In its editorial, The Daily Collegian's Board of Opinion agreed with some senators and governors that a United Arab Emirates-based company should not be allowed to operate ports in the United States ("U.S. Ports: Sale could compromise domestic security," Feb. 23). The argument was simple : "United Arab Emirates exists in an unstable part of the world."

I wonder if the board would make this argument about an Israeli corporation. I doubt it, though it too would exist in an "unstable part of the world." The position against United Arab Emirates is hypocritical racism and nothing more.

There are American and Australian universities in United Arab Emirates. It has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1996. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton promoted the WTO because they believed that integrating the world economy would ensure peace, democracy and good business practices. Those who believe in a market economy and who want nations to join us rather than fight us cannot discriminate against Arabs, as Jimmy Carter recently argued.

If one is genuinely troubled by globalization, George W. Bush and the WTO, (as I am), then one should focus on global trade's real problems -- sweatshop labor, corporate crime, imperialism and the erosion of cultural autonomy and the public sphere -- and not give in to racism.