11,6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than2 million
2-3 million 4-5 million 6-7 million 8-10million
More than10 million
Do notknow
12
Respondents’ lack of knowledge of each other’s countries is reflected in a number of questions that have been addressed in the survey.
Table 2. Does Turkey/Armenia have an access to a sea (seas)?
Turkey Armenia
Yes 95,9 15,6
No 0,9 44,1
Do not know 3,2 40,3
Table 3. To which sea(s)?
Turkey Armenia
Black Sea 82,7 45,4
The Mediterranean 71,3 2,1
Aegean Sea 21,9 5,2
Caspian Sea 6,6 29,4
Marmara sea 1,3 0,0
Do not know 3,0 17,0
Thus, although an overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (95,9%) know that Turkey has access to seas, a small percent of them could correctly name all those seas (see Tables 2, 3).
A very small percent of Armenian respondents know that Turkey has access to Aegean and Marmara seas (21,9% and 1,3% respectively). The tables show that Turkish respondents possess even less information: 40,3% of them does not know whether Armenia has a sea border, and approximately each sixth Turkish respondent is sure Armenia has an access to either Black or Caspian Sea.
Political order/religion
Chart 2. Who dominates the government in Armenia?
17,8%
9,8%
13,5%
12,7%1,5%
44,8%
President
Prime minister
Communist Party
Clergy
Other
Do not know
As we see, nearly half of the Turkish respondents are not aware of the type of Armenian government. At the same time, majority from the respondents who answered this question have given 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
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?
63,0%16,6%
6,4%6,2% 7,2%
President
Prime minister
Sultan
Islamic clergy
Do not know
According to the survey results, Armenian respondents also have no precise knowledge about political order in Turkey: majority of the respondents (63%), as Chart 3 shows, think that President dominates the Government in Turkey. Analysis of relationships has shown that Armenian respondents’ knowledge of this issue does not strongly depend on the level of their education.
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 school education is around 16-17%. The percentage of respondents who have no idea about the political order 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 most confident 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 Armenians
Buddhism 0,0 1,2
Christianity 0,0 54,6
Islam 99,2 1,3
Judaism 0,0 16,8
Other 0,0 25,5
Do not know 0,8 0,6
As we see, majority of respondents in both Turkey and Armenia have given correct answers to the question. (It is however interesting, that approximately each sixth Turkish respondent believes that the religious affiliation of Armenians is Judaism.)
14
Chart 4. Is there an official religion in Turkey/Armenia?
68,5%
40,4%
14,7%19,1% 16,8%
40,5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Yes No Do not know
in Turkey
in Armenia
In contrast, respondents in both countries have failed to answer correctly whether the neighboring 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 neighboring country is not secular (see Chart 4). Turkey has a much more “religious” image among Armenian 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 to give the incorrect answer: 70,5% of Armenian respondents with higher education and 67,1% of those 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 more inferior. In Turkey the percentage of those who believe Armenia has an official religion among the 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 in Turkey those who don’t know whether Armenia is secular or not reaches 64,9% among the respondents with low level of education.
Table 5. Which is the official religion of Turkey/Armenia?
Turkey Armenia
Buddhism 0,0 1,8
Christianity 0,3 67,9
Islam 99,1 1,0
Judaism 0,3 21,5
Other 0,0 7,5
Do not know 0,3 0,2
The respondents who gave positive answers to the above-mentioned question were then requested to specify the religion. The answers have mostly repeated those already mentioned (see Table 5).
15
History
Overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (94,6%) are sure Armenians have been first to appear on the historical scene, whereas majority of Turkish respondents (60,4%) claim Turks 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 are ancient peoples.
Table 6. Which one, the Armenians or the Turks, appeared on the historical scene first?
Armenia Turkey
Armenians 94,6 7,6
Turks 0,7 60,4
They are both ancient peoples 4,7 28,6
Such outcome, in our opinion, was conditioned by at least two factors: a) objective – that is, 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 to them.
Table 6. Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements?
Agree Disagree Don’t know
Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey
Turkish and Armenian peoples have common elements of culture such as music, folklore and gastronomy.
74,2 42,7 22,4 39,7 3,4 17,6
There was no conflict between the Turks and the Armenians until the early 20th
century.
0,6 37,7 97,7 34,4 1,7 28,0
Parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) were inhabited by the Armenians before the Turks arrived.
97,3 61,3 0,5 15,3 2,2 23,4
Armenians who now live in Turkey came to Turkey after dissolution of the Soviet Union.
0,4 30,3 98,0 40,1 1,6 29,6
During World War I, much of the Armenian population living in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrate to other places.
97,9 47,5 1,3 27,8 0,8 24,7
In the second half of 1910s, hundreds of thousands Armenians were killed in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deported out of country
99,9 N/A 0,0 N/A 0,1 N/A
In the second half of 1910s, the clashes in Anatolia claimed many Armenian and Turkish lives.
N/A 72,1 N/A 11,6 N/A 16,3
There are Armenian churches and works of art in several places in Turkey.
97,4 80,3 1,1 6,2 1,5 13,5
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
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 the neighboring country we have requested to characterize the relations of Turkey/Armenia with several countries using the scale of bad-neutral-good.
Table 7. How would you describe Turkey’s/Armenia’s relations with the following countries?
According to Armenian respondents, Turkey has the worst relations with Armenia, Greece and France, mostly neutral relations – with Russia, Israel and Bulgaria, and best relations – with Azerbaijan, 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 and Greece. One should note, that nearly equal percent of Turkish respondents characterize Armenian’s relations with Turkey as bad and neutral (40,1% and 42,2% accordingly). It is also worth mentioning that according to the Turkish respondents, Armenia’s relations with Turkey are worse than with Azerbaijan.
In our opinion, answers to this question were shaped not by the respondents’ actual knowledge of foreign relation of the neighboring country but rather by a) their knowledge of foreign relations of their own country and b) their mutual prejudice. The former (a) means that the respondents tend to think that the better relations of a certain country are with Turkey\ the worse they are with Armenia and vice versa. The latter (b) mainly refers to respondents’ belief that the religious belonging is the most decisive factor in foreign policy. Turkish respondents have shown an obvious manifestation of this form of prejudice believing Armenian-Iranian relations to be nearly as bad as Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Despite the fact that among other neighboring countries Armenia actually has the best relations with Iran, each fourth Turkish respondent thinks the relations are bad.
Achievements
In the opinion of Armenian respondents, top five fields that the Turks have been most successful 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 or successful?
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
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 following fields: commerce, art, goldsmithery and artisanry.
Table 9. What are the professions or fields that the Armenians have been most prominent or 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 52,3
Can you name a prominent Turkish person or institution? (Armenian respondents)
Frequency Valid Percent
Atatürk – 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 people
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 of Armenian people”. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents (81,9%) could not name any prominent person of Armenian nationality.
19
Let us conclude this chapter with the respondents’ evaluation of their knowledge of neighboring 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 24,0
Armenia/Turkey 10,8 4,7 88,8 51,4 0,4 44,0
Georgia 25,1 5,3 74,8 47,7 0,1 46,9
Iran 11,3 11,2 84,9 59,8 3,8 29,0
Iraq N/A 11,6 N/A 61,3 N/A 27,1
Syria N/A 10,2 N/A 55,9 N/A 33,9
Bulgaria N/A 9,7 N/A 55,4 N/A 34,9
Greece 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 countries the respondents think they know best and worst and b) how respondents evaluate their knowledge of each other’s countries.
