While I disagree with each of these decisions, I am not sure what they have to do with my thesis. My criticism of the U.S. is that they denied a visa to an accredited representative of a member state sought for the purpose of attending a U.N. meeting. That denial violates both the U.N. treaty and the image the U.S. seeks to project.

Starting in 1994, Mandela was a head of state and therefore I don’t think he could have been kept from the U.N. Lesser known ANC members routinely got waivers to enter the country for less important reasons than to address the U.N. after Mandela was released from Robben Island.

Mr. Adams was not representing a member nation when his visa was denied, although I’ll second the motion re Bill Clinton’s hypocrisy — it’s not the particular hypocrisy I was addressing.

Mr. Modi was an officer of the state of Gujarat, not of India, and he had several speaking engagements but I’m not aware that any involved the U.N.

Mr. Aboutalebi’s case, however, was a clear cut violation of the plain language of the U.N. treaty. The only legal excuse offered was what amounted to a “signing statement” by our legislative branch when ratifying the treaty; I do not think that washes as a matter of international law. The political excuse was the allegation that Aboutalebi had some role in the invasion and hostage taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

The only entities with standing to complain about a violation of the U.N. treaty are the member states and the U.N. The treaty calls for deciding such complaints by arbitration. Iran would get no relief from the U.N. if the person excluded was involved in the violation of the embassy, because Iran lost the litigation over the incident but then thumbed its nose at the Permanent International Court of Justice.

Weird as it sounds, I think the U.N. would reject the legal defense but agree with the political defense — because it becomes a case of comparative hypocrisy.