Master’s Thesis in Peace and Conflict Studies Department of Peace and Conflict Research UPPSALA UNIVERSITET

INTER-GROUP TRUST IN THE REALM OF

DISPLACEMENT

An Investigation into the Long-term Effect of Pre-war Inter-Group Contact on the Condition of Post-War Inter-Group Trust of Internally Displaced People

SUZAN KISAOGLU

Spring 2021

Supervisor: Annekatrin Deglow

Word Count: 19540

ABSTRACT: Inter-group social trust is one of the main elements for peacebuilding and, as a common feature of civil wars, Forced Internal Displacement is creating further complexities and challenges for post-war inter-group social trust. However, research revealed that among the internally displaced people (IDP), some tend to have a higher level of post-war inter-group trust compared to the other IDP. Surprisingly, an analysis based on this topic revealed that only a small number of studies are focusing on the condition of IDP’s post-war intergroup social trust in the long run. Therefore, this study examines the inter-group social trust of internally displaced people to provide a theoretical explanation for the following question; under what conditions the internally displaced people tend to trust more/less the conflicting party in the post-war context? With an examination of social psychology research, this thesis argues that post-war inter-group social trust of IDP who have experienced continuous pre-war inter-group contact will be stronger than the IDP who do not have such inter-group contact experience. The reason behind this expectation is the expected effect of inter-group contact on eliminating the prejudices and promoting the ‘collective knowledge’ regarding the war and displacement, thus promoting inter-group trust. To analyze the research question empirically, this study collected data from two groups of internally displaced people of Cyprus; IDP displaced from heterogeneous areas and homogenous areas, using the method of qualitative single case analysis. The findings show strong support for the expected causal relationship.

Keywords: Pre-War Contact, Inter-group Contact, Post-War Trust, Inter-group Trust, Social Trust, Forced Internal Displacement, Internally Displaced People

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Undoubtfully, this research would not have been accomplished without the precious support of a number of people to whom I would like to express my gratefulness. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Annekatrin for her great support throughout the semester. Many thanks also to my parents for their encouragement and effort to make all of this possible. Osman deserves special thanks for his numerous advice, guidance and for being such a supportive brother. I wish to extend my gratitude also to the people of Cyprus who have participated in this project and shared their special memories with me. Without their trust and generous support, this study would not have come true. Finally, I would like to express my gratefulness to Emir for his precious support and love.

3

ABBREVATIONS:

EOKA National Organization of Cyprus Fighters

TMT Turkish Resistance Movement

FID Forced Internal Displacement

HMIDP Internally Displaced People from Homogenous Areas

HTIDP Internally Displaced People from Heterogenous Areas

UN United Nations UNFICYP United Nations Force in Cyprus

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………...8 2. Previous Research……………………………………………………………………..12 2.1 Conflict Theory…………………………………………………………………...... 13 2.2 Contact Theory……………………………………………………………………..14 2.3 Collective Vulnerability Approach………………………………………………....15 2.4 Generalized Social Trust Findings………………………………………………….15 3. Theory………………………………………………………………………………….18 3.1 Conceptualizing the Pre-war Inter-group Contact (IV)…………………………….18 3.2 Conceptualizing the Partition of Societies through FID……………………………20 3.3 Conceptualizing Internally Displaced People………………………………………21 3.4 Conceptualizing Post-war Inter-Group Social Trust (DV)…………………………22 4. Research Design…………………………………………………………………...... 27 4.1 Method and Case Selection………………………………………………………....27 4.2 Time Period and Data Sources………………………………………………...... 28 4.3 Research Ethics………………………………………………………………...... 30 4.4 Structure of Analysis………………………………………………………………..32 4.5 Operationalization……………………………………………………………….33-34 Pre-war inter-group contact Partition Through Civil-war-related FID Post-war inter-group Social Trust 5. Cyprus …………………………………………………………………………………36 5.1 Social and Historical Background…………………………………………………..36 5.2 The Pathway to the Partition……………………………………………………..…37 5.3 Internal Displacement in Cyprus (1950s-1974)…………………………………….39 5.4 Post-war period of Cyprus (1974-onwards) …………………………………...... 40 6. Presentation of the Data and Analysis……………………………………………….41 6.1 Inter-Group Trust Measurement………………………………………………...45-55 Expectations and Perceptions Perceptions for Cohabitation

5 7. Conclusions from within group analysis for HTIDP and HMIDP………………....56 7.1 Analysis on alternative explanations……………………………………………...... 57 7.2 Critical reflection…………………………………………………………………....59 8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...61 8.1 Main conclusion…………………………………………………………………...... 61 8.2 Ideas to improve the post-war inter-group social trust……………………………...62 8.3 Future Research……………………………………………………………………..62 Epilogue …………………………………………………………………………….63 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..64 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………...69-72 List of Interviews……………………………………………………………...... 69 Interview Question Guide…...………………………………………………………70

6 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE

Figure 1. Causal Mechanism……………………………………………………………………………..24 Figure 2. Causal Relationship in Detail…………………………………………………………………..25

Table 1. Participants’ perceptions regarding the conflicting party, in terms of characteristics, values and culture………………………………………………………………………………..44 Table 2. Participants’ definition of the conflicting party’s perception of the participants’ community…………………………………………………………………………………….....48 Table 3. HTIDP’s pre-war inter-group contact condition and their responses for cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party………………………………………………49 Table 4. HMIDP’s pre-war contact condition and their responses for cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party…………………………………………………………...51 Table 5. The source of out-group knowledge in regard to its impact on the post-war inter-group trust………………………………………………………………………………………………53

7 1. INTRODUCTION “Peace is more than just the absence of conflict. Peace is the presence of mutually respectful relationships among individuals and groups. Those relationships enable disputes to be handled with tact, understanding, and a recognition that everyone shares some common interests. At the heart of those relationships is trust.” -Colette Rausch 2012

The contemporary conflict studies highlight that peace is a vast subject having critical linkages with different branches. Among these branches, ‘trust’ is considered a milestone for both construction and the sustainability of peace (Fox 2014). In conflict studies, trust has a multifaceted manner; inter-group trust (cross-group social trust), intra-group trust (within-group social trust), and political trust. Each conflict has a unique feature; thus, it would be a vague assumption to address any of these types as the most or the least important in peace and conflict research analysis. All can be related to each other; thus, they can positively or negatively affect one another. However, depending upon the characteristics of wars, some can play more complex roles than the other(s). This study’s focus is on the post-war context of civil wars. In this context, inter-group trust needs special attention. Civil wars have a prevalent feature that affects their post-war condition, prolonging the conflict, violence, and inter-group peace-building: Forced Internal Displacement (FID). The global displacement database of Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) shows that millions of Internally Displaced People (IDP) fleeing from their homes because of conflicts worldwide, i.e., from the Syrian Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Turkey, and Cyprus. FID creates further complexities and challenges for post-war inter-group social psychology, especially when it is applied as a policy of partition of the conflicting parties, and the displacement is prolonged. However, researches revealed that among the internally displaced people, some tend to have a higher level of post-war inter-group trust compared to the other IDP. Social psychology theories suggest that variation in pre-war inter-group contact can be considered as the main element in explaining this differentiation in the outcome. Surprisingly, an analysis based on this topic revealed that only a small number of studies are focusing on the intergroup trust of post-war societies in the field of peace research, and fewer of them are analyzing the long-term effect of pre-war inter-group contact on the post-war social trust of the internally displaced people (IDP).

8 The previous studies mainly used the two major social-psychological theories to examine the linkage of inter-group contact and inter-group (dis)trust: conflict theory and contact theory. Moreover, the previous research revealed that there is a correlation between pre-war contact and post-war inter-group trust. Nevertheless, the gap regarding the long-term effect of pre-war inter- group contact on IDP’s post-war inter-group social trust remained an open question. This thesis aims to explore this gap by asking the following question: under what conditions the internally displaced people tend to trust more/less the conflicting party in the post-war context? This study aims to provide a theoretical explanation for the research question by combining the fields of social psychology and conflict studies. Hereby, it will examine the social-psychology field’s explanation of conflict and contact theories. With this step, this study aims to provide a brief picture of the field of social-psychology’s explanation based on the impact of variation of inter-group contact on the variation of inter-group trust. Thereby, it will provide the argument that continuous pre-war inter-group contact has a positive effect on inter- group post-war trust of internally displaced people. Thus, in the main hypothesis of this research, the independent variable (IV) is the variation of pre-war inter-group contact, and the dependent variable (DV) is post-war inter-group social trust. In other words, this study expects that post-war inter-group social trust of the IDP will be lower where there is an absence of pre- war inter-group contact between the conflicting parties’ societies since the absence of contact opens up a space for misinformation and disinformation regarding the conflicting party, increases prejudices and alienates the ‘other’ and perpetuates the us-them dichotomy. In order to test the suggested hypothesis empirically, this study will be based on a qualitative single-case analysis with a constructivist perspective. This approach recognizes the importance of both the “subjective human creation of meaning” (Miller & Crabtree 1999: 10; quoted from: Baxter & Jack 2008: 545) and objectivity on “social construction of reality” (Baxter & Jack 2008: 545). In this framework, this study’s main argument is constructed based on the secondary sources, and it will test the hypothesis being based on the original data collected from the subjective perspectives of the internally displaced people. The location of this study is Cyprus. This country is chosen with a purposive (strategic) case selection technique (Ruffa 2020) since it displays the relevant characteristics for this study. In Cyprus, there are two ethnically diverse majority groups, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Before the displacement, these groups were living homogenously and heterogeneously

9 in different locations. Thus, there were different levels of inter-group contact. Cyprus has experienced a civil war in 1974 which ended with the intervention of Turkey. Both homogenous and heterogeneous groups have been internally displaced as a result of the war. By 1975, a partition between the conflicting parties was applied, and since then, reunification could not be established. Thus, Cyprus is a suitable case for this study to investigate how the pre-war inter- group contact of the communities affects the post-war inter-group social trust of the internally displaced people in the long run. An examination of the case-related studies revealed that the available secondary sources are insufficient to gain comprehensive information on the displaced people’s perspectives and examine the mechanism of the effect of pre-war contact on their post-war trust. For this reason, this study will collect original data using the method of in-depth interviews. To examine the impact of variation of pre-war inter-group contact on the post-war trust of IDP, it needs two categories of IDP to compare. One category must consist of the IDP who should have little or no pre-war inter-group contact, and the second category should consist of the IDP who should have a high level of pre-war inter-group contact. For this reason, the samples will consist of the people from two categories of IDP: (i) The internally displaced people who were living in heterogeneous areas together with the conflicting party and (ii) who were living in homogenous areas before the conflict. Then this research will ask the respondents the same set of questions to assess if the suggested hypothesis holds true and if there are alternative explanations. The secondary aim of this study is to explore the causal mechanism through which the pre-war inter- group contact affects the post-war inter-group trust in the long run. The main findings of this research revealed strong support for the theorized relationship and mechanism. However, the reader should treat the outcomes cautiously due to the limited data of this study. The findings suggest that the continuous pre-war inter-group contact strongly affects the post-war inter-group social trust of internally displaced people. In this mechanism, the pre-war contact-related collective knowledge appears to reduce prejudices, eliminate out-group blaming and grievance that is expected to emerge as a result of civil war and displacement- related traumas, and affect the post-war trust inter-group social trust of IDP. Thus, pre-war inter- group contact is found to have a long-term positive effect on the post-war inter-group social trust.

10 After this introduction, the following section begins with a brief review of the previous theories about the effect of inter-group contact on social trust and previous research on post-war inter-group trust condition of internally displaced people to examine the expectations of the impact of pre-war inter-group contact on the post-war inter-group trust in the long run. The third section provides conceptual definitions for (IV) Pre-war Inter-group contact and (DV) Post-war Intergroup Social Trust as well as the important concepts of this analysis; Forced Internal Displacement and Internally Displaced People, to clarify the features of all variables of this study’s main hypothesis before exploring the theoretical argument of this thesis. After that, section four will describe the research design and operationalize the fundamental concepts of this research. Section five will provide the background information for the case of this study; Cyprus. Furthermore, section six will be based on the data presentation and analysis. Then, part seven will reveal the conclusions from within-group analyses as well as a discussion on the alternative explanation. Finally, section eight will include the conclusion of this thesis.

11 2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH:

Studies focusing on post-war societies commonly argue that to construct a successful and durable peace after a civil war, the previously conflicting parties should have at least a “working relationship” (Wilke, Davis, & Chivvis 2011). On the other hand, as a common fact of the civil wars, forced internal displacement scuppers the future possibility of building a working inter- group interaction since it damages the relations in many dimensions through creating a division between communities and increasing the sense of victimization and blaming of the others. Thus, it manipulates grievance and distrust in inter-group relations, and grievance causes the protraction of social conflicts (Azar 1990). While some researchers argue that the death of the family members during a conflict is the most destructive experience for the individuals, according to others, displacement has more power over the people since it directly creates both material and psychological loss (Kijewski & Freitag 2018). Since the 1990s, the investigation regarding conflict-related internal displacement has been intensified. However, the researchers focusing on the post-war experience of displaced people are commonly studying the relationship of displacement and identity issues (Pilkington 1998), mental health (Siriwardhana & Stewart 2013), economy (Williams & Efendic 2019), and democracy (Bratton 2016). Although these concepts can shed light on the expected conditions of internally displaced people’s (IDP) post-war inter-group social trust, very few studies have focused mainly on the reason for the variation in post-war inter-group trust. The theories based on inter-group trust are built on social-psychological explanations of group psychology. Although this study’s primary focus is not the “level” of ‘generalized social trust’ but the conditions of trust among the conflicting parties, it is essential to have an insight into the conditions defining the level of generalized social trust to draw this thesis’s theoretical argument. Thus, to provide an understanding of the previous research, this section will examine the two main theoretical arguments based on intergroup trust, which are also essential to construct a theory for post-war inter-group social trust: (i) Conflict Theory and (ii) Contact Theory. Then it will continue with briefly representing findings of the collective vulnerability approach and the existing research about generalized social trust. Thus, it will provide the theoretical background that will prepare a basis for the main argument of this thesis.