According to the table, Armenian respondents evaluate their knowledge of Georgia to be the best (25,1%). The list continues with Azerbaijan (21,5%) and Iran (11,3%) and concludes with Turkey (10,8%). Turkish respondents who are more modest about their level of knowledge think they know Greece and Azerbaijan the best (12,5% and 12,4%) and the percentages of those confessing they don’t know at all the cited neighbouring countries are far higher than the relative percentages of Armenian respondents. Georgia (46,9%) and Armenia (44%) appear to be the countries Turkish respondents are least aware of.
Such evaluation is very interesting, since judging from the answers of the respondents to all questions of the “Knowledge” block, Turkish respondents are far less aware of Armenia as a country than Armenians are about Turkey. The fact that Turkish respondents acknowledge their lack of knowledge about Armenia, gives them much less clear and consolidated idea about Armenia.
Table 11. What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that you know?
Most popular sources of information about all of the neighboring countries for both Armenian and Turkish respondents are Media/TV and history books. Older generations and family members are also important sources for Armenian respondents to get information about Turkey 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 information can be a huge contribution both to raise the awareness of nations about each other and to eliminate the existing negative stereotypes.
21
III. ATTITUDES
This chapter generally addresses mutual perceptions and attitudes of Armenian and Turkish citizens. Answers to a number of direct and indirect questions help uncovering the opinion of the respondents about past, present and future state of Armenian-Turkish relations, as well as revealing the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of each other.
Relations
Table 12. How would you describe contemporary Armenian-Turkish relations in general?
As the table shows, majority of Armenian respondents characterize Armenian-Turkish relations as bad, while nearly half of the Turkish respondents think the relations as neither good nor bad. One should also note that only 5 out of 1000 of Armenian respondents have evaluated the relations between Armenia and Turkey as good and none of them – as very good. At the same time, in the opinion of each fifth Armenian respondent, the relations are very bad, while each tenth Turkish respondent believes they are good.
Table 13. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples today?
Armenia Turkey
Turks/Armenians generally get along well with Armenian/Turkish people
0,9 14,2
Turks/Armenians generally feel threatened by Armenian/Turkish people.
14,0 14,9
Turks/Armenians generally dislike Armenian/Turkish people. 51,3 33,6
Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
30,0 24,4
Difficult to answer 3,8 12,8
The feeling that “Turks generally get along well with Armenian people” is almost absent among Armenian respondents, whereas for 14,2% of Turkish respondents “Armenians generally get along well with Turkish people”. Similarly, majority of the respondents (51,3%) in Armenia think that Turks generally dislike Armenian people, whereas in the Turkish side this stereotype is weaker (33,6%). But among the Armenian respondents, the percentage of people who accept that prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples is higher (30% vs 24,4%) (see Table 13).
It is interesting that majority of female respondents in Armenian survey have been supportive of the idea that the Turks generally dislike Armenians, and in contrast, higher percent of male respondents tend to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the way of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations. The differences of attitude are lower among Turkish respondents and male respondents have been slightly more supportive of the idea that the Armenians generally dislike Turks, but also their percentage to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the way of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations is higher. (see Chart 5).
22
Chart 5. Relationship between the respondents’ gender and their opinion of the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Armenian respondents:
54,6%
47,4%
28,1%32,2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Turks generallydislike Armenians
Prejudice preventsimprovement of the
relations
Female
Male
Turkish respondents:
32,0%35,1%23,6%25,3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Armeniansgenerally dislike
Turks
Prejudiceprevents
improvement ofthe relations
Female
Male
We also have to note that in the two countries older respondents are more inclined to agree that “dislike” best describes relations between Armenians and Turks. But should be noted also that the respondents above 45 in Turkey think more than the others that Armenians get along well with 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 of intellectuals (36,4%) and professionals (40,4%) thinks prejudice prevents the improvement of relations. (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%) and shopkeepers / craftsmen (32,3%) think prejudice prevents the improvement of relations. (See Chart 6)
Chart 6. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Armenian respondents:
23
57,7%
23,4%
56,3%
23,9%
54,7%
25,3%35,2%
36,4%33,3%
40,4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pensioners Stateemployees
Housewives Academicians Professionals
Turks generallydislike Armenians
Prejudice preventsimprovement of the
Turkish respondents:
39,8%
16,1%
40,0%
23,8%
37,1%
15,4%23,0%
48,6%
30,4%32,3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers
Armeniansgenerally dislikeTurksPrejudice preventsimprovement of the
Among the Turkish respondents, the most significant relationship can be found in relation with the level of education. The percentage of respondents thinking that Armenians dislike Turks is 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 “prejudice prevents 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 the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Turkish respondents:
24
16,7%14,4% 12,4%
25,9%
13,4%
30,7%
9,7%
46,5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Primary school Middle school High school University
Armenians generallydislike Turks
Prejudice preventsimprovement of the
Opinions of Armenian and Turkish respondents coincide also in terms of evaluation of the Armenian-Turkish state relations.
Table 14. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between contemporary Armenian and Turkish states?
Armenia Turkey
Turkey/Armenia considers Armenia/Turkey as a friendly neighboring state.
0,4 12,7
Turkey/Armenia is a bordering country, with which Armenia/Turkey has no diplomatic relations.
36,0 23,5
Turkey/Armenia is a potential danger for Armenia/Turkey. 27,6 20,6
Turkey/Armenia is a country hostile to Armenia/Turkey. 33,6 23,4
Difficult to answer. 2,4 19,8
As the table shows, the main difference between Armenian and Turkish respondents lies in the fact that among Turkish respondents there is a non-negligeable percentage of people who think that “Armenia considers Turkey as a friendly neighboring state” (12,7%); but also another important 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 and Turkey: 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 that Armenian respondents evaluate Turkey as “a country hostile to Armenia” (33,6%) more than Turkish respondents do reciprocally (23,4%).
In Armenia, a relationship between the answers of the respondents and their gender, age and occupation is similar to the one presented above with respect to relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples. Thus, male respondents are more inclined to the neutral position, while female 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
25
previous one, state employees, pensioners and housewives tend to have a negative, while academicians and teachers – rather neutral position (see Chart 8).
In Turkey, the case of state relations present a different reflection on gender. Even if male respondents are more inclined to the neutral position comparing female respondents, especially for the third option (“Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey”) male respondents stressed more importance (25,9%) compared to female respondents (20,7%). But one also needs to notice that among 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 are more 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 those aged 18-29 share this idea while they mostly opt for the relatively neutral position (26,6%). In Turkey, pensioners (34,7%), workers (26,9%), housewives (21,5%) chose to think “Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey”. As in the previous observation, majority of students (41,9%) and a slightly higher percentage of shopkeepers (27,3%) have opted for the neutral position. (See Chart 8)
Chart 8. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of the relations between Armenian and Turkish states
Armenian respondents:
36,0%
21,7%
38,9%35,2%
25,4%
39,4%
20,7%
40,7%36,7%
54,5%
9,1%
18,2%
53,2%
22,6%
24,2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pensioners Stateemployees
Housewives Academicians Teachers
Turkey is a borderingcountry, with whichArmenia has nodiplomatic relations
Turkey is a potentialdanger for Armenia
Turkey is a countryhostile to Armenia
Turkish respondents:
26
17,8%19,5%
34,7%
20,6%22,5%
26,9%
17,3%21,3%21,5%
41,9%
20,3%23,0% 27,3%
16,1%
25,5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers
Armenia is a borderingcountry, with whichTurkey has nodiplomatic relations
Armenia is a potentialdanger for Turkey
Armenia is a countryhostile to Turkey
In the Turkish case, at the level of education, it seems that there is a quite significant difference between the attitudes towards the Armenian people and state. For example the attitude of 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 a potential danger for Turkey” more (31,9%) than the others, but also think that “Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey” less (17,4%) than the others. (See Chart 9)
Chart 9. Relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinion of the relations between Armenian and Turkish states
Turkish respondents:
14,6%
18,6%
24,2%
15,9%18,8%
25,9%
11,9%
31,0%
21,4%
10,4%
31,9%
17,4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Primary school Middle school High school University
Armenia is a borderingcountry, with whichTurkey has nodiplomatic relations
Armenia is a potentialdanger for Turkey
Armenia is a countryhostile to Turkey
Finally we can add that there is one detail worth mentioning. Judging from the percentage of Turkish respondents, who chose the first options (positive attitude) of the answers to both of the questions, it appears that they have been more tolerant in their evaluation than Armenian respondents have, especially concerning the attitude towards the Armenian people. On the
27
contrary, the Turkish respondents’ lack of trust vis-à-vis the Armenian state is seen in the chart below. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents think that, given an opportunity, Armenia would press for territorial claims from Turkey. (See Chart 10)
Chart 10. Do you feel that, given an opportunity today, Armenia would press for territorial claims from Turkey? (Question was asked only to Turkish respondents.)
