Studying main terms for interrelationship, formation of civil position and integration in public life of Georgian, Azerbaijani and Armenian youth living in Georgia. Last period conflicts in Caucasus at first sight, is ethnic. Multi-nationality, which was cultural characteristics of Georgia, turned out to be the most problematic for contemporary Georgia. Though part of experts considers that reasons of conflict in Caucasus are not only ethnic. In their view conflicts are caused mainly by the will of governing forces and claim on territories. Georgia is resided by compactly settled Armenians and Azeris with different nations. Taking into account interests and demands of this and other representatives of different nations, their social and cultural adaptation and integration in Georgian public so that their national conscience, language and cultural characteristic should be defended is significant for home policy of Georgia. It is known in social psychology that estrangement among social groups, among ethnic groups also, premises foe arousing prejudices and stereotypes among representatives of this groups which in its turn may come the reason of contradiction. Furthermore these factors are intensified by economic conditions. It is known that one of the important factors, which cause formation of conflict, is the absence of communication among sides or distorting information. Thus at the time of elimination of ethnic stereotype and prejudices, which determine so called inter group non-acceptance spread of perfect dialogue among representatives of different ethnic groups should be based on central and knot moments, which are common and comprehensive for all participants involved. The same time selecting youth as an object of empiric research is not incidental and on the one hand is due to the fact that young people (adolescents 14-16 and 16-22) are more sensitive to extra factors and on the second hand main human value orientations, priority system and fixed dispositions according to all social aspect of life are forming exactly in this period. The aim of our research is to study relationship of Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani young people living in Georgia and also, to reveal factors which hamper their collaboration and setting the same goals. Come out of the aim the tasks of our research are: 1. Definition of acceptable and non-acceptable ethnic groups for representatives of Azeris, Armenian and Georgian. 2. Research of attitudes toward each other and different nations and states (Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan) 3. Determination of attitude of representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian toward religion. 4. Determination of attitude of representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian toward mass media. 5. Research of attitude representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian toward interstate social institutions. 6. Estimation of vote and inter political situation by representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian. 7. Research of confidence of representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian in international organization and estimation effectiveness of their work. 8. Study of interrelationship and value orientation of representatives of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian young people living in Georgia. Implementation of project takes into account the following stages: 1. Theoretic analysis of inter-group relation and revealing main facts, which hinder peaceful coexistence. 2. Analysis of performed research, which includes results of sociologic research received from CRRC. The research was performed in three regions Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Analysis includes results of research performed in Georgia with youth of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian within the frame of H. Boell foundation. The research was performed in June- September 2004. Analysis of data of CRRC research was added to analysis of research performed in Georgia, where relationship of Armenian, Azerbaijani band Georgian respondents‟ towards self and other nations are discussed. Dichotomy of „Others‟ and “Ours‟ within the aspect of ethnic relationship. Summarizing of both data enables to determine role of ethnic and religious factors within relationship of nations and conflict formation. Due to that research was performed only with young people living in Georgia and the same time there was less number of respondents than in CRRC, data should not be compared but research performed in Georgia will be included as psychological conclusions in the main analysis. 265 respondents of both sexes were interviewed. The age ranged from 14 to 22 in three independent selections taking into account ethnic groups. The research was performed in Tbilisi, Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki (Samtskhe-Djavakheti region, which are settled compactly by Armenians considered to be the potential center of tension); Dmanisi and Marneuli (Kvemo Kartli –This region are compactly settled by Azerbaijanians); Telavi and Gori (Mainly Georgians). Representatives of three nations were interviewed. From total selection Georgians were 38.8%, Armenians – 32.3%, Azeris – 29.5%. Mainly pupil and students were interviewed. Data was worked out by SPSS statistic program. On the base of received main conclusions model of inter-group communication was launched and approbated. It should be mentioned that it gave a good chance to conduct training groups after qualitative research in summer school – camp that was organized by World Vision and Caucasus House. Participants were from regions, which are settled compactly by Azeris and Armenians. Their age ranges from 14 to 22. There was an attempt to keep balance of gender. According to ethnicity participants were Georgians, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian, Jewish and Ukrainian Focus - groups were performed in summer school-camp in July and September 2005. Retrieved information and results enables to make deep analysis and prepare materials for training groups. 11 focus groups were conducted. Each focus group included ten participants. Primary eight groups: two composed of respondents from Marneuli; 2 – Bolnisi; 2 – Akhaltsikhe and 1– Ninotsminda and one from Akhalkhalaki. Tree groups were mixture: for instance Akhaltsikhe, Bolnisi, Marneuli, or Marneuli-Akhalkalaki. As it was mentioned in parallel to the research was performing training groups for mastering following skills: effective communication, assertive behavior, leader and creative skills and guidance for conflict situation and resolution skills. There were used elements of socio-dram and all those were directed to formulating tolerance as value. The analysis was prepared on two stages. Stage I – analysis of existent results and stage II- analysis of received materials from focus groups. Methodology of project is based on the following theoretic concepts and principles: 1. 1. E. Cornell, A study of ethno-political conflict in the Caucasus, 2001 2. H. Tedjfel, The theory of inter-group relation and social identity 3. Sh. Nadirashvili, The theory of social identity 4. Soldatova, Ethno-psychological attitude towards identification 5. A. Zdravomislov, Theoretical principles of conflict sociology 6. E. Moreno, Theoretical principles of sociometrics and socio-dram Following materials are also used: French journal „Ethno – nationalism in Western Europe‟ Domenic Kolla. Political sociology Construction of Ethnicity /Edited by V. Voronkov/ Ethnic and religious intolerance in Media of Russia Methods of research and procedure of conducting research 1. Bogardus modified version of social distance research method. The method researches other nations‟ quality of acceptability, which is united according to ethnicity, culture and other sign. Existence of more accepted and estranged members in a group (almost the same function has Moreno psychometric tests. This method was used to research big social group. 2. Method of semantic deferential. This is a scale where specially selected antonyms – attributes are set out polar, the context of them displays affective, cognitive and behavioral contents. By the method of semantic deferential one should determine sympathy antipathy criterion and quality and reveal inter-group and among groups stereotypes of attitude. 3. The method of social disposition formulated by Georgian psychologists under the guidance of Sh. Nadirashvili. The method researches the role of social disposition and determine acceptability zone among relationship of ethnic groups. 4. Block of questionnaires to reveal more spread ethnic stereotypes and ideological orientation. This block also includes different attributes concerning ethnicity. 5. Focus groups will be based on principles of Belanovski focus group and Moreno socio-dram methods. Analysis of data The questionnaire consists of the following blocks: A Household general characteristic that includes number of people living in household (above 18), sex, birth date and education of as respondents as other members of family. Selection was made in accordance with Kirsch Table Method. D Demographic part E Education M Migration H Health P Political activity/views S Social Institutions R Crime C Economic Behaviour In this work emphasis is placed on political activity/views and social institutions, nevertheless there are data from other blocks. Data was worked out by SPSS statistic program. 4461 respondents were interviewed in whole Caucasus. Percentage distribution for each region is the following: Geo Azer Armen 32,6 32,8 33 33,2 33,4 33,6 33,8 It is noteworthy that the research was performed in capitals of regions: Tbilisi, Baku and Erevan. Here regions imply Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia and means that only capitals‟ population was interviewed. Explanation of demographic data starts with description of family. Average numbers of family members of respondent were four for each region. The first and the second members are the most frequent among interviewees of three regions. That means that heads of family, masculine and the second member of the family, feminine are interviewed mainly. In the first case the age ranges from 53 (Azerbaijan) to 57 (Armenia and Georgia) and in the second – from 44 (Azerbaijan) to 48 (Armenia and Georgia). The number of respondent The number of respondent The number of respondent REGION: 1 1. Armenia REGION: 2 2. Azerbaijan REGION: 3 3. Georgia 700 700 700 600 600 600 500 500 500 400 400 400 300 300 300 200 200 200 Frequency Frequency Frequency 100 100 100 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The number of respondent The number of respondent The number of respondent According to family status more than half of interviewee (55%) are married and live with husband/wife. According to regions 53.3% from Armenia, 57.4% –Azerbaijan, 56%–Georgia. Some of them have never been married Armenian – 21.3% Azerbaijanian – 22.2% Georgian - 20%. Less percentage has widowers/widows - Armenian – 15.6%, Azerbaijani – 13.4%, Georgian – 12.4%. From a viewpoint of ethnicity within the whole region the following range is revealed: 1. Armenian 2. Azerbaijani 3. Georgian 4. Russian 5. Leszgian, Ossetian, Yezidi 6. Jewish 7. Abkhazian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish, Talish 8. Turkish, Belarusian, Tatar 9. Chechen, Dargin, Laki, Mariyka, Gypsy According to regions respondents are distributed by ethnic identify as following: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Ethnicity Armenian Azerbaijani 90.7% Georgian 86.4% Russian 6% Armenian 6.3% 96.7% Lezgin 1.2% Russian 2.2% Russian 1.3% Talish 0.5% Ossetian 1.2% Assyrian 0.6% Jewish 0.3% Yezidi 1.2% Abkhazian 0.3% Kurdish 0.3% Azerbaijani 0.6% Yezidi 0.1% Turkish 0.3% Greek 0.5% Belarusian 0.1% Tatar 0.3% Jewish 0.5% Other 0.8% Chechen Kurdish 0.3% Dargin Tatar 0.3% Belarusian 0.1% Abkhazian Lezgian Assyrian Mariyka Belarusian 0.1% Gypsy Lezgian Mariyka Refuse to answer From the table is evident that Georgia particularly Tbilisi is more multinational than Baku and Erevan. It should be mentioned that Baku population is characterized as multinational. About language spoken in family majority of respondents noted: 1. Armenian 2. Azeri 3. Georgian 4. Russian Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Language Armenain92.3% Azerbaijani 91.8% Georgian 87.5% Russian 6.6 Russian 7.6 Russian 5.2% Abkhazian Lezgish, Talish Armenian Assyrian Turkish Kurds Other Azerbaijani Belarusian Abkhazian Assyrian Ossetian Turkish As it seems from the table attitude towards language is more liberal in Tbilisi than in two regions: Majority of interviewees refuse using of second language. According to regions from Armenia - 68,2%, Azerbaijan - 76%, Georgia - 79,4%. Among them who use second language majority mentioned (79-79%-Armenia and Azerbaijan; 63%-Georgia) Russian. Beside mentioned languages there are noted: Hebrew, Yezidi, Tatar, English, Lezgish, Portuguese and German. It is remarkable that almost all above enumerated languages, also European is indicated in case of Tbilisi. Beside Georgia English was indicated as a second language by respondents from Azerbaijan. While defining citizenship 99.7% of interviewed respondents confirmed their citizenship. 98.9% of respondents from Baku indicated that they are citizens of Azerbaijan, rest of them - Turkey (0.7%); Russia (0,3%); Georgia (0,1%). Concerning Erevan 97.3% indicated citizenship of Armenia. Rest of them mentioned –Russia, Georgia, Karabakh, Iran, Serb, and USA. From the viewpoint of employment frequency distribution forms the following picture - according to more evident percentage indicator of regions. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Employment Pensioner, including disabled (24%) Employee in state organization Unemployed and looking for Employee in state organization (23.3%) (26.7%) (18.8%) Unemployed and looking for Employee in state organization Unemployed and looking for work work (18.3%) (20.4%) (17.7%) Pensioner, including disabled Pensioner, including disabled Employee in private organization (16.5%) (17.7%) (13.9%) Not employed and not looking Employee in private Not employed and not looking for for work (15.2%) organization (11,9%) work (12.5%) Not employed and not looking work (10.8%) There are also presented responses: self-employed, without hired workers, employer, and student. In case of Azerbaijan – housewife, preparing for army, post-graduate student and being on maternity leave. Maternity leave is named as reason of unemployment in case of Georgia. Concerning Armenia there is not mentioned any separate answer (other than indicated in closed questions). Almost third of interviewed note that could not find the job and that is the reason of unemployment. From this viewpoint on the second place is Baku and third - Erevan. In Baku according to range on the first place are employees in state organization in Tbilisi and Erevan – second place. Incase of Erevan first place takes pensioner, including disabled. While naming reasons of unemployment question is missed by 70.2% from Armenia, 77.8%- Azerbaijan, and 62.4%-Georgia. Respondents who answer this question name the following reasons: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Reason Cannot find a job/there is no job at Family reason 39.1% Cannot find a job/there is no job at all 36.6% Cannot find a job with appropriate all 52.5% for not Family reason 26.2% remuneration 23.3% Family reason 22% working Cannot find a job with appropriate Cannot find a job/there is no job at Cannot find a job with appropriate remuneration 21.5% all 12.7% remuneration 17.7% As it was anticipated majority of interviewees (52.5%) who explained reasons of unemployment mentioned that they could not get a job. With the same range, but less percentage this reason is named in Erevan. In case of Baku this reason has less importance and is on the third place by range. Registration in the appropriate organs of employment in case of unemployment was given negative answer by 85.2% from Armenia (71.5%-missed), 88.6%-Azerbaijan (78.8%-missed), 95.5% - Georgia (62.4%-missed) Majority of respondents (92.5%) from three regions do not answer probability of finding job and those who answer this question majority of them (68.6%) think that they would find a job according to their specialty. While defining the most important factors necessary for getting a good job given factors were distributed as following: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Factors for Connections Money Connections getting a Money Connections Education Education Education Professional abilities, talent good job Hard work Professional abilities, talent Money It is remarkable that respondents from three of region attach great importance to connections. This factor has primary meaning for interviewees from Tbilisi and Erevan and has no less importance in case of Baku (range II). Money is also significant factor in case of Baku (I place) and Erevan (II place). Respondents from Tbilisi attach less importance to money after education and talent and professional abilities. This indicates that there are significant changes in the system of education and employment in Georgia particularly in Tbilisi. Concerning Baku and Erevan education takes III place. One of the factors for getting a good job was named – being young, woman, presence of will (Armenia); achievements in political party, knowledge gained abroad, nationality (Georgian), knowledge of computer and English (Azerbaijan) and so on. Research of attitudes towards different groups gives the following picture according to regions: Different groups Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Yes No DK Yes No DK Yes No DK 1 AIDS diseased 24 59.8 16.2 8.9 77.3 13.8 49.6 39.7 It is 2 Drug addict 8.9 82.3 8.8 6.5 85.9 7.9 39 54.1 6.9 3 Homosexual 11.8 77.3 10.9 4.9 86.7 8.3 29.2 63.5 7.3 4 Tubercular 18 65.6 16.4 10.2 80.4 9.4 51.4 38.9 9.7 patient 5 Chronical 17.6 72.7 9.7 8.3 82.9 8.7 30.2 62 7.8 drunkard In the section what type of relations (Friendship, neighborhood, and cooperation) they agree to have with above mentioned groups are calculated total positive, negative responses and unanswered questions together and not separately according to categories - I do not mind to become a neighbor of, to become a friend with and so on to reveal general tendencies. This implies relationship. All respondents missed category living with It is noteworthy that the most tolerant were respondents of Tbilisi because majority of them (compare with other regions) agreed to have relation with others. In a viewpoint of acceptability respondents from Erevan have less acceptance than from Tbilisi. Azeris appeared to be less tolerant towards different groups. Respondents from Tbilisi have acceptability towards tubercular patient. Not the less tolerance was demonstrated towards AIDS diseased and drug addict. On the forth place by range is chronical drunkard and last is homosexual though acceptability towards this group demonstrated 1/3 of interviewees. Respondents from Erevan demonstrate acceptability towards different groups as following: 1) AIDS diseased 2) Tubercular patient 3) Chronical drunkard 4) Homosexual 5) Drug addict As it was mentioned majority of respondents from Baku had negative attitude towards almost all groups. Though from a viewpoint of acceptability there is a slight range. 1) Tubercular patient 2) AIDS diseased 3) Chronical drunkard 4) Drug addict 5) Homosexual Herein is noted results of research carried out in Georgia where principles among other indicators are formulated though is displayed attitudes of young people towards sexual minority: In opinion majority of respondents their friends and relatives regard „others‟ persons who are atypical, different from them and environment that affect negatively on their group. Unacceptable groups are: - Representative of sexual minority - People belonging to different religious confession - People expressing different views and opinions Sexual minority are most unacceptable for Azeris and Armenians; people belonging to different religious confession are unacceptable for interviewees from Georgia and Armenia People to belonging different religious confession are unacceptable for respondents from region Less irritation is expressed towards people and representatives of social groups, who cannot affect on their group significantly. In respondents opinion they are people with different mental capacity, from regions, different nationality, and social status. Economic factor is almost ignored by respondents. In their opinion it is criterion of differentiation. 1/6 of respondents refuse existence of social groups, which are unacceptable according to any sign for their group. This position is shared by significant part of respondents from Tbilisi. Some cases of unacceptability of city-dwellers or other group were displayed. Interviewees of both sex displayed equal high quality of unacceptability of people belonging to different religious confession. The same time they have absolutely neutral attitude towards representatives of different nations, that was characteristic in case of Georgian respondents Majority of male respondents display unacceptable to sexual minority. Female interviewees demonstrate less unacceptability. Though they give more negative estimate to people expressing different views and opinions than male respondents who have neutral attitude towards them. The result is paradoxical respondents do not mind to relate to persons with contagious disease and generally, ill person. Especially when it concerns to cooperation, neighbourship and friendship and avoid relating with homosexuals who are not dangerous for health. Actually for Caucasians social norms is acceptable. Compare with them health and welfare have secondary meaning While discussing at which extent respondents are interested in politics the following picture was revealed: At which extent are you interested in politics? At which extent are you interested in politics?which extent are you interested in politics? At REGION: 1 1. Armenia 500 REGION: 2 2. Azerbaijan REGION: 3 3. Georgia 600 800 400 500 300 400 600 300 200 Frequency Frequency 200 400 100 Ve No 100 No Ve ry N N tv ta ry ot Frequency m ot 0 er So h t a DK uc v m at 0 200 er yi So h uc m in ll i al y Rl nt m in ewe nt in eifn er ewe t er te uts hra s es t er re es e hra s ees t ted te e st te t te d ed te 0 d Very much interested Not very interested Somew hat Not at all intereste At which extent are you interested in politics? At which extent are you interested in politics? At which extent are you interested in politics? Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Interested in Very much interested 21% Very much interested 9.5% Very much interested 22.4% politics Somewhat interested 30% Somewhat interested 22.1% Somewhat interested 51.4% Not very much interested 25.3% Not very much interested Not very much interested 12.4% 23.7% 30.4% Not at all interested 13.9% Not at all interested 37.9% Discussion of politics Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Discussion of Very often 13.4% Very often 6.7% Very often 18.8% politics Rather often 24.5% 12.8% Rather often 27.6% Rarely 41.7% 37.1% Rarely 45% Never 20.3 Never 43.3% Never 8.7% How often do you discuss politics? How often do you discuss politics? How often do you discuss politics? REGION: 3 3. Georgia REGION: 1 1. Armenia REGION: 2 2. Azerbaijan Missing Refus e Never Very often DK Nev er Very often Very often Never Rather often Rather often Rarely Rather often Rarely Rarely The most politicized appeared to be respondents from Tbilisi, the most apolitical – interviewees from Baku. Interviewees from Erevan equal in being interested in politic as not interested. Accordingly Tbilisi‟ respondents discuss politics most frequently and interviewees from Baku – most seldom. It is possible that was due to existence of unchangeable leader. The main sources for respondents to get information about politics news are: 1. Television 2. Radio 3. Newspaper Less informative are considered: 4. Internet 5. Family members 6. Neighbors, friends 7. Workplace, colleagues It appeared that majority of respondents (64. 