12 2.1 Conflict Theory: The first approach that aims to explain social trust is the conflict theory. According to this theory, the state of the “homogeneity” of societies defines their level of social trust. In other words, according to this explanation, there should be a positive relationship between the level of homogeneity and the level of social trust. This perspective suggests that the greater heterogeneity leads to a lower level of trust in both within-group and cross-group relations (Putnam 2007; Delhey & Newton 2005). The main logic here is based on the “homophily principle” (McPherson et al. 2001). According to this principle, in social relations, human beings tend to build interaction with the ones who are familiar (Allport 1954; McPherson et al. 2001), and in heterogeneous societies, diversity of social groups means a greater level of differences; thus, a greater level of unfamiliarity. This logic is explained from a psychological approach based on human behavior and tells us that human beings tend to choose the familiar whose threats and positive aspects are known and foreseeable to eliminate the risks that can happen to their survival. Regarding this homophily principle, one study investigated a group of seven years-old children in one town. The researchers asked them, “which are better, the children in this town or in Smithfield (a neighboring town)?” (Allport 1954: 42). Nearly all of them answered as “this town”, and when they asked the reason for this perception, they replied as “I do not know the kids in Smithfield.” (Allport 1954: 42). However, as Allport pointed out, this approach tells us that the “alien” is regarded as “less good”; this means they should have a lesser level of trust against the unknown, but this does not mean that people necessarily have hostility against the unknown (Allport 1954: 4). According to this theory, we should expect a lower level of post-war inter-group trust in the societies that came from the ethnically heterogeneous communities. However, the previous research pointed out that this theory remained insufficient in explaining the variety of post-war inter-group trust. At this point, the contact theory is vital to discuss and understand the causal relationship of heterogeneity and social trust of post-war communities.

13 2.2 Contact Theory: The second approach that aims to explain the social trust and researchers often use to understand the post-war social trust is named contact theory. The contact theory suggests that continuous interaction leads to attitude change within heterogeneous societies. Thus, frequent contact helps the heterogonous societies to overcome the prejudice and get to know each other, hence, building trust towards the ‘different’; the out-group members (Pettigrew 1998). The main argument of this perspective is that, when the parties get in touch continuously, they have a chance to gather information about each other; the interaction changes the expectations, and changing expectations lead to change in attitudes and prepares a ground for the generation of a positive relationship between the groups (Allport 1954). The logic of homophily can explain the contact theory as well. Because according to this logic, people tend to trust the familiar more via which continuous contact can help the communities get familiar with each other. That is, within the heterogeneous societies, the familiarity of the ‘different’ increases, because this paves the way for cultural integration and the level of social trust rises as the familiarity reduces the level of ‘us and them’ dichotomy. Allport (1954) highlights the role of prejudice on the generation of social intergroup trust. According to him, although heterogeneous societies are more prone to distrust due to the homophily principle, studies show that lack of communication between the identically diverse social groups causes the emergence of prejudices, thus increasing distrust. Thus, we should expect to see a higher level of trust towards the out-groups in heterogeneous societies where there are no communication barriers and contact (Allport 1954). However, the referred contact also has a capacity to worsen the level of trust in the cases where the out-group members draw a negative attitude and where the contact does not encourage cooperation between the heterogeneous groups and promotes hostility indirectly through promoting competition (Deutsch et al. 2006). Thus, this approach is particularly important to understand the factors manipulating the post-war social trust of displaced people who have had traumatic experiences with the conflicting party. Moreover, the contact theory has been described as one of the most powerful theories in the field of social psychology (Fox 2014). As Fox (2014) pointed out, “in a meta- analysis of 516 contact studies, the majority illustrated a negative relationship between contact and prejudice” (Fox 2014: 224). The studies addressed a number of mediators in this relationship of contact and prejudice which can be listed as: “…forgiveness, trust, friendship formation” (Fox 2014: 224). Inter-group contact and continuous interaction with out-group members also offer a

14 space for information gathering regarding the out-group member’s war experiences, thus, decreases the blaming, reduces grievances, and increases inter-group trust (Penic et al. 2016: 211). This means that since in the heterogeneous communities, the possibility of witnessing the outgroup member’s war experiences and seeing that the loss and pain have been mutual, the sense of hostility decreases. Moreover, inter-group contact is “recognized as one of the main facilitators of forgiveness in the aftermath of inter-group violence” (Penic et al. 2016: 211).

2.3 Collective Vulnerability Approach: The collective vulnerability approach suggests that “collective war experiences can be an important source of knowledge and conflict moderating beliefs at the community level.”(Penic et al. 2016: 224). According to this approach the communities which experience asymmetric violence, disproportionally affecting “only one group”, the post-war recovery and inter-group forgiveness tend to be lower (Penic et al. 2016: 210). Spini, Elcheroth, and Fasel (2008) conducted a research consisting of eight countries with “recent inter-group violence experience” and pointed out that, in the cases where groups are “symmetrically” affected by the inter-group violence “collective support for the protection of human rights is stronger than in countries in which violence was one-sided” (Penic et al. 2016: 210). According to the study of Penic et al. (2016), in the cases where the people have experienced pre-war friendship or neighborhood, the possibility of collecting information about the others’ experience of violence increases. In this case, the contact allows people to witness the symmetry and mutuality of war experiences. As a result, the possibility of inter-group forgiveness and post-war trust also increases (Penic et al. 2016). This approach also suggests that the people of historically divided communities are expected to have a low level of inter-group trust due to the lack of opportunities to learn about the conflicting parties’ vulnerability and war experiences. (Penic et al. 2016)

2.4 Generalized Social Trust Findings: In the previous research, social trust is explained under three forms: (i) Particularized trust (thick/personal trust) refers to the trust condition of small groups living close to each other, (ii) Instrumental (calculating) trust, on the other hand, defines the trust condition emerging from rational calculations based on personal interests, and (iii) impersonal (generalized) trust defines the trust existing in large scale environment of heterogenous populations (Delhey & Newton 2004: 3). This third type of trust is addressed as weaker than the others because the heterogenous

15 societies can be more open to competition than cooperation (Delhey & Newton 2005). “Cross- national comparative analysis of generalized social trust in 60 countries shows that it is associated with, and is an integral part of, a tight syndrome of cultural, social, economic, and political variables. High trust countries are characterized by ethnic homogeneity, Protestant religious traditions, good government, wealth (GDP per capita), and income equality.” (Delhey & Newton 2005: 1). However, there are also studies pointing out that inter-group trust is found to be higher among t()he people who have lived in heterogeneous societies as inter-group contact facilitates inter-group trust through the elimination of prejudices and the mitigation of inter- group intolerance (Gundelach & Freitag 2014; Voci et al. 2017). The previous research based on Cyprus pointed out that there is a correlation between the pre-war heterogeneity and inter-group tolerance and acceptance for cohabitation with the previously conflicting party, which is a different ethnic group (Ekici et al. 2016; Psaltis et al. 2019; Yucel & Psaltis 2020). According to the recent psychological research of Yucel and Psaltis (2020) collected data from the representative samples consisting 502 Greek-Cypriots (G/C) and 504 Turkish-Cypriots (G/C), the results of both samples revealed that the inter-group contact improves the intergroup trust of IDP since the contact reduces prejudices (Yucel & Psaltis 2020). Yucel and Psaltis (2020) did not aim to explain the pre-war variation of contact on post-war trust but to explain the causal mechanism between the “inter-group contact and willingness of renewed cohabitation in Cyprus” (Yucel & Psaltis, 2020: 578-597). However, the results revealed that for both parties of the conflict, inter-group contact increases inter-group trust by alleviating the prejudices, and this process increases the willingness for renewed cohabitation (Yucel & Psaltis 2020). Moreover, Ekici, Ergun, and Rivas (2016) have conducted an economic experiment based on a ‘trust game’ consisting of a representative sample from young Greek-Cypriots, Turkish-Cypriots, and Turkish (non-indigenous/foreign) inhabitants of Cyprus. The results revealed that the “Greek Cypriots who had at least one parent displaced after the civil war in Cyprus trust Turkish people less compared to those whose parents were not displaced, but no such mistrust exists against Turkish Cypriots” (Ekici et al. 2016: 36). This indicates that IDP are expected to have a higher level of trust for the people who have some level of contact or a shared history or culture. This indicates that pre-war contact can foster post-war inter-group trust. The examination above indicates that since inter-group tolerance and readiness for cohabitation can be considered as a sign of trust, based on the theoretical expectations and

16 previous findings; this study expects to observe positive long-term effect of pre-war inter-group contact on post-war inter-group social trust through pre-war contact’s powerful effect on the elimination of prejudices.

17 3. THEORY

The previous section revealed the previous research and hypothesis of this study. This chapter will include the conceptualization of the critical concepts and then provide the theory of the theoretical argument and causal mechanism.

3.1 Conceptualizing the Pre-war Inter-group Contact (IV): Variation of communities with different characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, and religion, is one of the main elements of most of the civil wars’ pre-war context. The heterogeneity of communities “be it religious, ethnic or racial, are prone to divisions that not only reflect the majority and minority relations, but under certain conditions bring into the forefront the previously unthreatening differences, such as ethnic or cultural background.” (Ajdukovic & Biruski 2008: 337). By the first decade of the 21st century, approximately 64 percent of civil wars’ have emerged between ethnically diverse groups (Mason et al. 2016). That is, the heterogeneous groups are prone to the emergence of inter-group clashes depending upon their clashing interests. Edward Azar (1990) explains this by pointing out the conditions creating the tensions between groups and points out that the inter-group relations turn to inter-group violence if at least one of the groups thinks that their rights are exploited (Azar 1990). Thus, inter-group relations can be on a diversionist ground which leads to the emergence of inter-group violence. Nevertheless, the researchers suggest that inter-group contact in the pre-war context can have a powerful effect on the elimination of post-war inter-group tensions (Penic et al. 2017). It is helpful to conceptualize inter-group relations to understand this mechanism. The interaction of two or more groups’ respective members is commonly defined as inter-group relations (Figueiredo et al. 2014: 8). In the cases where the individuals of one group “interact with another group or its members in terms of their group identifications, we have an instance of intergroup behavior.” (Figueiredo et al. 2014: 8-9). Bernard (1951) suggests that “one way to conceptualize inter-group relations psychologically is to view them as the sum-total of inter-personal relations among members of the groups” (Bernard 1951: 244). That is, an improvement of inter-personal relations will be resulted in an improvement of the inter-group relations (Bernard 1951: 245). In this study, the inter-group relations refer to the relations between at least two identically; ethnically, religiously, and/or racially different forms of groups. The relations require inter-group contact; interaction

18 and this type of contact can be examined under three forms: (i) quotidian/everyday, (ii) associational/organizational (Varshney 2001), and (iii) workplace relationship (Bernard 1951). Varshney (2001) examines the inter-group contact under the two categories: (i) quotidian and (ii) associational. Quotidian form of contact is an everyday type of contact which involves routine interaction like neighborhood relations. The associational type of contact refers to the organized type of relations where business, political and cultural kinds of engagement emerge, and being different from the quotidian type of contact is considered ‘formal’ (Varshney 2001). The workplace relations allow an environment for the generation of the third type of inter-group contact. Bernard (1951) illustrates this type by referring to the Marxist conceptualization of intergroup relations (Bernard 1951: 244). According to this, workplace contact can create an environment of solidarity. However, such contact can also scupper the inter-group relations in cases where there is an unequal distribution of power between the groups (Koos 2014). The studies look into the level of quantity, frequency, and quality; positivity, i.e., cooperation, solidarity, and the friendship of the inter-group interactions to examine the variations of inter- group contacts (Laurence et al. 2018). Thus, it is useful to examine the differentiation of these three types of contact regarding their offers to increase the contact quantity and quality. To begin with, the first two kinds of inter-group contact differ quantitatively. The quotidian/everyday form of contact requires a higher quantity of inter-group interaction to illustrate because it is constructed at a daily level. On the other hand, although the associational/organizational type of contact necessitates a regular interaction, it does not require frequent contact. The workplace, similar to the quotidian type of contact, mostly allows an environment of daily inter-group interaction. However, all three provide different variables influencing the contact’s quality. In the quotidian form of contact, the parties have approximately the same statuses, i.e., neighbors, which eliminates hierarchy and allows a space for cooperation and friendships, increasing the quality of contact (Varshney 2001). On the other hand, in the associational form of relations, there are common goals and interests which promote intergroup contact and solidarity, thus increases the quality of contact at a different level (Varshney 2001). However, the contact in workplace relations holds contradicting opportunities that can scupper the quality and positivity of the contact; it can both offer a space for solidarity and cooperation and offer a space for competition and rivalry. Contemporary research suggests that especially the quotidian and organizational forms of pre-war inter-group contact affect the perceptions and attitudes towards

19 the out-group members positively; in other words helps to eliminate the grievances and prejudices (Varshey 2001).

3.2 Conceptualizing the Partition of the Societies through Forced Internal Displacement: One of the most common strategic moves of international and/or national actors in social conflicts is the partition of the conflicting parties (Strawson 2010; Tir 2005). Partition of societies in its broader definition refers to the division/separation of the communities with physical barriers and borders. By dividing communities, the intention is “to deal with domestic- level (ethnic) animosities and create enduring domestic peace. Partitioning is supposed to do this either by preventing existing tensions from boiling over into serious violence… or, if violence is already ongoing, by bringing the hostilities to an end…” (Tir 2005: 545). However, the partition of heterogeneous communities necessitates the displacement of people (Ker-Lindsay 2011, Strawson, 2010).

Displacement, the relocation of people, can be voluntary or involuntary (forced) and both in a manner of external or internal migration. Refugees and economic migrants are examples of external migration, whereas internally forcefully migrated people are those who are investigated under the title of ‘internally displaced people’ (IDP) in the literature (Siriwardhana & Steawart 2013). Both kinds of displacement are continuously rising all around the world, and both have devastating effects on the sociological level (Siriwardhana & Steawart 2013). However, the studies show that forced internal displacement as a result of the war has the greatest negative influence on societies’ health, social and cultural levels (Kumar 2011; Siriwardhana & Steawart 2013). Since this study is mainly interested in this type of displacement; Forced Internal Displacement, this section will focus on the conceptualization of this concept to offer explicit information about this research’s focus. To begin with, the Guiding Principle on Internal Displacement (1998) offers a detailed definition of IDP by pointing out that:

“Internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have

20 not crossed an internationally recognized State border” (Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 1998).