78,7%
10,5%10,8%
Yes
No
Do not know
The respondents' opinion concerning the past and future of Armenian–Turkish state relations is quite interesting. Majority of Armenian respondents think the relations remained unchanged 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 remain unchanged in the future (see Table 15, 16).
Table 15. Relations in last 10 years Table 16. Relations in next 10 years
Armenia Turkey
Changed for the better 22,6 14,4
Remained unchanged 52,5 31,3
Changed for the worse 21,0 35,0
Don’t know 3,8 19,3
However, with a more detailed glance on the distribution of the answers other interesting facts are revealed. It appears that while Armenian respondents are to a certain degree more satisfied with the past progress of Armenian-Turkish relations, Turkish respondents are to the same degree more optimistic about the future of these relations.
Answers of the respondents to the following question help explain the above-mentioned difference of opinions.
Chart 11. Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey?
Armenia Turkey
Will change for the better 14,7 24,7
Will remain unchanged 37,4 30,8
Will change for the worse 25,3 17,6
Don’t know 22,6 26,9
28
95,5%
36,8%
1,6%
33,8%
2,9%
29,5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Do not know
Armenia
Turkey
As we see, overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents is sure there is an important obstacle on the way of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations, whereas Turkish respondents remain quite undecided in this respect. Still one should note that less than 40% of the Turkish respondents believe that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations between the two countries.
It is now quite clear that Turkish respondents have been more optimistic about the future of Armenian-Turkish relations and why Armenians believe no change will occur. The fact that a portion of Armenian respondents thinks the relations have improved can also be explained in this frames: some improvement (most probably speaking of economic cooperation) has been achieved.
To the request to name the most important obstacle preventing the improvement of Armenian-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) Armenia's 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 of the answers is higher than 100%.)
Democratic development
It can be argued that the democratic or non-democratic image of the country can be an important factor to nourish the stereotypes. In this perspective, respondents were asked their opinion on the level of democracy in both countries. As the table below shows, generally
29
speaking, Armenian and Turkish respondents don’t think that the level of democratic development in both countries is high. For the respondents, as an average figure, the level of democracy (especially in their country) is medium (46%); but it can be stated also that Armenian respondents are more pessimistic about the democracy in both countries. Whereas among Armenian 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 democracy in Turkey is high. In Turkish survey, one also notes that there is an important rate (30,5%) of respondents 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 Turkey
Democratic development..
in Turkey in Armenia in Turkey in Armenia
Very low 12,5 9,7 4,9 5,0
Low 27,3 29,8 18,9 19,1
Medium 36,8 46,0 46,1 34,8
High 9,2 10,6 22,8 9,9
Very high 1,2 2,1 3,0 0,7
Don’t know 13,0 1,8 4,3 30,5
Images and stereotypes
Respondents were asked to describe their feeling or opinion about each other using the following 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 the Turks in general is rather negative (1,96), whereas Turkish respondents’ attitude is close to neutral (2,73).
Table 17. Your opinion about the Turks/Armenians Table 18. Their opinion about you
Such results, as subsequent reverse question revealed, did not match the expectations of the respondents on each other’s attitudes. Thus, Armenian respondents think Turks in general have negative opinion on Armenians (1,73 on the same five-grade scale) and the Turkish respondents believe 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 and pensioners have the worst, while professionals, teachers, and intellectuals have the better attitude towards the Turks. Whereas in Turkey, comparing to housewives and workers, students, pensioners and shopkeepers have better attitudes towards Armenians (see Chart 12).
Mean
Armenia 1,73
Turkey 2,33
Mean
Armenia 1,96
Turkey 2,73
30
Chart 12. Relationship between the Armenian respondents’ occupation and their opinion about the Turks
1,87 1,88
2,07 2,08 2,09
1,75
1,8
1,85
1,9
1,95
2
2,05
2,1
Stateemployees
Pensioners Professionals Teachers Intellectuals
Relationship between the Turkish respondents’ occupation and their opinion about the Armenians
2,75
2,68
2,62
2,7
2,88
2,452,5
2,55
2,6
2,65
2,7
2,75
2,8
2,85
2,9
Pensioners Workers Housew ifes Students Shopkeepers
Another important relationship can be found in relation with the education level. Turkish respondents’ opinion about the Armenians become clearly much more positive at the level of university graduates (3,03). (See Chart 13).
Relationship between the Turkish respondents’ education and their opinion about the Armenians
31
2,63
2,762,73
3,03
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
3
3,1
Primary school Middle School High Scool University
In order to uncover the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of each other, we have asked the respondents to find one word characteristic of each other's peoples. Tables below incorporate characteristics most frequently mentioned by the respondents. As we can see, 2/3 of the characteristics for Turkish people presented by Armenian respondents are negative; whereas only 1/3 of the chracteristics for Armenian people presented by Turkish respondents are negative.
Table 19. If you were asked to characterize the Turkish people in one word, what would it be?
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 15,8
Table 20. If you were asked to characterize the Armenian people in one word, what would it be?
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 frequently ascribed 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 age groups (18,3% of the respondents mentioned neutral or positive characteristic).
The most significant characteristic about this question for Turkish respondents lies in the fact that an important part of young generations couldn’t answer it. Whereas 46,6% of 18-29 age didn’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 who attributed most negative (41,1%), positive (12,3%) and neutral (17,8%) traits to Armenians. It should 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 each other 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 10,7
Bulgaria 36,8 41,7 37,7 36,9 9,3 5,3 16,2 16,2
Georgia 39,4 26,8 44,4 44,8 12,8 8,8 3,4 19,6
Iraq 15,1 39,0 43,1 40,1 30,4 4,8 11,4 16,1
Iran 16,7 38,6 47,9 40,3 29,5 5,0 5,9 16,2
Russia 92,5 70,2 4,7 11,1 1,2 1,5 1,6 17,2
Syria 23,9 46,4 47,7 31,8 16,0 3,3 12,4 18,5
Greece 60,4 52,8 27,9 26,2 2,4 4,0 9,3 17,0
Armenia 68,9 59,8 28,5 25,1 1,7 1,8 0,9 13,3
Table 22. 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
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
33
Bulgaria 34,5 29,4 49,2 32,0 7,4 3,7 8,9 34,9
Georgia 28,7 32,7 61,1 28,1 9,1 3,4 1,1 35,7
Iraq 75,9 54,0 14,7 10,5 1,6 1,8 7,8 33,7
Iran 62,2 53,2 32,4 11,5 2,7 1,7 2,7 33,6
Russia 67,9 18,4 29,4 38,1 2,3 11,9 0,4 31,7
Syria 62,9 40,9 27,5 20,9 1,8 3,8 7,8 34,5
Greece 23,4 20,8 49,7 34,5 23,1 13,0 3,8 31,6
Turkey 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 Armenian respondents regarding the question. According to both Turkish and Armenian respondents, the Turks are not similar at all to Russians, Armenians and Greeks, and are somewhat similar to Georgians, Iraqis and Iranians. According to Armenian respondents, the Turks are also somewhat similar to Syrians and very similar to Azerbaijanis, while in the opinion of Turkish respondents the Turks are only somewhat similar to Azerbaijanis.