4%) from three regions voted in last parliamentary elections. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Voting in Yes 69.8% Yes 53.2% Yes 70.1% parliamentary No 29.8% No 45.7% No 29.8% elections Refuse to answer 0.3% Refuse to answer 1.1% Refuse to answer 0.1% Rest of the respondents named reasons not voting in elections as following Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Reasons not Useless Not interested in politics Was not in the city/village voting in Was ill Do not know Was ill elections Was not a citizen Family reasons Was at work Didn‟t have time Didn‟t have a passport Family reasons Was not registered Was not a citizen Was not a citizen Was not in the list Do no t remember Didn‟t have time Didn‟t like any of the Was not in the list candidates Due to religious confession Didn‟t have time Guaranteed results was anticipated Was not in the territory of registration Was not in the list Due to procedure of marking There are responses such as: didn‟t like any of the candidates; was not in adult age; as a protest as protest As it seems respondent from Tbilisi take first place from the viewpoint of declaring civil or politic position. Concerning voting in last parliamentary elections 77.7% of interviewees from whole South Caucasus voted. Results are contrary according to regions. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Voting in Yes 77.1% Yes 81.5% Yes74.4% presidential No 22.7% No 18.4% No25.5% elections Refuse to answer 0.2% Refuse to answer 0.1% Refuse to answer 0.1% Almost the same reasons were named as in case of parliamentary elections. In a view of participation in presidential elections president according to percentage indicators (81.5%) respondents from Baku take first place and interviewees from Tbilisi take last place conditionally. Participating in any kind of public politic activities during last 12 months; for example political demonstration, meeting, signing a petition and so on. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Participation Yes, only once 3% Yes, only once 2.8% Yes, only once 6.7% in public 3.9% Yes, several times 1.3% Yes, several times 16% activity No 92.9% No 94.4% No 76.5% Refuse to answer 0.1 Refuse to answer 1.2% Refuse to answer 0.8% Tbilisi‟ respondents are more involved in public politic activities than different regions of South Caucasus. In respondents‟ opinion things in their country are moving In your opinion, are In your opinion, are things in our country movingIn your opinion, are things in our country moving in the right directiothings in our country moving in the right directio REGION: 1 1. Armenia REGION: 2 2. Azerbaijan REGION: 3 3. Georgia 700 400 600 600 500 300 500 400 400 200 300 300 Frequency Frequency 200 200 Frequency 100 Th Th Th Th ar K 100 D a in in R 100 in in e m Th Th Th Th o r Th T h are K Th Th a r e K ef gs gs gs gs Do a no e 0 Do s a Re in in Re in g in g us in in in g in g gs gs ar ar ovi n gs gs t mmo fu e 0 n o re m fu 0 s n or e m sa s a ov i e e to se se ar ar t m ov ov n tm o D m m gm re re to e e an to ov ov e gm m D o v i ng D o v v in m vi mo mo m m an sw an at a in in ov ov ov e m e ag m v in v in a g g sw al er in sw at a ng in in in in ta a l g gi gi er g g al er a m ll m in in n n l a In your opinion, are things in our country moving in the right directio In In your opinion, are things in our country moving in the right directio y our opinion, are things in our country mov ing in the right d Accordingly respondents from Tbilisi are more satisfied. In their view things in country are moving to the right direction. This opinion is shared partially by respondents from Baku. Concerning interviewees from Erevan their opinions are distributed equally among positive, neutral and negative evaluation. Issues that are important for the country are attached equal importance by respondents with slight range. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Importance of Social issues Economic issues Equally issues Economic issues Social issues and democracy International issues and building democracy building International issues Which of the following goals do you consider most important Goals Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Reduction of poverty and Restoration territorial Reduction of poverty unemployment integrity of the country Increase income Reduction of poverty Reduce unemployment Fight corruption Reduce Restoration territorial integrity of the unemployment country Reduce inequality Return refugees and Increase income IDPs to their homes Restoration territorial integrity of the Increase income Fight corruption country Reduce out-migration Fight corruption Return refugees and IDPs to their homes Increase access to health care Strengthening military Reduce crime capability of the country Guarantee civil rights Guarantee civil rights Increase access to health care and increase access to health care Guarantee political stability Reduce crime Strengthening military capability of the country Strengthening military capability of Reduce inequality Improve the environment and guarantee the country civil rights (freedom of speech, belief, associations, etc) and rule of law. Encourage re-migration Guarantee political Reduce inequality and guarantee stability political stability Reduce crime Improve the Encourage re-migration environment Improve the environment Reduce out-migration Reduce out-migration and improvement of interethnic relations Other Encourage re- migration Return refugees and IDPs to their Improvement of homes interethnic relations Improvement of interethnic relations Majority of respondents from Georgia and Armenia consider reduction of poverty and unemployment as the most important goals. These issues are important for interviewees from Azerbaijan after restoration of territorial integrity of the country. Respondents from three regions attach less importance to improvement of interethnic relations and encouraging re-migration (Azerbaijan, Georgia) and return of refugees and IDPs to their homes (Armenia). Maybe in respondents‟ opinion this issue is unsettled and any effort would be in vain. According to regions respondents give advantage to cooperation with different countries as in economic sphere as political sphere with the following range: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Russia Russia Russia USA Turkey USA European Union USA European Union Iran European Union Turkey Turkey Iran Iran Respondents from tree regions give priority to cooperation with Russia. Also cooperation with USA and European Union is significant for respondents from Georgia and Armenia. Such magisterial country is Turkey for Azerbaijan. On the contrary Armenian‟ respondents evaluate neutrally or slight negatively the idea of cooperation with Turkey. The idea of Georgia‟s cooperation with Iran is evaluated quite negatively. Generally there was a will to cooperate with other countries. They are: Japan, Germany, Georgia, England, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Muslim Countries; all which support us Africa, Latin America, Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, CIS and so on. Attitudes towards cooperating with different Caucasus states are quite various: cooperation with Armenia in economic sphere was supported by 75.2% of respondents from Tbilisi. 95.3% of interviewees from Baku were fully against cooperating with Armenia. Concerning cooperation in political sphere there was the same picture. 73% of respondents from Tbilisi support cooperation with Armenia; 94.2 % from Baku are against. Cooperation with Azerbaijan in economic sphere are supported by 79.1 % of respondents from Tbilisi; significant parts of respondents from Erevan (47.9% 21.3% fully support and 26.6%) would cooperate with Azerbaijan in economic sphere Interviewees from Erevan 1/3 are against to cooperate with Azerbaijan in economic sphere. Concerning cooperation with Georgia as economic as in politic sphere (with slight percentage difference and sustaining the main picture) majority of interviewees from Erevan and Baku are fully supportive to cooperate with Georgia The most readiness of each region becoming a NATO member expresses Georgians: Majority of Tbilisi respondents (84.5%; fully supportive – 65.3% and rather supportive – 19.2%) support Georgia cooperation with NATO, and becoming a NATO member is supported by significant number of interviewees (83,7%; fully supportive - 66% and rather supportive – 17.7%) give positive estimate. Cooperation with NATO is also important for Azerbaijani respondents. Significant part of them (64.1%; fully supportive – 38.7 and rather supportive – 25.4%) supports Azerbaijan cooperation with NATO. Significant part of Baku respondents (62.1% from this 34.3%) support Azerbaijan becoming a NATO member. Concerning Erevan respondents their opinion differs on the matter of NATO. Almost half of Erevan interviewees (49.1%; fully supportive – 25.2% and rather supportive – 23.9%) are agreed to cooperate with NATO. but the number of respondents who is supportive Armenia becoming a NATO member lessens (37.1%; fully supportive – 19.9 and rather supportive –17.2%)and grows who is against (27.7%). Respondents were quite tolerant while estimating different ethnic groups though there was a range Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Group Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative 1. Abkhazian 39.6 9.5 39.5 - - - 51.8 1.0.5 36.7 2. Armenian 96.5 0.9 1.9 - - - 53.6 8.6 37.4 3.Assyrian 49.6 7 35.1 - - - 46.2 6 39.1 4.Azernaijani 20.6 53.4 23.2 98.7 0.4 0.6 53.9 5.6 39.1 5. Georgian 50.7 19.5 27.5 - - - 94.6 0.5 4.6 6. Greek 66.9 3.3 24.7 - - - 65.6 2.9 30.6 8. Iranian (66.4) 45.2 20.5 30.1 - - - - - - 9. Jewish (100) 41.6 19.4 32.2 42.4 7 45.7 61.4 4.6 32.7 11. Kurdish 35.1 20.5 38.8 - - - 51 8.7 38.7 12. Lezgian (66.4) 26.3 10.3 38.4 - - - - - - 13. Ossetian 27.7 9.7 37.7 - - - 51.4 8.4 38.2 14. Russian (100) 92.5 1.7 5.3 57.9 6.9 33.6 64.7 3.9 30.6 15. Talish (66.4) 21.7 12.9 34.3 - - - - - - 16. Turkish (66.4) 16.4 63.5 17 - - - - - - 17. Yezidi 57.9 8.8 30.4 - - - 49.7 6.7 39.9 As it was anticipated respondents from three regions give most positive estimate to the self-nation. In case of Armenian respondents estimate positively Russians. According to received picture the following range was revealed: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Armenian Azerbaijani Georgian Russian Russian Greek Greek Jewish Russian Yezidi Jewish Georgian Armenian Iranian Azerbaijani Ethnic groups Assirian Abkhazian Jewish Ossetian Abkhazian Kurdish Turkish Yezidi Azerbaijani Assyrian Kurdish Ossetian Lezgian Talish The research performed in Georgia, which aimed to reveal youth attitude towards other nations were conducting slight differently. Particularly respondents should name nation they desired to be or not. Then they ought to evaluate whom they make friends, neighbor, get married and cooperate by modified method of Bogardus (the last and this part of CRRC questionnaire was conducted by the same methodology). It should be noted majority of respondents gives priority to identification with Georgians as privileged nation. Representativeness of any European Country is more acceptable for them than identification with Europeans or Americans generally. Representativeness of foreign country is associated with welfare. Some of respondents show a will of belonging certain confession. Male respondents give advantage to Christianity and Catholicism. Generally Respondents also desire to be Armenian or Russian. Herein should be mentioned that male interviewees show a will to be Italian and Spanish. Concerning female respondents American, Greece, and German are desirable for them. Being Russian is relevant for respondents from regions. Tbilisi respondents give advantage to being Italian. Georgians gives priority to Italian, French and American. They also mentioned – Christian. Majority of Azeris and Armenians do no care nationality. Though part of them is not willing to change nationality and the part desires to be Russian. Armenians show a will to be Catholic. There is not mentioned Jewish, German and Arabian. Georgians and Azeris do not desire to be identified with Armenian. Georgian and Armenian interviewees refuse to be Turkish, Muslims, Azerbaijani and Tatar. Identity with Negro is unacceptable for Azeris and Armenian. Refusal of Azeris being Svan from many answers is evident. Georgians deny to be identified with Ossetian. Though significant part of respondents indicates that nationality has no importance and there is no bad or good nation there are exist bad and good persons. The same picture, received in common selection, is revealed by analysis of data according to sex. Nevertheless there is certain difference: Female respondents refuse to be Azerbaijani or „Tzigani‟. For male interviewees are unacceptable Negro and African. Tbilisi respondents display neutral attitude towards identity with Moslem. Though display negative tendency towards being Chinese, Russian and Georgian. They refuse to be „Tzigani‟. Identity with Negro, Svan and Ossetian are unacceptable for respondents from region. Majority of respondents desire to get married with representatives of self-nation. Accordingly the first three places take three nations selected by us. The first place takes Georgians. Seldom is mentioned that nationality has no importance. (Mainly this idea is shared by Armenian and Azerbaijani respondents) because decisive is factor of intimacy. Georgians do not deny to get married with Europeans. Majority of interviewees are not willing to be married with Armenian (Georgian and Azerbaijani respondents) Azerbaijani (Georgian and Armenian respondents) Jewish and Russian. Concerning partner at rest respondents name first Georgian then Russians, Americans, Armenians and Azeris. Some respondents (particularly male respondents) give advantage to go on a voyage with Russian for entertaining. Fourth of interviewees mentioned that they do not care nationality when it concerns rest. Part of respondents name nations who they do not desire to go on a voyage, particularly Armenian (Georgian and Azerbaijani respondents), Azerbaijani (Georgian and Armenian respondents), Jewish, German and Russian. It is remarkable that mainly ambivalent attitude is expressed towards Russian. (However positive attitude towards Russian is expressed by male respondents) Perhaps friendship requires long time relationship majority of respondents, first give advantage to self-nation, however here is mentioned that nationality has no importance while choosing friends. Within this context priority is given to relation with Russians and Europeans. Responses of female and male respondents almost not differ from each other. According to data of common selection Georgians turn to be the most desirable and privileged. Priority is given to Americans and Germans too. Particularly female respondents who differ from male ones give advantage to the abovementioned nations over Armenians and Azeris. As in the abovementioned case majority of respondents note that in cooperation nationality has no importance- “Essential is presence of a work” Third of respondents do not care nationality in friendship and cooperation. In answers where are named undesirable nations for making friends and cooperating the first place take nations, which were indicated early most frequently in discussing forms of interpersonal relationship. It should be mentioned that respondents name nations other than noted in questionnaire. Though Bogardus method is frequently criticized due to its tendency In spite of this the abovementioned method gives a chance to reveal deep dispositions. On the contrary respondents did not mention nations, which were not noted in questionnaire and not indicated that nationality had no importance in certain form of interpersonal relationship. Respondents assess their trust towards social institutions in the following order: Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Army President President Religious institutions Army Army Educational system Media Media Market economics (business) Educational system Religious institutions Media Market economics (business) Parliament Health system Prime minister and ministries Market economics (business) President Police Human rights / Ombudsmen Social Institutions Local NGOs Health system Prime minister and ministries Human rights / Ombudsmen Court / Justice Educational system Police Religious institutions Health system Prime minister and ministries Parliament Court / Justice Court / Justice Human rights / Ombudsmen Local NGOs Political parties Local NGOs Police Parliament Political parties Political parties An institution, which is functioning most effectively. According to region the following picture was revealed: Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Three Army President President institution Religious institutions Army Army which are Educational system Media Media functioning effectively Information about International organizations Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia International EBRD EBRD EBRD organizations IMF USAID USAID USAID IMF Eurasia Foundation Eurasia Foundation Eurasia Foundation UN agencies OSCE World Bank World Bank CIS Council of Europe OSCE CIS Red Cross UN agencies Council of Europe Red Cross UN agencies Erevan and Baku respondents are more acquainted with international organizations then Tbilisi- dwellers. The same time respondents from three regions have the most acquaintance with European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Quite significan position has USAID international Development Agency according to recognition. Concerning Eurasia Foundation Tbilisi respondents have information abouit it then Baku and Erevan interviewees. Majority of respondents from three regions refuse to be a member of any political party. Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Yes 2.6 6.2 4.5 No 97.3 92.5 94.4 Respondents who are a member of any political party name the following: Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Parties Orinats Yerki (Country of Law) New Azerbaijan Nationals HZHK(Armenian Democratic Party) party (YAP) Laborist party Communist Party AMIP Party of Entrepreneurs ARF(Armenian Revolutionary federation MUSAVAT New-right wing party Dashnakthutyun) ISLAM Burdjanadze-Democrats ZHK(Democratic Party) KOMMUNIST Communists Party Ardarutyun (Justice Bloc) ABP Christian-Democrats AZhM (National Democratic Union) KP Lemi National Unity Unity Nor Zhahanakner (New Times) Traditionalists Hanrapetakan (Republican) United Democrats HZhAM (Democratic - Liberal Union of Association of handicapped Eris Armenia) Tkivili Arzhanapativ Apaga (Worthy Future) Kostava Society Party of Zviad Gamsakhurdia Party of Koko Gamsakhurdia There are few respondents who are members of local NGOs. Region Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia No 98.1 97.1 98.6 Concerning religious confession diversity of identity is mostly in case of Tbilisi. The leading religious confession is Christian Orthodox (90.4%). According to diversity of religious identity number of Erevan respondents slightly differs from Tbilisi dwellers. However different from Tbilisi in case of Erevan 87% indicate belonging to Armenian Apostolic Church 92.8% Baku respondents is characterized as belonging to mono-religious confession Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Christian Orthodox Church 1.7 4.4 90.4 Catholic Church 0.3 0.5 0.5 Armenian Apostolic Church 87 4.3 Islam 0.2 92.8 0.7 Jehovah‟s Witnesses 0.6 1 Evangelical Church 0.3 0.3 Judaist 0.2 0.3 Baptists 0.1 Moloccans 0.3 Other 0.4 Sun-worship 0.4 Yezidi 0.1 Christian Taoism 0.1 None 8.9 2 1.8 Refuse to answer 0.5 In the viewpoint of attending religious services the picture changes. Azeris attend religious services the most frequently (10%) and they also take first place among who never attend (46.3%). Erevan respondents (65.3%) mainly attend religious services from time to time. The same should be mentioned about Georgians (54.7%) however frequency of attending is the following: once a week or once a month (14.3% - 14.7%). Attitude towards representatives of different religion confessions is displayed according following priority Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Armenian Islam Christian Orthodox Apostolic Church Church Christian Orthodox Christian Orthodox Catholic Church Church Church Catholic Church Catholic Church Armenian Apostolic Church Islam Judaists Islam Judaists Judaists Baptists Evangelical Church Evangelical Church Baptists Jehovah‟s Jehovah‟s Witnesses Witnesses It is reasonable to mention that Jehovah‟s Witnesses are estimated extremely negatively by Georgian and Armenian respondents (especially ones living in Erevan). The same time respondents living in Georgia make very positive estimate only to representatives of Christian Orthodox Church and the rest is given mid or less than mid estimate. Respondents from Armenia give equally positive estimate to representatives of Armenian Apostolic Church, Christian Orthodox Church, Catholic Church. The rest is given mainly mid or less than mid estimate. Concerning interviewees living in Azerbaijan make extremely positive estimate only to representatives of Islam. Georgians and Armenian turn to be more informed about family income, expenses than Azeris. Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia 80.6 73.1 86.5 While listing operating items Georgians appeared to be the most prosperous compared with other regions‟ representatives. In case of Georgia items considered as means of material welfare is most evident according to percentage. Azeris turned to live the most avariciously. Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Property 1. Yes 2. NO 1. Yes 2. NO 1. Yes 2. No 1 Own flat 75.5 24.5 73.5 25.7 73.6 26.4 2 Own house 20.7 79.3 28.3 70.9 30.5 69.5 3 Dacha 8.5 91.5 5.6 94 30.4 69.6 4 Vehicle 25.5 74.5 19.7 80.1 28.6 71.4 5 Computer 15.1 84.9 5.8 93.5 14.2 85.8 6 Telephone 86.1 13.9 75.8 23.9 79.3 20.7 7 Cell phone 21.6 78.4 48.3 51.5 51.4 48.6 8 TV /video set 93.5 6.5 75.1 24.8 94.1 5.9 9 Automatic washing machine 20.1 79.9 23.1 76.8 62.5 37.5 10 Internet access 7.5 92.5 2.1 97.8 12.2 87.8 11 Video camera 7.4 92.6 4 95.8 8.3 91.7 12 Central/local heating system 6.2 93.8 9.6 89.9 13 87 13 Satellite dish 2.7 97.3 5.2 94.4 3 97 14 Air conditioner 4.7 95.3 32 67.7 10.9 89.1 15 Microwave 9.7 90.3 18.6 81.1 20 80 16 Cable TV 1.3 98.7 3 96.5 40.9 59.1 Indicating the main sources of h/h income 4 priority sources of income were revealed for each region. Those are common and specific, characteristic for region sources of income. Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Salary from the main place of employment Salary from the main place of Salary from the main place of Pensions employment employment Financial help of relatives/friends Pensions Pensions Income from business Occasional contracts Income from business Financial help of Financial help of relatives/friends relatives/friends Family average income for three regions is 166.44. Indicating how much spend typical h/h on different activities Georgians appeared to spend most and Azeris least. Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Expenses Average amount 1 Education 36.23 11.99 53.31 2 Health 25.33 12.43 42.36 3 Utilities 28.55 14.05 38.54 4 Food 95.2 84.44 99.11 5 Flat rental 59 9.02 42.79 6 Clothing 45.17 25.65 58.25 7 Babysitter/Housekeeper/Driver 75.08 5.80 44.9 8 Recreation 60.03 11.08 85.82 9 Leisure 33.22 8.94 49.14 10 Transport 25.83 17.66 43.6 11 Cell phone 33.03 11.72 35.72 12 Other 22.75 13 Tbilisi respondents spend much money especially on rest, education, health, dressing and transportation. Erevan respondents spend comparatively much on babysitters, servants or drivers and flat fees. Interviewees from Baku spend much on food. Describing current economic condition majority of respondents from three regions make assessment poor (fair 49.7%; very poor 30.7%) Azeris estimate economic condition more positively. Nevertheless they are avaricious while naming means of material welfare and spend less money on them. Though incomes of three regions equal. Majority of Azeris (54.4%) describe their economic condition as fair. The same evaluation is made by respondents from Tbilisi and Azerbaijan but less percentage indicator (Armenia 45.6%, Georgia 49.2%). Indeed very small part of Baku respondents (6%) describes economic condition as very poor. The number of these respondents is two-three times less than Tbilisi respondents and Erevan (Armenia 18.6 %, Georgia 15.6%) Describing economic condition of household in respondents‟ opinion within the scope of region (36.8%) remained the same during the last three years or became a little better (25.9%). Also economic condition of their household did not change during the last year (49.5%). Though there is slight optimistic estimation in their responses because more than third part of respondents (35.1%) within the scope of regions deems that their economic condition will become a little better. Nevertheless almost the same number of respondents (33.4%) regards that economic condition will remain about the same. There is slight optimistic estimation concerning three years prognoses. Respondents regard that economic condition will become a little better (33.4%) or will remain about the same (23.3%). Majority of respondents from three regions consider that their household belongs to middle part of the middle level and lower part of the middle level. 48.9% of Erevan respondent, 50.6% of Baku respondents and 57.9% of Tbilisi think that their household belongs to middle part of the middle level. 31.5% of Erevan, 29. % Of Baku and 31.2% of Tbilisi considers that their household belongs to lower part of the middle level. If socio-economic condition in the countries (Georgia-Armenia-Azerbaijan) does not improve in the next three years a third of respondents (30.5%) barely can do anything. Almost the same part (23.5%) finds more profitable profession. majority of respondents (64.3%) gives negative estimation to migration inside the country or migration from the country (50.9%). It is essencial for Georgia to settle inter political problems and make effective foreign politics, such as close political, economic and cultural relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. In spite of these three states are in the common Caucasus space they are estranged; Espacially Armenia and Georgia. Concerning to Azerbaijan and Armenia these two region are contradictory. In its turn close relation with Georgia is the premise reason of settling many problems as in the viewpoint of economic as regulating Armenia-Azerbaijan political problem. Georgia may play the role of mediator. More prospectively may be described relationship of Azerbaijan and Georgia. In the viewpoint of economic Baku Jeihan project serve as a joining chain of these two states. Concerning Armenia-Georgia relationship cooperation of these two states is important for Georgia in resolving Abkhazeti issue and Armenia in the viewpoint of economic. On its turn correct interstate policy of Georgia in the aim of public integration of compactly settled representatives of Azerbaijanian, Armenian may serve as the premises of more wide scale activities. Taking into account all above-mentioned problems we regard it important to conduct research with Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijanian adolescents living in Georgia mainly in Kvemo Kartly and Samtskhe –Javakheti. In focus groups are discussed topical questions of regional qualitative research. Discussion and analysis of focus groups data Alienation from a group or situation Almost none of the respondents from all groups have ever suffered from a sense of alienation. Alienation according to any sign is not named in Akhalkalaki group. Regarding Ninotsminda - at the beginning they felt alienated from Georgian environment where they could not make self- presentation. Some of them suffered alienation due to religion. From Bolnisi I and II groups an Armenian felt alienated from Russian neighbors at the concert (from the first camp). An Armenian suffered from a sense of alienation among Georgians mainly Svans in the Patriots Camp (II camp). The same camp is named by one of respondents from the compound group where the respondent felt alienated only one day. Some cases of suffering from a sense of alienation in Russia are noted in the group of Marneuli. In respondent‟s opinion Russians dislike him because he is from Caucasus. On the contrary, interviewees from Marneuli II consider that suffering from a sense of alienation is depended on a person. In the compound group (Bolnisi, Marneuli, Akhaltsikhe) Georgians from Bolnisi note „I do not let them … Its my hearth and my birthplace, and they act as host in villages of Bolnisi‟. Bolnisi dwellers complaint about misappropriation of Georgian cultural-historic treasure by Armenians and Azerbaijanis, for example, Bolnisi Sioni and Shota Rustaveli. According to a representative of Bolnisi there are not contradiction between Azerbaijanians and Georgians. However Azeris do not form majority in this rayon. Herein is discussed one serious problem Tatars hanged a head of pig and feet of dog on Tamari Castle and insulted Christian church. It is also mentioned that Azeris did not allow them to enter Tamari Castle „they say that it is their territory. It is practically their possession‟. Respondents from Marneuli state that they attached Nariman the same importance as Shota Rustavely and their monuments were built side by side. One of Marneuli representatives from the same compound group note that lands in Marneuli and whole Kvemo Kartli are under lease. At present in the Parliament it is under consideration lands to be allotted to private individuals and if it is adopted the whole Kvemo Kartli will be practically lost due to fact that Azeris hold lands under lease. According to respondents there is not contradiction between Armenians and Georgians in Akhaltsikhe rayon. Nevertheless one of the interviewees notes that he saw a map of Republic of Armenia made by Armenian, which includes Akhalkhalaki and Akhaltsikhe. One of respondents from Akhaltsikhe focus group mentions „there was a problem of returning Turkish - Meskhetian in Georgia. It's impossible even to think about it.‟ Herein they take into account the demand of Euro-council – „Euro-council demands this to be executed by 2012 year‟. „If there is necessity of their returning let them settle among Georgian population and not compactly or in places which is less compound, for example, West Georgia. „This is our country they could go everywhere they like‟. In the view of compound group Georgians are superciliously warmhearted in our own motherland and we are guilty in everything we suffer. I do not think if any Georgian lives in Azerbaijan the way Azeris are in Georgia‟. An example was mentioned: „In a village people look Georgians with irritation at the wedding party of Azeri neighbor then Georgian and Azeri quarreled‟. Herein is noted that this is not on a large scale. There are some Azeris who are better than Georgians.There are Azeris who were born in Azerbaijan but say that Georgia is his or her Motherland. Certain part of Azeris does not belong to Christian Orthodox Church but goes to church in Dmanisi rayon and worship with „Mama Zenon‟. The same is the situation in Bolnisi Sioni and Tamari Castle in Marneuli. However, couple was beaten because they had been christened and wedded. Azeris forced them to leave the place. According to participants of compound group it should be started to make Azeris, Armenians and all kind of foreign people learn state language. Like Fereidan Georgians and Georgian Diaspora are not allowed to learn in Georgian schools and each citizen have to learn state language the same demand is made for foreigners living in Georgia. „Why do they learn Russian to communicate us and not Georgian? There is not Soviet Union any more. This is independent Country. They leave in our country and must know Georgian language‟. In the opinion of interviewees the reason of ignorance Georgian language is compact settlement of ethnic minorities. „They know their language because they live close together. If they are scattered and the same time it gives Georgian peasant a chance to work on fruitful lands. Azeris wanted to built a mosque. There are Armenian schools in Bolnisi and Azeris demand to have theirs‟. Participants make negative assessment of poly-religious environment, for example, standing Christian church and mosque side by side. They also make negative evaluation of Bairam ritual when roads are closed and worshipers are walking through roads beating with chains. They insist as the way out making national minorities learn Georgian language and settling them less compactly. „You cannot forbid them perform a ritual…they must not settle compactly‟. However, there is a different opinion expressed „why they live in Marneuli when they have Azerbaijan and Baku. They should go there. They are not Iranians not Turkish. They were settled in the reign of Shahabas. They must go in Iran. In parallel extremely positive evaluation is made about Baku dwellers. Azeris from Baku are characterized as well brought up, educated, and having broad point of view and tidy people. On the contrary local Azeris are characterized as dirty and uneducated. Thus alienation is denied by majority of participants especially in the environment, which is comparatively mono-ethnical, for example, Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda, which is mainly settled by Armenians. Representatives of Akhaltsikhe majority of which is Georgian refuse facts of alienation and unacceptability. The same picture is in the group of Marneuli. Very little number of respondents names alienation in Russia. Azeris form a majority of the population of Marneuli. Most frequently cases of alienation are mentioned by Bolnisi respondents, particularly relating to national sign. Concerning compound group, which consists of particularly Georgians while discussing alienation underline unnecessary tolerance of Georgians. This factor is regarded as one of the main reason of oppressing Georgians by Azeris and Armenians. They state some samples particularly misappropriation of Georgian purities and lands. Respondents consider aggressors not only Azeris and Armenians but also potential inhabitants-Turkish Meskhetian. They deem implementation of national policy as the way out from existing situation. That implies to settle national minority less compactly and teach them Georgian as state language. Actually while discussing sense of alienation Georgian adolescents generalize issue and speak about privileges of Georgians that implies reduction in rights of national minorities on behalf of Georgians. In fact while discussing alienation an accent is put on alienation of other nations by imposing uncomfortable conditions. Who you and your elatives consider to be unacceptable? According to majority of respondents unacceptable for their circle is a person who is inappropriate for their family and environment, person having bad behaviors, it implies prostitute. Unsociable, modest, unfriendly, calm, peculiar, unpurposed, uneducated, cruel, disputatious, coward, stranger are also named. A person who does not respect self- cultures. One of the reasons is named material factor – poverty. Several respondents say that they try to put up with everyone and no one is stranger for them, and herein is added that nationality has no importance. As it seems from the above mentioned unacceptable and stranger is named in regard to characteristic and social signs; less importance is attached to national sign. There is not differentiation according regional and ethnical signs. This evaluation is share by absolute majority of respondents. This evaluation differs from previous indicator. Concerning alienation respondents speak about big groups - Russians in Russia, Svans, Georgians, Azeris and Armenians, and in case of unacceptable person for their circle is always named a specific person and not a group. Akhaltsikhe group gives the following definitions: who is inappropriate for my family, has bad behaviors, unsociable person. There are expressions such as shyness, unfriendliness, unsociability, and incapacity of demonstrating skills, person having such ideas which are unacceptable; having different life-stile; is shy and is incapable of expressing his or her ideas, peculiar, close-mouthed, prostitute, unpurposed, self-alienated, uneducated, capricious or modest. „Person who is unpurposed is difficult to deal with‟. „I try to put up with everyone‟. I do not like boys who fear for something and shy girls‟. „Persons having different characters from me and to whom I cannot put up and have quarrel frequently and do not make friend‟. One could be unacceptable due to poverty. Persons who pay back in cruelty are also unacceptable. Person oriented on money and one who cannot try to make friend with others are also mentioned. In case of Bolnisi group the following evaluations are made: nationality dos not matter. One should relate to a person according to his or her character. Person who treats me like a stranger is unacceptable. Marneuli respondents note: it depends on a person and nationality; if you like a person at first sight you should not treat her as a stranger; one might have a stereotype and than change you opinion; at first you feel alienated and than make friend in regard to his or her characters. Mixed (Bolnisi-Marneuli-Akhaltsikhe) group: first of all appearance is important than behavior; unsociable and alienated person is unacceptable; if one does not know my language and we could not understand each other; young people who do not like Georgian culture; you should not discriminate a person; the most important is his viewpoint. Representatives of Akhalkalaki give the following definitions: one who is unfriendly and insult others due to nationality; coming here I thought that I knew Georgian. Five Georgian language adolescents live with me in the room. I discovered that they are good persons and we made friends. Ninotsminda group: everyone is acceptable for me and if they love us we have the same feeling. In case of Akhalkalaki – Ninotsminda group people who cannot make a friend and has a bad character are named unacceptable. Acceptable is person who respects our rules. There are some Armenian adolescents who do not identify Armenian. Youth Problems Among main issues the followings are revealed: problems related to education and going to university. Participants of Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda especially complain about educational reforms due to lack of knowledge Georgian language they cannot pass National Examinations. Problem related to entertainment there is no place for young people to meet each other such as cinema, theater, café, disco or even park. They are speaking about problems like drag addiction and toxicomania due to unemployment; cleaning the city; planting trees and gardens; pollution of environment; ecological issues; roads; absence of healthy lifestyle and sport‟s centers; financial problems; disrespectfulness of adults and teachers negative attitude towards pupil; social and communal problems; problem of interrelationship of girls and boys related to age – conflicts among boys due to girls; violation of human rights. Problems related to conflicts based on nationality, especially in Marneuli between Azeris and Georgians are also named. Among stated problems the following characteristics are revealed for each region: Akhaltsikhe: problems related to education, entertainment, dirtying the city; aggression and drag addiction caused by unemployment; carelessness towards people; absence of healthy lifestyle and sport‟s centers; lack of cultural activities. Financial problem- „poor people could not get perfect education. School Village do not adhere standard of National Examinations. Teachers are not paid adequately‟. The following problems are voiced in Bolnisi group: differentiation young people according to social sign; social problem generally, for example, water supply problem- damaged water pipeline; teacher‟s bad attitude towards students. „They treat children like an object‟. There are no place for entertaining – concerts are not held; there is no billiard room, tennis court, clubs and café, even discotheque. You have to stand in a street. They voice concerns relating to finances. Bolnisi rayon ecology is the major problem. „Not only Mashavra but also air is polluted. There are gold mines near Kazreti in Bolnisi rayon. Every second human in Bolnisi dies from cancer. We have not a problem of entertaining. There are cinema and theatre. Though life is dull in our city and if there is not electric power the whole month no one will protest‟. However, in case of Bolnisi different attitudes were demonstrated towards social problems: „we have 24-hour electric power. There is no problem of water and natural gas supply. The only problem is the filter. Gamgeoba ought to allot money from budget and buy the filter. The most important is the air to be fresh. We know that it is too expensive but in the gold mines in one night might be earned the money needed‟. Concerns voiced in Marneuli group: boys quarrel frequently due to girls; violation of youth right; going to University. Social problems – poor people are getting poorer; gender problem – „Parents do not let children out, particularly girls and make them marry in the age 13‟. Police violate human rights. Respondents express complaints about polluted environment, trees and gardens; the roads are in a state of disrepair; level of studding is too low. Unemployment and poverty are also mentioned. „In Marneuli theatre was burnt because it could not pay debt to Government‟. „Georgians and Azeris are opposed to each other. Azeris have people in the government and the deputy of Marneuli is Azeri also Mayor. Gamgebeli is Georgian but he is worse than Tatar… We should try to grow up next generation without disgust of Azeris‟. „Azeris are engaged in business such as drag addiction, prostitution, speculating…They possess bazaar, Red Bridge, Sadaxlo…There are only two Georgian villages Tsereteli and Tamarisi in Marneuli. The rest are Azeri villages. Georgian villages are formed mainly by settlers from Sachkhere and Tchiatura. Akhalkalaki: Roads are a major concern amongst respondents of Akhalkalaki. They also name entertainment, for example, there is no disco, sport‟s center; education in university. Respondents voice complaint about bribing teachers at schools. „It is necessary the wage of teachers to be increased‟. Representatives of Ninotsminda express concerns related to unemployment „all conflicts are caused because of free time. Global conflicts are provoked by poverty. Majority of residents left Ninotsminda. Neighbors may quarrel for land or fence or so‟. „Conflicts may break out due to girls‟. „There is a possibility to go to disco only once a week. There are no theatre and cinema‟. Concert might be held only once in a year and parents do not let girls go there‟. „No buildings for cultural activities are there‟. „Priority must be given to education. Instead of staying in Georgia they are made to go to Erevan because they do not know Georgian‟. „National examinations were held perfectly but it was very difficult for Armenians. Examinations were to be passed only in Georgian. This problem should be solved by learning Georgian language‟. „I suggest opening higher state establishments for national minority in which Georgian language would be learnt. We have two Institutes in Ninotsminda where are Armenian branches‟. „Free of charge state centers should be opened, where only Georgian language are studied‟. „We ought to be supplied with sport equipment and there must be held sport competitions even once in a month or year‟. ‟During Soviet Union period our sportsmen had great achievements because they were supported from the center‟. How do you appreciate multinationality? How much is it supporting and interfering? In Georgian participants‟ opinion, particularly of Akhaltiskhe rayon – Georgian is tolerant. They consider that Georgians form minority in this region and are more oppressed accordingly: Armenians, Russians, Jewish, Azeris and Turkish are settled in Akhaltsikhe rayon. „Georgians do not create a problem. Armenians give rise to conflicts‟. „Everybody knows Armenians‟ anti-Georgian attitudes. We feel aggression from Armenians‟. „There was an occasion ten years ago one of Armenians supported Georgian while disputing about church. Armenians killed him and filled 30 years old man‟s lungs with hay. Peak of conflict was the last year. There was a dispute over a church‟. „35000 residents live in Akhaltsikhe rayon. 