This kind of displacement to flee from political-caused violence is also known as conflict- induced displacement (Kumar 2011), but this study uses the term Forced Internal Displacement (FID) in its investigations for two reasons. Firstly, conflict-induced displacement also covers external displacement (Lischer 2007), and external displacement is not relevant for this study. Furthermore, although there is also a conceptualization as ‘conflict-induced internal displacement’ in the definition of conflict-caused displacements (Özerdem & Jacoby 2011), using the term FID both defines the concept sufficiently, broadly, and comprehensively, and stresses the fact of ‘force’ better. Force is an important aspect in the conceptualization of the type of displacement that this study is investigating since it has particular importance to understand the type of pre-war inter-group relations because the source of force can also define the post-war inter-group trust. More precisely, this study also recognizes that the ‘forced internal displacement’ is often used as a tool of partition of heterogeneous societies as a part of the ‘divide and rule policy’ by the arbiter parties, and its social outcomes, in the long run, is expected to be different from the outcomes where the force comes from the outgroup’s civil society.

3.3 Conceptualizing Internally Displaced People: According to the definition of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998), the internally displaced people are those who experience traumatic circumstances, and this is because, in the literature, the IDP is addressed as ‘vulnerable populations’ (Kumar 2011; Siriwardhana & Steawart 2012). The level of vulnerability and threats for social security risks may differ depending upon the displaced people’s position. FID holds two possibilities for the displaced communities’ future position: (1) Returning to the home or (2) Settlement in the area where they arrived. Both of the options may depend on an external factor or the displaced people’s decision, and both have a strong potential of re-traumatization and several risks for societies (Siriwardhana & Steawart 2012). However, studies pointed out that when the people have to settle the area where they arrived and cannot return to the place where they had to flee from; thus, when they experience prolonged displacement, the traumatization and potential social risks emerge, and these social risks include adaptation problems and social trust issues. These

21 problematize social solidarity and security (Siriwardhana & Steawart 2012, Kumar 2011). Kumar (2011) pointed out that the emerging social risks are closely related to societies’ reintegration. Moreover, the key to reintegrate the societies is rebuilding the social inter-group trust (Kumar 2011).

3.4 Conceptualizing Post-War Inter-Group Social Trust (DV): Civil wars are considered the “worst” of all wars (Armitage 2015; Mason & Fett 1996). “Because civil wars are so peculiarly agonizing and leave such deep scars on historical memory, they appear to be almost as hard to end as they are awful to endure” (Armitage 2015: 1829). An end of a civil war can be considered a ceasefire or a peace agreement. However, ending these wars does not simply depend on agreements because after a ceasefire or after a peace agreement, there appears a post-war environment shared by the previously conflicting parties that have witnessed or been subjected to violence, have war-related traumas, and grievance (Armitage 2015; Azar 1990). The post-war period of civil wars can also refer to the social conflicts where there is no inter-group mass violence, there is a ceasefire, but there is no peace agreement between the parties, and Cyprus is one of these (Azar 1990; Ramsbotham et al. 2015). Thus, the post-war environment of civil wars is prone to inter-group tensions and distrust. The term “inter- group” here refers to the interaction of the previously conflicting parties. In civil wars, these parties mostly have ethnic, religious differences (Ajdukovic & Biruski 2008), and by saying inter-group trust, this study refers to the inter-group trust of ethnically diverse previously conflicting societies. According to popular perception, trust is the “glue” of inter-group relationships, and without it, the communities cannot stick together. The causality of this relationship is explained by the relationship between conflict and trust by Deutsch et al. (2006). Literature defines social trust from plenty of diverse perspectives, but the most generalizable way to define social trust is “an individual’s belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another” (Deutsch et al. 2006: 94). By analyzing the studies comparing the pre-war and post- war inter-group attitudes of societies, Voci et al. (2017) pointed out that in the non-violent pre- war period, contact between the parties (different identities like ethnicities), not necessarily but mostly, improves social solidarity. However, in post-war societies, improving social solidarity needs a reduction of prejudices and an improvement of inter-group trust (Voci et al. 2017). Moreover, improvement of post-war trust will be closely related to inter-group forgiveness and

22 reconciliation (Voci et al. 2017). Considering that the theme’ vulnerability’ is a common aspect that the inter-group trust researchers analyze (Bigley & Pearce 1998), the challenges of sustaining post-war intergroup trust would be considered natural. Because, as Sabel pointed out, “Trust is the mutual confidence that no party to an exchange will exploit the other’s vulnerability” (Sabel 1993: 1133; quoted from Bigley & Pearce 1998: 408). Although the vulnerability of groups emerges after experiencing war and makes it hard to build social solidarity through contact, some studies promote the idea of contact theory. In 2000 and 2002, two surveys were conducted in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, and although the research’s main intention was not specifically to test hypotheses regarding the intergroup contact, the results have been in line with the assumption of the contact theory. The study asked about both positive and negative outgroup experiences, and the outcomes showed that the people who have experienced pre-war contact and friendship with out-group members show readiness for reconciliation (Voci et al. 2017). Social trust is widely understood as “interpersonal trust”, and according to this definition, “interpersonal trust involves face-to-face commitment, as opposed to “faceless commitments” toward other social objects” (Giddens 1990a: 88; quoted from Sztompka 1999: 41). According to Sztompka (1999), to trust some group and/or community, it will be sufficient for an individual to know and trust someone from that community. Thus, social trust is not something more complicated than inter-personal trust; all one needs is the ‘other's capability to fill one's expectations (Sztompka 1999). Sztompka (1999) points out that social trust is built on expectations about the other's actions and characters. In terms of actions, consistency, reasonableness, and efficiency are the main elements people expect from others to have social trust. More precisely, we expect the other(s) to have predictable, not chaotic, actions to rely on them. Moreover, a trustworthy person for people has a morally responsible character. In other words, we expect others to be kind, egalitarian, and truthful to rely on (Sztompka 1999). These expectations in inter-personal relations generate the base for inter-group social trust as well.

23 Argument and Causal Mechanism:

In line with the previous researches, which suggest that to construct inter-group trust, continuous positive interaction between the parties is a necessary element, this thesis's main argument emerges from the assumption that post-war inter-group social trust in the long run, will be higher among the IDP who were displaced from the places where there were no barriers for continuous inter-group contact. Because the theories suggest that contact allows to gain information regarding the out-group members, and information eliminates prejudices, thus increases the inter-group trust. In other words, this study argues that in the cases where the pre-war contact was low, in the long run, the post-war inter-group social trust will be lower compared to the cases where the pre-war contact was higher in quality and quantity.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable + information regarding the Variation in Pre-war outgroup members Variation in Post-War Inter-group social trust inter-group contact + reduction of prejudices in the long-run

Figure 1: Causal Mechanism

The above causal mechanism also indicates that it is also expected to observe a lower level of impact of FID and war-related traumatic experiences on the inter-group trust condition of the IDP who were displaced from heterogeneous areas compared to those who were displaced from homogenous areas due to the effect of (IV) pre-war contact on the inter-group forgiveness and improvement the sense of solidarity. That is, the war-related forced displacement is expected to have a stronger negative impact on the inter-group post-war social trust of IDP who were displaced from homogenous areas. This assumption emerges through a bilateral factor of the war-related forced displacement. Initially, FID as an experience amplifies distrust between ethnic communities who experienced civil war since it has detrimental effects on the societies and if the wartime or displacement period has been the first contact with the conflicting party 'negative traumatic experiences' draw, in its simplest form, an "untrustworthy" profile regarding the conflicting community. Secondarily, war-related FID has a divisive function between social groups through which it triggers and perpetuates the 'us and them' dichotomy. If the quantity of

24 positive interaction is low, the effect of traumas is expected to be higher. This expectation is drawn from the collective vulnerability approach and helped to draw the expected causal relationship in detail.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Pre-war inter-group Post-war inter-group contact social trust in the long-run

Absence Presence Higher Lower

(+) Collective Information Lower prejudices (+) Biased Inter-group solidarity Higher Information Prejudices (+) Collective experience

(+) Traumatic experience of war + FID

Figure 2: Causal Relationship in Detail

As a result, this study argues that pre-war contact decreases the destructive impact of FID on post-war social trust by allowing the collective experience of war and increasing inter-group solidarity. This indicates that pre-war inter-group contact variation will lead to a variation on the post-war inter-group trust of second-generation IDP as well. Thus, this study expects to observe a higher level of post-war inter-group trust among the second generation of IDP whose families are displaced from the heterogeneous areas compared to the IDP whose families are displaced from homogenous areas. Hence, in the cases where there is a prolonged FID, the impact of pre-war inter-group contact is expected to have a long-term effect. Here there are three reasons for this expectation that must be briefly explained. First of all, in cases where the people have highly violent and traumatic

25 memories about the out-group members and apart from these memories have no or little pre-war contact with the out-group members, they will remember nothing but violence, and this will feed their distrust in the long run. Secondly, in the cases where the people lived in a homogenous community before and during wartime, they will have biased war knowledge since they will not witness the conflicting party's suffering. Thirdly, as explained in psychology studies, inter- personal relations pave the way for the emergence of inter-group relations; that is, personal perceptions regarding the outgroup members are defined by, and in turn defines, the communal perception about another community (Bernard 1951). This indicates that their parents' perceptions will shape the second generation IDP's perception, and one generation's biased knowledge and dis/trust will be transmitted to the second generation. This means that trust can be understood as something 'contagious'. This understanding is the base of this thesis' argument of expecting a long-run effect of pre-war contact. It should also be noted that pre-war intergroup contact is not expected to be the only variable having a powerful effect on the post-war inter-group social trust. However, in light of the previous research, it is taken as a factor that is expected to have a major impact on the outcome. Thus, this research will also investigate the alternative factors eliminating the prejudices which can have an additional influence on the outcome, such as post-war inter-group interaction and education.

26 4. RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1. Method and Case Selection In order to test the suggested hypothesis (H1: pre-war inter-group contact increases the post- war inter-group social trust of internally displaced people in the long-run) empirically, examine the suggested causal relationship, and analyze if there is an alternative explanation for the variances on post-war inter-group social trust this study will be based on a qualitative single-case analysis with a constructivist perspective. The constructivist approach recognizes the importance of both the "subjective human creation of meaning" (Miller & Crabtree 1999: 10; quoted from: Baxter & Jack 2008: 545) and objectivity on "social construction of reality" (Baxter & Jack 2008: 545). In other words, the variation of post-war inter-group social trust will be analyzed with a constructivist perspective aiming to examine both subjective and objective construction of knowledge by not only being based on the existing sources but also doing field research and analyzing the subjective angle of creation of meaning. Case studies are used by researchers to develop and evaluate theories, formulate hypotheses, and explain a phenomenon by using theories and causal mechanisms (Bennett 2004; Vennesson 2008). Social inter-group trust is a complex phenomenon. In social studies where the phenomenon under investigation is complex, and the focus of the study is to explore the 'how' question, as it is in this study, the research question can be best answered using the method of qualitative case study since it allows to investigate the phenomenon from different lenses as it requires the usage of a variety of data sources (Baxter & Jack 2008). In this regard, since the existing research does not provide sufficient information to analyze this research's question empirically, this study will primarily use two different types of sources. In addition to the document analysis based on secondary sources, such as written records (e.g., newspapers, archival and statistical records, and documentaries), this thesis will also be based on original (primary) sources; which will be gathered from in-depth interviews (Johnson, Reynolds & Mycoff 2015). The 'case' will be the study's unit of analysis, so if the selected case is not suitable to answer the phenomenon in question, the findings of the research will be biased. That is why case selection defines the success and feasibility of every study (Baxter & Jack 2008). In this regard, chosen with a purposive (strategic) case selection technique (Ruffa 2020), the case of this study is Cyprus. Drawing the case boundaries has helped this study in the process of case selection. For

27 this study, the keywords defining the boundaries are pre-war inter-group contact, civil war, partition through forced internal displacement, and long-run. An examination of social conflicts has revealed that Cyprus is the most prolonged frozen conflict in which there were ethnic communities who were living homogenously and heterogeneously in different areas and have experienced civil war and displacement, and currently, there is a social conflict where the homogenous groups still living apart (Ker-Lindsay 2011). In other words, Cyprus is selected as the case for this study since it displays relevant features for the hypothesized characteristics; in its current environment, there are people who came from homogenous areas and had no or little contact with the conflicting party before and after the war. Our focus is the pre-war contact, yet, if the contact has a positive impact on trust as expected, if there was an environment of post-war heterogeneity or frequent inter-group contact in the case of study, the collected information could create biases on the findings.

4.2 Time Period and Data Sources In analyzing the forced internal displacement and the post-war trust, the time period of this research is based on a two-phased manner; covering both the pre-and post-1974 (post-war) period of Cyprus till today, since 1974 is the year when the civil war ended up with the forced internal displacement and partition of the communities, and the internally displaced people could not return home yet (Ker-Lindsay 2011). Investigation of the first phase, the pre-war period, mainly focuses on collecting the information regarding the pre-partition inter-group contact to analyze the similarities and differences of the people's intergroup trust having heterogeneous and homogenous community backgrounds. Furthermore, the second phase, the post-war period, is the frame for analyzing the variation of post-war trust. This 47-years post-war period seems to be an appropriate time frame for analyzing the post-war inter-group social trust in the long run for this study. Thus, this two-phased time frame is suitable to analyze under what conditions the internally displaced people tend to trust more/less the conflicting party in the post-war context. This research will be based on original sources collected from in-depth interviews. This means the secondary sources such as written records (e.g., newspapers, archival and statistical records) are used only to develop the hypothesis and expected causal pathway. The written records mainly consist of previous research regarding the post-war outgroup perceptions and attitudes of the indigenous people of Cyprus, including the IDP. Among these sources, the ones which guided the generation of the hypothesis of this research have been an economic

28 experiment (Ekici et al. 2016) and psychological research (Psaltis et al. 2019). However, the analysis revealed that these secondary sources are not sufficient to answer the research question of this thesis empirically, to test the hypothesis, and explore the causal pathway. Thus, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the causal mechanism, this study will collect primary (original) data with the method of in-depth interviews and mainly focus on these data in explaining the causal mechanism. To collect data from the addressing the population of this study. An interview guide1 was developed based on a comprehensive analysis of previous research before starting the field research. This study's population is the internally displaced people (IDP) of Cyprus. The research participants are selected from one part of the divide of the island, from the north. The majority of the inhabitants of the north Cyprus experienced internal forced displacement at several phases of the conflict (Bryant 2012). This study will consist of the collection of data from the internally displaced Cypriots who migrated from the south to the north as a result of the war. In order to examine the long-term effect of pre-war inter-group contact on the post-war inter-group social trust of IDP, this study collected information from both IDP and the second generation (the children) of IDP. Thus, the sample consists of 18 people in total, including 14 displaced Turkish-Cypriot people and 4 second-generation IDP. Among these 18 people, 10 of them are coming from heterogeneous areas in which Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots were living together until the displacement, and 8 are from homogenous areas where there were only the Turkish-Cypriots. By choosing these samples of the same ethnicity with different backgrounds (in terms of their homogeneity and heterogeneity of pre-war habitats), the aim of this study is to compare the opinions of the people who have had a different level of pre-war inter-group contacts to explore the long-run conditions of post-war inter-group social trust. The participants2 were selected with the snowball sampling technique. To increase the generalizability of the findings, I had got in touch with people from one non-governmental organization based in Cyprus, two political parties with different wings (right-wing and left- wing), and the local governors of two villages. These people helped me to get in touch with men and women from different areas. As a result, 18 people; consisting of 9 men and 9 women, from

1 The interview questions can be found in the Appendix. 2 In this paper the terms respondents, participants and interviewees are used interchangeably.