According to Table 22, both Turkish and Armenian respondents think Armenians are somewhat similar to Greeks and Bulgarians. Turkish respondents also feel Armenians are somewhat similar to Russians, whereas majority of Armenian respondents deny this. The respondents agree that Armenians are not similar at all to Turks, Azerbaijanis, Iraqis and Iranians.
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 settled in your city
37,1 19,7 52,9 55,9 8,4 20,7 1,6 3,7
A Turk/Armenian living in your apartment bloc or neighborhood
44,8 26,4 46,0 50,4 8,1 20,2 1,1 3,0
A Turk/Armenian working in your workplace 43,9 25,8 47,0 49,7 7,8 19,9 1,3 4,5
A Turkish/Armenian doctor attending to you in hospital
66,9 22,9 22,8 46,4 6,1 27,2 4,2 3,5
Your son marrying a Turk/Armenian 92,9 63,6 4,6 19,7 1,2 10,3 1,3 6,5
Your 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 respondents have mostly neutral attitude to the fact of a possible, somewhat distant presence in their lives of people of the other’s nationality. However, a possibility of a closer relationship is favorable neither 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 % of Turkish respondents would show neutral or positive attitude in case Armenian doctor takes care of their health.
34
In order to try to reveal the sources of the respondents’ attitude towards each other, several questions 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 a Turkish acquaintance. This might help explaining the fact that Turkish respondents have been more 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 not they have personal contacts with the Turks: those Armenian respondents, who have Turkish acquaintances, have a better attitude towards the Turks than those who do not.
35
Chart 14. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not they have acquaintances
17,2%
29,5%
39,7%
49,0%
36,2%
15,4%6,9% 6,0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Verynegative
Negative Neutral Positive
Have Turkishacquaintances
Do not haveTurkishacquaintances
Chart 15. Opinion of respondents about the Armenians depending on whether or not they have acquaintances
4,3%
8,4%
21,9%
38,1%34,8%
30,5%
39,1%
23,0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Verynegative
Negative Neutral Positive
Have Armenianacquaintances
Do not haveArmenianacquaintances
The difference in attitudes becomes clearer when we calculate the mean estimates: for those who have Turkish acquaintances it is 2,32, whereas for those who don’t 1,97. The relative figures for Turkish respondents are 3,13 and 2,69.
Members of families of 24,5% of the Armenian respondents have been born in Turkey and subsequently came to settle in Armenia, which means the attitudes of these respondents towards the 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% of Turkish respondents have been in Armenia, which means that personal experience did not influence the formation of the respondents’ attitudes towards each other’s countries in frames of the survey. However, we have to note that those Armenian respondents who had been in Turkey have better attitude towards the Turks than those who had not (see Chart 16).
36
Chart 16. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not they have been in Turkey
10,5%
28,5%
47,4%47,2%
31,6%
19,3%10,5%
3,2%0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Verynegative
Negative Neutral Positive
Have been inTurkey
Have not beenin Turkey
As the chart shows, each third respondent who visited Turkey has neutral opinion about the Turks and each tenth has positive opinion, whereas only 19,3% of the respondents who have not been in Turkey have neutral attitude and 3,2% have positive attitude.
37
IV. PRIORITIES
This chapter presents the priorities that the respondents have in certain aspects of economic and political relations between Armenia and Turkey.
As the survey has shown, majority of Armenian respondents would buy products made in Turkey and 60,3% of Turkish respondents would buy goods produced in Armenia.
Chart 17. Would you buy products made in Turkey/Armenia?
73,7%
60,3%
26,3%
38,6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes No
Made in Turkey
Made in Armenia
Armenian and Turkish surveys have shown that readiness to buy Turkish / Armenian products depends on the respondents’ age and on their opinion on the Turks/Armenians in general. 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 by 100% 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% of those whose opinion is very negative are ready to buy Turkish products. In Turkey, 85% of those who have positive opinion, 71,6% of those with neutral opinion, 43,7% of those with negative opinion, and only 22,2% of those with very negative opinion are ready to buy Armenian products. 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 No
18-29 years old 78,5 21,5 66,8 33,2
30-44 years old 77,7 22,3 63,3 36,7
45-59 years old 73,1 26,9 48,4 51,6
60 and above 62,6 37,4 49,3 50,7
Majority of Armenian respondents expressed their willingness to go to Turkey for tourism and vacation (73,5%) and overwhelming majority of them (94,8%) would like to visit Turkey to see the land of their ancestors. Majority of Turkish respondents (50,4%) would go to Armenia for business and trade.
38
Table 24. Would you go to Turkey/Armenia for the following?
Yes, I would go No, I wouldn’t go
Don’t know
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 know
Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 62,7 31,1 6,2
Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 87,7 8,1 4,2
Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems
60,1 33,1 6,8
Turkish respondentsApprove Disapprove
Don’t know
Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 50,9 32,2 16,9
Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 64,6 20,6 14,8
Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems
54,0 29,0 17,1
39
The respondents also support opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey and development of economic cooperation between two countries.
In the opinion of majority of Armenian and Turkish respondents, diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey should be most emphasized in order to develop relations between the countries.
Table 26. Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations between Armenia and Turkey to the advantage of both countries?
Armenia Turkey
Diplomatic relations between the states 74,8 57,8
Academic relations / relations among universities 1,4 3,0
Commercial relations – among businessmen 6,1 13,5
NGO relations 0,2 7,3
Relations between the parliamentarians 2,1 3,1
Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 6,0 7,7
Fair solution of the Armenian question 6,0 -
According to the distribution of answers, issue of second importance is the development of commercial relations. Respondents in both countries have also emphasized the necessity to develop tourism. One can also note that, unlike Armenian respondents, Turkish respondents believe that the development of NGO relations is an important tool, while a certain percent of Armenian respondents claim fair resolution of the Armenian question is to be most emphasized. Respondents in both countries think that relations between parliamentarians and academic relations are least important for the improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations.
As a concrete case example presented to the respondents, the efforts of Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council were not evaluated unambiguously. However, Turkish respondents tend to show positive and Armenians rather neutral attitude towards the actions of the Council (see Table 26). At the same time, approximately each fifth Armenian respondent and each 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 Turkey
Positive 23,7 37,7
Neutral / indifferent 30,1 11,6
Negative 26,4 23,7
Difficult to answer 19,8 26,9
Quite expectedly, the attitude of respondents towards the issue depends on their general attitude towards the Turks – the better it is the more they support the measures that the Council undertakes (see Chart 15).
40
Chart 18. Relationship between respondents’ general attitude towards the Turks and their opinion about the efforts of Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council
47,1% 11,2% 30,9%
54,0% 14,2%16,3%
71,2% 10,1%10,6%
82,9% 11,4% 2,9%
100,0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very negative
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Chart 19. Relationship between respondents’ general attitude towards the Armenians and their opinion about the efforts of Armenian-Turkish Business Development Council
11,1%17,3% 48,1%
27,2% 12,8% 33,6%
41,5% 14,5% 17,8%
66,2% 3,7% 13,9%
71,4% 14,3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very negative
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
41
CONCLUSION
A first experience...