23 000 of these are Armenians. Georgians are in minority. Approximately 80000 are Georgians. The rest of these are various nations. They want to be superior in Georgia. And this fact is unacceptable for us; and this factor gives rise to conflict. Though there are Armenians who have good relation with Georgians‟. According to respondents from Akhaltsikhe Georgia would be stronger if more Georgians and less other nations live here. In their opinion representatives of various nations are not as patriotic as Georgians. Armenians and Azeris live in Georgia but they do not take care of the future of Georgia. Because they do not regard Georgia as motherland, they are temporary residents. Even old Armenians have not good attitude towards Georgian. They voice complaint about not only Armenians but also Turkish- Meskhetian, who have not been repatriated yet. „People are against their settlement in Georgia; there were even protest actions several years ago. They are settling in the territory of Georgia and do not agree to confess Christianity or Georgian. A TV program aired on this issue: Majority of Turkish - Meskhetian says that they are Turkish and demand to return in Georgia. This fact may lead to a split on the base of religion‟. „Perhaps Armenians come to Georgia to multiply and occupy our country. They might have such a goal. An Armenian historian stated that he had made a map on which territories of Georgia was not demonstrated. He added that Armenia had included Georgia and it was separated afterwards‟. „We should not blame only Armenian. There are occasions when Georgians address „You Armenian‟ and insult them‟. Respondents from Akhaltsikhe have alternative opinions about this issue: „Georgia is an international country. We cannot solve this problem. I know Armenians who insist being Georgian and care of the future of our country. You should meat a bed or a good person in every nation‟. Azeris, Armenians, Georgians are mainly concentrated in Bolnisi. They bear relationship to Georgians and live friendly side by side. A respondent Armenian in origin states: „there are occasions when you are insulted due to you nationality. I have never told bad things about Georgians. I always say that my birthplace is Georgia and it is my motherland‟. Respondents from Bolnisi rayon Georgian in origin share opinion of Akhaltsikhe group – „only Georgians should live in Georgia, but we are multinational country and ethnic minorities live here we could change nothing‟. This region faces different problems - ethnic minorities are oppressed by Georgians. „Local Georgians have bad attitude towards Azeris because they are deemed as Tatar‟. „There are villages where if Georgians step they would be beaten. Georgians are oppressed in their own villages. In Bolnisi while Tatars are driving a car Georgians seek for reasons to quarrel with them. Georgians feel hostility towards Azeris‟. Participants of Bolnisi focus group express different opinion. They deem teaching of Georgian to national minorities as the way out. „Every person who lives in Georgia must know Georgian‟. According to respondents of Marneuli multi-nationality is obstructive because it is dangerous. „Azeris form majority in Marneuli. They are too many and some of them make fun of Georgian‟. „Exceptions are in every nation‟. „Stupid persons can be found in every nation and they may have bad influence‟. „We studied their culture, language and tradition and many of them do not like our language‟. On the contrary Azeri respondents state: „frankly, Georgians do not show respect to Azeris not only in Marneuli but generally. Perhaps due to religious confession they have bad attitude towards us, not Marneuli dwellers we have good relationship with Georgians living in Marneuli, generally in Georgia. There is spread such definition like 'They are Tatars'. Neutral evaluations are made by Marneuli dwellers, for instance there are frequent conflict situations and tension in Tsalka but not in Marneuli. I dare say it is good that Georgians and Azeris live together. Generally, I am pleased relating to various nations but it is unacceptable when Georgians get married with representative of other nations. It should be noted that Azeri interviewees express more positive attitude towards the issue: 'I think it is good for intellectual development because one has a chance to study various cultures, get acquainted with various nations and their traditions; and as much international Georgia is as much better. I think we are not different. There are not conflict situation. We live in peaceful atmosphere. Here is much more better than in our country‟‟. „I can tell the same when my family members leave for Armenia local Armenians do no meet them with pleasure‟. „Baku dwellers do not like Azeris living in Georgia. They have different rules. Azeris consider us undeveloped and do not pay respect. The rules they have differ‟. „Generally, conflict might be provoked anytime but we should try to live friendly. Nevertheless I am Armenian in origin I have never been in Armenia. They try to avoid us. I feel better here. They are cold-hearted. Georgia is multinational. Armenians, Georgians and Russians live here and all show respect to us‟. Concerning Georgians in some cases extremely negative position were declared, particularly Georgian respondents from Marneuli group openly opposed Azeris. 'Azeris live in the territory of Georgia. They form 80% and act as if they were on their self-territory. Azeris dominate over Georgians. In my village all inhabitants are engaged in farming and one Azeri household possesses 0.3 hectares while Georgian only 0.1. hectares. This might be due to the fact that many Azeris work at gamgeoba. Armenian interviewees from Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda and Akhaltsikhe alike Georgian respondents have different attitude towards Georgia's multi-nationality. They declare their neutral and distinctly negative position. However, this position refers to only Saakashvili‟s policy. Akhalkalaki: 'This issue does not suffer us because majority of residents are Amenians. They form 90%. After 'Rose revolution" number of Georgians have been increased. During the Shevardnadze period Georgians were fewer and there was not contradiction. Nationality does not matter. I live in town and I have never felt that this is not my territory...‟ 'There were quite enough conflicts between Armenians and Georgians. Though conflicts break out there time after time. There are much more conflicts between Georgians and Armenians. The truth is that conflicts between Armenians are more frequent than in Georgians. I have Georgian friends and it is easier to relate to them'. Respondents from Ninotsminda share this opinion: 'Armenians form 99%. Only 3% or 4% is learning Georgian language. For studding Georgian language one should have relationship with Georgians… It is better Georgia to be mono national though people might come into conflicts. Group of Akhaltsikhe –Ninotsminda should be marked out where negative attitudes are distinctly expressed. According to respondents it is difficult being representative of other ethnic groups. After Saakashvili‟s electing as a president policy towards Javakheti Armenians has changed. 'Current policy is target that we should be isolated from Armenians and mix with Georgians to abolish our nationality. This is not agreed not only me but also whole Javakheti. In case of continuation such politics mass rebellion might be broken out. I read that they want to change Armenian schools into Georgian and teaching in schools be carried out in Georgian. In this way we could not keep our traditions. Perhaps it is not incorrect but it is earlier. This should be carried out step by step. Georgian language should be studied from the first class...‟ „I have heard that if you graduate in Armenia you cannot use Diploma in Georgia. If you are a professional doctor, for instance, it does not matter we you study. The most important is to operate patient. According to international standard education is on a higher level in Armenia than in Georgia. Step by step they are carrying out reforms but they are rather anarchic than democratic. The president speaks about democracy and demands freedom from Russia, and withdrawal military forces and dictates himself. He is the second „Hitler‟. Before his coming we live in peaceful coexistence. Many rebellions broke out as a result of his politics last period. I do not know how much it is true but if Armenian marries Georgian government grants them 4000 Gel. My brother heard this information. This is a state program. Our electric power station is under the supervision of Americans. They have their terms‟. „In the town people obey some kind of rules and situation differs in villages. There are not common rules. No one controls residents of villages. Here is an advice for the president and all of high ranks of Georgian government - they should not sell anything from the resources of Georgia. After 10 – 12 years they will have already wasted received money and their heirs will have to obey foreigners. We do not study history of Armenia. We have three or four times in a week history of Georgia. When representatives of president visited our school they answered my question. -'If you‟d like gather and study'. Learning history of Armenia ought to be obligatory. They also reduce hours of Russian language. I do not agree with them. Ministry of Education does not work so well. Branch of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University was opened but lectures are not given, as it is necessary. One of the major problems is unemployment and reduction of state establishments. Concerning unemployment there are people who have higher education but no one provides them with appropriate work. They applied to appropriate organization as state as NGO but without any result. It should be mentioned that Georgian language teacher are paid more than Armenian Language teacher. They must be paid equally. Teachers who are not local residents are paid wages from President Fund. Three acceptable and unacceptable nations Adolescents from Akhaltsikhe give priority to Georgian, Russian, Greek and Italian as temperamental, emotional. „They are from south and correspond with Georgian temperament and character‟. There are also named American, Ukrainian; concerning Spanish – according to several respondents they have features that are characteristic of Georgian traditions. Englishman, Swedish, Polish and Armenian are named as acceptable. „Armenian, Russian and Ukrainian are acceptable due to the sameness of religion. Three of them are Christian‟. Jewish is acceptable because representatives of this nation have been living here for 26 centuries and have good attitude towards Georgia, consider it second motherland and are put up with Georgian community‟. „Greek and Russian have the same religion and due to this fact might easily understand each other. Only local Armenians are acceptable‟. Ambivalent attitude was expressed towards Russians, Americans, Armenians and Jewish people –I prefer Armenian to Russian. One can understand Armenian but not Russian; I could not adjust Americans wearing an earring on their nose; Armenian is unacceptable because they do not recognize Georgia; Japans and Chinless people are unacceptable due to their appearance. In the category of unacceptable nation respondents from Akhaltsikhe name: Moslem, Turkish, Arabians, Armenians, Tatars, Germans, Turkish-Meskhetian, and Negroes. In their opinion the most important is not to be Moslem. „Unacceptable is not this religion itself but its rules. We are Christians but we do not bother others with our worship. Let them worship but silently as not to disturb us‟. Jehovah's Witnesses are deemed as unacceptable. One of the participants who demonstrate positive attitude towards Turkish and correspondingly Moslem notes: „I am Armenian-Georgian-Russian. These three nations are acceptable. In spite of Armenia-Turkish conflict I like Turkish people‟. Interviewees from Bolnisi name Russian and Armenian due to their religious confession in the category of acceptable nation. In the category of unacceptable nation Moslem and accordingly Azeris are named in case of Bolnisi. „Azeris are unacceptable because they are Moslem. Georgians are unable to relate to Tatars. There are considerable differences between them. First of all religion than Tatars have not culture. Many centuries are needed to develop culture in them and become civilized country. Like in the fifth century man and woman walk separately and do not eat together. Georgians cannot agree with this‟. „What the reason of the conflict is between Bolnisi dwellers and Tatars. In 1990 year Tartars came in Bolnisi. Local residents decided to throw them out and that fact gave rise to conflict. There was a severe struggle and at last Georgians achieved to push them out somehow. Since that they have been in contradiction. Azeris and Georgians live in peaceful coexistence side-by-side on a street and neighboring before. Azeris were going to occupy Bolnisi. They wanted to rename Rustavi. Azeris were in our country and were struggling against us. As I know a household which had been pushed out cursed the place and no one would live in happiness there. The mixed group (Marneuli, Bolnisi, Akhaltsikhe) declares quite ambiguous position: „All nations are acceptable the importance is given to personality‟. „In Marneuli we can more easily relate to Armenians than Azeris. When we come into conflict with Azeris Armenians support us. These two nations have historic dispute‟. „I receive more support from Azeris than from Armenians because I regard them trickster. By the way it is historic. I know history quite well and Armenians frequently were the reason of betrayal. I experienced treachery of Armenians‟. The position of the mixed group (that is natural) is shared by Marneuli dwellers. That implies not to make difference according to nationality. „I have many Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani friends. I insist that every nation includes good and bad persons. So, one cannot conclude this or that nation is bad or good‟. „I agree, I have many Azerbaijani, Armenian and Russian friends‟. „We have special relation with Russians and Armenians because we have the same culture and religion‟. „Culture is not the same but looks alike. I have more Azeri friends than Russians and Armenians but this does not mean that Azeris are better than Armenians or vise versa‟. „Every nation has negative features as any human. Good and bad persons are in every nation. It depends on you who you choose to make a friend with‟. There is an exception: „I prefer to relate to Georgians. It is hard to have relation with Azeris‟. Representative of which nation would you marry and which not? Regarding marriage respondents from Bolnisi name particularly Georgian. Though there are different answers: „If there is no way out, for example, Armenian is acceptable‟. Neutral attitudes are also stated: „I do not care nationality. The most important is love‟. Negative evaluation is mentioned within the context of religion: „I cannot marry Tatar due to religion there may raise a problem that causes divorce. A girl had married Moslem and after a child was born they quarreled about christening him. This fact should be taken into account‟. „If they love each other religious confession does not matter‟. Participants of the mixed group (Marneuli-Bolnisi-Akhaltsikhe) share the opinion of Bolnisi respondents. Though they oppose the idea of Georgian getting married to representative of different nations and religious confession. In their opinion advantage should be given to Georgian: „Georgian should get married only to Georgian. Perhaps Italian‟. „In my view representative of any nation is acceptable. The most important is to love‟. „Just imagine if you marry Tatar you ought to forget you traditions and confess his religion. This should be taken into consideration‟. „In most cases woman change her religious confession‟. „Georgians marry Armenians. When two Georgian wives of Armenians meet each other they do not speak in Georgian. We are very few. When I was in Marneuli depressed because everyone spoke in Russian and you could hardly hear Georgian language. I felt a sense of not being in Georgia‟. „Concerning marriage I prefer to get married to Christian. One might marry but does not change religious confession‟. Comparatively liberal attitude have respondents from Marneuli. „Perhaps I marry American, French, Englishman, German, Russian and Georgian‟. „It depends on love. It does not matter if you love‟. However, Georgian respondents refuse to marry Azerbijanian. „I do not marry Azeri because they have different rules. Such a family may be broken. We have different rules that are the reason why they could not adjust each other. The major is religious deference. We Christians and Muslims have little alike‟. „I prefer to marry Georgian, Svan is Georgian too but I do not want to get married. I do not marry a person who belongs to other religious confession. After some years husband make you change religion. Our religion forbids as to get married to Muslim. I can make a friend and deal with different nations‟. Attitude of Azerbaijanian respondents towards this issue are different: „I know many families of Azeri and Georgian they have no problem in spite of their religious difference. I consider that one can get married to any nation. There are problems only with Armenians and little with Russians. Our generation has different attitude. Our forefathers did not agree to marry a representative of other nations. The best is to get married with a representative of self- nation but if there is a love nothing matters‟. „I marry only Azerbaijani because I do not want to aRreva mix my blood with other‟s, stranger, Christian. We have quite different religion. Christians are allowed to marry Armenians or others, but we could not. Azeri must marry only a representative of Azerbaijanian nation‟. „I marry only Azerbaijani. If I go another country it is possible to get married with other nation. In Marneuli I cannot dare. In our household we are all Azeris. One of Georgian respondent reacted strongly on this matter and called Azeris two-faced: „I Georgian but I could not insist not to marry representative of other nation. They deny marrying Georgian categorically. How could you explain the fact that almost every Azeris in my school love Georgian girls. If they have such kind of problem why they love Georgians. Azeris girls love Georgian boys and I have never heard on the contrary. This raises a doubt that Azeris are not frank. They are double-faced I know many of them and I dare say Azeris are double-faced‟. Armenian respondents turn to be radical regarding different nations: „I would get married to a representative of my nation, not only Armenian but Georgian too. The most important is to be Christian. Azeris have quite different religion. We cannot adjust each other‟. Representatives of Ninotsminda give priority to self-nation: „I marry Armenian. It is my mother tongue. We would have the same tradition, culture.‟ „If I like do not care nationality. Georgian women are pretty Russians are too. „I do no marry Turkish, Negro and Muslim‟. Respondents from Akhalkalaki put accent on human features: „If he is a good person and I love him anyone is acceptable‟. „Bad or good person is in every nation. I love Georgian girl but she does not‟. Armenian, Russian, Georgian, and American – all of them is acceptable. Among unacceptable nations Turkish was named „because all of them are terrorists‟; Japanese due to appearance. Armenian respondent from Akhaltsikhe-Ninotsminda mixed group prefer to marry representative of self-nation: „I would get married only Armenian‟. Some respondents have neutral position: „The most important is personality‟ „Importance is given to kindness and respect nationality does not care‟. Georgians share this opinion. In negative category is named Turkish. „Turkish do not confess genocide. This is disrespectful. They ought to apologize‟. Which religious confession is acceptable or unacceptable for you? Acceptable religious confession for participants of Akhaltsikhe is Christian Orthodox and generally Christianity, Catholicism. „Catholicism is close to Christian Orthodox Church‟. It is noteworthy that participants confuse religious identification with ethnic and they are frequently mentioning: „Acceptable is Catholic nation and Christian nation because this religion comes from IV century. Those sects were established only two centuries ago and acceptable are Christians‟. The same time young people give importance to devotion to belief: „I respect anyone who is devoted to serving God‟. Respondents from Akhaltsikhe consider Jehovah's Witnesses particularly unacceptable and different sects and regard it as imposing religion upon others: „I hate dictated religion‟ „Buddhists and pagans are unacceptable‟. „My relatives gave us a book about Jehovah's Witnesses and I tore and put it in the bin‟. „Buddhists have their traditions and struggle for saving their soul. They do not impose their religion on you and Jehovah's Witnesses bother with their nonsense‟. As it was mentioned participants confuse confessional and ethnical identities, for example, „I do not love Jewish people. They sold their God. That is the reason why they undergo torture even now‟. Nevertheless they express ambivalent attitude towards Jewish people: „I do not hate them. Hebrew people were first Christian. Only one of them was a traitor‟. Muslims are unacceptable for participants: „A driver told us that he was forced by his boss not to make the sign of the cross and after his refusal he had to left the job‟. „Muslims are unacceptable because they have different belief. They have such traditions unacceptable for Georgian society. Muslims forbid drinking, eating meat and head of fish. They have such rules that are unacceptable for a brave man‟. „Christian Orthodox Church let only one time to get married. Islam ignores this. If Muslims and Georgians live side by side they may fall in love. This case Georgian woman has to change her religious confession in order to get married‟. Respondents from Bolnisi are more tolerant towards various religious confessions and they note differences only in rituals: „it does not matter. The important is to believe in God. God is one. Every human has religion and you shouldn‟t make him or her change it. Every human being has this right‟. „Director of our center (Lutheran after religious confession) said good words: Christianity is one house with different rooms, which you may enter and it does not matter how‟. Nevertheless respondents from Bolnisi name unacceptable religious categories. They consider unacceptable Jehovah‟s Witnesses and Muslims: „I belong to Christian Orthodox Church and Jehovah‟s Witnesses and sects are unacceptable for me‟. „Baptists are unacceptable‟. „Christians have never related to Muslims. Only business deal is possible… My uncle is a priest and he christened some Tatars in Marneuli. Tatars took revenge on him. They hang a death dog in the yard of the church and insulted him‟. „I know many Muslims who were christened but they had problems with their family members. They were e alienated from their relatives. This is natural. I do not agree my relative become Jehovah‟s Witness. This is inadmissible... Nowadays Christians are less than Muslims and we are in minority. Of course it is good for us but it causes dissatisfaction in Muslims‟. Participants of the mixed group Marneuli-Bolnisi-Akhaltsixe express the same opinion: „I was in Armenian Apostolic Church and could not notice any difference… Difference is in rituals‟. „First of all Christian is acceptable for us, though Catholic is Christian too‟. „If I do not love my religion I cannot respect others. Any person belongs to this or that religious confession and you should respect others religion. I do not differentiate Catholicism and Christian Orthodox Church. When it concerns to marriage I prefer Christian‟. In spite such acceptability they generally complain poly-religious environment: „there are mosque among almost six or seven Christian Orthodox Churches. While Christians worship mullah is crying three times a day. A voice of mullah is heard in Sioni or Metekhi‟. „In Akhaltsikhe Armenian Apostolic Church is next to Christian Orthodox Church but no one is against it‟. „By the way Georgians and Armenians were quarreling on Ivlite‟s Catholic Church. Georgians started building and was accomplished by Armenians‟. Azeri respondents from Marneuli declare neutral or slight positive position on different religions and give priority to Islam: „every body belongs to this or that religious confession and you ought to respect any. For me Islam is acceptable.