29 five different locations, with diverse age groups from 19 to 74, with different occupations, generated this study’s sample3. The main language of the population under investigation is Turkish. In this regard, the informed consent form and the interview questions were firstly written in English, translated into Turkish so that the interviews are conducted in the main language of the participants. Collected information has been translated into English.

4.3 Research Ethics: In regard to the ethical considerations, this research is in line with the three principles of the "Belmont Report"; (i) Respect for persons, (ii) Beneficence, and (iii) Justice (Belmont Report 1979). For the principle of "respect for persons", this study consists only the adults who are over 18 and are not with diminished capacity, and the research respect the participants' integrity, freedom, and right to participate (Johnson, Reynolds & Mycoff 2015). According to Belmont Report (1979), the principle of beneficence requires maximization of benefits and minimization of harms. Since the participants are the people whose parents and/or themselves were displaced as a result of the war, there is a risk of re-traumatization as a result of their participation. Thus, to minimize possible harms, the questions related to the wartime period were cautiously designed and asked. Also, as the requirement of the principle of justice, the participants were informed about this risk in the informed consent form. This study made sure that the participants understood the research's aim, procedure, risks, and benefits of the project before giving their consent, and their consent was taken orally in the meeting before the interview starts. As a researcher, I am an indigenous Cypriot, so this is an "insider research". Thus, another ethical consideration of this research is my role as being both an insider and the researcher, having a role with its own rights and duties in my society and having a role with its own rights and duties as a researcher (Toy-Cronin 2018). To ensure transparency, I have also been transparent about my identity with the respondents. Moreover, two of the respondents were my relatives, yet to ensure the participants' privacy, anything that can be considered as identifiers will not be expressed in any part of this thesis, and instead of their names, there will be codes like the other respondents. The coding will be as follows:

3 The list of interviewees can be found in the Appendix.

30 For the people who were displaced from heterogenous areas: HTIDP, and a number indicating their sequence in interviews, i.e., for the first participant from this category: HTIDP1; for the people who were displaced from heterogenous areas: HMIDP- and a sequence number with the same logic. Furthermore, for the second generation IDP who are from heterogenous areas: HTIDP2ndG, and for those who are from homogenous areas HMIDP2ndG, each participant will also have a sequence number as stated. Cyprus is a place of frozen (unresolved) conflict since 1974, so it is a popular case for field research. This means that local people may suffer from research fatigue as a result of being over-researched (Voloder & Kirpitchenko: 2013; 2014; 2016). This can affect this research in mainly two ways, (i) ethically and (ii) methodologically. It may be unethical to do research on individuals that have been subjected to numerous research already, and to take up their time. However, there is no sufficient information available on the topic of this thesis, so there was a need to collect firsthand insights. This fact is expected to balance the potential ethical implications since this data is collected to answer the main research question. Moreover, methodologically, if research fatigue is an issue, the locals would be hesitant to participate in this project due to distrust or tiredness, and this could endanger the success of the interviews. Nevertheless, 18 people with a variety of identities have been a sufficient amount as a sample. In both regards, a positionality as an insider researcher also helped this research to overcome the potential ethical and methodological problems since I speak the local's language, have a similar background with them, and know their red-lines better than an outsider researcher. In fact, this positionality has also been an advantage for this research both in the process of understanding the variables, gaining access to prospective interviewees, and accessing information that might have been limited to an outsider researcher (Voloder & Kirpitchenko: 2013; 2014; 2016). Moreover, since the locals are used to these types of research, I also have had easier access to the gatekeepers. The research questionnaire is carefully designed to reduce the risk of re-traumatization by refraining from asking unnecessary details and questions, especially about the wartime period, and the interviews start with warm-up questions. During the interviews, my role was actively listening. That is, I have listened to the respondents carefully and rephrased the important information to make sure that I understand what he/she intended to say. I have been patient and

31 allowed the respondent to speak freely. I have asked open-ended questions and took notes, and in cases where they have consent, the participants' answers have been recorded. The pandemic situation creates further ethical risks for the respondents, i.e., health risks. To eliminate the potential risks, I have offered the prospective participants two alternative options for the method of interviews; interviewing via telephone and online interviewing via Zoom. None of the respondents have chosen the telephone interviews. Out of eighteen participants, twelve of them preferred to conduct interviews face-to-face. In this case, before conducting interviews in the respondents’ personal setting, I have taken all precautions in line with the government recommendations making sure that the respondents were vaccinated, and/or using a face mask throughout the interviews, and sitting distanced. With respect to data protection, I have taken all precautions to prevent unauthorized individuals from having access to the collected information in forms where interviewees are identified or identifiable. Thus, I kept my handwritten notes in a safe place when I am not working with them, and I kept my electronic notes and records in my personal computer for a specific length of time after the project and destroyed them in a secure manner. Since there are also digital risks; such as "theft, loss, confiscation or interception of digitally held data" (van Baalen 2018: 7) to protect the information and the respondents' confidentiality, I assigned each respondent an anonymous code that I use for notes and stored which name a code belongs to in a separate password-protected document to preserve the respondents' anonymity in the digital records, and for this, I ensured that I am using strong passwords and routinely securing the storage of the data and deletion (van Baalen 2018). The recorded interviews4 have been transcribed carefully before starting analysis.

4.4 Structure of Analysis This research will be structured on the collection, presentation, and analysis of the revealed data. As the collection method of the data is pointed out in the previous section, this part will be based on the structure of the presentation and analysis of the data. Before presenting the collected data, the following section will begin with the operationalization of the variables that will allow this research to measure the findings. Then a brief representation of the case, Cyprus, will follow. In this regard, Cyprus’s social and historical

4 The transcribed interviews are available upon request but can be censored to protect privacy of the respondents.

32 background, conflict, internal displacement, and post-war condition will be examined with the aim of providing a brief understanding of the case of this study. The next part will be data presentation. For this, the same set of questions will be asked for the given information of each interviewee to categorize the findings. In this regard, the collected information will be summarized and supported with tables to increase readability and provide a brief outline for the findings. The analysis of the data will be presented in line with the tables in two categories, HTIDP (internally displaced people from heterogeneous areas) and HMIDP (internally displaced people from homogenous areas). Thus, the analysis of the data will allow the comparison of the two categories of IDP. Throughout the data presentation, the in- depth analysis will be revealed through the quotations from interviews. This step will allow the examination of theorized correlation and causality. In this regard, the comparison between two categories of IDP is made in order to examine both the correlation between the pre-war inter- group contact and post-war inter-group social trust and its causality. For this reason, firstly, both the quantity and quality of pre-war inter-group contact and the variation of post-war inter-group social trust of each respondent will be examined and analyzed. Secondly, the outcome revealed from the two categories of IDP will be compared, and a conclusion will be drawn. Thirdly, the conclusion will be compared with the theoretical expectations of this study to assess if the hypothesis holds true and examine the explanatory power of the expected causal mechanism. Furthermore, the fourth step will be based on the examination of alternative explanations, which were not explicitly suggested by the previous research but is drawn from the theoretical explanations of previous findings; merely the potential impact of post-war inter-group trust and effect of education. And before the conclusion, the last section will provide the limitations and strengths of this study.

4.5 Operationalization In order to test the hypothesis of this research, the previously examined theoretical definitions of the Pre-war inter-group contact, Partition through Forced Internal Displacement, Internally displaced people, and Post-war Inter-group Social Trust must be translated into the operational definitions to create a base to analyze the concepts empirically. Therefore, the following section explores the operational definitions of these variables.

33 Pre-war Inter-group Contact: The conceptualization of pre-war intergroup contact highlights three main aspects defining this concept's conditions: Heterogeneity and Homogeneity of the areas, the quantity (frequency) of the contact, and quality (positivity level; such as cooperation, friendship) of the contact, and knowledge about the conflicting party. Thus, the questions to assess the degree of pre-war intergroup conduct will be focused on three main categories:

- To assess the quantity of the contact: How was the area that the respondents were living before the displacement in terms of homogeneity and heterogeneity? In other words, to what degree the participants’ community was mixed with the conflicting party before the displacement? - To assess the quality of the contact: How were the pre-war inter-group relations? - To assess the source of knowledge regarding the conflicting party: What have constructed the respondents’ knowledge about the out-group members; individual experiences, family experiences, and/or written sources and documentaries.

Partition through Civil-War related Forced Internal Displacement (FID): The conceptualization of partition through FID highlights two main factors defining the concept's conditions: (1) Being internally displaced at least one time (2) territorial borders between communities. The following question will be asked to assess the condition of internal displacement and partition: How many times have the participants or their family have experienced internal displacement before the partition?

Post-war Inter-group Social Trust: In order to assess the level of social trust among the IDP, the main indicators are divided into two categories: 1- The expectations: Expected actions about the conflicting party: i.e., consistency, reasonableness, efficiency. 2- The perceptions: Definitions about the conflicting party's characteristics: Culture, Behavior, Values; egalitarianism, justice, communal interests, and respect.

34 Thus, the questions to assess the post-war inter-group social trust will be as follows: - How do participants perceive the conflicting party in terms of characteristics, values, and culture? - How the participants define the conflicting party’s perception of the participants’ community? - How do the participants think about cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party?

The above information has structured this study’s examination of the Cyprus case. Before the presentation of data and analysis, the following section will provide a brief picture of Cyprus’ social and historical background and the key variables of the conflict.

35 5. CYPRUS

5.1 Social and Historical Background:

The Cyprus island "lies at the farthest eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea at the crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia" (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 1), and it is a home for ethnically and religiously diverse communities. Among these communities, there are two majority groups; Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots, and the inhabitant minorities are Maronites, Armenians, Latinas, and Roma people (Ker-Lindsay 2011). Although the Greek-Cypriot community are greater in size and has more rooted origins on the island, research revealed that the Turkish- Cypriot community has at least 450 years of origin in Cyprus, since their first members' official arrival as a group has been by the time of Ottoman Conquest (1571) of the island (Ker-Lindsay 2011). In Cyprus, the identical division of the majorities emerges through both ethnic and religious diversities, being Turkish, Greek, Muslim, and Christian (Ker-Lindsay 2011). However, the social identity definitions do not have a clear-cut, generally accepted title for both communities. While some Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots prefer to highlight their Turkish and Greek ethnic identity, some define themselves as Cypriots as ‘first, and foremost’ (Ker- Lindsay 2011). Indeed, this fact reflects the variances of social group consciousness, which also defines the variation of understanding the ‘inter-group’ relations among Cypriots. Identity formation, group division, social group consciousness, and inter-group clashes have direct links with political moves in Cyprus. The initial critical identity problems emerged during the Ottoman Conquest (1521-1878) in Cyprus in two dimensions (Ker-Lindsay 2011; Dodd 2010). Firstly, Although some edicts were considered as a move for “social integrity”, like ensuring the power of the Orthodox church in state affairs, most of the political moves have been ‘punitive’, like tax surcharge for non- Muslim people of Cyprus. Secondly, by the emergence of the idea of Greek Nation-State formation, the Ottoman rule massacred approximately 100 Cypriot Helens beginning with the execution of archbishop Kiprianu and motivated this move with an idea of suppressing the emergence of Greek riots in Cyprus (Kizilyurek 2016). These issues are represented in the documents as the “Turks slaughtered Helens”, indeed, the Ottomans were not defining their identity as Turk, and the people who were tortured were not killed because they are “Helen”. In

36 other words, the Muslim rulers’ main motivation in this massacre was not “ethnic identity” or “nation”, and the Muslim Cypriots have not supported this violence (Kizilyurek 2016: 20-21). Nevertheless, as Kizilyurek (2016) pointed out, as the riots emerging against central authority, the imperial wars, do not have an ethnic content, the emperors’ violence against the governed does not have an ethnic or national extent (Kizilyurek 2016: 21). Nevertheless, the 1821 massacre created the first ground of Helen nationalism on the island, and this issue is still taught in the schools as the “Turkish Savagery” (Kizilyurek 2016: 21). By the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century, Cyprus Convention was signed between the Ottoman Empire and Britain at the Congress of Berlin (1878) and pave the way for British colonialism in Cyprus (Ker-Lindsay 2011). The Greek-Cypriots welcomed British rule since they were considering this fact as a step towards ENOSIS; unification with Greece (Dodd 2010: 5-6). In fact, the British rule neither supported the idea of unification with Greece nor a common Cypriot identity (Henn 2004; Ker-Lindsay 2011). Indeed, the British rule promoted the idea of a “divide and rule” strategy in Cyprus, which increased the ethnic division and inter-communal violence and paved the way for the emergence of Cyprus Conflict (Kizilyurek 2016; Ker-Lindsay 2011).