When we conclude, what we need to definitely emphasize, and what values this research is that it
is a first experience. On the one hand, it represents an attempt to unravel mutual perceptions in
Turkey and Armenia and on the other; it creates the knowledge, which came out of an initiative
and collective work of Turkish and Armenian researchers. In addition, although the two
countries 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 Research
From the outset, it was obvious that a slowly progressing research, which would take two years
to complete, would be hard to do. The first difficulty emerged while the questions were being
prepared. As it is well known, researchers engaged in fieldwork ask questions accompanied by
hypotheses while using research techniques. In quantitative researches, questionnaires are
directed to the interviewees. Close-ended questions in questionnaires include hypotheses on the
issue 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 were
not included. Sine qua non options for Armenia were not included to the Questionnaire for
Turkey, 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 not
asked 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.”
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, researchers
did 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 societies
they lived in, or more appropriately of the official discourses.
In spite of this, researchers faced many difficulties in the fieldwork. Many people rejected to take
part in the interview when they learned that the study was on Armenia and Armenians. They
said, “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 having
you do this study and why?” “Are Armenians behind this?” “Are you an Armenian?” “Do you
work for the Armenians?”
Actually, we can say that even those very observations bespeak of the existence of more negative
prejudices than those we eventually unraveled. However, one could also read this statement from
the other way around. People indeed said, “We may get into trouble”. Public employees uttered
that they were worried about losing their job and showed uneasiness while answering the
questions. 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 talk
about Armenians, or if you do talk, talk in a negative way.”
Beside those anxieties observed during interviews, interviewers also experienced tangible
problems. In some cities and districts, interviewers were placed into custody, and after the
interrogation, they were released. In some places, interviewers were escorted out of the district
limits. 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 groups
declared that it was a “scandal,” and they claimed, “Turks were behind it”. They also declared
that researchers were “traitors”.
To sum up, the very implementation of the research itself was a “sensitive” issue, and it revealed
that the Turks and Armenians had a potential to shake each other’s national identities.
43
Despite those difficulties, one of the important findings of the fieldwork was that the interest
level 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 contradistinction
with those prevalent at the lower socio-economic strata that are relatively more receptive of the
populist and nationalist discourses. Doubtless, this could be a sign of a potential for development
of the bilateral relations through channels such as trade, business, education and tourism, or at
least 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 Turkish
society on Armenia would be similar for other neighboring countries as well. However, if one
superimposes this lack of knowledge on Armenia with biases that are historically constructed
and sustained by linking Armenia to ASALA (Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) and
the Kurdish / PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) problems, a very negative image on Armenia
emerges.
For Turks, the neighboring Armenia is an unknown country. It is striking to note that most Turks
have a very low level of knowledge on Armenia, as revealed by the interviews. A low level of
knowledge emerges on following points: Armenia’s area, population (half of participants do not
have any idea on it); geographical situation (40 % of the participants do not know whether
Armenia have an access to sea while 1/6 of the participants believe that Armenia have an access
to Black Sea or to the Caspian Sea) and political order (half of the participants do not have any
idea on it). The negative prejudices stem from a lack of knowledge. In other words, this lack of
knowledge 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 used
simultaneously. For instance, some belonging to the lower socio-economic stratum believe that
Armenians came to Turkey as “tourists” just like the Romanians and the Russians. Save for those
who know that the Armenians are indeed from Anatolia (40 % of participants), most attribute to
these “aliens” any negative characteristics. There are also participants who believe that the
religious affiliation of Armenians is Judaism, and that the Communist Party (which even does
not have any legislative seats) still runs Armenia. In other words, cultural capital contains those
“malignant” portrayals, adjectives and concepts referring to “malignant” situations readily
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 be
problematic 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 their
problem with the Turks had to be historically resolved, for the Turks Armenians constitute a
figure of the “other and “alien”.
National Identity and Prejudices
From another angle, mutually held prejudices inform us about the “religious” dimension of the
national identity on either side. First, in both countries, a significant level of religiosity is
assigned to the other country. This is more pronounced in Armenia where a majority of
participants (68,5%) believes that Turkey does not possess a secular structure. In Turkey, those
thinking the same about Armenia ranges approximately to 40%. In both countries, the religious
dimension of their own national identity is assigned to the other; the other country is constructed
as the “other” in religious terms.
It seems like the religious differences between the two countries play an important role in the
construction of prejudices. One could see the signs of a significant level of religious dimension
in the roots of the national identity and nationalist.
Prejudice increases when the sources of knowledge production get singular. For those brought up
solely by the indoctrination of the official history, the only legitimate language belongs to the
state. As an example of perceiving the other through the memorized and internalized language of
the state, one could provide the case of the knowledge and image the citizens of either countries
have on the other country or the relations of the other country with the others. Even if the
citizens 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 relations
with 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 knowledge
and 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 is
certain that different perspectives on historical events of 1915 have been handled in terms of
45
state policy is very effective for the above finding. In other words, as Armenian national identity
has been constructed on the axis of “genocide”, all generations socialize within the given
framework, 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 events
and being neutral on the issue.
Turkish citizens are aware of their lack of knowledge that leads to a confused image of
Armenians. On the contrary, Armenian citizens’ knowledge on Turkey is more definite. Their
knowledge comes from the information about Atatürk, Talat Pasha, Sultan Hamit, Young Turks
as “enemies of Armenians” and leads to formation of “historical and national consciousness”.
Perceptions
Because the knowledge about other country is canalized through state in both country, state and
society 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, and
this proportion for Turkish participants is only one third. Armenian question for Turkish side
becomes relevant firstly through ASALA and secondly through the Kurdish Question becomes
the source of prejudice.
The research shows that mutual perceptions have “similarities”. As for Armenian citizens there
is no doubt that Turkish citizens have negative image of Armenians, Turkish citizens believe that
Armenians do not think in a negative way about Turkish citizens. Armenians and Turkish
citizens misunderstood each other in a sense; Armenian citizens do not know the level of
positivity among Turkish citizens and Turkish citizens do not know the level of negativity
among Armenians. Highly educated segments of Turkish citizens seem in a more positive mood
towards the Armenians.
The research also shows that highly educated segments of Turkish citizens separate Armenian
state from Armenian society more clearly. The negative or at least hands off attitude over state
may not be transferred to attitudes over society.
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 have
contacts in Armenia or Turkey. The opinion of Armenian citizens who have Turkish
acquaintance is neutral and opinion of Turkish citizens who have Armenian acquaintance is close
to positive. Even in Armenia, have trouble with national identity, the level of prejudice is
lowered among above mentioned people.
Relations
Certain findings of the research give the motivation of dreaming a potential positive future. In
both 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 Armenian
doctor” Turkish citizens can think free from bias. On the other hand, many highly prejudiced
Armenian 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 between
two countries reflects Armenian view of separation of state from society, among Turkish
citizens. The proportion of those agreeing is lower among Turkish citizens that also reflect the
clarity of lack of trust to Armenian state. On the other hand, Armenians wishes establishing
diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey.
Doubtless, the most sensitive issue between two countries is the evaluation of “1915”. According
to Armenian citizens, the main problem between Armenia and Turkey is the “Armenian
Question/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 a
mere 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 to
make the first steps from out of Turkey. While most data seem negative there still are signs for
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 mostly
been marginalized. Those Turkish participants are neutral on the following statement; “Both
Armenians and Turks are ancient peoples”. Although carrying more signs of the prejudices and
of history, same psychological background to make the first step also exists among those
Armenians stressing their commonalities with the Turks. Hence, it is critical that those actors
who could pass the psychological threshold make their voices heard and make their knowledge
more visible. And the empathy here is not a structure of feeling that could be attained by
requesting reciprocity.