‟ „I do not differentiate persons according to religion. Bed person is bed and good one is good‟. „Islam is acceptable. I do not care others. God is one. Everyone worship in its way. In business it has no importance but concerning marriage there comes a problem‟. Georgian participants from Marneuli share the opinion of Azeris: „I would give advantage to religion and not nationality. I belong to Christian Orthodox Church, but even David Builder who was fighting against Muslims inclined his head to mosque. He used to go to mosque and worshiped there. You should respect your and others religion. I Respect all of religions but Christianity is acceptable‟. „Any religion is acceptable for me because our religion teach us that every religion is acceptable and Human Right says that we ought to respect all Religious confession. But if it concerns to marriage attitude differs‟. Slight different opinion is expressed: Some Russians do not love Georgian due to conflict but we belong to one and the same religious confession that could not be said about Jehovah‟s Witnesses and Muslims‟. Respondents from Ninotsminda and Akhalkalaki express extremely negative attitude towards Turkish people. There is confusion of confessional and ethnic identity: „Turkish people were enemy of Armenia. Armenians do not agree to make friends with Turkish. We do not like Muslims precisely Turkish, due to genocide this is an everlasting pain‟. On the background of unacceptable groups more positively seems rest confessions particularly in case of Ninotsminda. This fact is explained by living in poly-religious environment: „Christian Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholics are acceptable‟. On the contrary Muslims were evaluated positively in the mixed group from Akhaltsikhe- Ninotsminda. This fact was explained by watching soap operas about Muslims: „I like Muslims they dance beautifully. They are very strict worshipers. Muslims worship five times in a day and have strict rules. There is only slight discrimination on the ground of gender‟. In the same mixed group only some respondents deem Muslim as unacceptable. Aggression is expressed mainly towards Georgian: „it is said that Georgians want to change Armenian Apostolic Church into Christian Orthodox Church. There was a case in „Didi Samsala‟ when Georgians wanted to change the church and that gave a rise to conflict. In Akhalkalaki schools children broke windows because near the Armenian Church Georgian was digging a hole to bury a Georgian. If such policy continues the response would be more severe‟. How do you characterize Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani? Respondents from Akhaltsikhe characterize Georgians according following sign: they are followers of traditions and strong believer accordingly; they are very hospitable, love to have a feast, joyful and clever; our dance is real surprise for the entire world; Georgians are proud and hardworking people; they are warmhearted; Georgians could not stand slavery; love household; are educated people. „Georgian mother grow up child and teach them all traditions and hospitability. Georgian nation are friendly; Armenian and Azerbaijani are closed‟. Negative features of Georgians were also named: During Football match of Georgia and Greek Georgians behaved terribly. I was ashamed being Georgian. They do not know how to behave; are very hot-tempered; are lazy. „Georgians do not save money for necessity. They build houses, buy cars and if he looses his job have no money saved‟. They are very ambitious people; do not care about future; are very overweening. While characterizing participants of Akhaltsikhe compare Georgians with representative of Armenia. In their view negative or positive evaluations are caused not only by relationship between Georgians and Armenians but observation of foreigners. They state an example from the fiction of Duma. There are also presented an ultimatum towards representative of national minorities: „we must demand them to respect our language and our religion. In spite of living in Georgia during years they come to us and speak in Armenian. Why should I speak them in Armenian in my motherland? His forefather settled in Georgia several centuries ago. Not he is obliged to respect our language, religion and my motherland and its traditions, which has been given asylum for so many years‟. Speaking about Armenians and Azeris both nations are compared with each other that is explained by the lack of information about these nations and resemblance: „I have little information about Armenian but taking into consideration my neighbors they are good people, warmhearted. Perhaps they feel envious‟. I am not well informed about Armenian. Women are good cook‟. „I do not know Azeris. I have never deal with them and have no information‟. „Concerning Armenians and Azeris they are very much alike‟. „Armenians are more hardworking people. Azeris could do a job that Georgians deny to‟. „Azris are greedy. Armenian and Azeri women are more restricted than Georgian‟. „Armenian and Azeris are greedy. They work hard but live in poor houses. They keep money and buy gold‟. „Armenian and Azeris are longsighted. They do not waste money and keep it‟. „If you show respect to Georgians they pay it back. Azeris are the same type of people‟. „Georgians are greedy too. One could not characterize precisely this or that nation. „Armenian and Azeris do not care what kind of work they do‟. „I cannot characterize Armenian because I have not close relation with them. But they are perspicacious people‟. „Concerning Azeris they are unacceptable for me on the ground of religion‟. „We have no contacts with Azeris. Some Armenians are joyful‟. „In every nation should be found clever and talented person‟. „Armenians give priority to their nation and do not care damaging others in order to be saved‟. „Armenian may not help a friend in need due to money‟. „There is an Armenian who is better than Georgian‟. „In our camp Azeris are not openhearted. They are unsociable‟. „If Armenian move to new place he does not try to relate to neighbours‟. „If there is a problem of electricity no one try to do something. In the entire street from 30 households 25 are Armenians and no one supply 5 households with electricity. They do not care. Armenians can afford to buy a generator. This problem should be solved if we go in the street and say a word‟. „Armenians are more perspicacious people, for example Georgian study for diploma. If we think a little cook earn more money than lecturer. They prefer to work hard and earn more money‟. While respondents characterizing Armenian some of participants try to defend them: „do not speak aggressively about Armenians because there is many foreigners whose forefathers settled one or two centuries ago and do not know Georgian. We have our traditions. They have theirs. We think that we have good traditions and this is true but they think the same‟. Respondents from Bolnisi share the same opinion: „It is difficult to characterize due to nationality. Bad and good is in every nation‟. Nevertheless they give advantage to Georgian: Georgians are very hospitable; like feast, joyful life. „Armenians are swindler and cunning‟. „I am Armenian and do not agree this opinion my family is different‟. „Hospitable persons are in Azerbaijan nation‟ „I have never heard about Azeris‟. „Azeris have their rules, for example men and women sit separately‟. „Azeris are hardworking people‟. The same opinion is expressed in the mixed group Akhaltsikhe–Bolnisi-Marneuli. „In every nation is bad and good person‟. Nevertheless representatives of Armenian nation are given more negative evaluation. One of the Georgian participant mentions that Armenian girl blamed her in breaking the thing, which was damaged by her. „ I had an Armenian group mate and every time when we went somewhere he always tried to ruin than day‟. „It depends on personality. I have good Armenian neighbors‟. „If you treat Azeri kindly he will support you in need. This is not characteristic of Armenian‟. According to respondents from Marneuli: „Armenian is cunning, Azerbaijani hardworking, Georgian joyful and hospitable‟. ‟I have good relation with Azeris. They have good features and you are willing to relate to them. Armenians are different‟. „Armenians support each other when they are in need. Georgians do not behave the same way‟. „It is easier to make friend with Azeri than with Armenian. Azeris support each other‟. „Georgians and Armenians belong to one religious confession. This is an important factor‟. „In every nation you may find good or bad person‟. „One could make a friend with Russian. There are only language differences‟. „People are the same in any nation‟. „Descriptions come from history and people‟s experiences. If Armenians are not crafty how could they achieve to capture Karabakh'. „I do not differentiate. Aeries, Armenians and Georgians are the same‟. „Many Azeri girls live in my building and they don not walk with us. Concerning Armenians they are friendly‟. „The essential is his or her character and nationality does not matter‟. „The most important is mutual understanding. Less importance is given to religious confession‟. „I characterize Aeries... I cannot make a friend and deal with them. For me it is easier to make friend with Russian and Armenian. I characterize Russian and Armenian more positively‟. „I do not deal with Azeris and Armenians but regard them as initiator of disputes‟. „Azeris girl return home very early‟. „Most of Georgians characterize themselves hospitable. But Azeris are hospitable too‟. Respondents from Ninotsminda and Akhalkhalaki share the opinion that three of nations are the same and characterizing them is difficult: „Armenians, Georgians and Azeris are old brothers and they should be together and stay friends‟. „Azeris have different lifestyle. They are kind, tidy, and generous and clever. „There are kind and cruel persons among Georgians and Armenians. It is difficult to characterize this or that nation generally‟. „Kind or silly persons might be in every nation. When one behaves worse this does not mean that whole Armenians are bad‟. „If I give someone a job they say that Armenians are good people‟. „I have relation with Azeris and Georgians I like all of them. We resemble each other. Even the words resemble: „Matsoni, Changali, Shakari‟. „We are all musical, have the same temperament‟. „I like Azeris and Georgians‟. „Frankly I have never related to Azeris and consider them as unsociable and unfriendly. I imagined them in different dressing as in „Clone‟. I thought that they would begin worship at the afternoon. Perhaps they are worshiping but we cannot notice‟. „I do not know Azeris‟. „Armenian can do any type of work‟. „The definition that all Muslims are terrorists comes from Television‟. „I do not like their saying „kill 10 unbeliever and you will be allowed in paradise‟ The mixed group from Akhaltsikhe-Ninotsnimda characterizes Georgians positively. Their hospitality is particularly pointed out. Though respondents speak about negative features. „Georgians are hospitable but they have bad feature when I ask in Russian they give answer in Georgian‟. „I do not know Azeris. Azeris are friendly and joyful‟. „Georgian should know Russian to communicate‟. “They must not study English and acclaim as state language. They should take into account that during Soviet Union Russian was a state language‟. „Georgian are friendly‟. „Armenians suffer many pains. They have been living in Armenian after genocide and maintaining their traditions, schools and churches‟. Participants of this group underline positive factors of unification of Georgia and Armenia. „I may be mistaken in case of Azeris but I know precisely about Georgian that they are –hospitable, friendly and supportive nation. And if they achieve unification against enemy like Turkish at the beginning of XX century they would destroy…there are known many facts in history that empires were destroyed and small countries as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were saved and I hope this will last in the future‟. Characterize states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan While characterizing Georgia respondents from Akhaltsikhe accuse state: „In Georgia employees are not paid accordingly‟. „Our artists were in America and they feel like a human‟. „We are beggars. We go to America and work with Negro‟. They also speak about persons with higher education who work as a worker or as a driver: „our state does not care about us and we are to go in Russia and work as a worker. In Georgia number of unemployed are more than employed‟. According to Bolnisi respondents Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan had good relationship before but now they are opposed, particularly Armenia and Azerbaijan. Participants of this group characterizing three sates as following: „Now Georgia is reviving; Armenia and Azerbaijan is almost revived. In view of economy and also in other fields‟ Azerbaijan is the first. „In view of cleanness and protecting environment I could not agree. My relatives came from Azerbaijan and they said that the sea was very dirty; streets are full of papers‟. Herein they try to show their advantage: „Guests were from Akhalkalaki and said that Bolnisi is a clean town. They got accustomed not to throw something down‟. Respondents from Bolnisi have less information about Azeris and describe Armenia in detail: in view of geographic location Armenia is in bad conditions. It has no sea. Though it have better economic conditions. Georgia is more democratic. It is a pity that we have such good conditions, even this black sea and in spite of this our country are lower in the view of economic. All European countries are more developed. It‟s due to inactiveness of our governments. We have gold mines near Kazreti in Bolnisi and much money could be earned from it… Georgia is a very rich country but they sell everything lands, citruses, rivers. There are many rivers hydroelectric power plant to be built on. We do not need to buy electric power. We are very rich country in the view of natural resource. The mixed group: Bolnisi-Marneuli-Akhaltsikhe they discuss the issue within the context of tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan: There is tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Armenians are beaten in Azerbaijan. Proceeding from this states are opposed too. Both of the countries ought to compromise. According to participants of Marneuli Georgia is the most democratic country in Caucasus. „Armenia is under the supervision of Russia. Georgia is guided by America‟. One Azerbaijanian respondent regard Azerbaijan as motherland: „Azerbaijan is my Republic but there is corruption there. Armenia is separative and is subordinated to Russia. In Marneuli participants‟ opinion Georgia is democratic country. „If not „rose Revolution‟ Georgia would be subordinated to Russia‟. Respondents from Akhalkalaki consider that Georgia have friendly attitude towards Armenia and Azerbaijan. But Armenia and Azerbaijan are opposed. Politics of Armenia is characterized as the most positively: „it is only one country, which is not striving to European and American states. Armenia is under development. They are doing their best‟. Less information is given about Azerbaijan. Interesting view is expressed by one of interviewees: „we have not experienced living in Georgia or Azerbaijan so we could not appreciate them‟. „I was born here and in spite of it is undeveloped I like it‟. „Our natives will not leave for Russia if they have a job here. After visa regime going Russia became more problematic‟. Respondents from Ninotsminda characterized Armenia positively: „Armenia is a mall country but in the sphere of economy it is developing faster than Georgia. The major problem of Armenia is having no reach to the sea. We have no idea about Azerbaijan. We have to visit Armenia frequently because it is our second motherland. Our relatives live there. Majority of us study and are welcome there‟. Herein they speak about problem of language, which humble them to continue studying and establish in Georgia. What is your attitude towards politics and will you vote in elections or not? Majority of Akhaltsikhe respondents are less interested in politics, though they consider it necessary to express their opinion, especially when it is to decide destiny of the country. According to their opinion everyone should declare his or her position „to elect president.‟ Nevertheless sceptic opinion was also expressed on elections: „We could not believe that 99% of population voted for Saakashvili‟. Nevertheless majority of participants said that they supported politics of Saakashvili but they were frustrated: „We also supported Saakashvili but today is quite different‟. „I supported Shevardnadze‟. „I might participate in election. Perhaps people expected more‟. „Saakashvili gave bribe to voters‟. „I may vote but I am not interested in politics‟. Generally while discussing politics opposition is ascribed as weak and is implied Labourist and Ahead Georgia, on the background of which they anticipate supporting governmental parties. Though in case of Republicans becoming more active events are to develop into different direction. Participants of Bolnisi and the mixed group express the same attitude towards elections and politics. They regard it as their duty to vote but in their opinion politics is dirty. Respondents from Marneuli also consider their duty to vote. They are interested in political issues. Participants criticize policy carrying out by our government and reforms, particularly education reform. In respondents‟ opinion: „President takes decision only by his intuition and does not care about others‟ According to their opinion reforms should be carried out in politics. The view of opposition must be taken into consideration. Decision ought to be taken proceeding from the welfare of people. While discussing education reform Marneuli adolescents note that under the guidance of Russia the later were taking language, land, and belief from Georgians‟. „Despite Americans do not force Georgians English language is getting more acceptable in our country. This is not good‟. Adolescents of Akhalkalaki are going to vote in order to improve conditions of the city. They will vote for deputy and city gamgabeli because “We are tired of one and the same faces. Akhalkalaki is dividing into two sides. We want fairness‟. While discussing politics they are talking about necessity of studding history of Armenia and reduction of hours of history of Georgia. „We do not study history of Armenia in Akhalkalaki only history of Georgia. I am interested in studding history of my people. At present we are learning newest history‟. Ninotsminda: „We will participate in elections and vote for a candidate who can do best for our country. Our future depends on them‟. If you were an adviser of the President of Georgia what would you advise him first to do? Respondents from Akhaltsikhe advise president about strengthening economic of Georgia, opening factories and creating workplaces in order to employ people, fighting corruption, employing experienced staff: „People who have experience and professionalism. There is no need for minister to be 25 years old. Experienced gained abroad may not be useful for us. Our country follows up Europe and do not take into account its possibility. Taxes have been increased to 200 and 300 Gel while wage is only 30 Gel‟. According to them no one care of economy of the country. „If a country has strong peasants it is provided with everything‟ „if Armenian was in government he would care of people and raise salary and enable them to pay taxes accordingly‟. „Staffs should not be changed so quickly. One reform is not completed when new starts‟. „I advise president not to trade Georgia. He has sold everything. Trading everything is disadvantageous. Instead I would invest money in Port of Foti, which will be profitable. They sold Borjomi-Kharagauli Park to Germans and Georgians cannot afford to have a rest there. Adolescents reckon that it better Saakashvili spend money on education rather than army. One of the participants cites an example: „I studied economic of China. Chinless people were in need and borrowed money from America. They invest it in education. Educated people created strong economic of the country and could afford paid money back‟. Nevertheless some participants think that army should be financed. Respondents speak about vicious tendencies of finding a job. Knowledge gained abroad and connections are the most important factors for getting a good job: „there is a tendency that you should be experienced abroad even a month and know English or you could not get a good job. If you have not connection... This reform leads us to the fact that after five or six years there will be no chemist or mathematician in Georgia. Only English, knowledge of computers and abilities-skills are paid attention. History of Georgia is given less importance; it is a shame that Georgian do not know history of the country‟. Participants of Akhaltsikhe complain that government does not care about regions and social problems. „This government cares for only Tbilisi. I think president were everywhere except Akhaltsikhe while it is the center of Samtskhe-Javakheti. He does not think about people‟. „The president does not care that people are in need because they have little monthly income, which is not enough even for transportation. They do not regard Akhaltsikhe historic. It is close to the border. No one worry about us. When your Governor is a singer... The government cares about Borjomi welfare. Roads are destroyed in Akhaltsikhe. We are having water supply problem‟. „I think all this problem is due to passive role of residents of Akhaltsikhe in „Rose Revolution‟. „We are having no electricity during two months and no one is going to protest it‟. Respondents stress need for installing private meter „When they decided to take protest action they were scared by specialized forces‟. „People are frustrated. Let‟s speak about drinking water often with deleterious effects on their health. Though it should be mentioned that supply of water has been recently improved. Adolescent voice general issues as strengthening national conscience from the side of state leaders. „Process of globalization is going on all over the world and Georgia is the participant of it, but this should not be understood as abolition of our nationality. I do not like that there are no sign of nationality in a passport. I also do not agree with carry out such politics that everyone is allowed to choose a surname. In this case one might loose his origin and accordingly representatives of different nations living in Georgia may take this or that Georgian surname particularly Bagrationi. Time passes and there will be blood mix. Our religion does not allow this‟. Bolnisi respondents as advisers name the following problems: The primary is financial problem. It follows granting a pension, giving aid to patients, employment of people, restoration of territorial integrity of the country, improving relations as inside of the country as outside. They also speak about social problems: „I know that people must live 50 kilometers far from gold mines and we are settled near Kazreti‟ Electricity, water, gas supply is also a major concern amongst respondents. Bolnis respondents stress the need to clean up environment „Mashavera is polluted and it can be cleared but we need support. There is a need of experienced person who would study the question and inform the governor and the parliament about this problem‟. „If I had much money I would help my relatives who are in need, clear polluted river and than buy a filter‟. „There are many unemployed and they are forced to do something bad. Instead of employing people almost every day nearly ten men are resigned in Bolnisi rayon. Due to unemployment some of them trade narcotic and some entertain with different things‟. „Young people watching TV and get only bad information‟. Herein are also mentioned negative undertakings of the president; „He is not in his country and journeys over the word‟. „He appoints inappropriate persons to this or that position‟. Respondents from Bolnisi speak about tendency of appointing „theirs‟ to positions and mainly from Tbilisi. „There is not need to invite „others‟ from Tbilisi to be appointed‟. Respondents also mention the credit of Saakashvili establishing new system of police service. „I have a sense of defense and are not scared of anything‟ Participants of the mixed group (Bolnisi-Marneuli-Akhaltsikhe) advise the president the same. It differs only in the form of ultimatum: „Salary must be increased. He must care about people and share their problems, pay attention to education. Staff should be professional and experienced. There are people who cannot make even a resolution‟. Respondents from Marneuli place emphasis on economic issues, operating factories and employment of people. Though they also mention that economic conditions could not be improved unless support from other country and they imply Russia. Herein is expressed different opinion „Georgia should use its forces and than ask for aid‟. Participants