<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Foreign policy.. Absence of evaluation criteria</strong></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">Article (8) of the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 charted the path of national foreign policy on four bases, which we can express as the four foundations of foreign policy, namely:</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">1. Good neighborliness and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">2. Resolve disputes by peaceful means.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">3. Establishing relations on the basis of common interests and reciprocity.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">4. Respect for international obligations.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">The successive Iraqi governments, since that date until today, have adhered to the five foundations to a large extent, despite all the lagging and failure of their performance in other respects. And when we indicate here the commitment of those governments to the above principles, we do not absolve them of responsibility for failure and weakness in implementing foreign policy represented by weak diplomatic performance. Here is the place of confusion and suspicion for many writers and media professionals who talk about foreign policy and do not distinguish between it and diplomacy. In short: foreign policy is the theoretical framework for the government's vision in its dealings outside its borders, while diplomacy is the executive arm that transforms those visions into results that can be measured and evaluated through the outputs of diplomatic performance. At the level of the vision, for example, Iraq committed itself to good, strong and solid relations with opposing and even warring countries. Such as the United States of America and &ldquo;some&rdquo; of its allies in the Middle East on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allied countries on the other hand. For example, the Iraqi government, through its official representatives, has committed itself to its reservations about statements issued by Islamic and Arab meetings and summits that target hostility to Iran. It has not even succumbed to the pressures exerted to make Iraq a party to the conflict equation, the latest of which was Iraq's objection to the final statement issued by the summit. The Arab Emergency Conference held in Mecca in mid-2019, in which it denounced, in its closing form, what it described as "Iranian interference in the region." On the other hand, the official government position did not respond to the pressures of the parties of the resistance axis inside Iraq to stand in the trench of confrontation and antagonize America. Although we are not in the process of evaluating the validity of the constitutionally governed theoretical framework for foreign policy, it is a matter entrusted to specialized researchers with conflicting opinions regarding the feasibility of neutrality and the importance of not entering into a political, security and military axis or alliance that is matched by another alliance of equal or parallel power and influence. However, we have the right to point out the absence of measurement and evaluation criteria to know which countries are closest to Iraq and the most beneficial. Not only on the basis of whims and ideologies that govern the international scene, but also on scientific normative foundations that take into account the repercussions of the importance of those relations - each country according to it - on the Iraqi interior, economically, security and culturally. Thus, we must stand carefully to read the impact of the tripartite commission (Egypt-Iraq-Jordan), and intensify visits with Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and so on with each of Turkey, Iran and America. As long as we stand in front of measurement indicators, it is urgently necessary for the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to take a serious stance in comparing the frantic activity of representatives of diplomatic missions working in Iraq, who hold dozens of meetings per month with politicians, media professionals, study centers and activists, matched by the clear laziness of the representatives of our diplomatic missions residing in Important and influential countries. In addition, some of our diplomats are still working against the national interest. They hold secret meetings in which they complain about the political system they represent, without firm and deterrent measures to hold such people accountable. It is matched by a real appreciation for the efforts of their counterparts of high determination and patriotic spirit.</p>