5.2 The Pathway to the Partition The British rule’s rejection of the island’s unification with Greece, ENOSIS, led to the emergence of the first violent riots in 1931. The response of the British rule has been a prohibition “prohibition on political parties, censorship of the press and a ban on flying the Greek flag” (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 17). These measures have not been effective to suppress the riots, and in 1955, the Greek-Cypriot community officially announced the formation of a Greek- Cypriot militia named EOKA (the National Organization of Cyprus Fighters) (Ker-Lindsay 2011). EOKA’s representatives invited the Turkish community’s representatives “to take a conciliatory line” in this movement by explaining their main aim and clarifying that the movement is not against the Turkish-Cypriots, but against British colonial rule (Ker-Lindsay 2011:21). However, the Turkish-Cypriot community’s rejection of ENOSIS led them to choose an active collaboration with British colonial rule against EOKA (Ker-Lindsay 2011). Following this decision, a partition policy called “Taksim” was promoted by some group of Turkish-

37 Cypriot people, and from this stance, the Taksim promoters founded the national guerilla organization called “Volkan”, and with the support of Turkey, the organization has developed to be the “Turkish Resistance Movement” (TMT) (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 22). On the 11th of January 1956, a Turkish-Cypriot police Abdullah Cavus was killed by EOKA. Although he was killed like other Greek-Cypriot polices because he was serving to the government; he one of the polices who was busted EOKA’s boat and later arrested a young member of EOKA, for the Turkish-Cypriot community’s perception “he was killed since he was a Turkish-Cypriot” (Kizilyurek 2016: 113). As a result, the Turkish-Cypriots took an island-wide contra-movement against this incident (Kizilyurek 2016). These movements led to the emergence of ethnic tension, and the first displacements from mixed areas emerged (Kizilyurek 2016). By the last decade of the 1950s, the Turkish-Cypriot elites started to propagate Taksim clearly by spreading the saying “we cannot live together” (Kizilyurek 2016: 161). Meanwhile, Great Britain has proposed Radcliffe’s “self-government” idea, which was resulted in the rejection of Greek-Cypriots and Greece. As a strategic move, the "British Government had acknowledged that Turkish-Cypriots also had a separate right of self-determination. From this moment the Turkish-Cypriots were officially and effectively upgraded from minority status to a full community." (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 24). With this move in 1958, after the negotiations with the Greek-Cypriot religious leader Makarios, with an understanding of ENOSIS’ impossibility without taksim (Henn 2004: 9), he declared that "independence rather than enosis, would be an acceptable solution for Cyprus." (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 25). In 1959, the two communities’ leaders, Makarios and Denktash, met for negotiation in Zurich within this framework. After the negotiations of representatives of both communities and Great Britain, in 1960, an "agreement was signed, and the British flag was lowered, the Republic of Cyprus officially came into being." (Ker-Lindsay 2011: 25). By this agreement, Britain, Greece, and Turkey remained in this issue as guarantor powers. However, the problems among the two communities arose again, mainly over the power-sharing issues (Ker-Lindsay 2011). As a response to the increasing inter-communal tensions, on March 4, 1964, the United Nations (UN) Security Council established a UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus (UNFICYP n.d.). "UNFICYP is one of the longest-running UN Peacekeeping missions. It was set up in 1964 to

38 prevent further fighting between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities on the island and bring about a return to normal conditions" (UNFICYP n.d.). However, the Military Coup D'état in Greece (April 1967) rekindled the hope for ENOSIS in Cyprus and caused the reemergence of inter-communal violence (Ker-Lindsay 2011). To suppress the violence, Turkey bombed EOKA forces in 1967. In the following year, in May 1968, the parties turn back to the negotiation table. Meanwhile, the inter-communal violence was suppressed, and tensions were lowered; however, there emerged intra-communal violence among the Greek-Cypriots (Gürel et al. 2012) as a result of political disputes (Kizilyurek 2016). By late 1971, EOKA secretly evolved to EOKA B, started a terrorist campaign against Makarios, and attempted to launch a coup to pursue enosis (Gürel et al. 2012). As a result, the dialog between the parties was damaged. Turkey responded militarily on 20 July 1974. Despite the UN’s calls for protection of the integrity and independence of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey’s intervention continued with a second move on 14 August 1974 (Ker-Lindsay 2011). With this intervention, Turkey “took control of 36% of the island and created a Turkish-Cypriot- controlled area in its north” (Gürel et al. 2012: 8). Hence, the intervention resulted in the partition of the island, and the partition strategy necessitated internal displacement for both Turkish-Cypriots and Greek Cypriots (Gürel et al. 2012).

5.3 Internal Displacement in Cyprus (the 1950s-1975) Until the second half of the 1950s, “Cyprus was more of a receiving country for displaced persons from nearby countries” (Gürel et al. 2012: 4). Although in the pre-war, pre-1974 context some of the internal migration was caused by several different factors such as urbanization, the increasing ethnic tensions have been a main driving force of the displacements in Cyprus during the period of 1950s-1975 (Gürel et al. 2012). By the emergence of inter-group clashes, the heterogeneous areas started to homogenize. However, mass homogenization has happened by the 1974’s civil war, which ended up in 1975’s population exchange and partition of the island. Both communities have been displaced in four waves (Gürel et al. 2012). First, some of the northern Greek-Cypriots have immediately fled to the south after the military intervention of Turkey. Secondly, some decided to stay but were surrendered. Thirdly, they were enclaved in various areas and taken to the camps; approximately 6000 Greek-Cypriots have been “prisoner of war” (Gürel et al. 2012). “During this period mistreatment, harassment, rapes and some instances of murder were recorded” (Gürel et al. 2012: 9). Furthermore, the fourth phase of

39 displacement has been a result of the Vienna III Agreement in 1975, which allowed the “voluntary and assisted movement to the south of those Greek-Cypriots still remaining in the north, and of Turkish-Cypriots from south to north” (Gürel et al. 2012: 9). As a result of the 1974 incidents, approximately 162,000 Greek Cypriots were internally displaced (Gürel et al. 2012). Similar phases of displacement have occurred for the Turkish-Cypriot IDP as well.

First, the Turkish Cypriots who were near the Turkish controlled area or the UN patrolled area (Green Line) found a way to cross to the Turkish controlled area. The second, the Turkish- Cypriots who were not close to the Green Line tried several ways, such as paying a Greek- Cypriot person to help them (Gürel et al. 2012). Moreover, the third wave has been over the British refugee camps. “Approximately 10,000 persons who sought refuge in the British bases were transferred to the north via Turkey in January 1975” (Gürel et al. 2012: 10). The fourth wave has been a result of the Vienna Agreement when the Turkish Cypriots who remained in the south were allowed to migrate to the north. In the 1974-75 period, in total, 48,000 Turkish- Cypriots have been displaced. As a result, the south and north are homogenized by 1975 (Gürel et al. 2012).

5.4 Post-war Period of Cyprus (1974 Onwards): Cyprus is "Europe's longest frozen conflict" (The Economist 2016). The dispute in Cyprus is in its fourth decade, and the reason for the prolongation of this conflict remained controversial as its emergence. Some studies expressed 1974 as the uprising of Cyprus problem when Turkey intervened in Cyprus, while others talk about the pre-1970s as the emergence of inter-communal violence. In the background of these different perspectives explaining the Cyprus issue lies the political stance of the scholars. To speak more precise, mostly, those who are ethnically close to the Turkish lines state that the problem emerged long before the Turkish 'intervention', while the scholars who are ethnically closer to the Greek line explain that the Cyprus issue by stating that 1974's action of Turkey was not an intervention, but 'invasion' and the Cyprus problem emerged through that invasion (Ker-Lindsay 2011). Yet above all, the most important issue of the Cyprus problem is not anymore the question of "why the conflict emerged?" but the fact that the people of Cyprus are living separated, as Northern and Southern inhabitants, since 1974, and it is not only the conflict is frozen but also bicommunal relations are still needs to be de-iced since the effort for peacebuilding is continuing, and the partition

40 scuppers economic, social, and political development, thus scuppers the possibility of a sustainable peace-building on the island.

6. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA AND ANALYSIS The previous section has provided background information for the pre-war, displacement, and post-war period of Cyprus. This section will be based on the presentation of the data collected from the interviews and analysis of the revealed data. To begin with, all the IDP coming from heterogeneous areas (HTIDP) revealed that their quantity/frequency of inter-group contact was at ‘everyday level’, and the type of the quality of contact for all ten HTIDP was in the manner of friendship, neighborhood, and cooperation. Among the HTIDP category, three of the interviewees revealed that their family has experienced inter-group conflict caused FID several times between the 1950s-1975. Not differentiating from the other HTIDP’s perspectives, they pointed out that, “War is a painful experience for all individuals from all communities. You cannot judge one’s personality or one community’s character based on the war experiences. We cannot forget that we have shared good times; we have good memories with these (Greek Cypriot) people. We cannot underestimate the value of cooperation and sharing.” (HTIDP1 2021)

“Before the war, we (Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots) were like families. In 1974, the ‘fascists’ mistreated us. They were calling us “dog Turks”. However, these were the Greek Cypriots whose families were killed by the Turks. One day, they (Turkish-Cypriots) said that a Greek-Cypriot opened fire to a Turkish- Cypriot in the bazaar. As a response, the Turkish-Cypriots opened fire to the Greek bazaar and created a massacre. We both did horrible things against each other. We cannot judge them by looking at the wartime period. Both parties did cruel things during the war.” (HTIDP8 2021).

“Displacement was a very traumatic experience for all of us…We know that the two communities (Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots) caused pain for each other, but we also know that we have done so many good things to each other before the war.” (HTIDP5 2021).

41 These three views of IDP who experienced FID several times is a shared perspective among all HTIDP, including the second generation. All the respondents from this category highlighted that the pre-war inter-group relations and cooperation allowed them “to learn about the other group (Greek-Cypriots), to cooperate, and build trust-worthy relations” (HTIDP 2021). The point of “we cannot judge them by looking to the wartime experiences” also had a common stance of all HTIDP’s inter-group perception. Besides, they claim that their experiences created “good” expectations regarding the out-group members. These expectations have been mostly shaped around the vulnerable instances of the respondents. Below there are some examples of these instances from the interview excerpts.

“At the beginning of ethnic issues, I was a child, and I have had serious health issues. My mother took me to a Greek doctor, and the doctor’s clinique was in the Greek area. I remember that whenever we go, there were Greek people in the queue, but the doctor was taking us first not to make us feel discriminated because of the issues, and the Greek people in the queue were kindly accepting this. When I look back now, I understand that they were egalitarian, they were not trying to spoil our rights or our civic position, but just the opposite, they were trying to protect our rights.” (HTIDP3 2021).

“In our village, people were bonding stones in their fields to protect the soil, and Greek- Cypriot officials were paying them. We were also doing this with my brother. Although we were just children and we were Turkish-Cypriots, they were paying us as well. At that age, I would not see the matter of this fact at the time, but when I grew up, I understood that they were not exploiting our rights; they were treating us equally as they treat the Greek-Cypriots” (HTIDP4 2021).

“My brother was killed by his Greek-Cypriot friend during the civil conflict. However, I do not have grievance or distrust for the Greek-Cypriots. We all know that the violence was due to wartime issues, and we also know that when the Greek soldiers attacked our village to kill Turkish-Cypriots, our Greek-Cypriot villagers laid down on the roads and did not allow the Greek soldiers to come to our area. Our neighbor Greek-Cypriots have protected us. How can I say that ‘all of the Greek-Cypriots are unreliable, bad people?!” (HTIDP2 2021).

42 Many of the HTIDP also mentioned the wartime inter-group cooperation as a reason for their trust. The wartime inter-group cooperation has also been experienced by three of the IDP coming from homogenous areas, and the level of distrust is differentiated among them as their pre-war inter-group contact variation. The responses of these interviewees are as follows:

“During the wartime, the British soldiers brought us to a safer place; to their tents. My father was a shepherd, and he did not want to leave our animals. He left the tents to feed his animals. He got face to face with the Greek-Cypriot soldiers on the way, but they let my father go. They did not harm him. They would because there was war, but although we were not close neighbors, our villages were neighbors, and one cannot willingly harm his/her neighbor.” (HMIDP1 2021)

This interviewee points out that she trust the old generation but does not know how the youth perceive Turkish-Cypriots thus cannot trust them. On the other hand, the two HMIDP respondents who do not have frequent pre-war contact mentioned that some Greek-Cypriots helped them during the wartime on the way of migration. However, their inter-group distrust is expressed as follows:

“I know that there are good people among Greek-Cypriots as well, but their number is quite small. Most of them are fascist and racist. I cannot trust them without a peace agreement.” (HMIDP2 2021)

“Although there are some good people among Greek-Cypriots who respect us, the majority is unscrupulous and unjust. They killed babies. I cannot trust any of them in any way.” (HMIDP3 2021)

Moreover, people coming from homogenous areas (HMIDP) pointed out that their inter-group contact quantity was not at an everyday level, and mostly the inter-group contact was around work relations. Among the eight HMIDP respondents, two of them revealed that their families had experienced FID several times during the 1950s-1975. One of them, HMIDP6, has no pre- war contact, while the other, HMIDP3, has some level of business-related inter-group contact. These two IDP pointed out that:

43 “They (Greek-Cypriots) harmed my family. How can I trust them? Maybe there are good people among them as well. But I know that the majority is not trustworthy. They are not like us (Turkish-Cypriots).” (HMIDP3 2021).

“My family did not get harm during the war and displacement. But, I remember everyone was talking about the fact that they (Greek-Cypriots) harmed innocent people, even babies, and elderly Turkish-Cypriots. There is a saying which my mother was always telling me; ‘as you cannot make a fur from a pig; you cannot make a friend from a Greek’. They are a threat to our existence. How can we trust them?” (HMIDP6 2021).

The point “as you cannot make a fur from a pig; you cannot make a friend from a Greek” has been a common intergroup perception among five respondents of the eight HMIDP interviewees. Their distrust is constructed mainly through wartime communal experiences. The inter-group perception of the HMIDP whose family got harm during the conflict and whose have not is not differentiated; both reveal an explicit intergroup distrust. However, the perceptions of the HMIDP who have had inter-group friendships and more frequent contact compared to the others are differentiated from the others: they reveal some level of inter-group trust by pointing out that they trust the older generation whom they have had contact.