consider that America get much profit form Georgia. Respondents from Akhalkhalaki also pay attention to naming problems: repairing roads, broadening economic, improving relation with Russia, creating working place, raising salary and pension, improvement teaching in schools, entertainment and education, building sport‟s centers in Akhalkalaki. They also voice concern relating to schoolbooks, which are received from Russia and Armenia. Concerning roads they consider that there should be built roads that enable them to reach Tbilisi more quickly. Participants compare Russia to America and note the priorities of Russia: „America does not give much. If we look through the history of Georgia we will discover that Russia often supported our country when it was in need‟. It could be said that respondents from Ninotsminda continue the issue. They advise president: „Let Russians stay in Georgia and do not destroy „Garadok‟, repair roads, employ people and do something interesting for youth, build more sport‟s center and swimming pools‟. They evaluate critically Russian army leaving Georgian territory. Respondents from Ninotsminda insist that „conflicts will break because this rayon are settled with representatives of different nations. Georgians and Armenians were friends during Soviet Union. We live in peaceful coexistence. When relationship between Russia and Georgia broke off Georgians did not love Armenians any more. Armenians get money in Russia and Armenia have been supported by Russia‟. Economic factor play a certain role in establishing such situation. „Factories being operated before are closed now‟. „If Georgia is developed economically we would study here‟. Concerning education participants note other difficulties: „we have no secondary school. After 10th form pupils leave for Erevan. There is not Armenian Institute in Georgia‟. Participants of Akhaltsikhe-Ninotsminda mixed group complain about president‟s politics and their advices are much more a note: „let hold referendum on severe issues and people should have a choice, this is democratic country not anarchic‟. In parallel rude interference of Armenia in the foreign policy of Georgia is mentioned: the most severe problem is poor quality of roads. Armenia want to repair roads in Javakheti but Georgia does not allow. The road is terrible to the direction of the border‟. „I advise him maintain good relationship with Russians and Armenians, give freedom of speech and allow young people to study anywhere they like‟. Somehow they pose a threat to president relating to break off relation with Russia: „if I were a president I would leave Georgia because there is a danger of war. If he carries out a good policy this might be prevented‟. The same time regulated relationship with Russia is associated with number of solved problems. Respondents show good knowledge of economic: „Customs clearance for cars was in Borjomi before now only it is possible in Tbilisi. That raised difficulties‟. „This summer young people rested in camps and much money was wasted on that project. The better this money to be spent on other projects, for example repairing roads. Furthermore there are resources of land, water and tourism. If hydroelectric power stations would be built we have not to buy expansive electricity from Armenia and Russia. If we had good attitude towards Russia gas price would be lower. The price of gas is increasing and it might be fatal for country economic. There are different opinions expressed: „Georgia ought to restore territorial integrity of the country, roads are in a state of despair, concerning education - we have old school books while pupil are given new ones in Tbilisi‟. Which country should Georgia strive to receive support from? Participants from Akhaltsikhe consider Russia and America: „we should have good relationship with Russia and America. We need support from any country‟. One part of them name Russia and take into account knowledge of language: „We ought to have good relation with neighbor country new comer brings new troubles‟. „No one help us better than Russia we have the same religion‟. „We have bad attitude towards Russia because during years it was our patron‟. „Russian language was spread all over the world before and everyone spoke in Russian. Now Georgians do not know Russian. It is a shame. They pay 200$ for studying English and do not know Russian at all‟. „If one knows English and computer can find a good job. There are many parliamentarians who do not know Russian. First you should know language of your neighbor‟. „Russia is a stronger country and we belong to the same religious confession and have friendly relationship‟. „Russia always supports Georgia‟. Part of respondents deems America as country, which support Georgia mostly: „when we have friendly attitude towards Russia everything was in Russian language‟. „Friendship with Russia is not useful for Georgia. Russians were not responsible none of treaties they signed and broke all of them. Ossetians and Chechens follow Russians‟ example. They ratified many peace treaties, which were broken afterward‟. According to several respondents Georgia should not ask for help‟. „No one give a present of money to Georgia. They are buying everything step by step. Georgia is in need of entering in European Union to be protected. America aim to get something from us. Otherwise it does not support us‟. Only several respondents express different opinion. They consider Ukraine the most prospective partner. „There is a tension between Russia and Georgia and it is better to relate to Ukraine at that moment. Our presidents have friendly relationship‟. Participants of Bolnisi chose Russia and America though quite contradictory. Respondents who chose Russia, place emphasis on its territorial closeness: „If war break out Russia is closer and we ought to have good attitude towards it‟. The same time respondents reckon that misunderstanding between Russia and Georgia is due to somebody‟s will: „I consider that conflict between Russia and Georgia expresses conflict between persons, I mean appointed officials. People have good relationship. I know that there is a need for Russian bases to leave our territory but it is of interest to private persons. Russia is near us and why should we sever relationship. We belong to the same religious confession.‟ „Our president has such relation with America that it do not refuse to help us‟. There were general type definitions and Turkey was also named among neighbor countries. „First of all Georgia should ask for help strong and friensly country. Russia is acceptable but Turkey is nearer and prosperous‟. Georgia ought to make friend not only with America but any country. Aid might be financial, military with equipment. Representatives of the mixed group (Marneuli-Bolnisi-Akhaltsikhe) consider that Georgia should have friendly relations with every country especially with neighbouring ones but must not bear influence. „We ought to establish good relation with all countries especially with neighbor country. Russia is a strong and neighbor country. Importance is given to the same religious confession‟. „First of all we must relate to neighbor countries – Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia‟. „Georgia should not be under the supervision of America or Russia. During entire history Georgia was always under the influence of other country. America does not need Georgia if it is no anticipating something in return. This country has its interest in Georgia‟. According to Marneuli interviewees received financial support should be used reasonably: „Painting buildings makes a city beautiful but Georgia has $4 million in debt of international organizations and states. People should be employed and industries be paid attention‟. In view of cooperating with America various opinions were expressed: neutral- Saakashvili has been in America and already made his decision and it was a right choice; negative- They wanted to build an aerodrome in Marneuli and if a war breaks between America and Iran Georgia would be bombarded. Concerning Russia one of Georgian participant evaluate relationship critically and have dispute on this issue with representatives of other national minority: „I am Georgian and Russia was trying during a century to capture language, land and religion‟. Youth from Ninotsminda-Marneuli give priority to Russia and Armenia. – „Russia is a big country and as I know from history it protected Georgia form the enemy and gave us economic support‟. Respondents from Akhalkalaki share the opinion about relationship with Russia: „Georgia must have friendly relation with Russia because many inhabitants of Akhalkalaki leave for Russia to work there. Majority of residents are employed by Russian base. If Georgia have good attitude towards Russia it will be useful for its development‟. Participants of the mixed group from Akhaltsikhe- Ninotsminda generally speak about good relation with neighbor country and criticize military politics of America: „Neighbor country surely. Georgia should have good relation first of all with Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey too. They are Geographic neighbors‟. „America is far from Georgia. It is conducting war and takes army from here. Georgians think that they are depended on Russia. The same would be in case of America. Better make a friendship with Russia, Armenia and other neighbor than America‟. „Thousands of people will be resigned but if they are assured of safety do not hamper leaving of Russians military bases‟. Name source of information and evaluate working of this or that information channel. According to participants of Akhaltsikhe they obtain information from mass media: TV, radio and press. Kviris Palitra and Alia were named. There was revealed characteristics of receiving information Georgians and Armenians, which is related to ignorance of language: „we have no Russian channel. After switching off Russian channels number of satellite receivers has been increased. All of Armenians launched satellite receivers in order to watch Russian channels. They do not watch Georgian ones‟. „We can watch public broadcasting, Rustavi 2 and Imedi. Armenian programs are only on the public channel‟. Within this context after discussing freedom of speech respondents speak about politics: Only two channels are accessible in Akhaltsihke – Cronika and Kurieri (Imedi and Rustavi2). We receive information mainly from these two channels…If people are allowed to reveal the truth everybody says „Misha go!‟ But they could not dare. Government should be elected legally. There is no need of revolution. Adolescent express positive attitude towards Imedi and evaluate negatively Rustavi2 accuse of bias: „I like programs of Imedi concerning politics. But I do not like Kurieri because it is irritating. It repeats one and the same information in every hour. We also have the channel the first but watch only Imedi…George Targamadze is brave hearted, Inga Grigolia too. He speaks about issues that government forbids to be discussed. He is very educated. Inga Grigolia reveals secrets of everyone. If I were Inga I would be scared. George Targamadze speaks about people in need. One program was about homeless children who take a smell of glue. Army could not save these children‟. Functioning of mass media is evaluated in connection with its attitude towards government: „everything is not shown on television; for example, we have no electricity for long. I think if we make a protest action mass media would be interested. There was an action but unorganized and had no result. That action was on TV. Only three participants Armenian in origin were aired. It is unbelievable that only three Armenian made the protest action. It was not covered objectively. Besides Rustavi 2 has positive attitude towards government and support it. There are issues, which are aired more objectively than Rustavi 2 does. I do not like while journalists severe situation by their expressions. I do not like manner of speaking. How could not mass media air such a problem as pension? According participants of Bolnisi there are multiple channels. The main source of information is television, radio and press- Kviris palitra and 24 Saati. The following channels are mentioned: Tbilisi, Chennel I, Imedi, Baku, NTV, PTP. There is a channel Azer,i which is named as a source of information about Turkey. According to adolescents Azeris watch particularly Baku and Turkish channels. „They are not interested in other issues. I mean Azeri villages‟. Like participants of Akhaltsikhe Bolnisi respondents deem that Rustavi 2 misrepresent information. „Imedi air facts more precisely. Journalists of Rustavi 2 are more aggressive and try to show negative side of situation. This is done to carry on intrigue‟. Participants of the mixed group state that they obtain information particularly from friends. Parents and relatives are also named as source of information. „The news are spread very quickly through the city‟. The following channels are named: Rustavi 2 and Imedi, NTV, Tbilisi, Bolnisi channel the fifth. Sarke, Kviris Palitra, 24 Saati are named as the most acknowledged newspapers. Different evaluations are made of mass media accordingly: „I mark five…not five three because sometimes they are not objective. They are trying to say something sensational in order to attract attention‟. „Majority of journalists attaches importance only to headlines to make reader read this or that article‟. According to participants many of residents know Georgian but they do not speak: „they receive information from us. When we speak they can understand everything but do not speak‟. Respondents from Marneuli watch particularly Russian channels: Novosti, Vremia, Moscow, ОРТ, Channel I. „everyone watch Turkish channels. They know Turkish‟. „I like Georgian channels Imedi and Adjara. All Russian channels are good‟. „I watch Imedi and my father translate for me. I regard Imedi the best channel‟. One of sources of information is considered gossip: „there are people in Marneuli who obtain information quickly. People gather and exchange information‟. Lack of information and obtaining it only from Russian channels on the one hand and spreading gossip on the other give a raise to misunderstanding in micro social group. That was expressed in one of the focus group from Marneuli. Georgian respondent met with a reaction attempt of an Azeri participant to show advantage of friendly coexistence with Russia compare with America. They were speaking about 8 helicopters, which had presented by America. Each of them cost 8 000 000$, total 64 000 000 $. Besides „Georgia sent bomber to Russia to be repaired and 20 000 $ was to be paid for each, total 100 000 $. Russia did not let Georgia take them back on condition that it would pay the debt during some years. Which one is more reliable a neighbor which does not rely or a country which grants 64 000 000 $‟. However polemic was not ceased. Azeri participants went on citing facts confirming advantage of Russia. According to them severing relation with Russia would cause interruption of electricity and gas supply. „At the given moment 70$ of population earn money in Russia‟. Georgian participants go on maintaining their position and on its turn are speaking about interest of Russia: „If it was not profitable for Russia it would not sell electricity… Azeris take potatoes in Russia. So, Russia is depended on Georgia‟. „Borjomi is not realized in Russia but America and 26 countries‟. At last they begin quarreling and Georgians indicate ethnicity and Azeris cleverness of their nation: -Azeris live in Georgia and have better lands and more money than Georgians. -Azeris are clever -This is not due to cleverness. More Azeris work in gamgeoba. They also bribe officials. Respondents than speak about countries which Georgia should strive to cooperate: „We should make friends with America, France, Italy and Russia‟. „America invested much money in BTC project‟. „America would receive this money back. It dos not care about us. America bought part of Marnuli‟. „This is not true‟. Azeri respondents go on speaking about information they are receiving: „I watch world channels- Russian, European, sometime I obtain information from Internet, I do not watch Azeri channels. I watch Imedi. Participants of Akhalkalaki name as sources of information books and latest news. Armenian and Russian newspapers are also named. Though it is mentioned that youth does not read newspapers. The most popular turn to be Varskvlavebi. They watch mainly ОРТ, РТР, НТВ, Amedi, Adjara, Rustavi 2, Channel I, and Armenian channels. Akhalkalaki respondents different from participants of Akhaltsikhe and Bolnisi appraise positively Rustavi 2, which have Armenian programs so that everyone could obtain information about current situation. Positively is evaluated НТВ, ОРТ. Adolescent also consider that information is distorted on television. „Georgians and Russians televise news differently. Two different versions of one and the same information might be heard, for example mass meeting was held. Georgians and Russians understood it differently due to distorted information. Russia televise as it is useful for the country‟. Sources of information for participants of Ninotsminda are books and gossip. They particularly watch Russian channels - НТВ, ОРТ, Armenian - Channel I, Georgian – Imedi, Channel II and I. Participants evaluate positively channels of Russia especially ОРТ. „Sometimes local channels are on the air and one can listen terrible Georgian‟. Akhaltsikhe and Ninotsminda receive information from TV: „we obtain information from channels of Russia and we know only one side of a problem. If we have possibility of receiving information from second side we would make a comparison and conclusion‟. Characterize social institutions Parliament, Police, Political parties, Religious institutes, Court, Media, Army, Educational system, Ministries It should be mentioned that while characterizing social institutions respondents were not with one mind, for sample there working of Patruli is evaluated positively. On the contrary one of the participants cites an example when Patruly pass through turned over car carelessly. They are unanimous on the issue of Army. In their opinion much attention is paid to army. „Army is needed for Samachablo and Abkhazia. Better is to raise salary of teachers. Education is necessary for the state. Abkhazia is not willing to integrate because Georgia has no economic. President trade and invest money in something that is unprofitable. He sold Port of Foti and spent received money on army. You should strengthen your country, as Abkhazia is willing to integrate. But there is no progress. It is better to negotiate with enemy than to use army‟. Current government was criticized in comparison with previous one. Respondents place emphasis on employment of people and paying attention to peasants and social problems generally. „The government should care for peasants and let them produce production. Georgia has potential for strong economic. There are conditions for vineyards. But no one care about it. Why should French wine cost 15$ and Georgian 2$. Borjomi is recognized over the world‟. „People are in need. There are problem of water supply. People complain that they were not in such bed conditions during Shevardnadze period. People are frustrated‟. They criticized not only president but also entire government and its politics: „Aslan Abashidze was building and did not let him complete. He did not interfere in business. There was corruption but he spent much money on Batumi. The city was supplied with electricity‟. „If you visit Akhaltsikhe and see drinking water you will feel disgust. We are not „Negro‟. President was everywhere except Akhaltsikhe‟. While evaluating ministries: „I line out to working of Cabinet Minister and ministries accordingly. At present appointed officials are very young and have no experience. They were appointed due to education got abroad. Activities of ministers are very unacceptable for me. Bendukidze is carrying out non-Georgian politics. President should dismiss such officials. Trading of Port or other state establishment would not be useful for Georgian nation. This could be done bit by bit. At present we need money. It is unreasonable to waste received money. We should invest it otherwise. We should encourage enterprises or organizations and employ people. But one-time activities are unreasonable just like paying pensions or granting 20 liters oil to peasants. Corruption is in the country‟. Respondents complain about western orientation in educational system: „concerning education only history was change with foreign language. This indicates that Georgian traditions are changing with foreign step by step. If Georgian does not know history of ancients why would he know foreign languages?' Respondents made pessimistic prognoses about Parliament. In their opinion not only majority composed of unprofessional staff is accused in creating difficult situation but also inactive opposition members of which care only their welfare. „There are parliamentarians particularly sportsmen who have never dealt with politics but their names are used. More often in parliament are gathered people who have no idea about laws and make decisions in correspondence with the will of majority. Due to there absence of strong opposition a draft whether good or bad is always adopted. Concerning political parties they are not struggling for the welfare of the country‟. Respondents from Bolnisi evaluate the most negatively functioning of healthcare system. They note that despite ambulance is free of charge rights of patient are violated. There is a low level of medical service in Bolnisi. In Tbilisi some doctors take bribe. Respondents cite some occasions happened in Tbilisi. Quite positively is evaluated functioning of local NGO's police and police. They are less informed about Court. Participants of the mixed group from Akhaltsikhe-Bolnisi-Marneuli declare sceptic position on functioning of Justice due to corruption and Georgian mentality: „Corruption is everywhere and a decision is not made without money. When someone kills a man he is not guilty if money is paid‟. Positive evaluation is made about reforms carried out in the Ministry of Defense. Different evaluation is made about educational reforms: 'I like reforms carried out in the Ministry of Defense. I also like reforms in a field of education even National examinations. There was worse situation when I was passing‟. „I experienced that there was more corruption. I have passed National examinations this year. I have had high scores but was sent to Marneuli. Many mistakes were made. Cameras were recording but observers managed to help some of entrants. I do not like these reforms. They are feint‟. „But I think knowledge would be appreciated. At present is better situation. When I was passing examinations they demanded 500 dollars for going to university‟. „The Model was taken from America. But it does not work in Georgia because education is not on the same level. America is stronger country and this project was successful. The country is economically strong and youth are more educated than in Georgia. Only students who want to get knowledge go to foreign universities‟. Participants of the mixed group characterize army negatively, which is due to mainly old stereotype: „I have no desire to enter the army. I used to be told that if I did not study would have to enter the army‟. This view being stereotypic is revealed in expressions of female interviewees: „I am a girl but have a good attitude towards army and I have often declared my will to enter the army. I like to serve in the army, particularly commando army‟. 