In other words, Turkish citizens can make the first step due to their lower levels of prejudice, but
Armenians also have ability of making steps although they seem to have many prejudices. That
is to say, for Armenians there is a historically experienced suffering which could not be
forgotten. Turks at least need to respect this suffering. Unless this respect is shown, the “Turkish
Question” 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 and
history books, if channels of media –which are relatively closer to the civil society when
compared with history books that are mainly controlled by the state- could contribute to a great
extent to the formation of knowledge on the other and efface those negative biases, provided that
they could broadcast in an ethical, unbiased and just manner, free from populist approaches. By
the provision of such knowledge through multiple channels, “democratization” of both societies’
minds could be attained. Therefore, historical events could be discussed beyond the hegemony of
nationalist discourses and passions.
In conclusion, with all its imperfections, the most significant benefit of this study is that it could
help counter the prejudices formed by bits of information and lack of information. By knowing
what 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.
48
ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE - ARMENIA
I-Knowledge
How would you describe contemporary Turkey in terms of territory?
Frequency Valid Percent
It is a large country 524 52,4
It is a small country 42 4,2
It is neither a large nor a small country 410 41,0
Do not know 24 2,4
Total 1000 100,0
What is the approximate population of contemporary Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Less than 5 million 23 2,3
5-10 million 78 7,8
10-20 million 119 11,9
20-40 million 199 19,9
40-60 million 270 27,0
60-80 million 130 13,0
80-100 million 20 2,0
More than 100 million 2 0,2
Do not know 159 15,9
Who dominates the government in Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
President 630 63,0
Prime minister 166 16,6
Sultan 64 6,4
Islamic clergy 62 6,2
Other 6 0,6
Do not know 72 7,2
Does Turkey have an access to a sea (seas)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 959 95,9
No 9 0,9
Do not know 32 3,2
49
To which sea(s)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Black Sea 793 82,7
The Mediterranean 684 71,3
Aegean Sea 210 21,9
Caspian Sea 63 6,6
Marmara Sea 12 1,3
Other 3 0,3
Do not know 29 3,0
What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Turks?
Frequency Valid Percent
Buddhism 0 0,0
Christianity 0 0,0
Islam 992 99,2
Judaism 0 0,0
Other 0 0,0
Do not know 8 0,8
Is there an official religion in Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 685 68,5
No 147 14,7
Do not know 168 16,8
Which one?
Frequency Valid Percent
Buddhism 0 0,0
Christianity 2 0,3
Islam 679 99,1
Judaism 2 0,3
Other 0 0,0
Do not know 2 0,3
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 common elements of culture such as music, folklore and gastronomy.
742 74,2 224 22,4 34 3,4
There was no conflict between the Turks and the Armenians until the early 20th century.
6 0,6 977 97,7 17 1,7
Parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) were inhabited by the Armeniansbefore the Turks arrived.
973 97,3 5 0,5 22 2,2
Armenians who now live in Turkey came to Turkey after dissolution of the Soviet Union.
4 0,4 980 98,0 16 1,6
During World War I, much of the Armenian population living in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrate to other places.
979 97,9 13 1,3 8 0,8
In the second half of 1910s, hundreed of thousands Armenians were killed in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deported out of country.
999 99,9 0 0,0 1 0,1
There are Armenian churches and works of art in several places in Turkey.
974 97,4 11 1,1 15 1,5
How would you describe Turkey’s relations with the following countries?
Bad relations Neither good, nor bad
Good relations
Don’t know
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Armenia 828 82,8 153 15,3 3 0,3 16 1,6
Azerbaijan 14 1,4 33 3,3 950 95,0 3 0,3
Bulgaria 190 19,0 382 38,2 208 20,8 220 22,0
France 454 45,4 343 34,3 99 9,9 104 10,4
Georgia 21 2,1 293 29,3 643 64,3 43 4,3
Germany 50 5,0 314 31,4 516 51,6 120 12,0
Greece 486 48,6 274 27,4 98 9,8 142 14,2
Iran 280 28,0 352 35,2 278 27,8 90 9,0
Israel 131 13,1 384 38,4 332 33,2 153 15,3
Russia 164 16,4 628 62,8 166 16,6 42 4,2
USA 54 5,4 123 12,3 787 78,7 36 3,6
51
What are the professions or fields that the Turks have been most prominent or successful?
Can you name a prominent Turkish person or institution?
Frequency Valid Percent
Ataturk * 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-Attitudes
Which one, the Armenians or the Turks, appeared on the historical scene first?
Frequency Valid Percent
Armenians 946 94,6
Turks 7 0,7
They are both ancient peoples 47 4,7
52
How would you describe contemporary Armenian-Turkish relations in general?
Very bad Bad Neither good nor bad
Good Very good Difficult to answer
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
189 18,9 604 60,4 179 17,9 5 0,5 0 0,0 23 2,3
What is the level of democratic development in Armenia and Turkey?
Very low Low Medium High Very high Difficult to answer
How would you describe your feeling or opinion about the Turks in general?
Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answer
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
278 27,8 472 47,2 198 19,8 35 3,5 2 0,2 15 1,5
How, in your opinion, do the Turks feel or think about the Armenians in general?
Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Difficult to answer
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
334 33,4 572 57,2 34 3,4 21 2,1 1 0,1 38 3,8
Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples today?
Frequency Valid Percent
Turks generally get along well with Armenian people 9 0,9
Turks generally feel threatened by Armenian people. 14 14,0
Turks generally dislike Armenian people. 513 51,3
Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
300 30,0
Difficult to answer 38 3,8
53
Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between contemporary Armenian and Turkish states?
Frequency Valid Percent
Turkey considers Armenia as a friendly neighboring state. 4 0,4
Turkey is a bordering country, with which Armenia has no diplomatic relations.
360 36,0
Turkey is a potential danger for Armenia. 276 27,6
Turkey is a country hostile to Armenia. 336 33,6
Difficult to answer. 24 2,4
Do 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 Percent
Changed for the better 226 22,6
Remained unchanged 525 52,5
Changed for the worse 210 21,0
Don’t know 38 3,8
Do 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 Percent
Will change for the better 147 14,7
Will remain unchanged 374 37,4
Will change for the worse 253 25,3
Don’t know 226 22,6
Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 955 95,5
No 16 1,6
Don’t know 29 2,9
What is the main obstacles to the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Armenian question/ genocide 780 81,7Armenian/Azerbaijanian relationships/ Problem of Artsakh
94 9,8
Different religions 27 2,8Aggressive Pan-turkism 13 1,4Other 35 3,7Don’t know/diff. to answer 6 0,6
54
If you were asked to characterize the Turkish people in one word, what would it be?
Have you ever seen a Turkish person in real life (not seen on screen, TV, etc.)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes, I have 277 27,7
No, I haven’t 723 72,3
Have you ever talked to a Turkish person?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes, I have 207 20,7
No, I haven’t 70 7,0
Have you ever had Turkish friend, associate or acquaintance?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 58 28,0
No 149 72,0
Where?
Frequency Valid Percent
In Armenia 16 27,6
In Turkey 16 27,6
In another country 26 44,8
Was 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 Percent
Yes 245 24,5
No 755 75,5
55
Please specify how you are related to that person.
Relation Frequency Valid Percent
Parents 26 10,6
Father 17 6,9
Mother 7 2,9
Grandmother and grandfather 21 8,6
Grandfather 86 35,1
Granmother 33 13,5
Grandfather ancestors 38 15,5
Grandmother ancestors 4 1,6
Husband’s parents 8 3,3
Wife’s parents 3 1,2
Myself 2 0,8
Have you personally ever been in Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 38 3,8
No 962 96,2
When?