“There was a Greek village next to our area, and we were working together in the field. Although we do not speak their language, we have had good relations… I think the Greek-Cypriots who lived in the old times see the Turkish-Cypriots as a part of their community, so they are more trustworthy. Because they know friendship, know the truth about the conflict, and know us (Turkish-Cypriots). However, I do not know the younger generation, so I do not know how they think about us.” (HMIDP1 2021).

“I trust the people whom I cooperated with. I have some Greek-Cypriot friends, I trust them. But we witnessed genocide; how can I trust their community without a political agreement?” (HMIDP2 2021).

The variations of the inter-group experiences and opinions of different categories of IDP are presented with the interview excerpts above. Below there will be a detailed representation of the interview data revealing intergroup expectations and perceptions. This section will include three

44 parts that will be based on trust measurement indicators and allow the observer to examine the variations of post-war inter-group trust. Table 1: How do participants perceive the conflicting party in terms of characteristics, values, and culture? Table 2: How the participants define the conflicting party’s perception of the participants’ community? Table 3 and 4: How do the participants think about cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party?

6.1 Inter-Group Trust Measurement

Expectations and Perceptions: Table 1: Participants’ perceptions regarding the conflicting party, in terms of characteristics, values, and culture

Group Code: Interviewees’ definition of Greek Cypriots:

HTIDP Characteristics: “Human-being like us; they have both good 10 responses out of and bad people. They are respectful.” 10 interviewees: “Although there are fascist and racist Greek-Cypriots as well, their number is very low; most of the Greek-Cypriots are trustworthy.” Values: “Not different from the Turkish-Cypriots.” Culture: “Not different from the Turkish-Cypriots: Kind, Generous, Friendly, Cooperative.”

HMIDP Characteristics: Egoist 5 responses out of 8 “Although there may be good Greek-Cypriots as well, most of interviewees: the Greek-Cypriots are not trustworthy.” Values: “Unscrupulous, unjust, they do not have the sense of morality.” Culture: “They see their culture superior, but in reality, our culture is equal.”

45 Characteristics: “Human-being like us; they have both good HMIDP and bad people.” 3 responses out of 8 Values: “The older generation is not different from the Turkish- interviewees: Cypriots, they are respectful, but I do not know the youth.”

Culture: “The older generation is not different from the Turkish-Cypriots: Kind, Generous, Friendly, Cooperative.”

The interview data collected from 18 IDP pointed out that the IDP coming from heterogeneous areas perceive the conflicting party’s characteristics as a regular characteristic of “human-being”. All the 10 HTIDP highlighted that they consider Greek-Cypriots as a “human”; thus, they are aware that there may be untrustworthy people among them as there are in every community, and they explicitly point out, they believe that “most of the Greek-Cypriots are trust-worthy” (HTIDP 2021). They explain the reason for this belief by highlighting both their pre-war and wartime experiences. Below there are excerpts from the interviews.

“Living together with the conflicting party before the war in cooperation and peace helped me to see that they are humans like my family, and what happened during and after wartime was not the real intention of the communities but the result of incitement.” (HTIDP5 2021).

“My father’s best friend was a Greek-Cypriot man. We were together with them every day. There was mutual respect and love between us. We were not friends but family. I have learned from my experiences that I can trust Greek-Cypriots.” (HTIDP2 2021).

“I was under inpatient treatment in a public hospital before the war, and in those times the ethnic tension was emerging outside, on the national pride days of Greeks, the nurses were taking all children to the tea gardens and let them watch the ceremonies and sing national songs. In these ceremonies, the young people were walking with Greek flags and threw national slogans. I remember that the Greek nurses explained the theme and the type of these ceremonies clearly to me and led me to decide whether I want to join them or not. When I grew up, I see that they cared about my identity, values, and senses. They

46 were acting ethically. They respected me as a Turkish Cypriot child. They did not try to brainwash me. How would I say I do not trust them?” (HTIDP3 2021).

“Before the conflict during the religious fasting period of Muslims (T/Cs), the Christians (G/Cs) were not cooking something smelly, and during the fasting period of G/C, the T/C were not cooking meat because the Christians do not eat meat during their religious fasting. That was a sign of mutual respect. Moreover, in the neighborhood, I remember when there were Turkish people around, the Greek Cypriots were trying to talk in Turkish with each other, not to discomfort us. This was respect.” (HTIDP5 2021).

On the other hand, the 6 respondents of 8 HMIDP explicitly pointed out that they do trust the Greek-Cypriots as a community because they believe that the Greek-Cypriots are “egoist, unscrupulous, unjust and they do not have a sense of morality”. They support their idea by referring to the conflict experiences. Below there are some excerpts from the interviews.

“In our house, there was a martyr photo collection as an album. My family told me that one of them in the photos was a relative of my father. I grew up with that album. I will never forget. The Greeks are unscrupulous people. We cannot trust them.” (HMIDP6 2021).

“They are unscrupulous, unjust; they do not have a sense of morality. They opened fire into the houses without even checking if there are babies or elderly. They killed babies. I cannot trust these people (Greek-Cypriots).” (HMIDP3 2021).

However, the three respondents of HMIDP highlight that they and their family have had Greek- Cypriot friends before the war, and they believe that the old generation is trustworthy. But they also highlight that they do not know how the younger generation is.

In all the responses, inter-group experience and ‘knowledge’ have emerged as a variable defining the variation of post-war inter-group social trust. Thus, in the following section, the source of knowledge and its effects will be elaborated in detail. Before starting this elaboration, it is useful to represent the variations of participants ‘definition of the conflicting party’s perception of the participants’ community’ and ‘pre-war contact condition and their responses for cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party.’ With these steps, the variation of post-war inter-group trust will be elaborated.

47

Table 2: Participants’ definition of the conflicting party’s perception of the participants’ community

Interviewees’ definition of Greek Cypriots’ outgroup Group responses: perception: HTIDP: “Although there may be racist and fascist Greek- 10 responses out of 10 Cypriots that can see themselves superior, their number interviewees (Consensual is very low, and most of the Greek-Cypriots see the opinions): Turkish-Cypriots as an equal community.” “Most of them respect our identity and culture.” HMIDP: “Most of them see themselves superior and do not 5 responses out of 8 consider Turkish-Cypriots as an equal community.” interviewees: “Most of them do not respect us.”

HMIDP: 3 responses out of 8 “The old generation sees us as equal to them, respect interviewees: us, but I do not know the younger generation.”

The interview data revealed that the people who were displaced from heterogenous areas commonly argue that the conflicting party’s members mostly perceive the participants’ community as an ‘equal community’ and respect their identity and culture. However, the IDP who were displaced from homogenous areas has diverse opinions about the out-group’s perception. Out of eight respondents, five of them believe that the conflicting party sees its group, culture, and identity as “superior” and does not respect the participant’s community. However, three of the respondents of eight HMIDP highlights that they have had some level of pre-war inter-group contact and have experienced mutual respect, thus they believe that the old generation who know the Turkish-Cypriots and the ‘truth about the conflict’ see Turkish- Cypriots as an equal community, but the younger generation may be disrespectful (HMIDP1 2021; HMIDP4 2021; HMIDP2ndG1 2021). Below, there will be a detailed representation of the

48 data regarding the pre-war inter-group contact and post-war inter-group trust variations in two separate tables for both HTIDP and HMIDP samples.

Table 3: HTIDP’s pre-war inter-group contact condition and their responses for cohabitation and inter-group relationship with the conflicting party.

Code of Level of Economic Inter- Interviewee: contact Cohabitation engagement marriage Positive: “Living together is a

HTIDP1 necessity to protect our Positive Positive

Cypriot culture.” I can work Positive: “I would be happy to with those HTIDP2 cooperate again.” (Greek- Positive Cypriots) who I know Positive: “Living together is HTIDP3 Positive Positive necessary for peace.”

Positive: “We must reunify to

HTIDP4 Cooperation Friendship, Neighborhood, teach peace the new Positive Positive generation.”

HTIDP5 Quality: Positive Positive Positive

/ HTIDP6 Positive Positive Positive HTIDP7 Positive Positive Positive Both parties would feel HTIDP8 Positive Positive uncomfortable

Everyday Contact Everyday Positive: I would be happy to HTIDP2ndG1 Positive Positive have a chance to know them

HTIDP2ndG2 Positive Positive Positive Quantity:

49 The collected data from 10 people having HTIDP background revealed that, in the post-war context, in the long run, IDP coming from heterogeneous areas tend to be willing to build inter- group relations in all three dimensions: cohabitation, economic engagement, and inter-group marriage. All the 10 HTIDP respondents, including the second-generation, expressed explicitly that they share a culture and history; thus, they have strong inter-group trust for cohabitation and economic engagement, and they perceive that inter-group marriage with Greek-Cypriots is as normal as marrying with a Turkish-Cypriot. Moreover, the respondents mostly answered the questions regarding cohabitation and economic engagement by highlighting that “our ancestors have lived together in peace for centuries, we have already know cooperation” (HTIDP 2021). The second-generation HTIDP points out their inter-group trust and willingness for cooperation as follows: “I did not have a chance to get close contacts with Greek-Cypriots. But my family was living with them and told good stories about them. I do not have prejudices… I would not feel unsafe if my neighbor was Greek-Cypriots. I would feel excited to live and work with them and get a chance to learn about them. I trust them as much as I trust Turkish- Cypriots.” (HTIDP2ndG1 2021).

“I did not see distrust in my family for the Greek-Cypriots, so I do not have distrust for them as well… My grandfather was an ex-combatant; he has lived some bad incidents during wartime and displacement, but I also know that they have shared peaceful times, lived together in one area before the war. There was mutual love and trust. Most importantly, cooperation. Why not trust to renew the cooperation and learn coexistence again? We are both Cypriots!” (HTIDP2ndG2 2021).

As a result, the data revealed that the existence of pre-war cooperation and cohabitation promote long-term post-war inter-group social trust by reducing prejudices and alleviating us-them dichotomy.

50 Table 4: HMIDP’s pre-war contact condition and their responses for cohabitation and inter- group relationship with the conflicting party Code of Economic Inter- Interviewee: Level of contact Cohabitation engagement marriage HMIDP1 Quantity: Frequent Has doubts Positive Positive Quality: Friends Quantity: Not Conditional positive Positive Positive HMIDP2 frequent Quality: Friends HMIDP3 Quantity: Not Negative Negative Negative frequent Quality: Business HMIDP4 Quantity: No Has doubts Positive Positive contact. Quality: Family has some friends HMIDP5 Quantity: Not Conditional positive Positive Normal frequent Quality: Business and Friends HMIDP6 No contact Negative Negative Negative HMIDP2ndG1 Some level of Has doubts Has doubts Positive contact of the family HMIDP2ndG2 No contact Conditional positive Positive Positive

The data collected from a sample of HMIDP revealed that the older generation of IDP who have no pre-war inter-group contact and has only business relations with the outgroup members are strongly disagree about cohabitation, economic engagement, and inter-group marriage. They explicitly point out that they cannot trust to build close relations with the Greek-Cypriots with

51 the saying, “as you cannot make fur from a pig, you cannot make friends from a Greek” (HMIDP3 2021; HMIDP6 2021). On the other hand, the second generation of HMIDP whose family has no pre-war contact points out that he never got in touch with the Greek-Cypriots, he believes they are not trustworthy; however, he is also positive about economic engagement and inter-group marriage and highlights that “economy is something about cost and benefit, it does not require to trust a group, and marriage is about personal choices it is normal to marry someone from a different community.” (HMIDP2ndG2 2021). Moreover, the people who have had some level of pre-war contact and friends from the out-group mostly tend to be “conditionally positive” about cohabitation and totally positive about inter-group marriage and economic engagement. The condition here is a ‘peace agreement’. They explain the reason for this condition as follows:

“I believe that all societies are affected by their leaders. If their leader respects our rights, I do not think that society would not. I can trust the community if only their leader accepts the Turkish-Cypriots as an equal community.” (HMIDP5 2021).

“Our main issues have always been the political incentives. So, the political problems should be resolved to say that I feel safe about living with the Greek Cypriots.” (HMIDP2 2021).

In the instances where the people have no pre-war contact, but their family has had inter-group friends in the pre-war context, point out that they have some doubts about cohabitation because they are not sure if the out-group members will accept them as an equal community or not. They say:

“I do not know how they would treat me when they see that I am Turkish Cypriot. They would discriminate against me. Neither my family nor I do not have any experience living among them.” (HMIDP4 2021).

“I do not know how I would feel to be neighbors with a Greek Cypriot whom I do not know. Although my family did not get harm, we have experienced war in the past. I may feel uncomfortable and unsafe.” (HMIDP2ndG1 2021).

Moreover, the HMIDP, who had frequent pre-war inter-group contact for a short time and friendship, claims that she trust the older generation because they have a shared history and

52 culture. However, she also pointed out that she has some doubts about cohabitation because she thinks that the younger generation does not know the Turkish-Cypriots so they might be discriminative. Thus, she would feel uncomfortable living together with them (HMIDP1 2021). The analysis above pointed out that ‘knowledge’ has a value in the mechanism of pre- war inter-group contact and post-war inter-group trust since all of the respondents appeared to base their argument on their knowledge and experience about the out-group interaction. Thus, the following section will reveal the source of knowledge and its function in this mechanism.

Table 5: The source of out-group knowledge in regard to its impact on the post-war inter-group trust:

Code of the Group Source of out-group knowledge HTIDP (10 respondents) Primary source: Experiences as family, group, or in-person influenced all the respondents’ post-war inter-group trust. Secondary source: School education or books and documentaries influenced none of the respondents’ out-group trust. HMIDP (8 respondents) Primary source: Experiences as family, group or in-person influenced all the respondents’ post-war inter-group trust. Secondary source: School education or books and documentaries supported four of the respondents’ out-group distrust.