'My brother does not allow me not enter army. He thinks that going to army is obligatory‟. „Some people think it waste of time to serve in the army. It is true to a certain extent. I reckon that they get accustomed to independence and discipline in the army. If I decide to enter the army my family would not hinder me‟. Working of police is evaluated positively by participants of the mixed group: „People have high hope of Patruli. They support us in case of need‟. Interesting opinion is express by participants of Marneuli. There is declared divergence between wills and views of surrounding: „I want to enter Academy of Police but my relatives do not let me. People have bad attitude towards this profession in Marneuli. Police are called „dogs‟. Generally working of police is evaluated positively, Parliament negatively and army ambivalently. „Police works well now. The situation has improved. Parliamentarians do nothing but quarrel and criticize each other. One could pay money and avoid from going to the army before. But now it is obligatory to serve in the army during one year. At the age of 18 I will enter the army. Many young people feel shame at going to the army and pay money to stay home. We must defend our country‟. „Everything is not as well as it is shown on TV. Rooms are closed and when journalists visit they open rooms only then. My cousin is in the army now and I know. He had to sleep on a dirty mattress. They did not let him go home and see a doctor‟. „The condition has changed. An incident has happened in Mukhrani. Many things were done. Much is to be done but the situation has become better‟. „Concerning the army if I live in Georgia I ought to defend my motherland. Certainly, no one wants but we have to do. This is our duty. 90% of Azeris do not enter the army. They are afraid of being beaten in the army. There was battalion of Tetritskaro rayon during Shevardnadze period and I used to visit it. Azeris and Georgians were treated equally‟. Concerning education system particularly young representatives of ethnic minority indicate problems. This fact give a raise to protest of Georgian participants: „I think things are moving in the wrong direction in education system, for example it is said that in one or two years all Russian and Azerbaijanian schools will be changed into Georgian. I was told that all Russian branches were closed in Tbilisi. I study at Russian school the sixth and part of school is Georgian. Second part of school is occupied by the Institute of Zoology in which some branches are Russian. You have recently noted that Georgia is an international state hence there should be Azerbaijanian, Russian and Georgian schools‟. A Georgian participant reacts strongly. „As Azeri as Georgian may have a will to study at Zoo technical University. One Georgian six Azerbaijanian, two Russian schools are in Marneuli. Only one school is Georgian in Georgian land. It is noteworthy that none of Georgian from Marneuli has ever entered Russian or Azerbaijanian school but Azeris study at Georgian schools. If they do not need why do they learn Georgian language and history? They want to be appointed in gamgeoba‟. Herein Georgian participant cite an example of selecting good pupils. According to him two Azeris went on a voyage to Turkey. They were so called „boy of father‟. A criterion of selection was being a good pupil. Young respondent is speaking so emotionally that he cannot take into account the fact indicated by Azeri participants 'Azerbaijanian and Turkish languages are alike'. Azeri respondent tries to declare his position: „If all schools are Georgian after some years America would occupy Georgia and there will be only English schools. Your children will be studied History of England and they would not know Georgian. Would it be better?‟ Working of police and parliament was evaluated negatively: „Police works badly. The house of my neighbor was robbed twice‟. In view of Akhalkalaki respondents police and healthcare system functions well: New hospital has been built. Perhaps it is not equipped with modern equipment but we have good doctors‟. Respondents complain about Parliament and evaluate activity of gamgebeli positively: 'To say truth parliamentarians are not clever. We had gamgebeli Murdiani before. At present he is in Tbilisi. He was very fair. On the one hand it is better young people to be appointed but on the other they are not experienced‟. Functioning of court is evaluated negatively „Court is bribed too‟. „While characterizing Religious institutes they are speaking about different sects and Muslims are characterized negatively: „Religious institutes work well. We belong to Armenian Apostolic Church‟. „Better being atheist. But everyone does not think this way‟. In my opinion God is one and it does not matter which religious confession one belongs‟. Concerning army an issue was raised the way Armenians were treated in Akhalkalaki one month ago. „Colonel and general arrived. One can bribe an official and does not enter the army. I would not go to the army‟. Respondents from Akhalkalaki have no information about Defender of Human rights Organizations. They also do not know activities of NGO‟s. „There are NGO‟s in Akhalkalaki but we are not informed how they work‟. Representatives of Ninotsminda deem that the most difficult is politics. Officials working in this sphere is responsible to people. The same should be said about medical personnel and police: „There are hospitals but no one addresses them. People do not trust doctors. Patients go to Armenia to see doctors. There was no ambulance and it was called from Armenia. Sometimes they could not arrive in time and patients were died. Now we have two ambulances‟. According to participants not only healthcare system but president and parliament does not work well. They bring up issue of the army. Respondents point out importance of Russian army: „our boys are beaten and insulted in the Georgian Army. Armenians escaped from the army. They were beaten to death‟. At the age of 18 I‟ll have to gather money not to enter the army. Everyone should have the same rights whether Georgian or not. There is small number of soldiers there. Such conflicts doe not take place in our rayon. The incident had happened a month ago. If Russian Army leaves Akhalkhalaki many residents would be unemployed. The most beautiful place in the city is „Garadok‟ where Russians live‟. Akhaltsikhe-Ninotsminda - 'Nurses and doctors have the lowest salary. Technical conditions are on a low level in hospitals. The worst medical personnel come to work there. Nevertheless the situation has changed. Hospitals are supplied with modern equipment, salary of doctors are increasing. However, the issue is severe and should be settled as soon as possible. Part of received funds from other states and NGO ought to be spent on healthcare system. Only the state with high-qualified medical personnel should be considered democratic. Our doctors cannot perform difficult operations and patients are to go to Tbilisi or Erevan. The way is long and the patient might die'. 'Concerning the army we must go because this is our country and we ought to defend. There was on TV how Georgians were insulting and beating Armenians. Armenians may be insulted in everywhere but in Georgian army there are not comfort and needs for soldiers. Even Russia has not reached European standards. The best conditions are in Khazakheti and Armenia. It was on channel ОРТ'. What factors provoke and might resolve conflicts? According to participants of Akhaltsikhe conflicts are provoked by the state. They cite an example when in the same conditions some pay the charge of electricity and some do not. The government create such problems that neighbors are made to come into conflict. In their opinion people are so irritated that they could get angry at even insignificant problem. „They live in such a bad economic condition that one might quarrel with his neighbour without having any reason‟. 'The key role ought to be played by state in resolving conflict. State ought to crate work places for population‟. „I reckon that this controversy between Armenians and Georgians would not be resolved. Mainly young people come into controversy and have ethnic problems in Akhaltsikhe, particularly adolescents and in awkward age'. „The problem was raised on a church. But it is not severe. It can be solved‟. „Conflicts ought to be resolved by negotiations. There was a case when Army of Russia had to leave Akhalkalaki and Adjara. Some people were against it but when representatives of Georgia visited Russia and carried negotiation the problem was solved. At this stage we should choose a good negotiator, for example we want Abkhazia return Georgia. Neither side is going to compromise. None of them hope that negotiation will produce any result. Time is needed for resolving conflict‟. 'Interpersonal conflicts are due to different views, aims and interests. Concerning interstate conflict the reason might be desire of establishment in the world, coming into the international market or territorial factor'. 'War as a possibility of resolving conflict is unacceptable. I reckon conflict ought to be resolved by negotiation. Proceeding from that each side has its demands and position they can hardly compromise. So I think international organization ought to interfere in conflicts and playing their role in resolving. Both sides must compromise anywhere'. Bolnisi respondents consider that people cannot understand each other, have different point of view. 'They cannot reach an understanding and do not compromise. In most cases conflicts are due to violation of rights. Conflicts might be between persons or states on the ground of economic or other issues, for example religious'. 'Ossetians want to have independent republic but Georgia does not allow and they comes to conflict'. 'Armenians and Azeris are enemy for long time. There was an incident an Armenian sportsman went to America. After some time he disappeared. Soon it was discovered that an Azeri had killed him. It was on NTV a month ago. When he was asked the reason he answered: „it was an enemy of my forefathers and I took revenge. His friends were very proud of him. He was acclaimed as hero by his nation. Parents teach children that they are enemy. Accordingly people have prejudices. State ought to enter into an agreement. Not leaders but people ought to conclude an agreement‟. „Both sides must compromise in order to reach an understanding. Sometimes the reason of conflict might be insignificant. There is no guarantee'. 'Sometimes I come into conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses on the ground of religion‟. „Ethnic conflict comes from history. Even at present when we are discussing ethnic, national or territorial issues children start quarrel, for example issue of Kharabakh… one is shouting it is mine… this idea might be childish but when he grow up he would have the same opinion. If the conflict is not historic…‟ „Muslims and Georgians can never enter into an agreement‟. Participants of the mixed group note that conflicts in Georgia were always provoked by the third side. „Conflicts of Georgia has always been provoked by the third side. It tries to encourage conflict. Such conflicts are profitable for Russia‟. „Russia is a neighbor country and we should have good relation with it. It imports good. All kind of conflicts can be resolved. Other state should interfere to resolve a conflict‟. Respondents note the key role of third side in resolving conflict as well. „More developed state ought to play a role of mediator. Without a mediator they cannot resolve a conflict. Information might be distorted and cannot come to an agreement. They have been resolving conflicts for 13 years but without any result due to changing mediators. There were cases when it negotiation was close to decision but someone interfered. In this case I think it is preferable that representative of two populations and not government enter into negotiations‟. Speaking about conflict Marneuli respondents cite such examples: In case of dispute between Georgian and Azeri they gather their groups and conflict would be raised. Such conflict is lessening at present‟. Azeri respondents consider that most cases Svans give a raise to conflicts. „They protect Georgians. If they do not protection Georgians have difficulties in Marneuli. Some Svan girls wear a knife due to much dispute. They are the first class warriors. 90% of the population is Azeris. We do not know language. Some Georgians have Azeri friends‟. „My brother have Tatar friends. They do not know Georgian but my brother studied Tatar language. They dislike when they are called Tatar‟. „There are Georgians who know perfect Azerbaijanian. And we Azeris do not know Georgian. I arrived in Marneuli two years ago and I‟m will learning‟. There was no oppression before. Now we are to learn Georgian language, it is necessary. It is better to learn without impact. We live in Georgia and need Georgian language‟. „They cannot study Georgian only at school. They ought to have relation with Georgians. They are citizens of Georgia. They should have this relation in the centers‟. „We go to these centers and now I know little Georgian. Many Georgians know Azerbaijanian while Azeris do not know Georgian language‟. Participants from Marneuli consider reasons of conflict different opinions, political ideology and demand on territories. „Conflicts are raised due to controversial ideas. In the viewpoint of ideology. There is conflict between majority and opposition in parliament‟. „Much of conflicts arise due to lands. All states want to posses much lands. First arise conflict and then comes decision to receive the result‟. „Russia is blamed in the conflict of Abkhazia. Abkhazians are not so strong not to be defeated. If Russian military base leave Abkhazia will return Georgia. I believe Saakashvili will restore territorial integrity of our country. Police and not army ought to enter Sokhumi. When our government entered the army this meant starting the war. That was the reason of loosing Abkhazia. Before the war started Abkhazia had been already sold‟. „This is not only my problem this is a problem of everyone (he indicted Azeris). They live in Georgia and are citizens of it. As it is painful fore me as for them‟. According to Akhalkalaki respondents conflict break out: „when they could not understand each other and do not respect. I reckon that at present America tries to separate Commonwealth of Independent States from Russia‟. „For resolving conflict understanding is important‟. Respondents from Ninotsminda consider social problems as reasons of conflict: „Due to poverty. Neighbours are disputing about lands‟. „Due to misunderstanding‟. „They should come to one conclusion.‟ „Many people go to Russia for work but there are problems of receiving a visa‟. Akhaltsike-Ninotsminda: „When I asked Azeri from Bolnisi about Kharabakh he blamed Azeris and considered it as national conflict‟. „Conflicts break out due to low level of education, because they do not know democracy; person should feel equal‟. Have you heard about foreign organizations oriented on resolving conflicts and how do you apprise functioning? Respondents evaluate positively functioning of NGO‟s. „In Akhaltsikhe instead of standing in streets boys come to World Vision and learn photography, computer, English. There is center of women, Mercy Corp. There are girls‟ club where they are given chances to conduct activities and compensate 20$‟. „Urban program assist gamgeoba. It granted several dustbins. They play significant role in development of the city: schools are financed, city is cleaned, … and computers were granted to adolescents. Last year urban institute and IFS took action related to tidying‟. Participants name the following NGO: Peace corp. UN, Red Cross, European Council Only Soros is not in our city. „I am a member of „Hera XXI‟ and BP. I think it necessary International organization to interfere in resolving conflicts Bolnisi- United organization, which protects human rights; United Nation; European Union; NATO; All of them might have the way they are functioning. All of them would try to play the role of mediator; at present America play the role of mediator between Russia and Georgia and the later compromise. For example our organization World Vision, United Nation and public defender in Tbilisi. Resolving conflict- in particular United Nation, European Council. I evaluate functioning of CIS, European Union and United Nations is positively because they try much. The following organizations are named in case of the mixed group: United Nations, CIS, and European Union. Respondents deem that these organizations are working effectively. I regard that they are regulating and keep the peace in regions where are conflict. I hardly remember resolved conflict. Such organizations have no influence. I think that they play the role of mediator but could not reach agreement. (Marneuli) European Council and USA play the significant role. Such organizations ban the starting a war in the world. (Akhalkalaki) United Nations, NATO, OSCE (Ninotsminda) I do not know how much effectively they work. There is no such organization. (Akhaltsikhe-Ninotsminda) NGO, UNICEF, United Nations, NATO, OSCE and World Vision Summary Considering received results and proceeding from the main goal of the report -studding interrelation of Georgian, Azerbaijani and Armenian young people living in Georgia and revealing factors which hamper their collaboration, formation of civil position and integration in public life - lead to the following conclusions. Random selection of respondents from three regions was performed in the equal conditions that make comparison easier and describe picture more adequately. In the process of selection attention was paid to number of family members, age, sex, family status and ethnicity. Tbilisi is more multinational city than Baku and Erevan. It should be mentioned that Baku population is also characterized as multinational. Spoken language beside native is Russian in three regions. Attitude towards using different languages is more liberal in Tbilisi than in two regions. English as a second language is widely used by respondents of Tbilisi and Baku. There is also a tendency of using this language. According to received results from focus groups, young people mainly from Russian language regions (Marneuli, Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda) voice complaint about establishing English language step by step. In their opinion Russian is being changed by English and here arises a problem of Americanization. Finding a good job is depended on the knowledge of English language and computer that is difficult to get in rayon. Almost third of interviewees name not finding the job as the reason of unemployment. In this regard on the second place is Baku and third – Erevan. According to range on the first place are employees in state organization in Baku. Tbilisi and Erevan according to such employees are on the second place. In case of Erevan first place takes pensioners including disabled. Respondents from three regions (particularly from Tbilisi and Erevan) attach great importance to connections for getting a good job. In case of Baku (place I) and Erevan(place II) importance is given to money factor. Respondents from Tbilisi attach less importance to money after education and talent and professional abilities. This indicates that there are significant changes in the system of education and employment in Georgia particularly in Tbilisi. Concerning Baku and Erevan education takes III place. Data received from focus groups show that participants face the same abovementioned problems related to finding job in rayons (particularly in Bolnisi and Akhaltsikhe). Besides important changes in the sphere of education in Georgia is proven by the fact that Georgian participants of the focus groups give positive estimate to reforms. Russian language participants (Marneuli, Akhalkalaki-ninotsminda) evaluate changes negatively. Majority of respondents from three regions consider their household to belong to middle part of the middle level and lower part of the middle level. 48.9% of Erevan respondent, 50.6% of Baku respondents and 57.9% of Tbilisi think that their household belongs to middle part of the middle level. 