Year Frequency Valid Percent
>1920 1 2,6
1921 – 1990 2 5,3
1991 – 1995 10 26,3
1996 – 1997 9 23,7
1998 – 2002 15 39,5
Don’t remember 1 2,6
Is there anybody in your family/kin who is married or engaged to a Turk?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 4 0,4
No 996 99,6
How are you related to this member of your family/kin?
Relation Frequency Valid Percent
Grandmother 1 25,0
Aunt 2 50,0
Daughter of grandmother’s brother 1 25,0
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 your city
371 37,1 529 52,9 84 8,4 16 1,6
A Turk living in your apartment bloc or neighborhood
448 44,8 460 46,0 81 8,1 11 1,1
A Turk working in your workplace 439 43,9 470 47,0 78 7,8 13 1,3
A Turkish doctor attending to you in hospital 669 66,9 228 22,8 61 6,1 42 4,2
Your son marrying a Turk 929 92,9 46 4,6 12 1,2 13 1,3
Your daughter marrying a Turk 941 94,1 36 3,6 11 1,1 12 1,2
III- Priorities
Would you buy products made in Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 737 73,7
No 263 26,3
Would 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 1,3
Business, trade 315 31,5 662 66,2 23 2,3
To work 174 17,4 797 79,7 29 2,9
School, education 50 5,0 932 93,2 18 1,8
Medical treatment 57 5,7 906 90,6 37 3,7
To see the land of my ancestors
73 94,8 4 5,2 0 0,0
Other 1 100 0 0,0 0 0,0
Do you watch Turkish movies or TV channels or read Turkish magazines?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 737 73,7
No 263 26,3
Do you speak Turkish?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes, fluently 6 0,6
Yes, well enough for basic communication 32 3,2
Not really, I only know some words 185 18,5
No 777 77,7
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 6,2
Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey
877 87,7 81 8,1 42 4,2
Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems
601 60,1 331 33,1 68 6,8
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
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Azerbaijan 20 2,0 196 19,6 780 78,0 4 0,4
Bulgaria 368 36,8 377 37,7 93 9,3 162 16,2
Georgia 394 39,4 444 44,4 128 12,8 34 3,4
Iraq 151 15,1 431 43,1 304 30,4 114 11,4
Iran 167 16,7 479 47,9 295 29,5 59 5,9
Russia 925 92,5 47 4,7 12 1,2 16 1,6
Syria 239 23,9 477 47,7 160 16,0 124 12,4
Greece 604 60,4 279 27,9 24 2,4 93 9,3
Armenia 689 68,9 285 28,5 17 1,7 9 0,9
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 718 71,8 259 25,9 21 2,1 2 0,2
Bulgaria 345 34,5 492 49,2 74 7,4 89 8,9
Georgia 287 28,7 611 61,1 91 9,1 11 1,1
Iraq 759 75,9 147 14,7 16 1,6 78 7,8
Iran 622 62,2 324 32,4 27 2,7 27 2,7
Russia 679 67,9 294 29,4 23 2,3 4 0,4
Syria 629 62,9 275 27,5 18 1,8 78 7,8
Greece 234 23,4 497 49,7 231 23,1 38 3,8
Turkey 687 68,7 287 28,7 17 1,7 7 0,7
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 0,1
Turkey 108 10,8 888 88,8 4 0,4
Georgia 251 25,1 748 74,8 1 0,1
Iran 113 11,3 849 84,9 38 3,8
What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that you know?
Personal visits and contacts 61 6,1 39 3,9 90 9,0 9 0,9
Other 21 2,1 1 0,1 1 0,1 0 0,0
Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations between Armenia and Turkey to the advantage of both countries?
Frequency Valid Percent
Diplomatic relations between the states 748 74,8
Academic relations / relations among universities 14 1,4
Commercial relations – among businessmen 61 6,1
NGO relations 2 0,2
Relations between the parliamentarians 21 2,1
Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 60 6,0
Fair solution of the Armenian question 60 6,0
No relationships 16 1,6
Don’t know/diff. to answer 18 1,8
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” between Armenian and Turkish peoples. What do you think about these efforts?
Frequency Valid Percent
Positive 237 23,7
Neutral / indifferent 301 30,1
Negative 264 26,4
Difficult to answer 198 19,8
DEMOGRAPHY
Gender
Frequency Valid Percent
Male 456 45,6
Female 544 54.4
How old are you?
Age groups Frequency Valid Percent
18-29 237 237
30-44 301 30,1
45-59 264 26,4
60 and over 198 19,8
What level of education did you complete?
Frequency Valid Percent
Illiterate 2 0,2
Elementary school 33 3,3
Secondary school 395 39,5
Secondary professional school 245 24,5
University - High 319 31,9
Master’s/doctoral degree 6 0,6
60
What is your occupation or profession?
Frequency Valid Percent
Public or private sector manager, administrator, expert 6 0,6
Big businessman, merchant, industrialist 0 0,0
State employee (excluding teacher and academic) 71 7,1
Private or public sector employee 43 4,3
Worker 71 7,1
Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 57 5,7
Private owner/pritave businessman 47 4,7
Housewife 150 15,0
Teacher 62 6,2
Intellectual/lecturer 11 1,1
Student 67 6,7
Pensioner 175 17,5
Unemployed, but having income (having land plot, investor etc.)
40 4,0
Unemployed 168 16,8
Irregular jobs 32 3,2
What is your total monthly household income approximately?
Frequency Valid Percent
Less than USD 50 447 44,7
USD 50-100 272 27,2
USD 101-200 113 11,3
USD 201-350 20 2,0
USD 351-500 9 0,9
USD 501-750 3 0,3
USD 751-1000 0 0,0
More than USD 1000 0 0,0
We don’t have any income 99 9,9
Difficult to answer 37 3,7
61
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE - TURKEY
I-Knowledge
How would you describe contemporary Armenia in terms of territory?
Frequency %
It is a large country 88 7,2
It is a small country 485 39,8
It is neither a large nor a small country 226 18,5
Do not know 420 34,5
Total 1219 100,0
What is the approximate population of contemporary Armenia?
Frequency %
Less than 2 million 54 4,4
2-3 million 142 11,6
4-5 million 171 14,0
6-7 million 69 5,7
8-10 million 59 4,8
More than 10 million 99 8,1
Do not know 625 51,3
Who dominates the government in Armenia?
Frequency Valid Percent
President 217 17,8
Prime minister 119 9,8
Communist Party 164 13,5
Clergy 155 12,7
Other 18 1,5
Do not know 546 44,8
Does Armenia have an access to a sea (seas)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 190 15,6
No 538 44,1
Do not know 491 40,3
62
To which sea (seas)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Black Sea 88 46,3
The Mediterranean 4 2,1
Aegean Sea 10 5,3
Caspian Sea 57 30,0
Other (please specify)
2 1,1
Do not know 33 17,4
What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Armenians?
Frequency Valid Percent
Buddhism 15 1,2
Christianity 665 54,6
Islam 16 1,3
Judaism 205 16,8
Armenian 3 0,2
Other 285 23,4
Catholic 10 0,8
Orthodox-Gregorian 13 1,1
Do not know 7 0,6
Is there an official religion in Armenia?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 492 40,4
No 233 19,1
Do not know 494 40,5
Which one?
Frequency Valid Percent
Buddhism 9 1,8
Christianity 334 67,9
Islam 5 1,0
Judaism 106 21,5
Armenian 2 0,4
Other 22 4,5
Catholic 7 1,4
Orthodox-Gregorian 6 1,2
Do not know 1 0,2
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 common elements of culture such as music, folklore and gastronomy.