As revealed in Table 5, experiences have been considered as the main source of knowledge about the conflicting party. HTIDP’s highlighted the fact that neither school education nor the books and documentaries have been influential on the out-group perception of the respondents. Although the people who are above 70 years of age mentioned that in school education, the teachers were not trying to impose grievance and there was no contradiction between their experience and school education prior to the conflict, they think that there are contradictions between their experiences and stories in the books and documentaries. In this regard, they

53 highlight that the papers and documentaries are biased sources. Hence, their experiences have been the main source of outgroup perception. On the other hand, the respondents who are younger than 70 years of age point out that both the school education and other secondary sources do not match with their personal and parental experiences; however, the school education did not create a long-term impact on their inter-group trust. The excerpts below are to illustrate this point of view. “The information back in school and my experiences do not match. In school, especially before the war, the information was injecting grievance and nationalism. At that time, I remember how different I was feeling reading that nationalist poems and history. And I know that this biased education was a fact for the Greek-Cypriot children as well. After school, on the way home, we were seeing the Greek-Cypriot children, and we were shouting “down with the church!” and they were shouting “down with the mosque”, but then we were both laughing. Because the reality was different. In reality, after school, we were playing together. Our families were working together in the field in peace. Had I not experienced living together with the Greek-Cypriots, I would carry that fear, distrust, and grievance. But I saw that they were like one of us; our culture is one.” (HTIDP3 2021)

“Knowledge must be equal to both sides. In the streets, knowledge is equal for all of us. We have had a chance to learn the reality by living it. The history education is too biased that the children learn different stories about the same history. The children are poisoned against each other’s community. The partition allowed this poison to spread because children grow in separate areas without getting a chance to know and trust each other. They learn how and why not to trust.” (HTIDP4 2021).

The second generation of HTIDP and the ones who were children during the displacement and do not clearly remember the pre-war period also considered the school education and secondary sources biased and highlight the fact that their perception and inter-group trust are constructed by the stories that their family told. To illustrate, they claim that,

“In school, the information was too biased like the Greek-Cypriots were bad, untrustworthy, cruel, and barbarians. In movies and documentaries as well. But there was a contradiction between these stories and the ones that my family told me. How I feel and

54 think today; my vision and perception about the Greek-Cypriots are constructed by my family.” (HTIDP2ndG1 2021) One of the HTIDP respondents, who is a university professor, explained his idea about history education and its effect on inter-group relations as follows: “What kind of tool is a knife? It helps us to slice bread and share it equally with everyone. Yet, it can also be a tool to kill someone. History education is something like this. It can be dangerous in the biased hands.” (HTIDP5 2021). On the other hand, although the respondents of HMIDP was highlighted their personal, communal, and parental experience as the main source of knowledge about the out-group members, the school education, books, and other secondary sources are seemed to be supportive for out-group distrust of HMIDP. In the HMIDP category, out of 8 respondents, 1 person has never got a school education. Out of 7 HMIDP respondents who have experienced school education, 4 of them claim that the education, as well as the history books and documentaries, are not biased, but they are telling only the truth. However, the remaining three respondents of HMIDP state that there are some contradictions between their experiences as a family and the secondary sources. One of the respondents of second-generation HMIDP whose family did not have any pre-war contact with the conflicting party states that; “the information in school and the stories that my family told me does not have much contradiction, but books have missing points. What is not told in the books are the realities that the Greeks did massacre. The books talk about history like everything was bugs and flowers. But there was violence, pain, and massacre in reality.” (HMIDP2ndG2 2021). While the other whose families have had pre-war inter-group contact and who personally had some level of post-war contact claims that, “There are contradictions between the experiences that my family told me the information in the books, schools, and documentaries. I know that education has nationalist jargon on both sides (north and south). If I would base my opinion on the school information, I would not only feel insecure but also have a grievance. Experience is necessary to understand if you can trust or not trust a community.” (HMIDP2ndG1 2021).

55 7. Conclusions from within-group analysis for HTIDP and HMIDP: The previous section has provided the data and analysis that will help this study to draw a within-group conclusion and provide a cross-group comparison. This chapter will provide brief conclusions for both HTIDP and HMIDP groups and test the hypothesis of this study: continuous pre-war inter-group contact has a positive effect on inter-group post-war social trust of internally displaced people. To begin with, an analysis drawn upon a sample of internally displaced people coming from heterogeneous communities and having a high quantity (frequent) and good quality (friendship, cooperation) pre-war inter-group interaction revealed that pre-war inter-group contact eliminates the prejudices, us-and-them dichotomy, and increases the likelihood of post- war inter-group trust. In this mechanism, pre-war contact increases the ‘collective knowledge’, which seems to be an important variable eliminating the prejudices, alienation, and blaming that can arise as a result of war and displacement and increases solidarity. In other words, pre-war contact decreases the likelihood of inter-group grievances that can emerge during wartime thus, has a powerful effect on post-war inter-group perceptions and social trust. On the other hand, the interview data collected from the internally displaced people coming from homogenous areas with low or no level of pre-war inter-group contact revealed that the absence of pre-war inter-group contact increases the prejudices and decreases the likelihood of post-war inter-group trust in the long run. The misinformation and biased information are seemed to be common variables in this mechanism which increases the likelihood of prejudices and creates post-war distrust in the long run. The data also revealed that the total absence of pre- war inter-group contact opens a space for grievances and by creating biased information about the experiences of war and displacement and strengthens the us-and-them dichotomy. In this regard, the absence of collective knowledge appeared as an important variable in the mechanism of an absence of pre-war inter-group contact and its long-term effect on post-war inter-group social trust. As a result, this study’s findings supported the hypothesis of this thesis by revealing that continuous pre-war inter-group contact has a positive effect on inter-group post-war social trust of internally displaced people. Moreover, this causality has appeared to emerge through the expected causal mechanism since the data revealed that the pre-war inter-group contact allows a

56 space for the improvement of collective knowledge, decreases prejudices and grievance, thus creates a long-term effect on the inter-group social trust of IDP. The original data of this study also revealed that the long-term effect of pre-war inter- group contact on the post-war inter-group trust is appeared to grow via ‘oral history’. That is, the drawn conclusion from the interviews indicates that the main sources of inter-group knowledge for both groups of IDP, have been the parental or communal experiences as well as the personal experiences. This indicates that pre-war inter-group contact not only influences the people who experienced the pre-war environment but also the ones who have experienced the war, but do not remember the pre-war period, and those who were born after the war via oral history.

7.1 Analysis of Alternative Explanations: Based on the previous research, two alternative explanations for post-war trust variation emerge that need to be analyzed. First, since the inter-group knowledge is appeared to reduce prejudices and increase post-war inter-group trust, the conjecture of school education could have an impact on the condition of post-war inter-group social trust. This study asked all participants to describe what construct their knowledge about the Greek-Cypriots to examine this factor. The older generation answered as parental and personal experiences while the younger generation referred to the stories that their families’ told their experiences. Moreover, most of the respondents who have stronger post-war inter-group social trust pointed out that the information in secondary sources are ‘biased’ and although it created some level of fear regarding the out-group members in the school-age, the ‘good stories’ of their family regarding the pre-war inter-group relations have been powerful enough to eliminate that fear, and promote trust in the long-run. Similarly, in the instances where the pre-war contact of the family is absent, the respondents pointed out that the main source shaping their inter-group attitude and post-war inter-group social trust has been the family’s wartime stories about the conflicting party. Thus, this confirmed the expected causal mechanism and disconfirmed the expected alternative explanation by highlighting the effect of pre-war inter-group contact on post-war trust as a main independent variable. As in the previous research, the inter-group contact is found to be a powerful variable on increasing inter-group trust; the second alternative explanation of the variation on post-war inter- group social trust is appeared to be the post-war inter-group contact. This study asked particular questions to the participants to analyze; if they have had any post-war inter-group contact, the

57 type and frequency of the contact, and if there is a particular reason for taking part in such interaction to examine the potential impact of this variable on post-war inter-group trust. The answers revealed that the people whose families have had pre-war inter-group contact had some level of post-war inter-group relations, but those whose families had no pre-war inter-group contact preferred to not get in touch with the out-group members since they believe that “one cannot trust a Greek to build a relationship” (HMIDP6 2021; HMIDP2ndG2 2021). The responses also pointed out that the frequency of the post-war contacts has been very low due to the partition and the homogeneity of both communities, and although the quality of the contact has sometimes been negative, these instances did not create any impact on the post-war inter-group social trust of the IDP whose families have experienced a high quantity and quality of pre-war inter-group contact. To illustrate, four of the respondents have told a very similar negative story about post-war inter-group contact. Two respondents from HTIDP and two from HMIDP have stated that, in the post-war context, they witnessed that the Greek-Cypriot parents told their children that the Turkish-Cypriots are dogs or kallikantzaros (beast). When the respondents are asked if this experience affected their trust, the HTIDP’s pointed out that “I cannot generalize the people and think that all of the Greek-Cypriots are like this. Actually, we have those kinds of people in our community as well.” (HTIDP1 2021; HTIDP8 2021). On the other hand, the respondents who are from the homogenous communities stated that “at that point, I understood that these people do not see us even as ‘human’!” (HMIDP2 2021), “they are all like this! how can a person trust such people? (HMIDP3 2021). On the other hand, post-war positive contact is appeared to have no strong effect on the post-war inter-group trust of IDP whose families did not experience high quantity and quality of inter-group contact. To illustrate, two people from HMIDP category stated that their families had no frequent pre-war inter-group contact, but some inter-group friends and they would like to get to know the Greek-Cypriots. According to them, although their post-war inter-group contact has not been negative experiences, they still do not feel safe among the Greek-Cypriots and cannot tell if they are trustworthy or not (HMIDP4 2021; HMIDP2ndG1 2021). As a result, post-war inter-group contact is appeared not to have a strong effect on the variation of post-war inter-group social trust. The negative post-war experiences are appeared to affect only the people whose pre-war inter-group contact was not continuous, and positive post-war experiences appeared to affect only the people who have had personal or parental pre-war high quantity and quality contact. As a result, the data of this study

58 confirmed the hypothesis and expected causal mechanism and did not reveal any alternative explanation for the variation of post-war trust.

7.2 Critical reflections: The previous sections of this study revealed the empirical data drawn from the interviews, theoretical analysis. However, as with every empirical study, this research also has some limitations that need to be discussed mainly in order to clarify the issue of generalizability of the findings. Thus, this section will criticize the limitations of this research. To begin with, the generalizability of the findings is one of the main concerns of empirical researches (Leung 2015). This study’s conclusion is drawn from the original data on the post-war inter-group social trust of internally displaced people in Cyprus. The case is selected since it displays the relevant characteristics for the research question, has two types of IDP, and allows to make a comparison to reveal the factor causing variation on post-war social trust. Thus, as Cyprus displays the typical characteristics of ethnic conflicts resulting with a civil war causing forced internal displacement and ethnic homogenization of the communities, the findings are generalizable to the cases where the ethnic communities have experienced war with similar characteristics resulted with forced internal displacement. Here it is important to highlight that inter-group violence is frozen in Cyprus since the end of the 20th century; thus, the findings of this study might not be suitable to generalize for the cases where there is a large scale of inter-group violence in its post-war context. Moreover, it is particularly important to highlight that this study’s main aim is not to provide an answer for the immediate causes of pre-war inter- group contact on post-war trust but its effect on the long-term period. Triangulation is a useful method for qualitative studies to increase the generalizability of the findings (Leung 2015). However, this study has had limitations on finding sufficient sources based on the long-term condition of internally displaced people’s post-war inter-group trust to triangulate the findings; thus, the analysis has been based on only the original data collected from the interviews. Moreover, the samples of this study are not representative samples, which creates further concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings. The snowball sampling technique has been used as the method of data collection. In this regard, enhancing the “diversity of samples” is important to increase the generalizability of the findings since it allows to examine if the “similar results different conditions” exist (Polit & Beck 2010: 1454). Thus, the gatekeepers are selected from strategic locations to increase the variety of conditions and experiences of the

59 samples; to increase the variety of perspectives. As a result, participants’ gender balance, age, and occupation differentiation, as well as the variety of wartime experiences for both categories, have been provided. Another concern can be about the reliability of the empirical findings. In this case, the population under investigation is IDP, who experienced war and displacement caused trauma. Thus, the respondents can hide some critical information due to fear (Höglund 2011) which can create reliability problems for this study. Since there is no available data based on the IDP’s post-war inter-group trust to compare the given information and reduce the reliability risk, this study focused on the method of data collection to decrease the risk of manipulation of the answers. In this framework, before the interview, I have explicitly clarified that the given information will be anonymously noted and encourage the interviewee not to manipulate their answers. And the second and major factor decreasing this risk has been the fact that I am an insider researcher, and since I speak the respondents’ language and know their red-lines, I have been able to increase the comfortability and quality of the interviews, which in turn decreased the risk of manipulation of the answers and increased the reliability of the findings.

60 8. CONCLUSION

“What kind of tool is a knife? It helps us to slice bread and share it equally with everyone. Yet it can also be a tool to kill someone. History education is something like this. It can be dangerous in the biased hands.” HTIDP5 2021

Teaching peace requires teaching ‘trust’. Nevertheless, both require a non-biased knowledge about the history of the conflicts. Allport (1954) pointed out that experience is a stronger source of knowledge about the other groups than secondary information (Alport 1954). However, the post-war environment for internally displaced people rarely provides a safe structure for inter-group contact. However, the post-war inter-group trust of IDP varies from one group to another. The purpose of this research was to provide an empirical explanation for this variation by answering the question of under what conditions the internally displaced people tend to trust more/less the conflicting party in the post-war context?. The main findings will be summarized in the following part of this section, and some suggestions to decrease the level of post-war inter-group trust will be discussed. Finally, this chapter will also provide some points for the improvement of future research.

8.1 Main conclusions: The main contribution of this study is that it provided the first in-depth analysis for post-war trust conditions of the internally displaced people having different inter-group experiences. As a result, this study revealed that continuous pre-war inter-group experiences have a strong long- term effect on the post-war inter-group social trust; thus, it provided an answer for the variation of post-war inter-group trust of IDP in the long run. The findings related to the causal mechanism pointed out that the pre-war inter-group contact increases the out-group knowledge, thus decreases prejudices and us-and-them dichotomy. Moreover, it allows the gathering of collective information about both the pre-war and wartime period, which increases the sense of solidarity. This mechanism increases inter-group social trust. This trust has a long-term post-war effect since the families mostly tell their pre-war experiences to their children and provide out- group knowledge decreases prejudices and increases the social inter-group post-war trust of the next generation as well. I call this mechanism the ‘contagious effect of trust’. As all of the contagious things, it transmits to the closest people. That is why, if the family has pre-war inter-

61 group contact, it carries inter-group social trust and transmits it to among the nuclear family via oral history.