31.5% of Erevan, 29. % of Baku and 31.2% of Tbilisi considers that their household belongs to lower part of the middle level. While listing operating items Georgians appeared to be the most prosperous compared with representatives of other regions. In case of Georgia items considered as means of material welfare is most evident according to percentage. Azeris turned to live the most avariciously. Salaries and pensions are indicated as the main sources of h/h income in case of three regions. Respondents name the additional sources: financial help of relatives/friends, income from business and so on. Indicating how much spend typical h/h on different activities Georgians appeared to spend most and Azeris least. Describing current economic condition respondents from Georgia made more optimistic estimation than Azeris and Armenians. These data form a certain picture of economic condition of regions. It is noteworthy that accent was put on economic while discussing important issues for the country. Majority of respondents from Georgia and Armenia consider reduction of poverty and unemployment as the most important goals. Azerbaijanians give priority to restoration of territorial integrity of the country. Respondents from three regions attach less importance to improvement of interethnic relations and encouraging re-migration and return of refugees and IDPs to their homes. Maybe in respondents‟ opinion this issue is unsettled and any effort would be in vain. According to analysis of conducted focus groups in Georgia while answering question which problems should be settled first respondents accented economical issues. They gave importance to opening factories, reducing unemployment, fighting corruption. Settling problems related to road, ecology, staff, salary and attracting experienced staff in state structures are also essential. Young people complain about selling state property, spending much money on the army and carelessness of government. In their opinion government pay much attention only to Tbilisi. Factually problems of youth are one of the important questions in the list of priority issues: problems related to education and entering university. Respondents particularly in Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda expressed complaint about education reforms. Due to lack of knowledge of Georgian language they cannot pass National Examinations. There is no place for young people to gather: cinemas, theatres, clubs, discos, sport centers, cafés or parks. Environment pollution, ecological, financial, generally social and communal problems were also named. Age related problems of relationship, gender issues and violation of human rights was given also great importance. Problem related to conflicts arisen on national ground is also mentioned. Addiction to drugs and toxicomania is a topic question. Respondents also mentioned teachers’ disrespect to pupils. According to regional quantitative the most politicized appeared to be respondents from Tbilisi, the most apolitical – interviewees from Baku. Respondents from Erevan equal in being interested in politic as not interested. Respondents from Tbilisi and Erevan take first place from the viewpoint of participating in parliamentary election. In a view of participation in presidential elections president according to percentage indicators (81.5%) respondents from Baku take first place and interviewees from Tbilisi take last place conditionally. Respondents from Tbilisi discuss politics most frequently and interviewees from Baku – most seldom accordingly. It is possible that was due to existence of unchangeable leader. Respondents from Tbilisi are more satisfied with the government course. This opinion is shared partially by interviewees from Baku. Concerning interviewees from Erevan their opinions are distributed equally among positive, neutral and negative evaluations. Focus group attitude towards politics is demonstrated as following: majority of respondents are less interested in politics though they think it their duty to vote in elections and express an opinion. Majority of participants recognize that they supported Saakashvili’s politics nevertheless they were frustrated. Opposition parties are characterized as ‘weak’. In the view of Georgian respondents Russia was depriving language, religion and lands from Georgia. Nowadays Americans do not compel but bit- by- bit English is becoming acceptable language. The main sources of political news for CRRC respondents are: television, radio and newspaper. The less information is received from Internet, family members, friends, neighbours, workplace and colleagues. Concerning results received from focus groups participants receive information from the following sources: television, radio, newspaper and television programs of their country. Russian and local programs were also named. Young people give priority to programs of Imedi, particularly Droeba. They evaluate Rustavi2 negatively accusing it of close connection with government. Respondents name gossip as one of the sources of spreading information. Lack of information and obtaining it only from Russian channels on the one hand and spreading gossip on the other often leads to misunderstanding among micro-social groups. That was factually displayed in one of the Marneuli focus groups. Georgian respondent met with a reaction attempt of an Azeri participant to show advantage of friendly coexistence with Russia compare with America. Adolescents from Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda consider that information is distorted on television for instance Georgians and Russians televise news differently. Two different versions of one and the same information might be heard. According to CRRC data cooperation with different countries as in economic sphere as political sphere respondents are given priority in the following range: Respondents from tree regions give priority to cooperation with Russia. Also cooperation with USA and European Union is attached importance by respondents from Georgia and Armenia. Turkey is such magisterial country for Azerbaijan. On the contrary respondents from Erevan evaluate neutrally or slight negatively the idea of cooperation with Turkey. In this regard Tbilisi‟ respondents attach less importance to cooperation with Turkey and Iran. Generally there was a will to cooperate with other countries. They are: Japan, Germany, Georgia, England, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Muslim Countries; all which support us Africa, Latin America, Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, CIS and so on. Respondents of focus groups name America and Russia as the country Georgia should strives to receive support from. Nevertheless there are slight differences in their answers. Respondents who named Russia placed emphasis on its territorial closeness. Only few ones expressed different opinion they suppose Ukraine the most perspective partner. As neighbour countries Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey were also considered. According to their opinion the most important is to spend received money on developing economics. Russian language participants give priority to Russia and Armenia. Attitudes towards cooperating with different Caucasus states are quite various: cooperation with Armenia in economic sphere was supported by 75.2% of respondents from Tbilisi. 95.3% of interviewees from Baku were fully against cooperating with Armenia. Concerning cooperation in political sphere there was the same picture. 73% of respondents from Tbilisi supported cooperation with Armenia; 94.2 % from Baku were against. Cooperation with Azerbaijan in economic sphere were supported by 79.1 % of respondents from Tbilisi; significant parts of respondents from Erevan (47.9% 21.3% fully support and 26.6%) would cooperate with Azerbaijan in economic sphere. Interviewees from Erevan 1/3 were against to cooperate with Azerbaijan in economic sphere. Concerning cooperation with Georgia as economic as in politic sphere (with slight percentage difference and sustaining the main picture) majority of interviewees from Erevan and Baku were fully supportive (Erevan – 77.6%; Baku – 81.8%). Participants of focus groups ought to characterize each of the country – Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. While characterizing Georgia respondents complain about low salary, unemployment and undeveloped economics and accuse Government. Due to geographic situation Georgia might be more developed compare with Armenia. In their view Azerbaijan is more advantageous. Three of countries had had friendly coexistence that was changed later particularly between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Georgia is the most democratic country in Caicasus. Armenia is under the supervision of Russia. Georgia is guided by America Herein is mentioned problems related to education of ethnic minorities for instance history of Armenia, which is the essential subject for entering University of Armenia, is not taught in Georgian schools. According to regional research the most tolerant towards diseased were respondents of Tbilisi. In a viewpoint of acceptability respondents from Erevan have less acceptance than from Tbilisi. Azeris appeared to be less tolerant towards different groups. Respondents from Tbilisi have acceptability towards tubercular patient. Not the less tolerance was demonstrated towards AIDS diseased and drug addict. On the forth place is chronical drunkard and last is homosexual though acceptability towards this group demonstrated 1/3 of interviewees. In Georgia attitude towards sexual minority is very careful. Majority of respondents and also their friends and relatives put into the category of „others‟ persons who are atypical, different from them. According to research conducted in Georgia list of unacceptable groups are the following: - Representative of sexual minority - People belonging to different religious confession - People expressing different views and opinions Majority of respondents do not mind to relate to persons with contagious disease and generally ill person, especially when it concerns to cooperation, neighbourship and friendship. Avoiding relation with homosexuals who are not dangerous for health. Actually for Caucasians social norms is essential. As focus groups results show unacceptable and stranger is named in regard to characteristic and social signs; less importance is attached to national sign. Majority of respondents have the same opinion. Unacceptable person for their circle is always a specific person and not a group. Majority of respondents have not ever suffered from a sense of alienation particularly in mono- ethnic surrounding, for instance Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda. Georgians while discussing alienation put emphasis on unnecessary tolerance of Georgians. This factor is regarded as one of the main reason of oppressing Georgians by Azeris and Armenians. They deem implementation of national policy as the way out from existing situation. That implies settlement of national minority less compactly and teaching them Georgian as the state language. Actually while discussing sense of alienation Georgian adolescents generalize issue and speak about privileges of Georgians that means reduction in rights of national minorities on behalf of Georgians. They explain alienation by numerousness of representatives of other nations who might be alienated by imposing uncomfortable conditions. Respondents were quite tolerant towards different ethnic groups though there was a certain range. As it was anticipated respondents from three regions give most positive estimate to the self-nation. In case of Georgia and Armenia respondents estimate positively Russians and Greeks. Tbilisi and Baku respondents express tolerance towards Jewish people. Tbilisi respondents put representatives of Armenian and Azerbaijani into neutral category. The research, which aimed to reveal young people‟s attitude towards other nations were performed slight differently in Georgia. Majority of Georgian respondents stress advantage of Georgians. Representativeness of any European Country is more acceptable than identification with Europeans or Americans generally. Representativeness of foreign country is associated with welfare. Some of the respondents show a will of belonging certain confession for instance, Georgians give advantage to Christianity and Armenian to Catholicism. Generally Armenians or Russians are acceptable for some respondents and Italian, Spanish, American, Greek, German more acceptable for some. Herein should be mentioned that male interviewees show a will to be Italian and Spanish. Significant part of respondents (particularly Azeri and Armenian participants) indicates that nationality has no importance and there is no bad or good nation. Bad and good persons exist. Georgians and Azeris do not desire to be identified with Armenian. Georgian and Armenian interviewees refuse to be Turkish, Muslims, Azerbaijani and Tatar. Identity with Negro is unacceptable for Azeris and Armenians. From many answers Azeris‟ refusal to be Svan is evident. Georgians deny to be identified with Ossetian. Majority of respondents desire to get married with representative of self-nation. In this regard the first place are taken by Georgians. Seldom is mentioned that nationality has no importance. Mainly this idea is shared by Armenian and Azerbaijani respondents because decisive is factor of intimacy. Concerning partner at rest respondents named again representative of self- nation. Russians and Americans were named after Georgians. Fourth of interviewees mention that they do not care nationality when it concerns rest. Part of respondents name nations who they do not desire to go on a voyage, particularly Armenian (Georgian and Azerbaijani respondents), Azerbaijani (Georgian and Armenian respondents), Jewish, German and Russian. It is remarkable that mainly ambivalent attitude is expressed towards Russian. The same opinion was expressed in case of making friends and cooperation. Nevertheless advantage is given to Americans and Germans after Georgians. Participant of focus group ought to appreciate multi-nationality as supporting or interfering factor. Georgian participants especially from the region they form minority (Akhaltsikhe, Bolnisi, Marneuli) evaluate multi-nationality negatively. Georgia would be stronger if more Georgians and less other nations live here. There is also an attempt of finding alternative way out. This is to teach Georgian language to non Georgians. Part of the respondents (Georgians) from regions where majority is non-Georgians (Marneuli) considers that multi-nationality is interfering. Some of them (Azerbaijanians) reckon that multi-nationality gives a chance to get acquainted with different cultures. Herein must be mentioned that Russian language participants do not feel fine in Baku and Erevan. Dwellers of these cities do not like Azeris and Armenians living in Georgia. They are considered to be undeveloped. Interviewees from Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda and Akhaltsikhe have different attitude towards multi-nationality. They declare neutral and distinctly negative position. However, this position refers to only Saakashvili’s policy and not Georgians. In their opinion such policy should be carried out step by step. Interests of local inhabitants should be taken into consideration. Respondents give quite different responses in case of indicating three most acceptable and non- acceptable nations. Answers depend on interrelation, aims and confession of the nation. Christian part of respondents put into the acceptable category Georgians, Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians as belonging to Christian Orthodox Church and Europeans (particularly Italians) and Americans as Christians generally. Muslims are unacceptable for these participants. Ambivalent attitude is demonstrated towards Russians and Americans. In negative category Georgian respondents name Azeris and Armenians. It is noteworthy that participants confuse national and confessional identity and instead of naming nationality indicate confession. Part of focus group reckons that concerning marrage nationality is not decicive and put accent on personality. But when it concerns family relations, rules, customs, religious factor and so on majority of respondents prefer to get married to representatives of self-nation. To marry Georgian, Armenian, American, European is acceptable for Georgian language respondents (Marneuli-Bolnisi-Akhaltsikhe) and is absolutely unacceptable to get married to Azerbaijanian. Ambivalent attitude was expressed towards Russians and negative towards Armenians. Armenian respondents give advantage to Armenian, Georgian, Russian and American. Azerbaijanian, Chinese, Turkish and Negro (that is not a nation) is unacceptable. In case of Turkish accent is not put on religious factor but genocide. This indicates strong ethnic identity. Answers to the question how do you characterize Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani are almost one and the same. Respondents noted that it is difficult to characterize representative of this or that nation. Though certain characteristics were revealed. Georgians - followers of traditions and strong believers, hospitable, love to have a feast, joyful and clever, warmhearted, proud, lazy and do not care future. Azerbaijanians – kind, clever, closed, large-hearted, maintaining their traditions, hardworking. Azeris support each other, and women are more restricted than Georgian. Azeris and Armenians work harder than Georgians. Armenians are characterized as quick-witted, hardworking, longsighted, cunning and hospitable. Georgian respondents characterize Georgians separately and compare Armenians and Azeris with each. While Armenians (Ninotsminda-Akhalkalaki-Akhaltsikhe) try to find common characteristics with Georgians. That is temperament and common history. Concerning religious confession diversity is characteristic of Tbilisi. The leading religious confession is Christian Orthodox (90.4%). According to diversity of religious identity number of Erevan respondents slightly differs from Tbilisi dwellers. However different from Tbilisi in case of Erevan 87% indicate belonging to Armenian Apostolic Church 92.8% Baku respondents is characterized as belonging to mono-religious confession. It is reasonable to mention that Jehovah‟s Witnesses are estimated extremely negatively by Georgian and Armenian respondents. The same time respondents living in Georgia make very positive estimate only to representatives of Christian Orthodox Church and the rest is given mid or less than mid estimate. Respondents from Armenia give equally positive estimate to representatives of Armenian Apostolic Church, Christian Orthodox Church, Catholic Church. The rest is given mainly mid or less than mid estimate. Concerning interviewees living in Azerbaijan extremely positive estimate is made only to representatives of Islam. Which religious confession is acceptable or unacceptable for you? - Answer to this question was unequivocal. Acceptable religious confession for participants is the one they belong to. Herein must be mentioned that their attitude towards different religion is quite loyal. Majority of respondents consider Jehovah's Witnesses particularly unacceptable. They regard it as imposing religion upon others. Acceptable religious confession for Georgians is Christian Orthodox and generally Christianity, Catholicism, Armenian Apostolic Church. It is noteworthy that participants confused religious identification with ethnic one and mentioned frequently: ‘Acceptable is Catholic nation and Christian nation’. The same time young people give importance to devotion to belief. Jehovah's Witnesses and different sects are particularly unacceptable. Respondents express ambivalent attitude towards Jewish people. Muslims are unacceptable for participants. Azerbaijanian respondents display neutral or slight positive attitudes towards different religion and give advantage to Muslim. Respondents from Ninotsminda and Akhalkalaki express extremely negative attitude towards Muslims and Turkish people. There is confusion of confessional and ethnic identity. According to regional research respondents‟ attitudes towards social institutions in the regard of effective functioning the following order was revealed: President, Army, Media (Azerbaijan and Georgia). In Erevan respondents assess their trust towards social institutions in the following order: Army, Religious institutions and Educational system. In this regard the worse position took (according to range) political parties, local NGO's (Azerbaijan and Georgia) and Parliament (Armenia). It should be mentioned that while characterizing social institutions respondents were not with one mind. Pro-western course of Georgia’s foreign policy which majority of non- Georgian respondents does not agree is one of essential questions. Georgian respondents evaluate positively reforms carried out at the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Defense. Representatives of national minority complain about functioning of the Army due to bad attitude towards ethnic minorities. Negatively is estimated questions related to studding Georgian language mainly by non- Georgians. Respondents voice complaints about Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs. This concerns to low salary and qualification of medical personnel, low quality technical equipment, low level of emergency service and corruption in hospitals. Within the context of Ministry of Defense they are interested in issues concerning rights of representatives of national minorities. Respondents complain about Parliament, which is consisted of unexperienced staff and inactive opposition parties and corruption in courts. Generally working of the government is evaluated positively particularly functioning of Patruli. Positively is evaluated working of religious institutions and local NGO’s. Georgians expresses readiness becoming a NATO member: Majority of Tbilisi respondents support becoming a NATO member. Cooperation with NATO is also important for Azerbaijani respondents. Concerning Erevan respondents‟ opinions differ on the matter of NATO. Almost half of Erevan interviewees are agreed to cooperate with NATO but the number of respondents who is supportive Armenia becoming a NATO member lessens. Number of respondents who are against is not low (27.7%). Erevan and Baku respondents are more acquainted with international organizations then Tbilisi- dwellers. The same time respondents from three regions have the most acquaintance with European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Quite significant position has USAID international Development Agency according to recognition. Concerning Eurasia Foundation Tbilisi respondents have information about it then Baku and Erevan interviewees. Focus groups discussed information about international organizations participating in conflict resolution and evaluate their work accordingly. World Vision, which organized summer camp, was named most frequently. Concerning organizations working on conflicts resolution respondents mentioned: United Nation; NATO; European Union; OSCE; Red Cross; European Council; CIS. Functioning of European Council and United Nation was evaluated positively. Respondents also named organizations not working on this issue: ‘Hera XXI’, Urban Institute, IFS, Ombudsmen, Peace Corp, UNICEF. Discussing reasons of conflicts respondents name unsettled social problems and unemployment as the main factors. In their opinion main role must be played by state and people should support. Interpersonal conflicts are due to different views, aims and interests. Concerning interstate conflict the reason might be the desire of establishing in the world, coming into the international market or territorial factor. War as a possibility of resolving conflict is unacceptable for the respondents. They reckon that conflict ought to be resolved by negotiation. In some cases conflicts are due to violation of rights, on the ground of religion. Concerning conflicts raised on an ethnic ground respondents reckon that such conflicts are based on history and territorial issues. In most cases prejudices and language barrier raise conflicts. Respondents also mentioned that conflicts in Georgia were always provoked by the third side. Recommendations According to received results the following recommendations should be taken into account: 1. Much attention should be paid to the problems of region and rayon - majority of respondents complain about paying much attention to Tbilisi and ignoring problems of rayon. It is desirable to work out municipal programs in Kvemo Kartli and Samtskhe Djavaxeti and to visit representatives of government to these regions. 2. It is important to study problems of each region and give response timely. Problems are related mainly to social issues: unemployment and low salary, corruption, roads (Akhalkalaki-Akhaltsikhe), ecology (Bolnisi), electricity, water supply and so on. Concerning youth issues entertainment and rest, education and entering University are the most problematic. 3. More activities should be provided to teach state language in Kvemo Kartli and Samtske Djavaxeti rayons, which is settled mainly by non-Georgians. It is desirable to train local teachers. To provide encouraging activities for teaching Georgian language, for instance studding English and computer free of charge but in Georgian. To teach history of the country of ethnic minorities in rayons which are settled compactly by non-Georgians. 4. To provide training courses related to human rights in schools and institutes of Samtskhe Djavakheti and Kvemo Kartli. Accent would be put on rights of children and gender issues. 5. Conducting sociological research in the army to study conditions of ethnic minorities. 6. To carry out healthcare reforms in these rayons in order to restructure and optimize medical establishments. 7. To solve the problem of unemployment. It is desirable to establish organizations that on the one hand have the list of employers and on the other select young people according to requirement. 8. Providing synchronize translation of programs of leading TV companies even in Russian language – Imedi, Rustavi2 in order to prevent information vacuum and distortion. Mainly for the regions which is settled by non- Georgian inhabitants. 9. Readiness to establish closer relation with different countries particularly neighbour ones in parallel with western policy of the state. It is noteworthy that respondents have positive attitude towards united economic space of south Caucasus. 10. Relation among Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijanians is not strictly stereotyped in focus groups. Though there are prejudices that make relations difficult. Participants put accent on religious confession than on ethnical identity. In this regard religious institutes can work to increasing ethnical acceptability. 11. As it was mentioned focus groups were conducted in specially made summer camps. It is noteworthy that attitudes were changed after finishing activities. Such type of activities as co-existence of representatives of different nations in the camp and so on make weaker prejudices and support to establish open, friendly relation among participants.