521 42,7 484 39,7 214 17,6
There was no conflict between the Turks and the Armenians until the early 20th century.
459 37,7 419 34,4 341 28,0
Parts of Anatolia were inhabited by the Armenians before the Turks arrived.
747 61,3 187 15,3 285 23,4
Armenians who now live in Turkey came to Turkey after dissolution of the Soviet Union.
369 30,3 489 40,1 361 29,6
During World War I, much of the Armenian population living in Anatolia was forced to migrate to other places.
579 47,5 339 27,8 301 24,7
In the second half of 1910s, the clashes in Anatolia claimed many Armenian and Turkish lives.
879 72,1 141 11,6 199 16,3
There are Armenian churches and works of art in several places in Anatolia.
979 80,3 75 6,2 165 13,5
How would you describe Armenia’s relations with the following countries?
Bad relations Neither good, nor bad
Good relations Don’t know
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Turkey 489 40,1 514 42,2 140 11,5 76 6,2
Azerbaijan 430 35,3 192 15,8 189 15,5 408 33,5
Bulgaria 85 7,0 239 19,6 349 28,6 546 44,8
France 48 3,9 128 10,5 598 49,1 445 36,5
Georgia 211 17,3 216 17,7 256 21,0 536 44,0
Germany 72 5,9 168 13,8 505 41,4 474 38,9
Greece 70 5,7 133 10,9 567 46,5 449 36,8
Iran 335 27,5 201 16,5 157 12,9 526 43,2
Israel 138 11,3 159 13,0 423 34,7 499 40,9
Russia 96 7,9 176 14,4 492 40,4 455 37,3
USA 86 7,1 136 11,2 578 47,4 419 34,4
64
What are the professions or fields that the Armenians have been most prominent or successful?
Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples today?
Frequency Valid Percent
Armenians generally get along well with Turkish people 173 14,2
Armenians generally feel threatened by Turkish people. 182 14,9
Armenians generally dislike Turkish people. 410 33,6
Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
298 24,4
Difficult to answer 156 12,8
Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations between contemporary Armenian and Turkish states?
Frequency Valid Percent
Armenia considers Turkey as a friendly neighboring state. 155 12,7
Armenia is a bordering country, with which Turkey has no diplomatic relations
287 23,5
Armenia is a potential danger for Turkey 251 20,6
Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey 285 23,4
Difficult to answer 241 19,8
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 Percent
Changed for the better 176 14,4
Remained unchanged 381 31,3
Changed for the worse 427 35,0
Don’t know 235 19,3
Do 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 Percent
Will change for the better 301 24,7
Will remain unchanged 375 30,8
Will change for the worse 215 17,6
Don’t know 328 26,9
Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 448 36,8
No 412 33,8
Don’t know 359 29,5
What is the main obstacles to the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia?
Frequency Valid Percent
History 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 0,4Armenia's territorial claims from Azerbaijan 27 6,0Politics 23 5,1Politicians and Clergy 5 1,1Interests 16 3,6Excessive lobbying 8 1,8Turkey's domestic problems 4 0,9Other 4 0,9Do not know 16 3,6
68
Do you feel that, given an opportunity today, Armenia would press for territorial claims from Turkey?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 959 78,7
No 128 10,5
Don’t know 132 10,8
If you were asked to characterize the Armenian people in one word, what would it be?
Frequency Valid Percent
Negative 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 people, surviving against all odds
23 1,9
Human 70 5,7Neutral expressions 23 1,9Loyal to Turkey 7 0,6Armenian 19 1,6Other 9 0,7Do not know 500 41,0
69
Have you ever seen an Armenian person in real life? (not seen on screen, TV, etc.)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes, I have 531 43,6
No, I haven’t 688 56,4
Have you ever talked to an Armenian person?
Talked to Frequency Valid Percent
Yes, I have 389 31,9
No, I haven’t 142 11,6
Have you ever had Armenian friend, associate or acquaintance?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 272 51,2
No 259 48,8
Where?
Frequency Valid Percent
In Armenia 2 0,7
In Turkey 259 95,2
In another country 11 4,0
What is the citizenship of your Armenian friend(s), associate(s), acquaintances(s)?
Frequency Valid Percent
Turkish citizen 220 80,9
Armenian citizen 49 18,0
Germany 3 1,1
France 1 0,4
England 1 0,4
Cyprus 1 0,4
Russia 2 0,7
Syria 2 0,7
Greece 1 0,4
Denmark 1 0,4
Turkmenistan 3 1,1
Switzerland 1 0,4
70
Have you personally ever been in Armenia?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 5 0,4
No 1214 99,6
When?
Year Frequency Valid Percent
1995 1 20,0
1997 1 20,0
1998 1 20,0
2000 1 20,0
Don’t know 1 20,0
Is there anybody in your family/kin who is married or engaged to an Armenian?
Frequency Valid Percent
Yes 29 2,4No 1190 97,6
How are you related to this member of your family/kin?
Frequency Valid Percent
Brother/Sister 1 3,4
Cousin 4 13,8
Nephew/Niece 1 3,4
Paternal aunt 1 3,4
Grandmother 1 3,4
Grandfather 3 10,3
Father's cousin 1 3,4
Parents 2 6,9
Uncle's wife 7 24,1
Son/Daughter 1 3,4
Mother-in-law 1 3,4
Other 2 6,9
Don't know 4 13,8
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 your city
240 19,7 682 55,9 252 20,7 45 3,7
An Armenian living in your apartment bloc or neighborhood
322 26,4 614 50,4 246 20,2 37 3,0
An Armenian working in your workplace 315 25,8 606 49,7 243 19,9 55 4,5
An Armenian doctor attending to you in hospital
279 22,9 566 46,4 331 27,2 43 3,5
Your son marrying an Armenian 775 63,6 240 19,7 125 10,3 79 6,5
Your daughter marrying an Armenian 830 68,1 212 17,4 105 8,6 72 5,9
Which one of the following should be most emphasized for developing relations between Turkey and Armenia to the advantage of both countries?
Frequency Valid Percent
Diplomatic relations between the states 704 57,8
Academic relations / relations among universities 37 3,0
Commercial relations – among businessmen 164 13,5
NGO relations 89 7,3
Relations between the parliamentarians 38 3,1
Tourist relations between peoples of the two countries 94 7,7
All 16 1,3
Other 14 1,1
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” between Turkish and Armenian peoples. What do you think about these efforts?
Frequency Valid Percent
Positive 460 37,7
Neutral / indifferent 142 11,6
Negative 289 23,7
Difficult to answer 328 26,9
DEMOGRAPHY
Gender
Frequency Valid Percent
Male 629 51,6
Female 590 48,4
How old are you?
Age groups Frequency Valid Percent
18-29 425 34,9
30-44 503 41,3
45-59 218 17,9
60 and over 73 6,0
What level of education did you complete?
Frequency Valid Percent
Illiterate 28 2,3
Literate (did not complete any school) 37 3,0
Primary school 472 38,7
Middle school 170 13,9
High school 336 27,6
Secondary professional school 25 2,1
University 144 11,8
Master’s/doctoral degree 7 0,6
75
What is your occupation or profession?
Frequency Valid Percent
Public or private sector manager, administrator, expert, teacher, academic
53 4,3
Public sector white collar employee (excluding teacher and academic)
37 3,0
Private sector white collar employee 52 4,3
Public or private sector worker 160 13,1
Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 12 1,0
Shopkeeper/craftsman 161 13,2
Teacher
Academic/Lecturer
Housewife, house-daughter 428 35,1
Student 74 6,1
Retired, pensioner 118 9,7
Non-employed with income (landlord/landlady, investor, etc.)