8.2 Ideas to improve the post-war inter-group social trust: Although this study’s main aim is not to provide comprehensive strategies for the improvement of post-war inter-group social trust, the findings highlighted some important aspects that are useful for peace studies to focus on in order to improve strategies for post-war inter-group social trust. According to the findings, inter-group social trust is improved through inter-group knowledge gained from first-hand and parental experiences from inter-group contacts. Thus, one strategy to improve post-war inter-group trust would be to improve inter-group contact. However, the analysis revealed that regardless of the degree of the traumatic experiences of IDP, those whose families have experienced a continuous pre-war inter-group contact are more willing to have inter-group contact experiences in the post-war context. And those whose family have had no inter-group contact experience do not prefer to experience an inter-group contact. This creates a vicious cycle between the ‘lack of contact’ and ‘distrust’. As a result, lack of out- group knowledge perpetuates inter-group distrust in the long run. Moreover, the data revealed that, regardless of the conjecture of history education, the people tend to rely on their families’ stories about the wartime experiences. This means that history education would not be an effective tool alone to improve the post-war inter-group trust. That is, a solution for this problem is to provide a space for inter-group interaction and cooperation for the post-war children and youth as well as a non-biased history education for both parties.

8.3 Future research: This study combined the fields of social-psychology and conflict research. Thus, the revealed data provides some insights into both fields. The findings provided further support for Allport’s explanation of inter-group contact and inter-group trust by revealing that regardless of the degree of inter-group traumatic experiences, the pre-trauma contact reduces the post-trauma inter-group blaming and grievance. These findings raised an interesting question for the field of peace and conflict research: under what conditions are the groups experiencing continuous pre-war contact take part in the violent ethnic riots against another ethnic group in the post-war context?

62 Epilogue Studying Cyprus as an insider researcher provided me a pair of different lenses in understanding the scars of displacement on the people, which was previously a routine part of my life. Living in others’ houses, waiting for the time to go back home for nearly half a century, playing around the normalized barbed wires, and growing trust for the conflicting party despite these traumas… I would like to conclude this paper with a poem of a Cypriot poet written for the displaced people of Cyprus.

Refugee Children Fleeing a refugee from north to south a Cypriot child forgot his harmonica at home his harmonica at home he forgot which would have played his sweetest melodies Fleeing a refugee from south to north a Cypriot child forgot his almond tree at home his almond tree at home he forgot and now all he wants to do is cry “let me give you your harmonica, and you bring me my almond tree.” But the children cannot climb over high walls The children cannot walk in the field that has been dug with wounds. -Nesie Yashin 1995 (Quoted from: Kepola et al. 1995)

63 Bibliography: "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." (1998). The International Review of the Red Cross 38 (324): 545-556. “Cyprus: Europe's longest frozen conflict.”. (2016, November 7). The Economist. Retrieved from: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6fbmet. [Accessed: 23.05.2021]. “The Belmont Report.” (1979). Office of the Secretary Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Ajdukovic, Dean and Dinka Corkalo Biruski. (2008). "Caught between the Ethnic Sides: Children Growing Up in a Divided Post-War Community." International Journal of Behavioral Development 32 (4): 337-347. Allport, Gordon W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. United States of America: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company. Armitage, David. (2015). "Civil Wars, from Beginning . . to End?" The American Historical Review 120 (5): 1829-1837. Azar, Edward E. (1990). The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Baxter, Pamela and Susan Jack. (2008). "Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers." Qualitative Report 13 (4): 544. Bernard, J. (1951). "The Conceptualization of Intergroup Relations: With Special Reference to Conflict." Social Forces 29 (3): 243-251. Bigley, Gregory A. and Jone L. Pearce. (1998). "straining for Shared Meaning in Organization Science: Problems of Trust and Distrust." The Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 405-421. Bratton, Michael. (2016). "Violence, Displacement and Democracy in Post-Conflict Societies: Evidence from Mali." Journal of Contemporary African Studies 34 (4): 437-458. Bryant, Rebecca. (2012). Life stories: Turkish Cypriot community. No. 2. International Peace Research Institute.

64 Coleman, Peter T., Morton Deutsch, and Eric Colton Marcus. (2014). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Third ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, A Wiley Brand. Delhey, Jan and Kenneth Newton. (2005). "Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?" European Sociological Review 21 (4): 311-327. Dodd, Clement. (2010). The History and Politics of the Cyprus Conflict. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ekici, Tufan, Selim Jürgen Ergun, and M. Fernanda Rivas. (2016). "Trust and Reciprocity in Cyprus." Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 63: 36-49. Figueiredo, Ana, Joaquim Pires Valentim, and Bertjan Doosje. (2015). "Theories on Intergroup Relations and Emotions: A Theoretical Overview." Psychologica 57 (2). Fox, Michael Allen. (2014). Understanding Peace: A Comprehensive Introduction. First ed. New York: Routledge,Taylor & Francis Group. Gundelach, Birte and Markus Freitag. (2014). "Neighbourhood Diversity and Social Trust: An Empirical Analysis of Interethnic Contact and Group-Specific Effects." Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 51 (6): 1236-1256. Gürel, Ayla, Mete Hatay, and Christalla Yakinthou. (2012). "Displacement in Cyprus: Consequences of civil and military strife." (Report No. 5). Henn, Francis. (2004). A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus Before and During the 1974 Turkish Invasion. Britain, Pen & Sword Books Ltd. Höglund, Kristine. (2011). Comparative Field Research in War-Torn Societies. In Understanding Peace Research: Methods and Challenges, edited by Kristine Höglund and Magnus Öberg, Milton Park: Routledge. Johnson, Janet Buttolph, H. T. Reynolds, and Jason D. Mycoff. (2016). Political Science Research Methods. 8th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE/CQ Press. Kepola, Georgios, Michalis Hadjiperis, Nesie Yiasin and Niyazi Kizilyurek. (1995). Nicosia. Voulla Koukkinou. Ker-Lindsay, James. (2011). The Cyprus Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

65 Kijewski, Sara and Markus Freitag. (2018). "Civil War and the Formation of Social Trust in Kosovo: Posttraumatic Growth Or War-Related Distress?" The Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (4): 717-742. Kızılyürek, Niyazi. (2016). Bir hınç ve şiddet tarihi: Kıbrıs' ta statü kavgası ve etnik çatışma. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. Koos, Agnes K. (2014). Peace and Conflict in Inter-Group Relations: The Role of Economic Inequality. Lanham: Lexington Books. Kumar, Surendra S. Y. (2011). Conflict and internal displacement in Sri Lanka: Concerns and obstacles to durable solutions. Finding a Point of Return: Internally Displaced Persons in Sri Lanka. Kolkata: Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, 1-10. Laurence, James, Katharina Schmid, and Miles Hewstone. (2018). "Ethnic Diversity, Inter- Group Attitudes and Countervailing Pathways of Positive and Negative Inter- Group Contact: An Analysis Across Workplaces and Neighbourhoods." Social Indicators Research 136 (2): 719-749. Leung, Lawrence. (2015). "Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in Qualitative Research." Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4 (3): 324-327. Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. (2007). "Causes and Consequences of Conflict-Induced Displacement." Civil Wars 9 (2): 142-155. Mason, T. David and Patrick J. Fett. (1996). "How Civil Wars End: A Rational Choice Approach." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (4): 546-568. Mason, T. David and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. (2016). What do we Know about Civil Wars?. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Özerdem, Alpaslan and Tim Jacoby. (2011). "Conflict-Induced Internal Displacement." In , edited by Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat, 159: University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc. Penic, Sandra, Guy Elcheroth, and Davide Morselli. (2017). "Inter‐group Forgiveness in the Aftermath of Symmetric and Asymmetric Communal Violence: Contact Density and Nationalistic Climates as Contextual Mediators." European Journal of Social Psychology 47 (2): 209-227. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1): 65-85.

66 Pherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. (2001). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks." Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415-444. Pilkington, Hilary. (1998). Migration, Displacement, and Identity in Post-Soviet Russia. London;New York: Routledge. Polit, Denise F. and Cheryl Tatano Beck. 2010. "Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies." International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (11): 1451-1458. Psaltis, Charis, Neophytos Loizides, Alicia LaPierre, and Djordje Stefanovic. (2019). "Transitional Justice and Acceptance of Cohabitation in Cyprus." Ethnic and Racial Studies 42 (11): 1850-1869. Putnam, Robert D. (2007). "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture." Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2): 137-174. Rausch, Collette. (2012). Trust: An Essential Ingredient in Building Peace, Justice and Security. United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved from: https://www.usip.org/publications/2012/11/trust-essential-ingredient-building- peace-justice-and-security. [Accessed: 23.05.2021]. Ruffa, Chiara. (2020). “Case study methods”, in The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science & IR, edited by Luigi Curini & Rob Franzese, Sage Publishing Siriwardhana, Chesmal and Robert Stewart. (2013). "Forced Migration and Mental Health: Prolonged Internal Displacement, Return Migration and Resilience." International Health 5 (1): 19-23. Strawson, John. (2010). Partitioning Palestine: Legal Fundamentalism in the Palestinian- Israeli Conflict. London; New York: Pluto. Sztompka, Piotr. (1999). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tir, Jaroslav. (2005). "Dividing Countries to Promote Peace: Prospects for Long-Term Success of Partitions." Journal of Peace Research 42 (5): 545-562. Toy-Cronin, Bridgette. (2018). ‘Ethical issues in insider-outsider research’. In R. Iphofen & M. Tolich (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics. (455-469). London, UK: SAGE.

67 UNFICYP. (n.d.). United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus. Retrieved from: https://unficyp.unmissions.org/about. [Accessed: 23.05.2021]. van Baalen, Sebastian. (2018). "‘Google Wants to Know Your Location’: The Ethical Challenges of Fieldwork in the Digital Age." Research Ethics Review 14 (4): 1-17. Varshney, Ashutosh. (2001). "Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond." World Politics 53 (3): 362-398. Vennesson, Pascal. (2008). "Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices." In , 223-239: Cambridge University Press. Voci, Alberto, Emina Hadziosmanovic, Huseyin Cakal, Chiara A. Veneziani, and Miles Hewstone. (2017). "Impact of Pre-War and Post-War Intergroup Contact on Intergroup Relations and Mental Health: Evidence from a Bosnian Sample." Peace and Conflict 23 (3): 250-259. Voloder, Lejla and Liudmila Kirpitchenko. (2014;2013;2016). Insider Research on Migration and Mobility: International Perspectives on Researcher Positioning, edited by Lejla Voloder, Liudmila Kirpitchenko. 1st ed. Vol. 1049. Burlington, VT;Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Wilke, Elizabeth, Paul K. Davis, and Christopher S. Chivvis. (2011). "Establishing Social Conditions of Trust and Cooperation." In, edited by Paul K. Davis, 187: RAND Corporation. Williams, Nick and Adnan Efendic. (2019). "Internal Displacement and External Migration in a Post-Conflict Economy: Perceptions of Institutions among Migrant Entrepreneurs." Journal of International Entrepreneurship 17 (4): 558-585. Woodhouse, Tom and Oliver Ramsbotham. 2015. Peacekeeping in the 21st Century: Cosmopolitanism and the Globalization of Security. London: Routledge. Yucel, Deniz and Charis Psaltis. (2020). "The Effects of Direct and Indirect Contact on Prejudice: 2007 and 2017 Results among Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots." European Societies 22 (5): 610-635.

68 APPENDIX

List of Interviews:

Name Gender Occupation Interview Date Place

HTIDP1 Female Freelancer 21.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP2 Female Homemaker 21.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP3 Male Butcher 23.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP4 Male Retired 25.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP5 Male University 28.04.2021 Undisclosed Professor (Ex- location Combatant)

HTIDP6 Female Homemaker 29.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP7 Female Teacher 29.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP8 Male Carpenter (Ex- 30.04.2021 Undisclosed Combatant) location

HTIDP2ndG1 Female Stenographer 21.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HTIDP2ndG2 Female Student 30.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP1 Female Homemaker 21.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP2 Male Freelancer (Ex- 21.04.2021 Undisclosed Combatant) location

69

HMIDP3 Male Retired 22.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP4 Female Homemaker 23.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP5 Male Retired (Ex- 24.04.2021 Undisclosed Combatant) location

HMIDP6 Female Homemaker 30.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP2ndG1 Male Artist 23.04.2021 Undisclosed location

HMIDP2ndG2 Male Business 28.04.2021 Undisclosed administrator location

Interview Question Guide: Theme Questions Introduction How many times have you or your family had to experience internal displacement because of inter- communal conflict?

Pre-war contact quantity and Were you or your family living together with the Greek- quality measurement: Cypriots (heterogeneously) in a mixed area before migrating to the north? How do you describe your pre-war relationship with the Greek-Cypriots? In other words, how was your contact’s frequency and quality?

Inter-communal perception How did the stories and memories about pre-partition for trust measurement: period shape your perception regarding the Greek- Cypriot community?

70 How was the Greek-Cypriots’ treatment to you or your family before partition? How did the treatment affect your trust for the Greek- Cypriot community? Willingness for Cohabitation What do you think about working with the Greek- for trust measurement: Cypriots together? Would you work with them? Do you know a Turkish-Cypriot who married with a Greek-Cypriot? How do you consider this kind of marriage? What do you think you would feel if your neighbors were Greek-Cypriots? Have you ever visited the South after the war? Have you ever felt unsafe among the Greek-Cypriots? How do you think about reunification and cohabitation with the Greek-Cypriots? Does this possibility worry you?

The source of knowledge/ to Can you describe what constructed your knowledge examine alternative about Greek-Cypriots; your family’s experiences, the explanations and the school, documentaries or your personal experiences? mechanism: Were there contradictions between your experiences and information in other sources? What shaped your today’s perceptions most?

Inter-communal expectations How do you describe the Greek-Cypriots? as a trust measurement: How do you think the Greek-Cypriots perceive the Turkish-Cypriots? Do you think the Greek-Cypriots respect Turkish- Cypriots identity, values and culture? What makes you to think they are respectful or disrespectful?

71 Closing Questions: Have you ever joined a bicommunal activity or initiative

after the war? To examine Post-war contact for alternative explanations: Why did you prefer to join or not join? Do you have anything that you would like to clarify or share with me before ending the interview?

72